When Mike McQueary witnessed the rape of a 10-year-old boy, he did not report it to the cops nor did he try and resolve the issue himself (Szalavitz). Instead of using common sense, Mr.McQueary’s mind might have shifted the situation into “interpretive” denial, causing the brain to portray the situation in a different way and with a different meaning behind it (Szalavitz). Sadly, Mr.Queary wasn’t the only one who chose to ignore Jerry Sandusky’s unforgivable actions. A janitor, who was working at Penn State, also failed to report another assault of a child, allowing for endangerment of the kid. Although the charging of Jerry Sandusky is recent, there is an infamous Bystander Effect case that will bring shivers down anyone’s spine. Whenever
In America we believe in the saying “you are innocent until proven guilty” but we the people are remarkably swift to point our fingers at someone we believe that committed the crime. This habit is frequently displayed within our criminal justice system when a crime is committed we quickly assume it has something to do with the first person we can link the crime to. We tend to naturally feel sympathy for the victim therefore; if the individual accuses one for a crime the jury has no reason not to believe the victim. Society does not bother to care if the individual did not do the crime because as long as someone was caught and accused of the wrongdoing, then we the people can proceed on with our lives knowing we punished someone for the crime
On April 19th, 1989, Trisha Meili was the victim of violent assault, rape, and sodomy. The vicious attack left her in a coma for 12 days and The New York Times described it as “one of the most widely publicized crimes of the 1980’s.” The documentary, The Central Park Five, reveals the truth about what happened the night of April 19th, and how the subordinate group of young black boys were wrongly convicted. Analyzing the conflict theory of crime in association to the case of the central park five, understanding the way they were treated based on setting, why it was so easy for the law enforcement to pin the crime on the young black boys, and how wrongly convicting someone has great consequences along with relating it
The number of sexually abused children is five times what it was in 2012. Jerry Sandusky has contributed to this statistic. Jerry Sandusky was the head coach of the Pennsylvania State Football team (Penn. State). He has a wife and a few children, some adopted from his charity organization, the second mile, but this did not stop him from committing the crimes he did. Jerry Sandusky was convicted of raping ten innocent children, some of which he met through his charity. This earned him thirty-sixty years behind bars. There are issues from this case that are similar to some issues in the play, Twelve Angry Men. Ultimately, throughout both cases the jury was faced with difficult decisions. In both cases the verdict took a long time and a lot of thinking. But, in the end both came out with the right resolution. Sandusky’s reputation of being the guy everyone looked up to made the overall decision of the jury, in this case, inordinately difficult.
Brott, A. (2010). A System Out of Control: The Epidemic of False Allegations of Child Abuse. Retrieved from http://www.fathersmanifesto.net/armin.htm
While searching for the location of the identified suspect, APLE workers witnesses the individual leading four young boys into a forest. However, by the time police arrived on scene, the suspect had disappeared into the trees. The four boys were subsequently taken to the police station for questioning, upon which three boys admitted to experiencing sexual abuse at the hands of the suspect. With testimony from the three boys, an arrest of the Montreal man was ordered.
In 1959, two young African American boys, James Hanover (9) and David “Fuzzy” Simpson (7) were charged with molestation of a young white girl. The case is known as “The Kissing Case”, a case that has been much forgotten and to some even unheard. While there were many issues within the case, the main factor that changed the young boys’ lives forever was the simple fact that they were innocent. Some of the problems in this case are issues that are judicial system still seem unfit to get right in many cases.
... so is sacrificial to one’s rights, it puts them in an undesirable position where they may be harmed as well, and success at being an upstander is not guaranteed. Perpetrators tyrannize those who are unable to stand up for themselves; like how predators seek out the vulnerable preys. Hence, instead of having bystanders to stand up for the victim, the victim should stand up for him/herself. In addition, unlike what Lehrman believes, bystanders are not the most dangerous to the victim; the perpetrator is. Saying that bystanders are the most dangerous is is like saying that if one witnesses something, then he/she is a criminal. Consequently, saying that bystanders should stand up for victims against perpetrators is illogical and naive. Concisely, it is not another’s responsibility to ensure one’s safety and wellness; instead, it is one’s responsibility to do so.
The human resources and marketing areas for Penn State University must have been a nightmare following the Sandusky scandal. Everything the university had worked for could have been completely dismantled after such accusations of an employee. Every department of the university would need to be looked at to determine if any other issues needed to be address. It would be hard not to examine every department within the university after the top leaders were involved in covering up the issues with Sandusky. Individuals would likely put every action of the university under a microscope following such accusations.
It was a cold, damp morning, around three A.M., when the call came out. It seems there had been a rape and beating of a small child, about six years old. The detectives were called in from their homes, where they had been sleeping. The officers were tired, groggy, and mad as hell at what had happened to the little girl. This is an awful tragedy that occurs all too often. Stories, like the one I just described, are played out weekly on the television show Law and Order S.V.U., where actors, playing Detectives Benson and Stabler, are the ones answering such calls. Let’s take some time and compare this television show to every day life and see how close it comes to reality.
Debated as one of the most misrepresented cases in American legal history, Dr. Jeffrey MacDonald still fights for innocence. Contrary to infallible evidence, prosecution intentionally withheld crucial information aiding MacDonald’s alibi. Such ratification included proof of an outside attack that would have played a major role in Jeffrey’s case.
al. (2014) noted that law enforcement agencies should fully educate officers about the widespread crime of rape by providing training about its incidence and prevalence, highlight the low estimate of false rape claims, and work to develop a culture of sensitivity toward rape victims. Sensitivity toward rape victims could impact outcomes as according to Venema (2014) “factors that influence police officer definitions of sexual assault may affect police perceptions of victim credibility.” As, “analyzed sexual assault cases that were closed or withdrawn found that historically pervasive attitudes of mistrust in women’s testimony continues to be evident” (p. 876). The lack of sensitivity some argue may come from an organizational culture rather than police officer’s attitudes. It can also impact evidence collection in a sexual assault case. Research by Menaker, Campbell, & Wells (2017) noted that investigators perceptions of a sexual assault forensic kit depended on the victim’s credibility. Menaker, Campbell, & Wells (2017) recommended additional research on police discretion in evaluating victim credibility could inform efforts to develop training for victim
Man charged with the rape of 31 women in New York! Ever caught the headline of a crime that occurred and wondered how a person could possibly commit such a heinous act against another person? This is the job of a criminologist. To study crimes, criminals, victims, environmental and social factors, etc. in order to come up with theories and reasons as to why people commit acts against others (Brotherton). Criminology is not a new concept, but it is an evolving one. For this reason many theories have derived from sociologist and psychologist as to why crimes are committed, who commits them, and other the factors that played a role. Take for instance the crime rape. Rape is an unwanted sexual act performed upon another individual by force, deception or while under the influence of a substance. While most rape victims are known to be women, this crime has been expanded to include rape against a man or a person of the same sex. Rape is not an easy concept to deal with, nor is dealing with a rapist. For the purpose of this paper, rape will be explained by three theories, biological, psychological and rational choice theory, all of which criminologist have deemed are fitting of the crime.
As you wind down from a long day at the office, you turn on the six o’clock news. The opening story lays out a gruesome attempt to murder, maim, and terrorize children in a city you have never before heard of. Instantly, you are thinking that this must be a review for a soon to be released blockbuster movie. In your mind, nothing like this would ever happen in our civilized world; however, headlines they are. You picture the perpetrators as horrid, evil-minded monsters. What kind of person could commit such a crime against innocent children? As you listen further, your eyes open wide, your heart skips a beat, and you gasp in shock as you discover that these evil-minded monsters you had just envisioned are nothing more than pimple-faced, hormone driven teenagers. Yes, teenagers. As you begin to really absorb the impact of such a crime, you realize that the teenagers that committed this crime are not much older than your own children. Suddenly, you have the uncontrollable urge to find your children and hide them from the world. You ask yourself, “What is wrong with society? What would cause a child to kill anther child? Where were their parents? How could this have happened?” Then, you try to convince yourself that this could never happen in your community.
On August 20th, 1989 Lyle and Erik Menendez killed their parents inside their Beverly Hills home with fifteen shot gun blasts after years of alleged “sexual, psychological, and corporal abuse” (Berns 25). According to the author of “Murder as Therapy”, “The defense has done a marvelous job of assisting the brothers in playing up their victim roles” (Goldman 1). Because there was so much evidence piled up against the brothers, the defense team was forced to play to the jurors’ emotions if they wanted a chance at an acquittal. Prosecutor Pamela Bozanich was forced to concede that “Jose and Kitty obviously had terrific flaws-most people do in the course of reminding jurors that the case was about murder, not child abuse” (Adler 103). Bozanich “cast the details of abuse as cool, calculated lies” (Smolowe 48)...
Assigning blame has become an increasingly difficult and complex concept to understand, especially in our legal court system. I associate blame with being held responsible for the consequences of one’s intentional actions. In regards to sexual assault cases, I think the blame should not be placed on the victims, but rather on the perpetrators. Victim blaming justifies the perpetrator’s actions, discourages sexual assault reportings, and can have psychological effects on the victim.