Juvenile Facilities in Minnesota

Based on the Criminal Justice Sourcebook’s report, it appears that the total number of juvenile facilities in Minnesota has overall decreased. In 2000, there were 121 juvenile residential facilities total, 22 were public, and 99 were private. In 2002, there were 100 juvenile facilities total, 24 were public, and 76 were private. In 2004, there were 89 juvenile facilities total, 24 were public, and 65 were private. (Sourcebook Staff, 2004)

Total Public Private
2000 121 22 99
2002 100 24 76
2004 89 24 65


Looking at the data, the number of privately run juvenile facilities in Minnesota has steadily decreased. There are several possible reasons for the gradual decline in the number of privately run juvenile residential facilities in Minnesota. (Sourcebook Staff, 2004)

One possible reason is lack of funds. Because these facilities are not government run, whatever private company or organization running the juvenile detention centers. Especially with the economy doing so poorly these recent years, running private residential facilities for juvenile delinquents may not be at the top of a company’s priority list.

Another potential reason for the decreasing number of private facilities possibly less juvenile delinquents being incarcerated. This could be that there is possibly less crime among minors in Minnesota. Another possibility is that juveniles are not sentenced to juvenile detention centers and the state is putting more and more of them are put on probation and given more lenient punishment. Yet another that there could be fewer inmates is possibly that more and more minors are being tried as adults, not even entering the juvenile justice system. Finally, it could be a combination of all three of these situations the decrease in juvenile delinquent population in Minnesota.

The last possible reason for the decreasing number of privately run juvenile residential facilities could be linked to the private prison vs. public prison debate. There are many arguments for and against the privatization of prisons. While proponents maintain that private facilities are more cost effective, opponents counter stating that privatized prisons are nonunion labor, and “that such cost-cutting results in lower-quality staff, with significant consequences. Poorly trained guards and higher turnover increase the risk of escapes, inmate violence and prisoner mistreatment” (Clement, 2002, para. 6).

Clement, D. (2002, January). Private vs. public: the prison debate. Retrieved from http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=2049

Sourcebook Staff. (2004, October). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics Online: Public and private juvenile residential facilities. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t100092004.pdf

Jail Capacity for Minnesota: 1999

In 1999, Minnesota Jails were not over capacity (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1999). I believe there are three reasons for this. One, Minnesota only had a population of 4,775,508 in 1999 (Roach, 1999), this helps because when there are less people living in a state, there are less people to put in prison, hence the not over crowded prison system in Minnesota in 1999. Two, there are few “big cities” in Minnesota, so therefore there would be less of a chance for the more common crimes, such as pick pocketing, shoplifting, ect. also having less to attract people to your state, you won’t get as many drifters and what not committing crimes in your state. Three would have to be Minnesota’s strong police presence. When there are more cops visible and around, in a state with a small population, than people are less likely to be doing criminal acts, in that state.

References

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1999). Census of Jails NCJ 186633 [Chart]. Washington, D.C. Retrieved from http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t1998.pdf

Roach, K. (1999, December 29). Minnesota's population growth continues to outpace its neighbors, [Press Release]. Retrieved from http://www.demography.state.mn.us/resource.html?Id=1706

Inmate Populations in Minnesota

photo courtesy of The Situationist

According to the collected data by the Bureau of Justice (2008), as of 2007 Minnesota imprisons a total of 9,468 prisoners under state or federal correction authorities. In 2007 the female prisoner population accounted for 602 persons and male prisoners accounted for 8,866. The male population is over 14 times greater than the number of females incarcerated!

The female population, dating from 2000-2007, is increasing at a rate of 7.1-7.3% compared to the male population, which is increasing at a rate of 1.8-1.9% according to the data provided by the Bureau of Justice (2008). In comparison with the rest of the country, Minnesota does very well, ranking at the bottom for the number of incarcerated prisoners per population. The yearly increase in population, however, is much higher than the national average. The percentage increase for the males is 3.7% compared to the national average of 1.8%. A large increase can also be seen in female incarceration as represented by a population increase of 7.1% compared with the national average of 1.7% (Bureau of Justice, 2008).

What might account for the correction systems continual population swell? A possible explanation for the increase of both male and female prisoners under the state and federal correction authority may be due, in part, to an increase in the states overall population. Another reason for the increases may be a result of the rise of drug use and the countries declaration of war on drugs. The economy may also contribute to this boost; unemployment is at an all time high, which may possibly lead to more theft. Declining educational standards across the country may also contribute. The continual break down of the nuclear family may also put a strain on individuals that may also lead to a life of crime. Decreased funding for community programs, such as the girls and boys club, after school programs and big sisters & big brothers, may also affect the rate at which juveniles commit crime and recommit again later as adults.

David Wilson (2008) a former British prison governor and criminologist, acknowledges the low number of prisoners versus the states population as an amazing and desirable trend that is unique to Minnesota. He is curious to find out how Minnesota remains at the bottom of the list for number of prisoners incarcerated. On a visit to MN, he asked individuals involved with the corrections system what they believe is the reason for the low numbers and “by far the most common answer was: "we put in jail those people we are frightened of, not those that we are mad at"”(Wilson, 2008, para. 6). Minnesota’s philosophy may act as an inspiration for the rest of the nation, the prison population will continue to increase as long as the nation continues to implement prison time when possibly penalties or probation may suffice for lesser non violent crimes.

References:

Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2008). Prisoners in 2007 NCJ 224280 [Chart]. Washington, DC: West, H.C. Retrieved from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Wilson, D. (2008, January 11). Minnesota's prison miracle. The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jan/11/minnesotaprisonmiracle

Parole Population and Probation Population

The state of Minnesota has the following statistics based on parole populations and probation populations. Statistics are based as of December 31st, 2006.

Minnesota lists 5427 stated on parole with a population of approximately 4431 (Glaze & Bonzar, 2006).

Minnesota reports 88,735 entries of probation, while reporting 80,324 exits of probation. The population as of December 31st, 2006 is stated as 127,289 (Glaze & Bonzar, 2006).

Compared to other states in the Midwest, Minnesota has the highest number aside from Illinois, Ohio, and Michigan. This statistic could be due to the fact that states such as Illinois and Ohio have cities with higher urban populations, or higher populations in general. Higher urban populations would mean more crime.

Minnesota has a higher number compared to all states in the West except California.

Numerous states in the Northeast have higher numbers than those of Minnesota's.

Sources:

Glaze, L. E., & Bonzar, T. P. (2006). Bureau of justice statistics [Chart]. Annual probation survery and annual parole survey. Retrieved from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

The First and Last Execution

The first execution in the state of Minnesota was on December 29th 1854. It was the hanging of a Native American man named Yu-Ha-Gu. This man was executed for committing a murder. The last execution in the state of Minnesota was on February 13th 1906. Another hanging, this time the executed was William Williams a 27 year old white male also convicted of a murder. (Executions, 2004) The differences between these two executions include only race, where the first man was Native American and the last was White, and date, where the first execution was in December of 1854 and the last in February of 1906. However, the age of the first man is not given and that could have been a difference also.

Source:

Executions in the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY file [Chart]. (2002). Executions by state. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYstate.pdf

Death Penalty in MN Statistics

Minnesota, abbreviated MN, does not allow the death penalty. MN is in the Midwest region. Before 1976, MN had 66 executions and after 1976 they had no executions. On death row, MN doesn’t have anyone on there currently. There are also no women on death row. The murder rate per 100,00 is 2.2. In MN life without parole is an option and a defendant can’t get death for a felony in which he/she was not responsible for the murder. Also, there weren’t any people who were innocent freed from death row. The number of clemencies, a disposition to show mercy, granted is also zero (Death Penalty Information, 2009).

Source:

Death Penalty Information Center. (2009.) State by state database. Retrieved from http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state

Reducing Youth Gun Possession

photo from: City of Minneapolis, Minnesota

Officials in Hennepin County have instituted a program that will enforce gun control for juveniles. The program will also provide them with educational courses on the dangers of carrying firearms. The mission statement for the new program is "don’t carry a gun - if you do, there will be consequences"(Mayors, 2008).

Initiated by the Hennepin County Criminal Justice Coordinating Committee (CJCC) in May of 2008, the program was put into effect the following summer. It was intended to help reduce the number of juveniles carrying firearms through several coordinated activities. Some of these activities will include court-sanctioned penalties for any youths caught carrying BB guns or any other type of replica fire arms, and even real weapons. Interventions will include probation, classroom gun education and also out-of-home-placement to ensure offenders actually learn their lesson. Along with those efforts local communities will hold street level policing targeted directly at juveniles who have prior records of firearms and have warrants out for their arrest. These local patrols will encourage the juveniles to turn themselves in in order to not suffer higher consequences. For juveniles placed on probation, the supervision will be much more intense and aggressive and be linked to the Minnesota Anti violence Initiative. The MAI accompany authorities and probation officers on home visits to any juvenile that is on probation to make sure all the demands are being met. Furthermore, the youth curfew law will be enforced more consistently and strictly especially on the weekends as well as stronger enforcement of new replica firearms ordinances in cities with such laws (Mayors, 2008).

County officials from Hennepin County and its neighoring communities are teaming together to put an end to juvenile gun violence in the city. “The bottom line is, kids and guns don't mix. If you’re a juvenile with a gun in Hennepin County, we want you to know there are clear and swift penalties. But with the penalties, there is education: A 40-hour gun education program that informs the juvenile of the dangers of guns. But let's not forget, the penalties also include time away from home and a substantial amount of hours of work-without-pay”(Mayors, 2008), said Hennepin County Attorney Mike Freeman.

Mayor R.T. Rybak also shared the point of view of Freedman stating that the goal was to reduce hte number of youth carrying gun, NOT placing more under arrest. “With clear, consistent consequences, we are making it tough for kids to have guns, we want to make it clear to youth that it’s safer to not carry a gun than to carry a gun. Our main goal isn’t just to arrest more youth, but to reduce the number if youth with guns”(Mayors, 2008).

County Sheriff Rich Stanek hopes that with the programs instalment the number of crimes caused by juveniles will decrease, especially those realted to firearms. “Kids with guns are serious business and a major contributor of violent crime throughout Hennepin County. Through the joint efforts of the entire criminal justice system in Hennepin County – the local police departments, the Sheriff's office, the county attorney, probation and district court – we will be arresting kids with guns and getting them off the streets”(Mayors, 2008).

Minneapolis Police Chief Tim Dolan is looking for the program to cut down on the number of juveniles carrying firearms. He feels that with this new program, juveniles will not move on to do more serious offenses and potential more serious crimes. “Our goal is to get guns – real or fake – out of the hands of kids and off our streets. Stronger penalties mean that we may not see juveniles ‘graduate’ to more serious offenses”(Mayors, 2008).

The program will focus on bringing safety to all those involved as well as those not involved. It wil target every community in Hennepin County. It will be aimed at juveniles (ages 10-17 years old). The program will also look to state more dire consequences than those listed if a firearm real or fake is used to commit any particular crime, such as intentionally pointing a gun at another person or using it in a robbery. The list of the program is as follows:

HENNEPIN COUNTY JUVENILE GUN OFFENDER PROGRAM (Mayors, 2008)

1. First time in court and the youth has a BB or replica gun - probation, 40 hours of education on the dangers and effects of guns, 60 hours work without pay (STS), and if the youth does not complete the 100 hours, then 4-6 weeks out of home placement.

2. First time in court and the youth has a real gun or fired a BB gun - probation, 4-6 weeks out of the home, then 40 hours of education on the dangers and effects of guns and if the youth does not complete these requirements, then long term (4-6 months) out of home placement.

3. Already on probation and the youth has a real gun or fired a BB gun - probation, 90 days at Red Wing or similar program, then 40 hours of classes on the dangers and effects of guns and if the youth does not complete the program, then long term (6-12 months) out of home placement.

4. Any youth who has a new gun offense who had a prior gun offense - sent out of home to long term (6-15 months) placement and probation.


Mayor's Office. (2008, May 20). Multiple initiatives in place to reduce youth gun possession this summer. Minnesota Mayor's Office. Retrieved from
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/mayor/news/20080520newsmayor_citycountylaunchyouthguneffort.asp

City of Minneapolis Hennepoint County Mayor's Office

Jury Selection Assignment

Find a newspaper article from your state which describes the jury selection for a current trial. Describe the crime the defendant is charged with. Were any jurors challenged for cause or preemptory challenges? Describe the types of jurors you think the prosecution would want and the type you think the defense would want.

The case selected is Capitol v. Thomas, where Jammie Thomas-Rasset of Brianerd, Minnesota, was accused of copyright infringement and illegally sharing 24 songs on the file sharing application Kazaa. Originally, the defendant, Thomas-Rasset, was found legally responsible in a 2007 trial for illegally sharing the said 24 songs and was ordered to pay $222,000 in statutory damages. The judge in Thomas-Rasset’s trial, Michael J. Davis, ordered a retrial when he “decided he had erred in giving jury instructions [for 2007 trial]” (Karnowski, 2009).

The Thomas-Rasset’s second trial was held on June 15, 2009. On the same day, the Court went through the procedure of jury selection. As Nate Anderson of Ars Technica put it, the process “appeared to confirm Minnesota's reputation as a place of Lutheran virtue and hard work. Of the 19 people called up for questioning, no one admitted to having used Napster, KaZaA, or a P2P file-sharing program—and this despite the presence of several college students and recent grads.” The final 12 jurors were “five men and seven women, all white, ranging in age from college students to retirees” (Anderson, 2009).

The retrial actually made things worse for Thomas-Rasset. The new jury found that she “willfully violated copyrights, awarding the companies $80,000 per song, or $1.92 million” (Karnowski, 2009).

As clarified in the second paragraph, in the retrial, there were no jurors who challenged for cause or preemptory challenges. This jury selection was exactly what the prosecution wanted as they were law-abiding citizens who seemed to have no sympathy for the defendant. If the defense could have it their way, they would have wanted a jury full of people who were advocates of file sharing and opponents of big record companies.


Anderson, N. (2009). Jury selected in Thomas retrial: shockingly law-abiding. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars

Capitol v. Thomas. (2009, September 28). In Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia. Retrieved 10:23, November 10, 2009, from http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Capitol_v._Thomas&oldid=316727088

Karnowski, S. (2009, June 19). Jury awards $1.92m in music-sharing suit. Associated Press, p. 9. Retrieved from http://www.boston.com/business/technology/articles/2009/06/19/jury_awards_192m_in_music_sharing_suit/

Grand Jury V. Preliminary Hearing

In Stearns County, Minnesota, they use the grand jury system (County of Stearns Minnesota, 2004). The differences between grand juries and a preliminary hearing method vary. For example, a grand jury decides if there is a probable cause to accuse individuals or corporations on criminal charges based on the evidence provided (US Courts, 2007). Grand jury sessions are held in a private room, with only the grand jury, which consists on 23 people, government lawyers, court reporters, an interpreter if needed, and the witnesses to be heard, all are under oath (US Courts, 2007). While a preliminary hearing is where the judge decides if there is enough evidence to force the defendant to stand trial (FindLaw, 2009). In reaching this probable cause decision, the judge listens to arguments from the government (through a government attorney, or "prosecutor"), and from the defendant (usually through his or her attorney) (FindLaw, 2009). The prosecutor may call witnesses to testify, and can introduce physical evidence in an effort to convince the judge that the case should go to trial (FindLaw, 2009). The defense usually cross-examines the government's witnesses and calls into question any other evidence presented against the defendant, seeking to convince the judge that the prosecutor's case is not strong enough, so that the case against the defendant must be dismissed before trial (FindLaw, 2009).

Sources:

County of Stearns Minnesota. (2004, October 28). Stearns County Grand Jury Returns 1st Degree Murder Indictment re: Eric Maurice Wright. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from

http://www.co.stearns.mn.us/1271_3561.htm

FindLaw. (2009). Preliminary Hearing. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://criminal.findlaw.com/crimes/criminal_stages/criminal_preliminary_hearing/

US Courts. (2007, October). Grand Jury Handbook. Retrieved November 5, 2009, from http://www.uscourts.gov/jury/grandjury.html

The right to a Speedy Trial (Minnesota vs. Nevada)

Minnesota House of Representatives
photo courtesy of Policy and Medicine
http://www.policymed.com/2009/10/state-policy-minnesota-reconsidering-physician-reporting-and-gift-law.html

The right to a speedy trial is a fundamental principle in our criminal justice system. Although each state is independent in its ability to draft statues to address the timelines involved in criminal proceedings there is a similarity throughout the states in this manner. This post will look at both Minnesota and Nevada and their statutes relating to the right to a speedy trial.

Minnesota’s Office of the Reviser of Statutes states the speedy trial statute as such: 90% of all criminal cases must be concluded within 120 days from beginning to end, 97% of all criminal cases must be complete 180 days and 99% of all criminal cases must be complete of within 365 days. Minnesota measures these days from the time of a criminal complaint or indictment until the defendant is sentenced and placed in jail or found not guilty (Minnesota Office of the Reviser of Statutes, 2009).

The speedy trial statute for the state of Nevada allows that the state shall have a trial within 60 days following arraignment. The state does, however, have exceptions. The state may allow for continuances based on a defendant’s request for more time to prepare his or her defense for trial and in such cases when the court is unable to proceed to trial due to time and calendar conflicts. Under certain circumstances, if the case involves a victim under the age of 16, a continuance may not be granted by the state (Nevada Revised Statutes, 2007).

Sources:

Minnesota’s Office of the Reviser of Statutes. (2009). Criminal Trials; Timing Objectives for Case Disposition. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?view=info

Nevada Revised Statutes. (2007). Right of State to trial within 60 days after arraignment; exceptions. Retrieved November 7, 2009, from http://search.leg.state.nv.us/

Deliberations Begin in Burnsville Murder Trial

After 8 days of hearing testimony from both the defense and prosecutors deliberations by the jury have begun in the Tina San Roman murder trial. 19-year-old Taylor Pass is being charged with second degree murder as well as attempting to kill 24-year old Odai Al-Refo, roommate of San Roman who was 35 (Powell, 2009).

According to authorities, Pass stabbed San Roman in the garage, who then called for help. Al-Refo came to her aid and was also hurt in the altercation. The 911 recordings indicate the nature of the crime as San Roman is heard saying "Help me, I'm dying." after receiving a 4-inch stab wound to the chest (Powell, 2009).

The defense argued that Pass was not the murderer but rather Al-Refo was the one responsible, and to cover up his actions, proceeded to stab himself. Prosecution lawyer Lawrence Clark argued "She's not asking for help from somebody who has stabbed her, she's asking for help from somebody in a similar situation" (Powell, 2009). The tapes also confirmed this as San Roman is heard crying out to Al-Refo.

The defense also claimed that police wrongfully accused Pass, since once arriving on the scene they immediately arrested him and named him the culprit before examining the DNA as well as the crime scene. The defense stated that "police probed the wrong man and didn't collect evidence, didn't get it all tested properly, and didn't share all of the lab results they did get with prosecutors or the defense until the trial was more than half over" (Powell, 2009).

San Roman was found inside the home on the staircase, and it is believed she was trying to reach her 9-year-old son, Brendon Kulyas. San Roman would die from her wounds a week later in the hospital, while Al-Refo would make a full recovery and move to North Carolina. Kulyas was unharmed that night.

The defense also pointed to a grey hoodie that was found bloodstained in the garage claiming "there were unknown wearers DNA found on the grey hoodie, along with a cap in the garage. That cap was black with orange flames on the sides and on the bill, and it had the word Sniper in large white lettering on the front. Those items had both the blood of San Roman and Al-Refo on them, but also touch DNA from two or three more wearers" (Powell, 2009).

According to video surveillance taken from Shooters Billiards on Hwy. 13, Pass can be seen wearing both the hoodie and hat in question, thus negating the claims by the defense. The prosecution called for "jurors to consider what the defense claimed that Al-Refo had concocted this story, and that he cut himself was ridiculous.
As invoking a phantom suspect and urged the jury to not speculate nor go on a wild expedition" (Powell, 2009).


Taylor Pass
Photo credit: Dakota County Sheriff

Powell, J. (2009, November 4). Jury Deliberates in Burnsville Murder Trial. Minnesota StarTribune. Retrieved November 8, 2009, from http://www.startribune.com/local/south/69127562.html?page=1&c=y