Group items tagged

horizontal line break Chapter 3 Specific Justice Systems and Victims' Rights Section 2, Federal Justice Abstract Since the passage of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the implementation of victims' rights and provision of quality victim services at the federal level. The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, as well as the passage of six major federal laws affecting victims, define the scope of victims' rights and services for victims of federal crimes. Efforts at the federal level to coordinate the delivery of services to victims have produced collaborative initiatives that improve victims' rights and services. Learning Objectives Upon completion of this section, students will understand the following concepts: * Major laws affecting federal victims of crime. * The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. * The Office for Victims of Crime response to coordinate services and assistance to federal crime victims. * The availability and coordination of victims' rights and services at the federal level. * Significant federal initiatives that have strengthened victims' rights and services at the federal level. Statistical Overview * During 1998, U.S. Attorneys initiated investigations involving 115,692 suspects for possible violations of federal law. Almost a third (32%) of those investigated were suspected of a drug violation (BJS September 1999). * Between 1994 and 1998, investigations initiated by U.S. Attorneys have increased by 16.5%--from 99,251 to 115,692. Investigations for immigration violations increased from 5,526 to 14,114; investigations for drug offenses increased from 29,311 to 36,355 (Ibid.). * Criminal charges were filed against 78,172 defendants in U.S. district courts during 1998--a 25% increase since 1994 (Ibid.). * In 1998, 89.9% of defendants charged with felonies were convic

horizontal line break Chapter 3 Specific Justice Systems and Victims' Rights Section 2, Federal Justice Abstract Since the passage of the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, there has been considerable emphasis placed on the implementation of victims' rights and provision of quality victim services at the federal level. The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance, as well as the passage of six major federal laws affecting victims, define the scope of victims' rights and services for victims of federal crimes. Efforts at the federal level to coordinate the delivery of services to victims have produced collaborative initiatives that improve victims' rights and services. Learning Objectives Upon completion of this section, students will understand the following concepts: * Major laws affecting federal victims of crime. * The 1995 Attorney General Guidelines for Victim and Witness Assistance. * The Office for Victims of Crime response to coordinate services and assistance to federal crime victims. * The availability and coordination of victims' rights and services at the federal level. * Significant federal initiatives that have strengthened victims' rights and services at the federal level. Statistical Overview * During 1998, U.S. Attorneys initiated investigations involving 115,692 suspects for possible violations of federal law. Almost a third (32%) of those investigated were suspected of a drug violation (BJS September 1999). * Between 1994 and 1998, investigations initiated by U.S. Attorneys have increased by 16.5%--from 99,251 to 115,692. Investigations for immigration violations increased from 5,526 to 14,114; investigations for drug offenses increased from 29,311 to 36,355 (Ibid.). * Criminal charges were filed against 78,172 defendants in U.S. district courts during 1998--a 25% increase since 1994 (Ibid.). * In 1998, 89.9% of defendants charged with felonies were con

Page 1 Revised: 1/2003 Victim of Crime Act Victim Assistance Grant Program Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Program Guidelines for FY2004 Table of Contents Introduction Authority I. Legislative and Funding History A. 1982 President's Task Force on Victims B. 1988 Reauthorization of VOCA C. 1993 Amendments D. 1994 Amendments E. 1995 Amendments F. 1996 and 1997 Amendments G. 1999 and 2002 Appropriations H. Funding to Massachusetts II. Victim Population A. Priority Victim Populations 1. Child Abuse 2. Adult Sexual Assault 3. Domestic Violence 4. Survivors of Homicide Victims B. Other Victim Populations III. Agency and Program Eligibility Criteria A. State or Non Profit Standing B. Demonstrate Record of Effective Services C. Matching Contributions D. Volunteers E. Coordinated Public and Private Efforts F. Assist with Victim Compensation G. Comply with VOCA Provisions and Guidelines H. Client-Counselor Confidentiality I. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion J. Provide Services to Victims of Federal Crimes K. Provide Services to Crime Victims at No Charge L. VOCA Guidelines Training M. Non-Discrimination Page 2 Revised: 1/2003 1. Civil Rights 2. Disabilities N. Certification of Drug-Free Workplace O. Abide by Additional Eligibility Criteria IV. VOCA Eligible Services A. Allowable Direct Costs 1. Services which respond to the emotional and physical needs 2. Costs directly related to providing direct service 3. Services and activities that assist the primary and secondary victims 4. Services directed to the needs of victims within the CJ system 5. Costs necessary and essential to providing direct services 6. Services which assist crime victims with managing practical problems 7. Professional fees are allowed only under special circumstances B. Other Related Allowable Costs 1. Skills Training for Staff 2. Training Materials 3. Training Related Travel 4. Equipment and furniture that is necessary and essential 5. Advanced Technologies 6. Food and/o

Page 1 Revised: 1/2003 Victim of Crime Act Victim Assistance Grant Program Commonwealth of Massachusetts State Program Guidelines for FY2004 Table of Contents Introduction Authority I. Legislative and Funding History A. 1982 President's Task Force on Victims B. 1988 Reauthorization of VOCA C. 1993 Amendments D. 1994 Amendments E. 1995 Amendments F. 1996 and 1997 Amendments G. 1999 and 2002 Appropriations H. Funding to Massachusetts II. Victim Population A. Priority Victim Populations 1. Child Abuse 2. Adult Sexual Assault 3. Domestic Violence 4. Survivors of Homicide Victims B. Other Victim Populations III. Agency and Program Eligibility Criteria A. State or Non Profit Standing B. Demonstrate Record of Effective Services C. Matching Contributions D. Volunteers E. Coordinated Public and Private Efforts F. Assist with Victim Compensation G. Comply with VOCA Provisions and Guidelines H. Client-Counselor Confidentiality I. Debarment, Suspension, Ineligibility and Voluntary Exclusion J. Provide Services to Victims of Federal Crimes K. Provide Services to Crime Victims at No Charge L. VOCA Guidelines Training M. Non-Discrimination Page 2 Revised: 1/2003 1. Civil Rights 2. Disabilities N. Certification of Drug-Free Workplace O. Abide by Additional Eligibility Criteria IV. VOCA Eligible Services A. Allowable Direct Costs 1. Services which respond to the emotional and physical needs 2. Costs directly related to providing direct service 3. Services and activities that assist the primary and secondary victims 4. Services directed to the needs of victims within the CJ system 5. Costs necessary and essential to providing direct services 6. Services which assist crime victims with managing practical problems 7. Professional fees are allowed only under special circumstances B. Other Related Allowable Costs 1. Skills Training for Staff 2. Training Materials 3. Training Related Travel 4. Equipment and furniture that is necessary and essential 5. Advanced Technologies 6. Food and/o

Page 1 929 DIALOGUE Cognitive Processes Shaped by the Impulse to Blame Joshua Knobe † In his incisive and thought-provoking paper "Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame," Lawrence Solan points to a surprising fact about the cognitive processes underlying attributions of blame. 1 This surprising fact is that almost all of the processes that we use when trying to determine whether or not a person is blameworthy are also ones that we sometimes use even when we are not even considering the issue of blame. 2 Only a very small amount of processing is used exclusively when we are interested in questions of blame. This point can be made vivid with a simple example. Suppose that we witness a terrible accident and then assign an investigator to answer the question: "Why did this accident occur?" This investigator spends many months gathering evidence, formulating hypotheses, and considering arguments of various types. Finally, he comes back with a definite answer. And now suppose we tell him that we also want an answer to a second question, namely: "Was anyone to blame for this accident?" The investigator probably won't have to spend another few months answering this new question. It appears that almost all of the work has already been done; the investigator can simply take the results he has already obtained, do a little extra thinking, and come up with an answer. † Princeton University. I am grateful to Lawrence Solan and Gilbert Harman for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 Lawrence M. Solan, Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse of Blame, 68 B ROOK . L. R EV . 1003 (2003). 2 Id. at 1004. Page 2 930 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2 Solan provides support for this initial intuition through a sophisticated analysis of the cognitive processes that underlie attributions of blame. Specifically, he shows that attributions of blame rely in a crucial way on judgments about mental states and about causal relations. 3 He then shows that we would have made

Page 1 929 DIALOGUE Cognitive Processes Shaped by the Impulse to Blame Joshua Knobe † In his incisive and thought-provoking paper "Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse to Blame," Lawrence Solan points to a surprising fact about the cognitive processes underlying attributions of blame. 1 This surprising fact is that almost all of the processes that we use when trying to determine whether or not a person is blameworthy are also ones that we sometimes use even when we are not even considering the issue of blame. 2 Only a very small amount of processing is used exclusively when we are interested in questions of blame. This point can be made vivid with a simple example. Suppose that we witness a terrible accident and then assign an investigator to answer the question: "Why did this accident occur?" This investigator spends many months gathering evidence, formulating hypotheses, and considering arguments of various types. Finally, he comes back with a definite answer. And now suppose we tell him that we also want an answer to a second question, namely: "Was anyone to blame for this accident?" The investigator probably won't have to spend another few months answering this new question. It appears that almost all of the work has already been done; the investigator can simply take the results he has already obtained, do a little extra thinking, and come up with an answer. † Princeton University. I am grateful to Lawrence Solan and Gilbert Harman for helpful comments on an earlier draft. 1 Lawrence M. Solan, Cognitive Foundations of the Impulse of Blame, 68 B ROOK . L. R EV . 1003 (2003). 2 Id. at 1004. Page 2 930 BROOKLYN LAW REVIEW [Vol. 71:2 Solan provides support for this initial intuition through a sophisticated analysis of the cognitive processes that underlie attributions of blame. Specifically, he shows that attributions of blame rely in a crucial way on judgments about mental states and about causal relations. 3 He then shows that we would have made

The Court issued a per curiam opinion. Given the Pennsylvania Supreme Court's answer to the United States Supreme Court's certified question, retroactivity was no longer an issue. The Court held long ago that the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause requires a State to prove each element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt before convicting a defendant of a crime. Here, failing to possess a permit was a basic element of the crime as it existed at the time of Fiore's conviction. The "parties agree that the Commonwealth presented no evidence whatsoever to prove that basic element." In fact, Pennsylvania conceded that Fiore had a permit. "The simple, inevitable conclusion is that Fiore's conviction fails to satisfy the Federal Constitution's demands."

http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_by_t/substantive/Elders.pdf\nDepartment has a long history of tolerating, as a matter of departmental practice, the use of unbelievably offensive racial and ethnic slurs," Gresen said in a statement.

http://www.benchmarkinstitute.org/t_by_t/substantive/Elders.pdf Department has a long history of tolerating, as a matter of departmental practice, the use of unbelievably offensive racial and ethnic slurs," Gresen said in a statement.

This looks like the Sheriff may have put Nye Frank down as the criminal. We need answers

This looks like the Sheriff may have put Nye Frank down as the criminal. We need answers

27 year old Ty Reddish, son of Norco High wrestling Coach, jumped in air grabbed a 68 year old man by head, dropped feet, stood up came down with knees into back, then while passed out turned him over and choked him and jumped up and down on his chest. The elder 68 year old Nye Frank died within 5 minutes. The autopsy in Riverside County called this a natural cause of death. What do you think? Would someone professionally trained know better? If you know something about these moves write me.

Brian Floyd help in covering up homicide of Nye Frank a Elder in Riverside County