New study on desistance from crime

Every day, about 1,600 people are released from prisons in the United States. Until now, the primary focus has been on the "R word" - recidivism.

In a promising trend that I’ve posted about previously, some academicians and policy makers are turning to the "D" word - desistance.

As part of this welcome trend comes a new study by the National Research Council. The study, Parole, Desistance from Crime, and Community Integration, points to evidence-based interventions that significantly reduce recidivism. As a psychologist, I was happy to see that cognitive behavioral therapy tops the list, followed by intensive drug treatment. Strong marriages and ties to work also help parolees reintegrate into society.

The entire book is available for free online from the National Academies Press.

Beware the bite-mark expert

Is forensic odontologist putting innocent people on death row?

With our increasingly crime-centered culture comes the "CSI Syndrome" of glorification of all things forensic. Unfortunately, it is sometimes hard for laypeople to distinguish valid science from the junk, and good experts from charlatans.

This is especially true in newly emerging fields such as "forensic odontology," in which dentists testify as expert witnesses about bite-mark patterns.

The spotlight on wrongful convictions is shining its beam on forensic odontology as – in the words of one legal scholar – "the poster child for bad forensic science."

In an expose in the Chicago Tribune a few years ago, journalists Flynn McRoberts and Steve Mills called the field "a case study" of the ease with which "forensic science's false aura of infallibility can distort the adversarial system of American justice."

Ask 10 dentists to identify a suspect from bite marks, and six of them will point to an innocent person, according to one informal study conducted at a convention workshop back in 1999. Indeed, odontologists often don’t agree on the most basic issue of all – whether a mark on a victim’s body is even a bite mark.

Ask who is the worst culprit of all, and you’re likely to hear the name of Michael West of Mississippi. He's testified in dozens of cases and helped to send many people to prison, including at least five to death row. He’s been the subject of exposes on 60 Minutes and in Newsweek and the National Law Journal.

Later this month, his testimony will be at the center of a hearing regarding a new trial for Kennedy Brewer, convicted of the 1991 murder of his then-girlfriend's 3-year-old daughter.

At Brewer's original trial, Dr. West testified that he found 19 bite marks on the girl's body that matched Brewer’s teeth. A defense expert countered that the marks were actually insect bites, but the jury believed the charismatic Dr. West.

The new hearing is a result of new DNA technology that didn’t exist at that time. Analysis of semen found in the girl's body revealed that it came from two separate men - neither of them Brewer.

Dr. West has taken the field of forensic odontology to "bizarre, megalomaniacal depths," according to an expose yesterday on Fox News. He has "invented a system he modestly calls 'The West Phenomenon.' In it, he dons a pair of yellow goggles and with the aid of a blue laser, he says he can identify bite marks, scratches, and other marks on a corpse that no one else can see - not even other forensics experts. Conveniently, he claims his unique method can't be photographed or reproduced, which he says makes his opinions unimpeachable by other experts."

The case points to the need for both courts and professional organizations to more vigilantly police expert witnesses.

The stakes are enormously high - both for potentially innocent suspects and for the credibility of the forensic sciences. As Fox reporter Radley Balko argues:

"The Kennedy Brewer case highlights a serious flaw in our adversarial criminal justice system — the use of expert testimony in complicated, advanced scientific fields. A charlatan like Dr. West, who has little respect from his peers, can with charisma and personality convince a jury to take his word over that of an expert far more careful and deliberate in his analysis. In some cases, indigent defendants can't afford to hire their own experts at all, leaving a state's expert like West as the only testimony on the available forensic evidence."

photo credit: "selfCTRL" (Creative Commons license)

Bullies have different motives

My research with perpetrators of hate crimes challenged the notion of a uniform motivation underlying such offenses. Rather than hatred or bias, I found that many young male offenders were motivated by group affiliation needs and/or the desire for excitement.

Now, research out of Norway is finding similar dynamics underlying some bullying. The new research suggests that immigrant boys in Norway often bully "because they want to belong to a group." That’s in contrast to ethnic Norwegian boys, who tend to bully out of a desire for "power over their victims."

The research is out of the Centre for Behavioural Research at the University of Stavanger.

Hat tip to the always-informative Psychology & Crime News for this story.

Guest Editorial: The Presence of Malice

Richard Moran
Professor of Sociology and Criminology, Mount Holyoke College

New York Times op-ed, August 2, 2007, reprinted with the written permission of Richard Moran and the New York Times

LAST week, Judge Nancy Gertner of the Federal District Court in Boston awarded more than $100 million to four men whom the F.B.I. framed for the 1965 murder of Edward Deegan, a local gangster. It was compensation for the 30 years the men spent behind bars while agents withheld evidence that would have cleared them and put the real killer — a valuable F.B.I. informant, by the name of Vincent Flemmi — in prison.

Most coverage of the story described it as a bizarre exception in the history of law enforcement. Unfortunately, this kind of behavior by those whose sworn duty it is to uphold the law is all too common. In state courts, where most death sentences are handed down, it occurs regularly.

My recently completed study of the 124 exonerations of death row inmates in America from 1973 to 2007 indicated that 80, or about two-thirds, of their so-called wrongful convictions resulted not from good-faith mistakes or errors but from intentional, willful, malicious prosecutions by criminal justice personnel. (There were four cases in which a determination could not be made one way or another.)

Yet too often this behavior is not singled out and identified for what it is. When a prosecutor puts a witness on the stand whom he knows to be lying, or fails to turn over evidence favorable to the defense, or when a police officer manufactures or destroys evidence to further the likelihood of a conviction, then it is deceptive to term these conscious violations of the law — all of which I found in my research — as merely mistakes or errors.

Mistakes are good-faith errors — like taking the wrong exit off the highway, or dialing the wrong telephone number. There is no malice behind them. However, when officers of the court conspire to convict a defendant of first-degree murder and send him to death row, they are doing much more than making an innocent mistake or error. They are breaking the law.

Perhaps this explains why, even when a manifestly innocent man is about to be executed, a prosecutor can be dead set against reopening an old case. Since so many wrongful convictions result from official malicious behavior, prosecutors, policemen, witnesses or even jurors and judges could themselves face jail time for breaking the law in obtaining an unlawful conviction.

Strangely, our misunderstanding of the real cause underlying most wrongful convictions is compounded by the very people who work to uncover them. Although the term “wrongfully convicted” is technically correct, it also has the potential to be misleading. It leads to the false impression that most inmates ended up on death row because of good-faith mistakes or errors committed by an imperfect criminal justice system — not by malicious or unlawful behavior.

For this reason, we need to re-frame the argument and shift our language. If a death sentence is overturned because of malicious behavior, we should call it for what it is: an unlawful conviction, not a wrongful one.

In the interest of fairness, it is important to note that those who are exonerated are not necessarily innocent of the crimes that sent them to death row. They have simply had their death sentences set aside because of errors that led to convictions, usually involving the intentional violation of their constitutional right to a fair and impartial trial. Very seldom does the court go the next step and actually declare them innocent.

In addition, some of these unlawful convictions resulted from criminal justice officials trying to do the right thing. (A police officer, say, plants evidence on a defendant he is convinced is guilty, fearing that the defendant will escape punishment otherwise.) In cases like these, officers or prosecutors have been known to “frame a guilty man.”

The malicious or even well-intentioned manipulation of murder cases by prosecutors and the police underscores why it’s important to discard, once and for all, the nonsense that so-called wrongful convictions can be eliminated by introducing better forensic science into the courtroom.

Even if we limit death sentences to cases in which there is “conclusive scientific evidence” of guilt, as Mitt Romney, the presidential candidate and former governor of Massachusetts has proposed, we will still not eliminate the problem of wrongful convictions. The best trained and most honest forensic scientists can only examine the evidence presented to them; they cannot be expected to determine if that evidence has been planted, switched or withheld from the defense.

The cause of malicious unlawful convictions doesn’t rest solely in the imperfect workings of our criminal justice system — if it did we might be able to remedy most of it. A crucial part of the problem rests in the hearts and souls of those whose job it is to uphold the law. That’s why even the most careful strictures on death penalty cases could fail to prevent the execution of innocent people — and why we would do well to be more vigilant and specific in articulating the causes for overturning an unlawful conviction.

Is the prison pendulum reaching its extreme?

And how does a new lactation station fit in?

Those of you who grew up here in the San Francisco Bay Area may remember the corny old radio ad for the Winchester Mystery House. “Keeeeeep buillllllding,” a spooky female voice moaned. According to the lore, the owner of the 19th-century mansion kept adding room after bizarre room until, after 38 years, she finally died.

The current prison construction frenzy reminds me of that wacky homeowner. The other day, I was evaluating a prisoner in a building designed as a gymnasium, now crammed wall-to-wall with metal bunk beds and sardine-like prisoners. The place reeked of stale sweat, but it wasn’t from the rehabilitative exercise for which it was designed. In such situations, I frequently find myself conducting my interviews in the broom closet, or even in the guards' bathroom.

California’s prisons now hold 172,000, twice their designed capacity. And we don’t even rank among the top three states per capita. You probably know the stats – with 2.2 million people (1 out of every 136 adults) behind bars or on probation, the United States ranks tops in the world for imprisoning its citizens.

Yet, like the owner of the Winchester Mystery House, California's governor wants to build more.

The state is already spending more than half a billion dollars a year on overtime pay for correctional staff, with some staff earning as much as $212,179. That, of course, doesn't include construction workers.

And, lest the supply side dry up, more and more behaviors are being criminalized.

You’ve probably heard about the two 13-year-olds up in Oregon who are all over the blogosphere this week because they faced 10 years in prison and lifetime registration as sexual predators for running down the school hallway, slapping other kids on the butts.

If that case seems bizarre, it’s one of many. I’ve posted previously about similar cases:

• The 6-year-old Florida girl who was handcuffed, arrested, and hauled off to jail for throwing a temper tantrum in class.

• The 45-year-old Georgia mother of five who was forced to register as a sex offender and lost her home and custody of her children because she let the 17-year-old boyfriend of her pregnant 15-year-old daughter move into the family home.

But in the face of this madness, I’m the eternal optimist.

I’m feeling encouraged by the growing public awareness – books, newspaper exposes, editorials, and blog posts galore about the economic and social costs of incarceration.

I’m encouraged that the federal judiciary is standing up to California’s governor. A recently appointed judicial panel, concerned about inadequate physical and mental health care for prisoners due to the overcrowding, is poised to cap the prisoner population here.

A sane society would take steps to help paroling prisoners, so that they don’t immediately return to prison for “technical” violations as they do here in California. And it would reinvest the enormous savings into our public schools, once the envy of America and now a national disgrace.

Pondering these issues the other day as I strolled into the infamous San Quentin State Prison, I realized that one of the guard stations had been replaced by something quite incongruous – a lactation station.

I want to see that incongruity as an omen. A sign that the prison pendulum – and the underlying incarceration mania in America – may be reaching its maximum swing.

But maybe it's not. Maybe it's just another adaptation to living in a prison-centric culture.

Wikipedia has a nice overview of prison issues in the United States.

Criminal justice collapse portends future crises

Do you remember the stories coming out of New Orleans during the Katrina disaster, about prisoners being held in the flooded county jail with no access to judges or attorneys?

That was just the beginning. Katrina literally washed away the criminal justice system in New Orleans. With no courts or prosecutors and only a handful of defense attorneys remaining, thousands of prisoners were shipped out to state prisons, where they languished for months. Many were in custody for minor offenses such as not paying traffic tickets. Most, not surprisingly, were indigent minorities. They were lost in the system, doing what came to be known as "Katrina time."

Then came mass detentions of looters and other law-breakers. By the time the flood waters receded, the backlog of cases awaiting trial was in the thousands. And it was many months before even a single jury trial took place.

New Orleans is now the uncontested murder capital of the country. And with the criminal justice system still reeling, the district attorney's office came under sharp fire last month for dropping murder charges against a man accused of massacring five teenagers.

The collapse of the criminal justice system and the denial of Constitutional rights to indigent citizens is catalogued in a Duke Law Journal article now available online. After describing the scope of the disaster, the article makes recommendations for safeguarding the provision of criminal justice during future crises.

The story about the quintuple-murder suspect is featured in the July 31 issue of the L.A. Times. (You need an online subscription to read it, but the subscription is free.)

photo credit: Pratt, "Katrina damage" (Creative Commons license)