Dale Helmig: What Happens Next?

Dale Helmig was convicted of killing his mother Norma Dean Helmig in 1993 and began serving his prison time in 1996.  Norma Helmig’s body was found on August 1, 1993 strapped to a concrete block in the Osage River.  As stated in the movie that we watched in class, Dale had spent the night in a motel in Fulton and was not able to cross the bridge over the Missouri River to his and his mother’s house in Linn, Missouri.  While at his motel, he had a pizza delivered at 10:30pm.  Schollmeyer and Hulshof, the prosecuting attorneys speculated that the bridge reopened therefore giving Dale a window in which he could have returned home and killed his mother.  Their speculated motivation:  a $200 phone bill.  His conviction has been question by many since he was sentenced to life in prison without parole in 1996. 

In June of 2009, Helmig filed a petition with the Missouri Supreme Court seeking a new trial.  In his petition, he alleged that former U.S. Representative Kenny Hulshof who the prosecuting attorney, withheld evidence that would have proved his innocence and knowingly presented false evidence and testimony.  Helmig’s petition also stated that Hulshof was motivated by his political campaigns.  This is not Hulshof’s first time at being negligent with his actions resulting in a unlawful conviction.  Joshua Kezer served 15 years in prison on a murder conviction and was freed in 2009 when a judge ruled that Hulshof again withheld evidence and embellished details during his closing arguments.

As stated in the lawsuit, several important factors that played a key role in his conviction were presented falsely at the trial or not included at all.  An allegation that Dale had thrown coffee on his mother a few days prior to her death are untrue, prosecutors referred to this “fact” many times.  The second, Dale stayed away from Norma’s house during several searches lead to the accusation of “conscious of guilt” when Dale was told to not bring his children to the scene of the crime.  The third, It was not disclosed at the trial that Norma feared her husband and had previously sought an order of protection against him and had also talked to the sheriff about buying a handgun.  Finally, Dale’s attorney Christopher Jordan showed signs of “clearly deficient” judgment and performance throughout the trial.

In years since, Dale has filed a federal lawsuit against Osage County, Osage County Sheriff Carl A. Fowler, former deputy Paul Backes, and former Missouri State Highway Patrol Trooper Robert Westfall claiming they all violated his constitutional rights.  The lawsuit contains allegations of malicious prosecution, false arrest, the willful withholding of exculpatory evidence, fraudulent investigative techniques and a wrongful conviction.  Ironically, Hulshof’s name is not mentioned in the lawsuit to which Dale responds that Hulshof always supported his innocence.

As future leaders in the criminal justice system, we must ask ourselves how we can prevent wrongful convictions such as Dale’s from happening again.  We must also question if at any time people within the police department, prosecution attorney’s office, or defense attorney’s office working on the case knew that Dale was being charged for a crime he did not commit and so, why did they decide to stay silent.  If this happens to be the case, what factors could have played in this?  Were people who knew the truth afraid of losing their political power, peer recognition, or even careers if they were to speak up?  We may all come across a future case like this and it is our duty to stand by our ethics and speak up when needed.

For more information, visit:  http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_888e98d7-5e4f-525a-ab66-3995a015aef6.html  and http://www.kansascity.com/2011/12/30/3345769/overturned-conviction-sparks-suit.html

School Shooting: 7 dead, 3 hurt

Today on April 2, 2012, a gunman opened fire at Oikos University, a small Christian school in Oakland, California. The mayhem began midmorning when the suspect walked into one of the school buildings where he first shot a woman at the front desk, and then preceded down hallways trying to get into rooms. The man then entered one of the classrooms, and ordered everyone to line up against the wall. He then began shooting point blank at the victims. After this horrific tragedy ended seven people lay dead with an additional three wounded. The suspect was not caught at the school, but instead was found at a shopping center about three miles away from the school. Apparently, the suspect was approached by a security guard at the store where he told the guard that he had to talk to police immediately because he had shot people. It is said that the suspect was a nursing student who had been absent for months before returning today. I am sure there will be more concrete information on this incident in the next couple days, but I felt like writing about it right now.

The reason I choose this article is because these sort of incidents make me extremely angry. Ever since the Columbine shooting I have been asking myself why would anyone want to do that to so many innocent people. Right when it seems like we have not heard of anything like this happening for awhile it then suddenly happens. Everyone wants to immediately point fingers at someone, but in reality these type of scenarios are just unpredictable. To relate this to some of our classroom material, some may say it was a breakdown within an organization's structure. The question is did the university fail to prevent this, or is this just a horrible tragedy that no one could prevent? I believe there is no correct way something like this can be prevented. There should be no reason a finger  be pointed at anyone. If there should be someone to blame it should be the offender, or anyone else that had known about this before hand. By using the organism metaphor we can hope that this university and others can be able to adapt/make changes to how they react to these certain type of situations. For example, as a school/university you can implement some sort of evacuation plan or protocol to follow. On the other hand I am pretty sure that most police agencies if not all have a certain protocol that they follow when given this certain scenario. In the end this whole incident is just a horrible tragedy. It is truly unfair for innocent people to be killed from some psychotic person taking out their anger in such a horrific way.

Source:
http://news.yahoo.com/cops-7-dead-3-hurt-christian-school-shooting-214742437.html

Three Strikes Law Is Missing The Mark

I believe that the the 'three strikes' law has proven to be inadequate over the duration of its usage. My reasoning deals with the fact that it requires a huge amount of money to keep it in effect, while it mostly strikes non-violent criminals and causes early release of the more violent or career criminals. Thus, I feel that the law is ineffective when it comes to controlling the rates of real criminals or decreasing the rise of violence

The 'three strikes’ law more often accrues for a minor felony than it does for any other type of more serious offenses. Therefore, People go to prison for much less. Often there is no violent crime at all and they are struck out. The statistics have shown that more than half of the ‘three strikes’ offenders are non-violent criminals that have been taken for only theft and drug or tobacco use (LAO). I believe that it is fairly obvious that putting these people in jail for life takes room for real offenders. With limited prison space, many violent felons who have only been convicted once or twice are being let out to make room for many non-violent three strikers. This does not make any sense to me. In addition, Letting out more serious and violent offenders for non-violent offenders increases the cost to society, since they are more likely to commit more violent and serious felonies than the non-violent three strikers. Thus, the law is inappropriate by engendering an influx of prisoners to an already overflowing prison system and an unbearable financial burden.

 The ‘three strikes’ law requires millions from taxpayers’ money to keep it in effect. Millions of dollars are spend to care and house prisoners. “Each prisoner serving a 25-to-life sentence cost the state about $500,000 over his or her lifetime. The annual cost of housing 29,000 non-violent second- or third-strikers is $632 million.” ( Los Angeles Times ). While, one third of the prisoners jammed into prison are those who are sentencing second- or third strike. The public is not really as concerned about minor felonies or even residential burglaries as it is about truly violent crimes. It does not want to pay for keeping non-violent criminals locked up, while the violent criminals are the ones deserving to be there. The ‘three strikes’ law seems not to be decreasing the rates of violence; it is proving to be completely useless. Then, why do people have to pay for keeping it in effect? The money is being misspent; therefore, it could be used for more effective laws.

I strongly feel that an alternative solution should be made to stop the negative affects of ‘three strike’ law, since it seems that it has caused more harm than good to our country’s well being. An alternative law would be to prohibit the law against minor (such as theft, drug or tobacco use). Instead concentrate on real, violent and cruel criminal offenders, and how to take them off the streets. Maybe even not giving them a third chance would be a good choice because their victims were not given three chances.

The ‘three strikes’ law, which was formed to decrease the violence in our society focuses on non-violent criminals instead of violent criminals and wastes huge amount of money, therefore proving itself to be completely ineffective. The law requires millions, while striking mostly non-violent criminals and putting them in jail for life; hence, causing early release of real offenders, it only becomes the reason for more harm. This law is so disastrous that even a California judge refused to obey the law and decided not to sentence a 32-year-old prisoner caught with two marijuana cigarettes under the ‘three strikes’ sentencing guidelines (NDSN). “Three strikes is a bust,” says Dan Macallair, JPI associate director and coauthor of the study, “Even worse, all the rhetoric and political grandstanding behind three strikes blinded us.” We all wish to live safely with less violent criminals wondering on our streets, however having this kind of “bust” law that is completely ineffective does not help us to accomplish what we are seeking for, which is safety. We should not give up, whatsoever and seek for better and even more powerful solution for this kind of important issue.

Sources

1.  http://articles.latimes.com/1999/aug/25/local/me-3543

2.  http://www.lao.ca.gov/2005/3_strikes/3_strikes_102005.htm

3.  http://www.ndsn.org/sepoct94/3strikes.html

Solution to bullying?

Bullying is a major problem in our school system. Today, 1 in every 7 students k-12 has either been a victim of bullying or a bully. It seems as though schools are always trying different approaches to stop bullying. This issue is very important because so many young lives are effected by bullying and we need to do everything we can to stop it.

In Austin Minnesota one school paid 20,000 dollars for the Scary Guy (his legal name) to help stop bullying. His methods of presentation are quite unconventional and he seems to get the attention of every student. The scary guy is a former tattoo artist, covered from head to toe in tattoos. The artists admits that he lack a formal education and credentials but and his look and teaching style is unconventional. His ways consist of trying to teach children classical bullying behavior by demonstrating it. His shock and awe method includes barfing up apples, groaning and rubbing his belly. His ends his performances with fist pumping and a short phrase, "You travel around on this world, and you put out hate and anger, and you cop an attitude, you'll draw all this into your life wherever you go.” He claims that playing the bully is a way to express his younger years where he would find fault in everyone. He wants to teach kids with humor and putting a positive spin on bullying. Some administers feel the scary's performances are just a bunch of bells and whistles and aren’t truly the cultural change we need in schools so desperately. When scary visited Juntunen's middle school his ways were viewed as somewhat positive but so inappropriate the school says they will never invite him back. In his attempt to show that handshaking is harmless he said to a student, “that’s the best sex I’ve had all day.”

The principle of this Austin school claims that he thinks scary ways work. "I think his credentials are stellar. And we looked into them because this is risky," Schara says, when "you bring someone in that looks like Scary Guy, that talks like Scary Guy." Scary admits his lacks academic credentials and says his teaching are researched based from his personal experience and that there is no one taking an approach like his.

video on scary guy

So what do you think, are unconventional ways a good approach to bullying? 

Sources;
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/30/us/scary-guy/index.html?npt=NP1

Public Shaming

Public shaming is something that has been found throughout the history of the United States, and even today. One of the most famous historical incidences of public shaming was centuries ago in Puritan communities. Women who committed adultery were forced to were the letter 'A' on their clothing, more notably from the book The Scarlet Letter or the movie Easy A. In today's criminal justice system, shaming still exists, however it is no longer strictly for moral issues.

In Texas, a thirty-year-old man who groped a fourteen-year-old girl was forced to place a sign in his front yard that said "DANGER: REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER LIVES HERE." While some may argue that it is unethical to insist a man shame himself after he had finished the six month jail sentence he was given, other say it will help to further teach him a lesson all the while warning the community about his sexual preferences. These individuals will also note that it is not much different than requiring the offender to register on an online database. Public shaming is used for other offenses as well. For instance, the Huntington Beach Police Department of San Diego force people convicted of DUI to have their DUI mugshot as their profile picture on Facebook.  The department's hope is that this will produce more guilt and remorse in the offender than a fine and/or a class on drunk driving ever could.

Public shaming seems to be an up and coming alternative to prison/jail time or even fines. It has been used for more serious crimes such as sex offenses and DUIs, but judges have also opted to publicly shame individuals for shop lifting and even not showing up for jury duty. In one case, a man was forced to stand outside the court for two days after failing to appear for jury duty. In cases of shop lifting, especially for young, or first-time offenders, judges are becoming more fond of the idea of having the individuals hold signs saying what they did, or tried to do, outside of the store from which they intended to steal.

The principle behind public shaming is that people do not like being humiliated, and the prospect of facing public humiliation may act as a greater deterrent than more severe punishments such as prison sentences. However, an issue of the 8th Amendment comes into play: is public shaming a form of 'cruel and unusual punishment?' In my opinion, if public shaming is acting as an effective form of deterrence, then I think it should continue to be utilized. Although, I think certain limitations should be set, or some sort of guidelines made, so that judges do not cross the line from being constitutional to unconstitutional. What is your opinion of public shaming?



Sources:
http://www.ethicapublishing.com/ethical/3CH8.pdf
http://www.thedailyaztec.com/2011/01/public-shaming-is-an-effective-alternative-to-prison/
http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2012/02/03/public-shaming-option-criminal-punishment/

Specialty Court

In our society, the elected officials implement new laws and tough on crime acts in order to prove to the general public that they are worthy of getting re-elected time and time again. What the public doesn’t understand is that this is causing an overwhelming problem. A gigantic problem in our society is that our prisons are steadily becoming more and more overcrowded. We are spending millions of our states money to keep all these offenders behind bars. The sad reality is that we could be using a lot of that money for better things, like education.

In my personal opinion, it is not the wisest thing to do to send every one of these people to prison. Some, not all, of these prisoners have families and respectable jobs in the outside world, and they actually can be positive contributors in society. This is why I like the idea of specialty courts. A specialty courts are lower courts that have jurisdiction over one specific area of criminal activity, such as illegal drugs, illegal weapons, or domestic violence. These courts try and find a plan to fit each case to keep the offenders out of jail. This may include a variety of community service, fees, therapy, counseling, and probation services.

My favorite example of one of these courts is the Juvenile Gun Court found in Birmingham, Alabama. This court was set up in Jefferson County because at the time there were a remarkably high number of juvenile deaths, most of them being gun murders. The law makers in Birmingham wanted some sort of prevention tactic to attack this problem, instead of simply handing out punishments as a way of deterrence.

Right out of the gate, the start of the Juvenile Gun Court prevented crimes in two ways. The first way was the prevention of the secondary offender, which targets “at-risk” groups. In this case, the at-risk group is juveniles with weapons. The second of these prevention methods was the new environmental design of Jefferson County. The court was making examples of misbehaving teenagers, so others in the same boat would second guess their own criminal actions, this lead to reduced crime. In the first two years of operation juvenile gun related crimes have gone down 10% and juvenile gun-related deaths have gone down nearly 50%.

Instead of incarceration for these juveniles, this court system adopted two major programs. The first is a parent education program, which is a 7-week course for the parents of the offender. This teaches them about the dangers of guns and the seriousness of one of their children obtaining one. The second is the idea of a 30-day boot camp. Defendants who plead guilty to non-murder gun crimes are sentenced to this High Intensive Training program at a boot camp in Alabama.

Since I am a very strong believer in the self-fulfilling prophecy, I like how the courts did everything in their power to keep these misguided teens from going to prison. If you treat them like prisoners, they will start acting like prisoners. It is also a good idea to keep troubled teens out of prison so they don’t become friendly with more dangerous peers and learn from them.

I would like to see these specialty courts become more prevalent in our society so we can help these troubled teens instead of pointing our fingers at them and saying that they are the bad guys. The treatment, under the courts supervision, will help them learn right from wrong, as well as keeping them from becoming life-long offenders. 

Denying of Court Supervision-Excessive Speeding

The state of Illinois is once against going along with their failed philosophy of getting tough on crime. It seems as though the state is once again attempting to strip its citizen of cash for speeding tickets and victimless crimes. According to Sauk Valley Newspaper’s article, the bill was passed in the state senate in a ratio of 46-0. They voted Friday to deny the option of repeatedly taking advantage of the option of court supervision in excessive speeding cases. The speeding limits must be broken by at least twenty five miles per hour on city streets and thirty miles per hour on highways and rural roads. The most beneficial incentive in court supervision is the opportunity to have the speeding ticket completely erased from your permanent driving record. This form of punishment helps deter offenders of committing any other crimes during which they must stay offense-free. If they complete the time period assigned to stay clean, the original charge will be erased, resulting in a dropped charge by the state. The whole idea of denying the supervision to excessive speeders is derived from an Oak Forest Senator Maggie Crotty who was aware of a teenager that resided in her district that was killed in an accident by an individual who was convicted of more than six previous speeding tickets, all in which were punished by court supervision. In Mrs. Crotty’s determination to deny the supervision, she developed the proposal to be called Julie’s Law in honor of the young individual who was killed.

I want to first comment on the focus of this proposal. The bill proposed by the Oak Forest representative seems to take a heavy stance on hitting the offender harder with denying supervision. Im not sure if stripping the supervision opportunity from excessive speeders is a strong enough deterrent to turn drivers against driving fast. Instead, I would hope that the court system is able to look at this situation and conclude that the court system is the failing component here. Instead of stripping the habitual offender from the supervision simply based off speed, they should look at the frequency of the overall speeding tickets. Myself along with others would agree that we would be most interested in looking at the frequency and number of violations that are occurring instead of the actual speed over the limit. In my opinion, a habitual speeder is more of a threat to the overall society than an offender that sped one time at least thirty miles per hour over the stated speed limit. It seems to me that the focus is in the wrong direction. I’m not totally sure if I completely agree with the denying of supervision to excessive speeders. I naturally have a negative attitude towards the hierarchy and forms of law making government so being bias is ingrained in me. I feel as though this may just be another way for government officials to control society and strip us of our money. I’m not disagreeing that habitual excessive drivers need to be punished heavier, but I do feel as though laws that are being passed are started to become excessive. Money is a driving factor in most of these proposals so naturally I feel as though it is another form of money making for government.

There are numerous other issues that should be dealt with in the state of Illinois than dealing with minor driving fines. There is a larger picture that should be addressed and seriously examined before worrying about minor crimes such as speeding. There is no way I am taking away the fact that someone was killed due to a habitual speeder, however in my opinion there are plenty of other issues that need to be scratched at the surface than our highway and city road speed limits.

http://www.saukvalley.com/2012/03/30/ill-may-get-tougher-on-excessive-speeding/acyrmnn/