Thursday, November 19, 2009

People always come into your life for a reason, a season, or a lifetime. When you figure out which it is, you know exactly what to do.

People always come into your life for a reason, a season, or a lifetime.

When you figure out which it is, you know exactly what to do.

..

When someone is in your life for a REASON,

it is usually to meet a need you have expressed outwardly or inwardly.

They have come to assist you through a difficulty,

or to provide you with guidance and support,

to aid you physically, emotionally, or even spiritually.

They may seem like a godsend to you, and they are.

They are there for the reason you need them to be.

...

Then, without any wrong doing on your part or at an inconvenient time,

this person will say or do something to bring the relationship to an end.

...

Sometimes they die. Sometimes they just walk away.

Sometimes they act up or out and force you to take a stand.

What we must realize is that our need has been met, our desire fulfilled; their work is done.

The prayer you sent up has been answered and it is now time to move on.

...

When people come into your life for a SEASON,

it is because your turn has come to share, grow, or learn.

They may bring you an experience of peace or make you laugh.

They may teach you something you have never done.

They usually give you an unbelievable amount of joy.

Believe it! It is real! But, only for a season.

And like Spring turns to Summer and Summer to Fall,

the season eventually ends.

...

LIFETIME relationships teach you lifetime lessons;

those things you must build upon in order to have a solid emotional foundation.

Your job is to accept the lesson, love the person/people (anyway);

and put what you have learned to use in all other relationships and areas in your life.

It is said that love is blind but friendship is clairvoyant.

Thank you for being part of my life.

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Search and Seizure

The Framers of the Constitution and Bill of Rights did not scribe those words with the automobile in mind. The issues involving the seizure and search of automobiles and their occupants were, thus, addressed by the Supreme Court in their constitutional interpretations recorded in case law. With the advent of the automobile in 1914 through the turn of the new millennium, the easy mobility of the automobile and its operation on public roads has influenced the Supreme Court in their interpretation of the Constitution. The issue of privacy in an automobile is, therefore, considered to be dramatically diminished. These factors have played an important role in the eyes of the court.
Police officers do not need a warrant to search a vehicle as long as the officer has probable cause to believe that the vehicle may contain contraband or evidence of a crime. Probable cause is a reasonable belief that a person has committed a crime. This can be almost anything depending on that individual officer’s beliefs, bias, preferences or tendency to racially profile individuals. It is my opinion that officers do indeed “find” probable cause if they decide that they need to investigate further for whatever reason. It is undisputed that the Fourth Amendment, applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits an officer from making an arrest without probable cause. The issue here lies in what some officers may or may not label as probable cause.
Search and seizure is not a bad thing as long as it is handled properly by the arresting officer. When officers fail to go by the book and exercise good judgment not only are they leaving their department open for liability they are also violating the rights of individuals. Another repercussion of bad policing is in the form of negative publicity. When officers make bad choices and decide to search a vehicle and they have no legitimate reason it creates negative publicity for the department and affects public opinions of police in general.

Reasonable suspicion and so forth

Define Reasonable Suspicion, Probable Cause, and Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt. Also explain what authority each level of information gives government.
Reasonable Suspicion:
To conduct a Terry search, or a stop and frisk, police need reasonable suspicion that the person is suspected of imminent illegal behavior or past criminal activity. Reasonable suspicion is based on the totality of the circumstances as understood by those versed in the field of law enforcement; it is commonly described as something more than a hunch, but less than probable cause.
Probable Cause:
In the United States criminal court system, probable cause refers to facts or evidence that would make a reasonable person believe that a crime or wrong doing has been, is being, or will be committed.
Proof beyond a reasonable doubt:
Beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest standard of proof that must be met in any trial. In civil litigation, the standard of proof is either proof by a PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE or proof by clear and convincing evidence. These are lower burdens of proof. This is the standard that must be met by the prosecution.

HOPE

God doesn't give you the people you want, He gives you the people you NEED- To help you, to hurt you, to leave you,to love you and make you into the person you were meant to be.

Dear God: The lady (ladies) reading this is beautiful, classy, and strong, and I love her. Help her live her life to the fullest. Please promote her and cause her to excel above all her expectations. Help her shine in the darkest places where it is impossible to love. Protect her at all times, lift her up when she needs you the most, and let her know when she walks with you, She will always be safe.

Blessings,
Jamie

Thursday, November 12, 2009

Bring the rain

I can count a million times
People asking me how I
Can praise You with all that
I've gone through
The question just amazes me
Can circumstances possibly
Change who I forever am in You

Maybe since my life was changed
Long before these rainy days
It's never really ever crossed my mind
To turn my back on you, oh Lord
My only shelter from the storm
But instead I draw closer through these times
So I pray

Bring me joy, bring me peace
Bring the chance to be free
Bring me anything that brings
You glory And I know there'll
be days When this life brings me pain
But if that's what it takes to
praise You Jesus, bring the rain

I am yours regardless of the clouds that may
loom above because you are much greater than
my pain you who made a way for me suffering
your destiny so tell me whats a little rain

[1st Chorus]

Holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy
is the lord God almighty
is the lord God almighty
I'm forever singing

[2nd Chorus 2x]

everybody singing
Holy holy holy
you are holy
you are holy

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

4 th amendment and the exclusionary rule

What would happen if the Fourth Amendment did not exist? The fourth amendment is the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This means security in my opinion, of the person in their home mainly. If the fourth amendment did not exist, what would happen? In my opinion the fourth amendment might as well not exist thanks to the USA PATRIOT Act which by the way is you disagree with it you are not an extreme nutjob, anyways, the Act ensures that the government now does have the ability if they so choose to bypass the fourth amendment and do as they please. The Patriot Act increases the government’s surveillance powers in four areas:
1. Records searches. It expands the government's ability to look at records on an individual's activity being held by third parties. (Section 215)
2. Secret searches. It expands the government's ability to search private property without notice to the owner. (Section 213)
3. Intelligence searches. It expands a narrow exception to the Fourth Amendment that had been created for the collection of foreign intelligence information (Section 218).
4. "Trap and trace" searches. It expands another Fourth Amendment exception for spying that collects "addressing" information about the origin and destination of communications, as opposed to the content (Section 214).
The Act also creates a new crime of "domestic terrorism." The Patriot Act transforms protesters into terrorists if they engage in conduct that "involves acts dangerous to human life" to "influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion." How long will it be before an ambitious or politically motivated prosecutor uses the statute to charge members of controversial activist groups like Operation Rescue or Greenpeace with terrorism? Under the Patriot Act, providing lodging or assistance to such "terrorists" exposes a person to surveillance or prosecution. Furthermore, the law gives the attorney general and the secretary of state the power to detain or deport any non-citizen who belongs to or donates money to one of these broadly defined "domestic terrorist" groups




The exclusionary rule, stemming directly from the Fifth Amendment, states that no object may be used in court as evidence if obtained illegally or without a proper search warrant. This principle gained its constitutional roots back in 1921 in the case of Gouled vs. United States. This Supreme Court held that although the government could seize contraband, it could not seize property simply to use as evidence. There are certain cases where evidence from warrantless searches is admissible, such as when something is in plain view, at an airport, during an arrest, or when there is no time to obtain a warrant. The exclusionary rule prevents the police, in their zealousness to solve crimes, from violating the civil liberties of American citizens. Warrants can only be issued by judges if there is "probably cause" to believe that evidence of wrongdoing will be found. Warrants must contain the date, location, and time of a search, what is expected to be found, and the grounds for believing that such an object will be found in the place indicated. Many feel that these institutional safeguards are what distinguish America from less civilized nations. They maintain that our civil liberties must be protected above all else. The problem in some peoples' minds is that a person should not have contraband in his/her possession to begin with. If a police officer or investigator uncovers contraband in an unconstitutional manner, they feel that there is no reason to pretend that the material does not exist. They maintain that criminals all too often escape justice by loopholes such as this. Some Americans are willing to sacrifice some of their Constitutional rights for a greater feeling of safety and security.

Sunday, November 8, 2009

Criminal Procedure Policy

Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
Ronald Reagan

I am going to discuss due process and various crime control models relating to criminal procedure policy. The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendment will be explained regarding their role in criminal procedure policies as well. Lastly I will discuss the Bill of Rights and the relevance to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment.
Due process is the principle that the government must respect all of the legal rights that are owed to a person according to the law. Due process holds the government subservient to the law of the land, protecting individual persons from the state. Due process is protected as part of our Fifth Amendment rights. Under the Due process model the most important function of criminal justice should be to provide due process or fundamental fairness under the law. The focus in this model is aimed on the defendant’s protected rights under the Bill of Rights and the belief is that police power should be highly limited to prevent oppression of the individual person. The government shouldn't hold a person guilty solely on the basis of the facts; a person should be found guilty only if the government follows legal procedures in its fact-finding. The due process model has been referred to as an “obstacle course”. (Cliff’s notes 2009)
The Crime control model suggests that the repression of crime should be the most important function of criminal justice because order is a necessary condition for a free society. Also, this model favors victim’s rights over the rights of the defendant, and anything that complicates matters for police should be eliminated. The accused is often thought of as guilty already in this model and the justice system is thought of as a conveyor built of justice, swiftly moving the defendants along to their case disposition. The main objective of the criminal justice process should be to discover the truth or to establish the factual guilt of the accused. (Cliff’s notes 2009)
The crime control model has more of a conservative basis than that of the due process model which has a liberal value to it. The law can only extend its arms so far. They cannot abuse their powers and must keep in mind that people have the right to a reasonable amount of privacy under the Constitution. There is a delicate balance in trying to respect the individual’s privacy and rights that we all have as United States citizens and also keeping the public safe at the same time.
Crime control model is based on factual guilt whereas the due process model is based on actual guilt. The Crime Control Model seems to be run like a dictatorship. It seems like a method that may have started out with good intentions only to not work out that way in the end. Within the Crime Control Model there is no innocence until proven, and the police and prosecutors are always deemed to be right. Justice seems to hang on the edge of impeding on civil rights violations as well as many and freedoms that we hold dear as Americans. (Misha, 2005)
The Fourteenth Amendment states all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
The Fourteenth Amendment means a lot of different things for different people. For some people it justifies same sex marriage, for others it holds a more conservative meaning. Personally I interpret the Fourteenth Amendment as a guarantee put in place by our founding fathers and drafters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights that grants individuals who are citizens the rights to be secure. Basically that being a lawful citizen should allow us the rights to be safe and secure in the knowledge that due process and equality are on our side and we may not be unfairly subjected to radical action by law enforcement or any member of the criminal justice system.
The Fourth Amendment is The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. This should always be upheld and not taken for granted or superseded by things such as the USA PATRIOT Act.
The Fifth Amendment is no person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
The Sixth Amendment is In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.
Both models that I have mentioned are effective in the criminal justice system in their own ways and both bring positive and negative aspects to the criminal justice system. I believe that it is never acceptable to treat criminals or defendants as second class citizens as we all have certain rights as human beings. The uniform treatment should always be innocent until proven guilty by a court of law, and ideally police officers should not pass judgment on the individual before he is give a fair trial. Unfortunately things do not always happen in a fair and correct way. That is why the Constitution and The Bill of Rights are so important to have and preserve as a guideline to basic rights that we stand for in this country. We cannot give up our freedom for the promise of false security, nor can we treat those citizens that choose to break the laws inhumanely, that would not say much about us as a country. Justice can be served in a honest righteous way.

Sunday, November 1, 2009

Victims rights

“Evil requires the sanction of the victim.” Ayn Rand

A victim is defined as anyone who is harmed by another person. The victim is sometimes swindled or tricked, harmed or killed, deprived of their belongings, there are many ways a person can become a victim. Victims have historically played some type of role in the criminal justice system.
The Modern Crime Victims’ Rights Movement began more than 30 years ago and aspired to improve the treatment of crime victims in the criminal justice system. This Movement has since evolved into “one of the most successful civil liberties movements of recent times.” Since 1973 thirty-three states have amended their constitutions to include rights of crime victims. These rights include, the right to information, the right to be present at criminal justice proceedings, the right to dues process and the ability and right to be heard at criminal proceedings. Victims also have the right to be compensated monetarily for the loss that was a result of the crime that they were the victim of, the right to protection and privacy for the victim and their family. The Victims' Assistance Legal Organization (VALOR) became prominent as its founder, Frank Carrington, helped to develop and promote civil litigation on behalf of crime victims. (NCVLI, 2009)
The victim’s rights movements in the United States have brought about some important and significant changes worth mentioning. The development of a field called Victim logy was established by these movements and the introduction of state victim compensation programs. The rise of activism and the woman’s movement accompanied the victim’s movement. The interest in victim logy correlated with increasing concern about crime in America in the late 1960s. The crime wave of the time led to the formation of the President's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice in 1966, which conducted the first national victimization surveys that, in turn, showed that victimization rates were far higher than shown in law enforcement figures – and that many non-reporting victims acted out of distrust of the justice system. (Young , & Stein , 2004)
The idea that the state should provide financial reimbursement to victims of crime for their losses was initially propounded by English penal reformer Margery Fry in the 1950s. It was first implemented in New Zealand in 1963 and Great Britain passed a similar law shortly thereafter. Victim compensation and reimbursement is a part of restorative justice in some ways to attempt to set right the victim that has been wronged and monetarily pay them back. Restorative justices generally comes directly from the criminal not through the state.
Parents of Murdered Children were founded by Charlotte and Robert Hullinger in 1978 in the aftermath of the murder of their daughter by her ex-boyfriend. Mothers Against Drunk Driving was co-founded in 1980 by Candy Lightner when her daughter was killed by a repeat offender drunk driver, and by Cindi Lamb, whose infant daughter was rendered a quadriplegic by a repeat offender drunk driver. According to Cindi Lamb, “Probably one of the foremost strategies is giving the victim a face, and the face of the victim was [in her case, her quadriplegic infant daughter] Laura Lamb. She was the poster child for Mothers Against Drunk Driving, because even though she couldn't move, she moved so many people.” The National Center for Missing and Exploited Children was established in 1984 to help find missing children and provide support to their families. (Young , & Stein , 2004)
Restorative justice is intended to be a process that heals the victim and is personal because it comes from the offender, the person who committed the wrongdoing against the victim to begin with. In 1974, LEAA grants to the Ft. Lauderdale Police Department and then the Indianapolis Police Department helped open this new sector of the movement. Others followed suit. Many of the police-based programs were inspired by the work of two men. Victim’s advocates are a fixture at almost all agencies now. The victim’s advocates are trained individuals that usually have a heart for assisting victims that have been traumatized by the offender.
The victims of crimes now have a voice and an advocate; there are many ways to deal with the aftermath of being a crime victim. There are agents and caring individuals willing to help victims and there are also the civil courts that will assist in seeking monetary awards for the victims of a crime. The criminal justice system has embraced the opportunity to help make the victim whole again in my opinion.