The United States Justice Department recently conducted a study to determine the actual amount of sexual assaults that take place in prison every year. The Bureau of Justice Statistics looked at numerous surveys provided to former prison inmates about their time in prison.

The Bureau discovered that as many as 1 in every 10 prisoners is sexually assaulted while in prison. And female prisoners were three times as likely as male prisoners to have been assaulted. Most assaults occurred in state prisons, but there were incidents that occurred in local jails.

So what can be done? Some feel confident ignoring prison rape, adding it to the list of unpleasant punishments that occur when someone is convicted of a crime. But others are calling for widespread reform and better protection for inmates.

The Department of Justice, for its part, is announcing rules designed to prevent, detect, and respond to prisoner abuse. Employees will be trained on how to better respond and observe sexual misconduct, and prisoners are to be screened to determine the likelihood of their committing abuse.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

This year alone, Fort Lee, New Jersey has reportedly seen three fatal pedestrian accidents. In a town of 35,000 people, these fatalities have made a big impact. As a result, legislators created and passed a measure making it illegal to text on a cellular phone while walking.

This means that those who move their feet and use their phone at the same time are in danger of being ticketed in Fort Lee. Tickets for violating this new law will cost the violator $85. Over 100 tickets have already been handed out, since the ticket’s enforcement period began in April of 2012.

Many argue that such a law is unnecessary and ridiculous. Although it can be dangerous to text and walk at the same time, sometimes even causing a collision with an automobile, the fault is on the walker, and that does not justify taking every-day freedoms from those who use them responsibly.

But others argue that, in our text-filled society, safety is not a concern, particularly among young people, who may not be aware of dangers around them. If this dangerous activity is ticketable, they say, those people may avoid behaving dangerously, and lives might be spared.

Is a ban on texting, and even talking, while walking the future of municipal laws?

This information is not intended to be legal advice.

Joan’s convicted murderer, Joseph McGowan, inspired the passing of the legislation. Although he was sentenced to a life in prison, he was up for parole in only 14 years. Since he was sentenced, McGowan has been up for parole on three separate occasions.

Because McGowan has been up for parole on multiple occasions, Joan’s mother has had to reface the ordeal of her daughter’s murder over and over again, with the repeated threat that her killer will be set free. This ordeal encouraged many to pass Joan’s Law, which is designed to prevent this ordeal for victims’ families and to prevent dangerous offenders from release from prison.

This week, a bill is expected to be introduced in the New Jersey legislature that would expand the law. Instead of denying parole automatically to anyone who assaults and murders a child under the age of 14, the law will deny parole as long as the victim is under the age of 18.

Despite the law’s passage, McGowan remains eligible for parole hearings. But Joan’s family hopes that the law will prevent future families of crime victims from facing some of the pain they had to suffer.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

There are several types of evidence considered at the parole hearing: evidence supplied by the inmate himself, evidence provided by the victim of the crime (if there was one), and any reports or records regarding past criminal history, psychological evaluations, reports from prison staff, and any other evidence of good or bad behavior either in prison or outside of prison.

Inmates are likely to produce evidence of good behavior while in prison. Often, inmates work a job while incarcerated, or participate in a religious or other group. A lack of issues with staff and other inmates is also good evidence. But in reality, the most important evidence at a parole determination hearing will be supplied by experts and by prison officials.

A parole determination must be made based on the likelihood of recidivism, or likelihood of repeated criminal behavior once the inmate is released on parole. So evidence from psychologists and prison staff is the best evidence of whether the inmate will return to criminal behaviors. And while victims are permitted to present evidence of the negative effect a crime had on them and their families during the parole hearing, that evidence will not be as relevant as any evidence showing a tendency to commit or not commit criminal acts.

Once the evidence is collected, the parole board will make a parole determination based on some of the following factors: the facts and circumstances of the underlying offense; aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the offense; nature and pattern of previous convictions; adjustment to previous probation, parole and incarceration; prison disciplinary history and, specifically, the commission of serious disciplinary infractions and the pattern of less serious disciplinary infractions; participation in institutional programs; statements by institutional staff, with supporting documentation, that the inmate is likely to commit another crime if released on parole; statements by the inmate reflecting on the likelihood that he or she will commit another crime; and the results of an objective risk assessment instrument. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b).

This information is not intended as legal advice.

The interesting thing about accomplice liability is that is an accomplice is as liable for the crime that is committed as the person who commits the crime. If an individual assists another in robbing a Circle K, the person who helps the commissioner of the crime can be convicted for robbery.

Under New Jersey law, an individual is responsible for any crimes committed by another as an accomplice if he aids or solicits the perpetrator in the commission of the crime, with the intent that the crime be committed. This means that

Once someone has encouraged or aided another person in the commission of a crime, the only way to get out of responsibility for that crime is by renouncing involvement. This renunciation must be voluntary and complete. If the individual has the ability to stop the crime, he must try to do so. If the police can be notified and the crime can be prevented, he must do so. It is not possible to renounce involvement after the commission of a crime, or after it is too late.

Often, accomplice cases hinge on one key issue: whether an intent was shared between the commissioner and the accomplice. They must both have intended to carry out the crime at issue. Often, this is proven by establishing that the defendant accomplice knew what he was helping the commissioner do. For instance, if someone drove a getaway vehicle, did they know they were driving the vehicle away from a robbery, or did they just think they were picking someone up?

This information is not intended to be legal advice.

There are several types of evidence considered at the parole hearing: evidence supplied by the inmate himself, evidence provided by the victim of the crime (if there was one), and any reports or records regarding past criminal history, psychological evaluations, reports from prison staff, and any other evidence of good or bad behavior either in prison or outside of prison.

Inmates are likely to produce evidence of good behavior while in prison. Often, inmates work a job while incarcerated, or participate in a religious or other group. A lack of issues with staff and other inmates is also good evidence. But in reality, the most important evidence at a parole determination hearing will be supplied by experts and by prison officials.

A parole determination must be made based on the likelihood of recidivism, or likelihood of repeated criminal behavior once the inmate is released on parole. So evidence from psychologists and prison staff is the best evidence of whether the inmate will return to criminal behaviors. And while victims are permitted to present evidence of the negative effect a crime had on them and their families during the parole hearing, that evidence will not be as relevant as any evidence showing a tendency to commit or not commit criminal acts.

Once the evidence is collected, the parole board will make a parole determination based on some of the following factors: the facts and circumstances of the underlying offense; aggravating and mitigating factors surrounding the offense; nature and pattern of previous convictions; adjustment to previous probation, parole and incarceration; prison disciplinary history and, specifically, the commission of serious disciplinary infractions and the pattern of less serious disciplinary infractions; participation in institutional programs; statements by institutional staff, with supporting documentation, that the inmate is likely to commit another crime if released on parole; statements by the inmate reflecting on the likelihood that he or she will commit another crime; and the results of an objective risk assessment instrument. N.J.A.C. 10A:71-3.11(b).

This information is not intended to be legal advice.

Unlike scenes in “The Fugitive” which show blood hounds and FBI agents with flashlights scouring the woods, a manhunt is a methodical process whereby the police look for tips and hints that will lead them in the right direction.

Law enforcement officials compile lists of places the fugitive is likely to return to, including past homes, and the homes of associates, friends, and family. Once a list is compiled, law enforcement follows through with every lead in a systematic manner, going down the list in order to eliminate possible hiding places.

A manhunt does not involve combing through random wilderness areas. If there is reason to believe that a fugitive might be in a certain recreational area, for instance, the FBI may utilize infrared technology by airplane in order to scan large areas in a relatively short amount of time.

Publicity, tip-lines, and reward prizes are common tactics used to get information on a fugitive’s whereabouts. The more people are aware of a fugitive, the more likely law enforcement is to find him. The most effective manhunt strategies involve careful thinking and thorough research, rather than physically combing the woods.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

PTSD is a very common medical condition among veterans, but studies show that the disorder often goes undiagnosed and untreated. Many are unwilling or unable to admit they might have an issue, and they are not routinely evaluated after combat.

Unfortunately, there appears to be a strong correlation between PTSD and criminal behavior. Because this correlation has been shown to be quite strong, many states have enacted laws to protect veterans with PTSD, and to allow them to mitigate their sentences or partake in diversion programs.

Additionally, it is possible to use PTSD as a defense to criminal charges. Although PTSD does not traditionally qualify as insanity that can be used as a traditional affirmative defense in court, there are elements of PTSD that can make it more difficult for the prosecution to make its case. For instance, PTSD can be used to show diminished capacity to commit a crime, and can show undue stress. When combined with other factors, this may be enough to defend against criminal charges.

If PTSD symptoms are not enough to provide a viable defense against a criminal charge, they may be enough to mitigate the sentence. After an individual has been convicted of a crime, the judge looks at a wider range of factors in determining the sentencing for that crime. Factors might include past criminal history, contributions to the community, and things like military service and psychological issues.

This information is not intended to be legal advice.

The idea behind Oklahoma’s reform laws is to be extra harsh on released convicts, in an attempt to avoid recidivism. The law requires a 9-month probation period for convicted felons released from prison. Those felons must also submit to a mental health and potential risk evaluation to determine how dangerous they are.

Those felons who violate any term of their parole, no matter how technical, may be required to submit to an additional 6-month sentence in prison.

The law goes into effect November 1, 2012, and has been controversial in Oklahoma and around the country. Many are touting the law as a revolutionary means to combat violent crime and to reform the prison and criminal justice system in Oklahoma. The probationary term for released convicts is designed to help convicts transition and keep tabs on their activities, to avoid future crime.

But other are concerned that the new policies will only increase the prison population within the state, and creates punishment for things like missing a meeting with a probation officer, which are not indicative of a propensity for violent crime. Additionally, under Oklahoma law, those convicted of certain offenses are required to serve 85% of their sentences, which many site as the cause of prison overpopulation. The new law does nothing to alter this policy.

This information is not intended as legal advice.

The law was designed based on recommendations made by the Special Joint Committee on Georgia Criminal Justice, a committee created to analyze the flaws inherent in Georgia’s legal justice system.

The bill has several parts to it, all designed to reduce sentencing for drug-related offenses. For starters, less severe penalties will be imposed on non-violent drug-related offenses. Drug courts will be expanded to provide a better system for dealing with drug-related crime and avoiding future crime. Instead of incarceration for low-level non-violent offenses, alternatives like diversion programs will be pushed.

By reducing the sentences of non-violent offenders, Georgia hopes to keep citizens who are not a danger to society out of the prison system and in the community. This will reduce the costs of the prison system, which is constantly growing within the state, and is very costly.

Instead of burdens on the community, these people can contribute to the community, become employed, and pay taxes. Their communities will not be shaken by their absence, and more room is made in the state’s prisons to confine dangerous criminals.

Some have argued, however, that these initiatives may not help fix the underlying issues at hand. Although drug-related offenses may not be violent, they are often associated with violent crimes. And while drug courts and other diversionary programs are helpful for those who are committed to them, they are not easily forced on the unwilling, and are often difficult to complete. Opponents argue that for those who are unwilling to participate or are severely addicted to drugs, these programs might not help reduce the number of inmates in Georgia prisons, and could lead to more violent crimes.

This information is not intended to be legal advice.