Domestic violence and an alligator

Leave a reply

Recently a Nevada County man was arrested for a domestic violence charge and also for having a five food alligator without a permit. It sounds too crazy to believe, but it is actually a true story. Police were alerted to the house by the man’s fiancee who called in regarding a domestic violence issue. Apparently the gator owner had consumed illegal drugs, and became very abusive with his bride to be.

The Sheriff’s department arrived on the scene and found the gator in a garage on the property, where the gator was allowed to roam free and kept cool in a child size above ground swimming pool. Authorities think that the man has kept the alligator in the garage for its entire life, probably around six years. What is even more upsetting is that the man and his fiancee have a child living in the home. Therefore, he was also appropriately charged with child endangerment.

An added twist to the story, which actually comes as no surprise, is that the defendant had a stockpile of ammunition and guns in the home. One of the weapons found was actually a machine gun. Clearly this guy was up to no good and posed a threat not only to his own family, but to neighbors and the community as a whole.

Whenever something like this occurs, it begs to question why someone would put themselves in a possible encounter with police knowing that they had several things to hide. Plain and simply, the answer is that drugs are responsible for this man’s crazy actions and menacing behavior. We have to assume that he has been using drugs for some time, and this is probably not the first domestic violence situation he has created in his home. Unfortunately for him, it’s likely the first time the fiancee took steps to get law enforcement involved. At least now the home is safe for the children since dad and all his dangerous toys are gone.

For all of those out there who have not been involved in a domestic violence matter, you should know it is a very serious issue. It can have severe traumatic effects on the victim, and is likely to put the aggressor behind bars for years to come. Both parties in a domestic violence situation (and their children) should seek counseling to alleviate the psychological strain and to correct the issues causing the problems. If you are arrested for this type of crime and believe you were unjustly charged, contact a Sacramento domestic violence lawyer to help you explain your case and weigh your options. It’s always best to have professional help in a serious situation such as this.

Understanding the theories of punishment in criminal sentencing

Leave a reply

We all have at some point had a run in with the law. Whether it was just a traffic ticket or an actual arrest for a crime, we received some sort of punishment that the state thought was just. Maybe you represented yourself before or judge, or were lucky enough to have a criminal defense lawyer assisting you. Either way, it seems that we all get something in the end when it comes to paying for our so called crimes. This article will look at the traditional theories behind why punishment is imposed and what purpose it serves.

In the most general sense, punishment in criminal law is intended to persuade people to do socially acceptable acts, and dissuade them from doing acts that harm others, or which are simply undesirable in some way. In a weird twist of events, we punish those who do things considered bad, yet we don’t really show appreciation for those citizens who lead lives which are free from criminal activity. Another way of looking at it is that people are often expected to do good things, but we don’t actually punish people for not doing good things, so it would be unjust to reward those who choose to assume the role of a hero or compassionate helper.

Either way, we have some general ideas about why punishment might be good for society, and may be necessary under some circumstances. One thought is that imposing punishment on some individuals serves as a preventative measure to dissuade others from following suit. This theory relies on deterrence as a basis for controlling the actions of people in society. Underlying the theory of deterrence is the idea that if we make life unpleasant for the criminal, he or she is unlikely to commit further acts which would inflict future suffering on themselves. The purpose is really twofold as we also hope others in society will see the suffering that the criminal has experienced and will thus decide to live a crime free life to avoid joining him.

A second theory suggests that he purpose of punishment should be to provide “restraint.” In essence, this suggests that the criminal is a person incapable of controlling his or her behavior and needs an authority figure to oversee his/her personal actions. This requires putting the person in a controlled environment such as prison which restrains physical movement and leaves little opportunity to act in a socially rebellious manner which could affect law abiding citizens in society. Isolation from society is believed to achieve this goal as all social interaction is cut off. This theory is somewhat problematic because it assumes that a criminal will always be a criminal and doesn’t give much hope to those who do not routinely engage in criminal activity.

Third we have the theory or rehabilitation which suggests that a punishment should incorporate means for teaching the individual to change his behavior thus giving them a chance at redemption. The idea is that once the individual is treated, he or she will be able to rejoin society as a functioning member of the community. The theory sees the concept of inflicting suffering on an individual as counterproductive as it could backfire and induce the person to further rebel against social norms. There are also problems with this theory as crime victims see it as being too soft on people that have caused them great pain in life and who might not have any true intentions of living an honest, law-abiding life.

Related to the rehabilitation theory, is the theory of education. This theory asserts that the criminal justice process itself serves as an educational opportunity for society as a whole to teach adults and children alike the proper way of living. In a sense, this theory also incorporates the underlying purpose of the deterrence theory. It is a large scale teaching of morality and proper social etiquette. Supposedly, making an example of a few unfortunate souls benefits society as a whole because people learn why they should avoid such behavior.

The most commonly though of theory of punishment is retribution. This theory states that a criminal should be punished simply because they committed an unacceptable act. It is akin to a child receiving a spanking from a parent for doing something bad. The theory holds that there is no other purpose to punishment in the criminal justice system other than to make some one suffer for what they have done. It is almost biblical in a sense and invokes the old adage “an eye for an eye.” This theory is often criticized for its harshness and lack of compassion for troubled human beings. It directly conflicts with the education and rehabilitation theories because it mandates that we hurt someone who may have hurt us, and implies that criminals are incapable of feeling sorry for what they have done, or are unable to learn from their experience.

Regardless of what theory is actually used, it makes sense for us to all re-examine what we want out of the criminal justice system when it comes to its affect on society. It may be easy to subscribe to a theory of retribution, but only when you are not the one receiving it!

Poor Criminals or just poor people?

Leave a reply

These are tragic times we live in. Individuals are battling not on the grounds that they are languid, but do to the fact that brokers and big business interests have carried the economy to the verge of fall, convinced the legislature to safeguard them out, given themselves billions of dollars in rewards, and stolen the homes of millions of Americans who no longer can make a living due to these same acts by corporations. Presently, to add affront to harm, dislodged homeless individuals seem to be designated as street hoodlums.

Being unfortunate has formally turned into otherwise law abiding persons into criminals. Provided that you are genuinely living in the streets, you would do well to not be discovered sitting, resting, wanting cash, or indeed, dallying. As unreal as it might sound, you could wind up in county jail.
In numerous U.S. urban communities business owners and associations have taken up the pitch fork to the homeless, urging police to issue more citations and arrests for supposed egregious wrongdoings like sleeping on the street, standing around aimlessly, asking for assistance with spare change, and urinating in public areas.

I find it bizarre that the wealthiest nation on the planet treats some of our citizens this way. Our ethical compass is formally broken. We have our fabric as a society destroyed. The Boston Globe indicates that the Iraq war has fetched the U.S. nearly $800 billion, not including payouts to veterans. On the other hand what about all the aid given to other countries? Consistent with the Christian Science Monitor, since 1975 the U.S. has sent what added up to over $50 billion to Egypt alone. In the interim, individuals go without proper living conditions here at home. I’m not against sending support abroad, however what should be done with hard up Americans? Does anybody think about that?

It’s a disaster when homeless individuals have no spot to go, and are hassled by neighborhood government and the police for attempting to find drinking water and a clean bathroom. We have starving individuals here people! Neighborhood soup kitchens are closing down everyday because they can’t even get funding for bowls of soup. Nowadays its not unheard of for the average Joe to be employed by two or three businesses and still unable afford the expense of owning a home and buying food for their families. Various urban areas have even passed mandates precluding the act of giving change to panhandlers on public roads and in commercial areas.

Inquiries emerge about the country’s rationality. Do people who pass these laws feel disgrace? Do they feel guilty at all? What’s the next logical step in this downtrend in compassion? Will we imprison the unfortunate in workhouses like the middle ages?

I suppose we are seeing the drastic effects of uncontrolled free enterprise. No kid in America should live without knowing where their next meal will come from, working folks should have the opportunity to provide for their families, and seniors ought to have the right to obtain medicine and suitable living conditions. Any nation that loses sympathy for its unfortunate population is approaching an otherworldly meltdown.

As per a study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, America’s “meanest” urban areas incorporate San Francisco, New York City, Los Angeles, and San Antonio. The study additionally discovered that the amount of statutes against street people is on the ascent, incorporating ticketing and sometimes arrests for silly infractions like jaywalking, littering or displaying an open container of alcohol.

The incompetent governments are reducing funding for programs that assist the unfortunate, causing the shutdown of shelters, and making it a wrongdoing to be homeless. It seems that they believe ignoring the problem will make it go away.

The outcome is an amazing level of imprisonment, the most noteworthy on the planet. Today the same number of Americans  (3.2 million) are in jail as living out on the streets. Ask yourself this: If we can’t come up with a way to help the unfortunate, how is it we can prevent people from becoming homeless in the first place?

We ought to be embarrassed for attempting to stop homelessness by criminalizing it. Each city in the U.S. ought to set aside space for the penniless. Also the national government might as well offer assistance. Why? In light of the fact that its the correct thing to do, it doesn’t make since to let families go without necessities just so that the government can buy arms and fight wars.

How about we begin dealing with our own particular individuals in the first place, then after that we can consider the welfare of different nations.

There is no intelligent excuse for why that anybody may as well go without sustenance and sanctuary in the 21st century. The basic fact that many do shows that we have our nation’s priorities way out of whack.

I’m utterly gobsmacked that Americans have come to be so narrow minded as a people that we need to imagine our homeless population don’t exist by clearing them under the floor covering and sending them somewhere else. In my heart, I know that we are all better than that.