Mentally Ill in Amityville 2nd Ed (book): On Sale NOW

MIA (2nd Edition) ON SALE NOW. It will be available through over 200 online book retailers, including Amazon and Barnes & Noble (as well as in four different countries).

MIA (2nd Edition) includes new insight, new details, and new interviews. This book is the most in-depth look at the story that has remained an international phenomenon.

ISBN-13: 978-0615639376

ISBN-10: 0615639372

Kindle Book Available Now $5.99

On November 13, 1974 the quiet village of Amityville was rocked by the murders of six members of the DeFeo family at 112 Ocean Ave. The only surviving member of this tragic ordeal was Ronald DeFeo Jr., who was later charged and convicted to six-life-sentences.

Still, the evidence shows that Ronnie "Butch" DeFeo could not have killed all six of his family members by himself, while they lay sleeping in their beds. Thirteen months later, the Lutz family moved into the lavish Dutch Colonial home and moved out mysteriously after just 28-days with only the clothes on their backs, claiming that the house was haunted; they would never return! Then came a media frenzy and with the release of Jay Anson's runaway best selling book, "The Amityville Horror," which was later transformed into a blockbuster movie, the story became an international phenomenon.

What really happened at 112 Ocean Avenue in Amityville? Mentally Ill in Amityville 2nd Edition (MIA), is the true story of the events as they occurred, with exclusive interviews and official documents of these dramatic events. MIA 2nd Edition is a must read for anyone who wants to know the complete story behind the most famous haunted house in the world.

The Exclusionary Rule & the Bill of Rights

The exclusionary rule is a legal principle in the United States, under constitutional law, which holds that evidence collected or analyzed in violation of the defendant's constitutional rights is inadmissible for a criminal prosecution in a court of law.

“Nothing can destroy a government more quickly than its failure to observe its own laws” Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961). That was Justice Clark’s sententious response, back in 1961, to those seeking to uphold the decision in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949), that the exclusionary rule did not apply to state court jurisdictions. Evidence gathered by police without a warrant is in direct violation of the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and is therefore inadmissible.

The Court comes to this conclusion based on the historical context and or historical evolution of constitutionality of this rule; and the Court believes that these prior precedents on the issue best represent the original contextual meaning set forth in the Constitution, regardless of its brevity on the matter.

In regard to the Bill of Rights: the pithiness of the text, as not to fully consider or detail whether or not this should have applied both to the states as well as to the federal government shows that framers of the Constitution were unable to foresee such conflict on the matter between the federal government and the states. It is hard to imagine that the framers would have not included text for the incorporation of the Bill of Rights if they had a chance to witness the imminent conflict. The argument for the exclusionary rule is made from the original text of the Constitution within the Fourth Amendment. It wasn’t until 1833, however, that the Supreme Court confronted the argument that a state government had violated one of the provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Barron v. Mayor of Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833), set the precedent on whether or not the United States Bill of Rights could be applied to state governments. John Barron, co-owned a profitable wharf in the Baltimore harbor, sued the city for economic loss occasioned by the city’s diversion of streams, which lowered the water level around the wharfs. Chief Justice John Marshal wrote for the majority, concluding that the first ten amendments restrained only the federal government, thus requiring Americans to look to state constitutions for civil liberty and political liberty protections.

It wasn’t until 1868 that the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified; thus, again bringing up the issue of the application of the Bill of Rights to the States. The particularly language that is applicable to incorporation within the Fourteenth Amendment comes in the Due Process Clause, which prohibits state and local governments from depriving persons of life, liberty, or property without certain steps being taken to ensure fairness, and the Equal Protection Clause requires each state to provide equal protection under the law to all people within its jurisdiction.

In Hurtado v. California, 110 U.S. 516 (1884), the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment was a limit on state power. The case that set forth the exclusionary rule was Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383 (1914). In Weeks the Court held that evidence (betting slips) could not be used because there was no warrant obtained by federal marshals to search the premises. The ruling, however, did not apply to state and local police, since the Bill of Rights was not applicable to state jurisdiction. In Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Court ruled that the Fourteenth Amendment had extended the reach of certain provisions of the First Amendment. With the Gitlow decision, Barron began to lose some of its authoritative status for the first time.

Meanwhile, the exclusionary rule came up again in Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U.S. 25 (1949). In Wolf, the Supreme Court ruled specifically that the exclusionary rule did not apply to state court jurisdictions. The consideration in Wolf was whether or not the Fourth Amendment search and seizure protection was incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause, thereby making it applicable to state as well as the federal government. Writing for the majority, Justice Felix Frankfurter argued that protection from arbitrary intrusion by law enforcement is implied in the “concept of ordered liberty” and is thereby applicable to the states; however, he rejected the claim that illegally or unconstitutionally obtained evidence had to be excluded in state criminal proceedings. The opinion put forth by Justice Frankfurter was puzzling and frankly contradictory.

In Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U.S. 643 (1961), the Supreme Court held that the exclusionary rule was now applicable to state courts when local police violated the rules governing searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment. In Mapp, Justice Thomas C. Clark gave pragmatic reasoning for extending the Weeks decision to the states. Justice Clark argued that without applying the Weeks decision to the states the Fourth Amendment would be dramatically reduced. Justice Clark also clarified that it is the “law that sets the criminal free,” not the authorities. It was one year later that the Selective Incorporation Doctrine (1962) was formally signed, making the first ten amendments to the Constitution—known as the Bill of Rights—binding on the states.

No doubt it was the forming of such groups as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and the Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), among other things, that spurred on such a dramatic change in the Supreme Court’s opinion. Other big contributing factors have to be seen as police misconduct complaints and statistics. These changes were necessary, both for the profession and for the preservation of civil liberties. Many of these types of laws are a work in progress (trial and error), and thankfully the Constitution (i.e. the framers) left such a broadly interpretive text in order to do so, with the changing of the times and ever-evolving social views.

Using Impression Evidence to get a Conviction

Impression evidence can be an important part of any criminal investigation. This type of evidence is created anytime one object or material that can be manipulated with force is pressed against another object, allowing the objects to transfer and retain characteristics from one another. Impression evidence is used by investigators to examine and compare the impressions and characteristics of a suspect, or characteristics of something a suspect owns or was in possession of at the time of the crime, in an attempt to identify common distinctive details in order to get a match; thereby linking a suspect to the crime. There has always been some speculation as to the onus that should be put on impression evidence to get a conviction when it is the primary evidence against. The question then remains, is impression evidence, alone,—particularly palm prints, lip prints, and bite marks—sufficient enough evidence to sustain a conviction?

There have been several cases involving the three said types of impression evidence (as the only real evidence against) over the years that have been overturned. Ray Krone, once branded the “snaggletooth killer,” was released from the Arizona State Prison in 2002 after DNA cleared him of the killing of Phoenix cocktail waitress, Kim Ancona, back in 1991. A bite mark on the victim’s breast (and the testimony of Dr. Raymond Rawson, the State’s dental expert) was basically the only evidence that convicted Krone of the murder. But later DNA analysis found that the true identity of the killer was a man already incarcerated on another unrelated offense.

In 1997 Lavelle L. Davis was convicted of shooting to death Patrick Ferguson in Illinois in 1993. The evidence that led to the conviction of Davis centered largely on a lip print recovered from the scene that a forensic examiner testified linked Davis to the scene. Davis finally got an appeal hearing in 2006; and there judge, Timothy Q. Sheldon, reversed the conviction, noting that lip prints were not and had never been an accepted means of identification. Prosecutors dropped all charges against Davis in 2009.

Back in 2004, Brandon Mayfield, an Oregon attorney and Muslim convert, was held as a material witness in the Madrid train bombing of 11 March 2004, “a terrorist attack in which 191 people were killed.” Mayfield was picked up after a latent palm print (attributed to him by FBI senior fingerprint examiner, Terry Green) was lifted off of a bag that was recovered in Madrid containing detonators and explosives. They held Mayfield despite his claims that he had not left the U.S. in almost ten years and did not even own a passport. A few weeks later the FBI retracted the identification and issued an apology to Mayfield. Police now believe that the prints belong to Daoud Ouhnane, who is still a fugitive, and that he was the mastermind and chief coordinator of the attack in Madrid.

These three cases show the importance of not rushing to judgment when it comes to impression evidence, as well as not putting too much onus on this type of evidence without more corroborating physical evidence. There are, unfortunately, many more cases like these to draw from. When it comes to these three types of evidence; there have been no peer-reviewed studies, no systems of classification, and no means of individualization developed. The use and study of impression evidence should not be completely undermined here, however. Investigators still must have an awareness of print transfer basics, as impression evidence has aided in the conviction of many criminals who actually committed the crimes. They also aid in the formulation (or investigator reenactment) of the crime, helping investigators build a better picture of what happened and helping them know where to search next.

CSI: Collecting Evidence at a Homicide

Even those naive to the inner workings of a crime scene investigation know that the collection, preservation, and analysis of evidence can all be the difference between a conviction and an acquittal. Tantamount to this is the fact that all of these evidentiary factors can also mean the difference between convicting a guilty person and convicting an innocent person. Crime scene investigating is an amalgamation of science, logic, and law. Although physical evidence is only part of the equation—with the ultimate goal being to convict the guilty party(s) of the crime—it does deserve special attention and training in and of itself in order to ensure the evidence is effectively used to help solve the crime.

At this particular crime scene (hypothetical crime scene), the investigation involves four key pieces of physical evidence that must be accounted for: dried blood, a handgun, shell casings, and hairs. When collecting these pieces of evidence, the investigator must follow strict protocol to ensure the preservation of such evidence.

Dried Blood


Dried blood will show up at just about every crime scene involving murder. There are several protocols used by investigators to ensure that this evidence gets to the lab with as little harm done to it as possible. If the dried blood is on clothing, for instance, it should be wrapped in clean paper, placed in a brown paper bag or box, sealed and labeled; the investigator should not attempt to remove the stain(s) from the cloth. If, by chance, the dried blood is on a small solid objects; the investigator should send the whole stained object to the Laboratory, after labeling and packaging it.

If the blood happens to be on large solid objects; the investigator should cover the stained area with clean paper and seal the edges down with tape to prevent loss or contamination. If it is not practical to transport the entire object to the lab, the blood stain should be scraped onto a clean piece of paper that can be folded and placed in an envelope. It should not be scraped directly into evidence envelope; rather, it should be scraped from objects using a freshly washed and dried knife or similar tool. The investigator should take precaution by washing and drying the tool before each stain is scraped off, before sealing and marking the envelope. Dried blood stains should not be mixed, but rather they should each be placed in a separate envelope, and they should never be wiped from an object using a moist cloth or paper.

Using various testing methods at the lab, such as the restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) process or the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) process, blood can be examined and amplified in order to determine the genetic profile of the individual who left it behind.

Handgun


Ballistic evidence can lend a lot to an investigation, answering questions such as what type of gun was used, how many shots were fired, and even where the shooter was positioned when firing in relation to the victim. The most obvious rule of collecting a gun from a crime scene is to never submit a loaded gun to the lab unless it is delivered in person. Unfired cartridges should be left in the magazine of a weapon, provided the magazine is removed from the gun—a firearm with the cartridge in the chamber should never be shipped by any method, even if the weapon is not cocked or on safety.

The serial number should be recorded as well as should be the make, model, and caliber of the weapon, and it should be marked in some inconspicuous manner so it does not detract from its value before sending it to the Laboratory. Weapons should be placed in strong cardboard or wooden boxes and be well packed to prevent shifting of guns in transit. Also, rifles or shotguns should not be taken apart on the scene; this should be left to ballistics experts. If blood or any other material, which may pertain to an investigation, is present on the gun, the gun should be wrapped in clean paper and sealed with tape to prevent movement of the gun and loss of the sample during shipment.

Investigators should never clean the bore, chamber, or cylinder before submitting a firearm, and never attempt to fire the gun before it is examined in the lab. A handgun should be picked up with gloved hands (with index finger and thumb) on an area of the weapon that is unlikely to produce useful fingerprints, such as by the curvature around the trigger. A submerged weapon should be sealed in a plastic container while still under water.

Shell Casings


Shell casings can tell investigators several things about how the crime took place. Shell casings can also tell investigators what caliber, brand, and model of the gun used, as well as if the marks on the casings may show that the gun is involved in other investigations. Casings should be wrapped and sealed in separate labeled pill boxes or envelopes.

Striation marks (or microscopic scratches) inside of the barrel of the gun transfer onto the bullets when they are fired. These marks are unique to each barrel, which allows forensic investigators to identify a weapon from the bullets fired from it. A lack of shell casings at a scene could mean that the shooting took place elsewhere, the weapon didn’t eject the spent shells, or the shooter took the time to clean them before leaving.

The gun can also be fired back at the lab by ballistic experts in order to determine if the bullets found at the scene came from the gun in question and how close the gun was fired from. Firearm and tool mark examinations (called “ballistic fingerprinting”) is also done by ballistic experts.

Hairs


Hair left at the crime scene can also be a valuable piece of evidence in an investigation. Along from the many things that it can reveal, it can sometimes reveal the possible race of the individual from whom it came and the part of the body from which it originated. All hair should be recovered from a scene. Hair should be collected using gloved fingers or tweezers, placed in paper bindles or coin envelopes, folded and sealed in larger envelopes, and then labeled on the outer sealed envelope.

If hair is attached, such as in dry blood, or caught in metal or a crack of glass, the investigator should not attempt to remove it, but should rather leave the hair together with the object. If the object is small, it should be marked, wrapped, and sealed into an envelope. If the object is large, the area containing the hair should be wrapped in paper to prevent loss of hairs during shipment. In the lab, human hair can be compared to determine whether or not two samples could have had a common origin.

17-Yr-Old Black Shot: Perpetuating Fears of Ongoing Racial Injustice

It has only been a few weeks since 17-year-old Trayvon Martin, a Florida high school student who was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a self-appointed neighborhood watch captain. Many are outraged that no charges have been filed yet against Zimmerman. It began on 26 February 2012, when Trayvon Martin was found shot and killed, in Sanford, Fla., a community north of Orlando. Several eyewitnesses report to police that they heard a scuffle, then a cry for help, and then a gunshot.

According to the Sanford police report, George Zimmerman, 28, is found armed with a handgun, standing over Martin. Zimmerman has a bloody nose and a wound in the back of his head. Martin is unresponsive and pronounced dead at the scene. He has no weapons on him, only a pack of Skittles and a bottle of iced tea. Zimmerman tells police he killed Martin in self defense. Taking him at his word, police do not arrest him, nor administer a drug or alcohol test. They also did not run a background check.

On 9 March 2012, Martin’s family demanded that police release the 911 tapes or make an arrest, but police refuse to comment at that time. On 12 March 2012, ABC News uncovered questionable police conduct in the investigation, including the alleged “correction” of at least one eyewitness’ account. After an outpouring of support for Martin, many calling for Zimmerman's head, spearheaded by the family’s change.org petition entitled “Prosecute the killer of our son;” word spread quickly, with 250,000 signatures, and at one point signatures were pouring in at the rate of 10,000 an hour.

Once the case gained national attention, Sanford police department finally released the 911 tape (featured below) and were forced to admit to ABC News that investigators missed a possible “racist remark” by Zimmerman as he spoke to police dispatchers moments before the killing.


The 911 call displayed a bizarre, troubled sounding Zimmerman calling 911 to report a suspicious looking black kid wearing a “hoodie” and looking as if he is “up to no good.” Zimmerman was in his car and Martin was on foot. Zimmerman was staring at Martin and probably made him nervous, so Martin began staring back. Martin then walked closer to Zimmerman’s vehicle, no doubt trying to get a look at the man who was eyeing him.

The 911 operator explains to Zimmerman that an officer is on the way. Zimmerman then says, “These assholes, they always get away.” Zimmerman, an aspiring police officer, has just made a remark that can only mean that he has already assumed that Martin is a criminal, by using the words “these assholes,” or he was referring to “these assholes” as blacks; one can only assume which one he meant, but it was one of the two.

Then Martin began running away, as any 17-yr-old would probably have done if a stranger was stalking them from their car. It is here that Zimmerman says, “Fucking [expletive], he’s running away” (Believed to be “fucking coons,” the racial slur that was alluded to by police). Zimmerman then starts to follow/pursue Martin, clearly lowering the tone of his voice as he searches for him, as the sounds of wind slamming against the phone are heard. The 911 operator hears this as well and asks, “Are you following him?” Zimmerman replies “yea,” and the operator urges him not to. “Ok, we don’t need you to do that,” the operator says somewhat adamantly. Zimmerman says, “ok,” but clearly still follows Martin. Minutes later Zimmerman shot Martin in the chest and he died on the scene.

Aside from the fact that Zimmerman clearly took the law into his own hands and became a vigilante killer of an unarmed 17-yr-old half his size, police really dropped the ball here as did Seminole State Attorney, Norm Wolfinger. It is ludicrous for the Sanford police to say that they did not have probable cause to arrest George Zimmerman. Probable cause to arrest only requires that there be a possibility that a crime was committed based on known facts—and clearly when it comes to murder, police are normally much more stringent.

George Zimmerman should have been arrested and charged with second degree murder or manslaughter, and if he believes that it was self-defense he could raise that at the trial. In any event, Zimmerman remains in hiding and no charges have been filed against him as of yet. The Daily Beast reported that between Jan 1, 2011, and the night he shot Trayvon Martin, Zimmerman called 911 close to 50 times to report suspicious activity.

Today the New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense is calling for a militia of 5,000 black volunteers to help capture George Zimmerman. “George Zimmerman was not a police officer he was a community volunteer,” said Mikhail Muhammad, Southern Regional Director of the New Black Panther Party. The black political organization has begun posting flyers calling for Zimmerman’s capture “dead or alive” and is offering a reward of $10,000 to the person who captures him. The party not only blames Zimmerman for the black teen’s death, but is also attributing the responsibility to Sanford Police and Prosecutor Angela Corey. “It’s time for us as black men to take justice in our own hands,” said Muhammad just outside the neighborhood where Martin was gunned down. “You kill mine god-damn it I got to kill yours” said Muhammad.

Meanwhile, Dwayne Wade of the Miami Heat (NBA basketball team) wrote a tribute to Martin on his sneakers before a recent game. Wade said that his kids wear “hoodies”as well, and feared that something like this could easily happen to them, and he wanted to pay tribute to Martin and his family.

In a NY Daily News Poll, readers were asked if they believe Trayvon Martin would have been killed if he were white. Poll results from today show that 57% believe that if Trayvon were white the shooter wouldn’t have even bothered him, 22% think that the shooter wasn’t fixated on race, he was just trigger-happy, and 21% say they don’t know, but they believe that there is no denying that race played a factor in the shooting.

Part 2

Crime: Biological or Environmental?

When it comes to theories in a given discipline—in this case criminal justice—it is always best to use an interdisciplinary approach; that is, to take a piece of each theory to help solve the questions of causation. Both biological and societal traits are causes of crime. Perhaps the most misunderstood and misinterpreted of the two is biological. The problem with many biological theories of crime is that the results are bias and discriminatory, primarily against minorities. The problem with much of the results of these biological theories as they have some strengths, but more weaknesses—and prove to be very rigid in their approach. In protest of simply using one theoretical approach to crime—biological in particular—Nicole Hahn Rafter, criminologist at North Western University, stated, “…an issue as complex as criminality should not be oversimplified.” Moreover, many of the studies done that helped shape the core of these biological theories have come under much scrutiny as to their validity.

For instance, trying to prove such theories, many researchers have focused their attention on studying twins to see if there is any genetic basis for criminal behavior. Most of these studies consist of separating the twins, putting each in a different environment and studying their similarities when it comes to criminal behavior. Most of the results of these studies showed that there is a high degree of heritability involved in criminality. In his book, Gene Illusion, Clinical Psychiatrist, Dr. Jay Joseph, challenges these findings. Dr. Joseph argued that the separation of these twins was “questionable,” and that most of the twins studied did in fact grow up together in early childhood. He also stated that the researchers failed to share the raw data and the overall information of the twins studied. Additionally, Dr. Joseph concluded that researcher bias had influenced results, which included bias sampling of twins that were more similar.

Other biological factors of crime are much harder to argue against, and most surely contribute to criminal behavior. After all, there are many biological traits shared by those who are more violent. Most of these shared traits are in the brain, and many scientists and scholars are focusing more on neurological studies to help answer these questions. Frontal lobe damage has been correlated with inappropriate behavior and disinhibition, while temporal lobe damage is linked to irritability and aggression. Even the courts have accepted such results. In order for an insanity defense to be accepted, the defendant must have a mental disease or defect that causes him not to know the nature and quality or the wrongfulness of his act.


The labeling theory is a very legitimate criminal justice theory because environmental causes of crime are the most accurate indicators. It is through interaction with others that individuals learn values and behaviors that lead to or thwart crime; hence the differential association theory. Social and political unrest is also a big contributor to crime in a region, which is the basis for the neutralization theory. Inadequacies in social structures, such as the unfair redistribution of wealth and the imbalance of opportunity, are drivers of criminal behavior. This is a postulate of the strain theory or the social disorganization theory. Again, one of these theories alone would not give a researcher the complete picture of crime causation. There are also several other environmental crime causation theories; but it is only with a multiple-theory approach that one can gain the understanding and knowledge needed to explain the complexities of crime causation.

The cultural deviance theory is true in one sense, but it stems from a racist and inferiority complex, and it remains poised to demean and hold inferior those who it identifies—i.e. the lower class. When people reference institutionalized racism; it is a theory such as this that they are referring to. This theory suggests that lower class cultures have their own set of goals and values that differ from other groups. This is a given and true only because of environmental circumstances, not biological, as it infers. It is this inference that makes it a discriminatory theory. Certainly those with less—be it money, food, or other resources—will strive for different goals, and thus retain different values. For instance, well-known psychologist, Abraham Maslow, explained human motivations in his hierarchy of needs theory. This five-level theory of needs proposes that people will only focus on the level of needs facing them. If an individual can not obtain food or water—which are the most basic of needs (level 1)—than they will not hold other needs—such as safety—as valuable as they would if they had food or water.

So, of course the cultural deviance theory is correct in its assumptions; but it is correct only because of the environmental constraints placed upon those in the lower classes and their neighborhoods. If we hold Maslow’s theory as a valid one; we must then look at the causes of what the goals of these lower class cultures are, as opposed to the upper classes, and they determine why their goals are different. If we do so, we see that their goals are more basic in nature, as upper class criticizes are closer to self-actualization (Maslow’s 5th level); thus changing the whole perspective on why the goals of both groups are so different.


Let’s look at one of the influences identified in the cultural deviance theory: urban lower-class areas produce subcultures that are responsible for the rise of crime. This is hard to argue, as the statistics speak for themselves, showing that this is true. The question is: why? Is this a biological circumstance or an environmental one?

Urban lower-class areas are very poor areas that do not receive the funding as do other areas. This has a negative effect on schools, hospitals, businesses, and just about everything else in the area. The level of poverty in these areas is worsened by the high number of people living in such a small area. The effect of cramming so many into as small area causes neighbors not to know each other; hence causing a disassociation or dehumanizing characteristic that breads crime—such as what occurred during industrialization period, circa 1790. This is a great example of the social disorganization theory (SDT) in action.

In fact, the SDT was developed in the 1920s and 1930s by the University of Chicago and the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago due to their studies of urban crime. Moreover, what they found was that the inner city neighborhoods in which they were researching maintained high rates of delinquency over decades, even though the racial and ethnic makeup of the population in those areas underwent substantial change. These “zones in transition (as described in the early SDT research),” which was changing from residential to commercial, are where the highest rates of delinquency were found. The Chicago sociologists conducting the studies emphasized that residents in this area were not biologically or psychologically abnormal.


Urban street gangs grew (and continue to grow) as a direct result of such conditions. There are three main reasons why kids join gangs: despair, poverty, and peer pressure
In conditions of poverty, where despair is a direct result, people see a gang as a way to band together with those who have a similar interest—making money. Most of these children do not see a way to make money legitimately; they do not feel like they have the opportunity to make enough money to do more than just survive pay-check to pay-check. They see gang life as a way to make more money than they ever could working a legal job. This includes selling drugs, committing thefts, and so on. Many of these children come from broken families, and gangs can fill that void by making members feel like family. It is this type of institutionalized racism that the labeling theory is referring to when proponents of the theory speak of the “self-fulfilling prophecy” and “stereotyping” associated with such labels. This type of labeling aids in the despair of inner-city youths and makes them feel as if they are bad eggs because they are seen as such, even before they commit crimes.

Gang violence is rampant in the United States. A federal report says that gang related violence in the U.S. is responsible for up to 80 percent of all crime in the country. An FBI Agent recently spoke to this increase in gang violence, saying “They evolve and adapt; they know what law enforcement is doing; word of mouth spreads quickly.” In an ever-changing world, this may be, in large part, because of the internet and gang usage and coordination. Another big reason for this is that many of these gangs are getting their drugs directly from foreign sources. This is no doubt a result of the growing drug trade via the Mexican drug cartels. Another big part of the problem is how long it takes for additional gang-prevention-funding to be allocated where necessary. In 2008, Seattle finally approved $500,000 in gang-prevention funding, but it took them a while to allocate the money due to governmental bureaucracy. While money for prevention is slow to be allocated, gangs in the area have surely made five0times that much money in the meantime. This raises another problem; that the money spent to fight these problems is far less than the money made by these gangs.

This problem is clearly one described by both theories. While there is no denying that urban lower-class areas produce subcultures that are responsible for the rise of crime, the reason for such—rise included—has to do, in part, with labeling and the way that these areas are perceived, from the outside as well as from the inside. Of the many theories that can be used to describe rising gang rates in these areas, the social factors, such as the broken window theory, that come to mind.

In 2008, the Human Services Department of Seattle wrote an 87-page report detailing the rise of gang violence in their city. One of the findings of the report was that “Nearly 80 percent of youths surveyed reported having a friend in a gang; while more than 50 percent said they had a relative who was a gang member.” With these kinds of numbers of association; it is clear that these problems are environmental in nature, and it is as they say, “People are a product of their environment.”

Two Landmark Cases: Plessy & Miranda

There have been several controversial and antiquated Supreme Court decisions throughout the history of the United States proving that the U.S. Constitution is an interpretive document that can have polarizing views. Many of the Supreme Court’s decisions, however, have seemed to embody the true spirit of the Constitution and still hold true relevance in society today, which protect those against possible injustices from authority despite being controversial at their inception. Two cases that speak volumes for such points are Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896) and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966).

Plessy v. Ferguson



Homer Plessy was known at the time as an “octoroon,” which is an unflattering term for a person who is partially Black. During a highly volatile time in the racial history of America—when Jim Crow laws were being passed and Whites sought to establish control over state governments and race relations—a group of New Orleans Creoles and Blacks organized themselves as the Citizens’ Committee to Test the Constitutionality of the Separate Car Law. Plessy agreed to initiate the challenge on behalf of the group and he purchased a ticket for a journey entirely within the state of Louisiana.

Although he looked as though he was primarily White, Plessy was classified under the Louisiana code as being “colored” because he was one-eighth Black. Plessy made sure that he let the railroad and the conductor know in advance that he was Black, and he was later arrested when he refused to move to the “colored only” section of the couch. Plessy argued that the statute was unconstitutional under the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution, but the Louisiana courts rejected his arguments; so he sought review from the Supreme Court.

The Fuller Court upheld the decision of the lower court by a 7 to 1 vote. Justice Henry Billings Brown wrote for the majority opinion. Brown reasoned that the law did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause because it provided separate-but-equal (SBE) facilities. Likewise, Brown wrote that the Thirteenth Amendment “applied only to actions whose purpose was to reintroduce slavery itself.” Brown added that separate facilities “do not necessarily imply the inferiority of either race to the other.”

Justice Marshal Harlan was the lone dissenter, which earned him the nickname “The Great Dissenter.” In his dissent, Harlan wrote the famous words “our Constitution is color-blind and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Harlan also warned his colleagues that their decision was as insidious as the earlier Dred Scott decision.

Miranda v. Arizona



Ernesto A. Miranda was a twenty-three-year-old man who was arrested at his home on suspicion of robbery. After being identified by the victim of a rape-kidnapping at a police station in Phoenix, Arizona, Miranda was taken into the interrogation room and questioned about the crimes. Miranda maintained his innocence at first, but after two hours of interrogation he confessed—both in a written and verbal confession—to robbery and rape. Miranda was later convicted of kidnapping and rape, as his written was used as evidence against him.

The case was contested and appealed to the Supreme Court over whether or not Miranda had been told that anything that he said could be used against him or whether or not he had been informed of his right to an attorney during the interrogation. The first was unclear, but police made a fatal (to the prosecution’s case) declaration that Miranda was at no time advised of his right to have an attorney present during the interrogation. Miranda’s lawyers argued that their client’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and the Sixth Amendment right to an attorney were violated by the coercive interrogation and the Warren Court agreed—but by a close margin of 5 to 4.

Writing for the majority, Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “due to the coercive nature of the custodial interrogation by police, no confession could be admissible under the Fifth or Sixth Amendments unless a suspect had been made aware of his or her rights,” upon becoming a suspect, and then the suspect had then waived them voluntarily. In decent, Justice Byron White wrote that the court’s decision had no “factual or textual bases” in the Constitution, and he added that there were no prior legal precedents to base the court’s decision on either. And has his grandfather did in the Plessy case, Justice John Marshall Harlan II was a staunch dissenter, writing that “nothing in the letter or the spirit of the Constitution or in the precedents squares with the heavy-handed and one-sided action that is so precipitously taken by the Court in the name of fulfilling its constitutional responsibilities.”

Miranda’s conviction was overturned, but he was later retried and convicted on the same charges (both) without evidence obtained in from his confession. The prosecution used the testimony of Miranda’s common-law wife, who claimed that during a prison visit Miranda confessed to her that he had rapped the victim. Miranda was later paroled in 1972 and stabbed to death in a bar fight in 1976.


Influencing Factors & Political Climate

The political climate during Plessy v. Ferguson was one very similar to today’s climate in America. There was a widespread economic depression set off by The Panic of 1893, and realigning elections were taking place in which the GOP (Republicans) became prominent and monetary policies of each candidate became the dominant theme in their electoral campaigns. America was not far removed from its Civil War and the Spanish-American War spurred from events in Cuba starting in 1895.

The Civil War was a very pivotal time in America history, particularly in the shaping of race relations. The fact that the Civil War was not far removed from the Plessy decision, and that social and political views still somewhat favored the thought that Blacks were inferior to Whites, there is no doubt that political ideologies played a part in the decision. Seven to one in favor of SBE speaks volumes about the time period and many White peoples’ view of Blacks in America.

In regard to the Constitution and the philosophical underpinnings of the decision; Brown has a legitimate argument when it comes to the Thirteenth Amendment. There is no basis to contest this decision based on this Amendment, because it does not violate it or the spirit of the Amendment. Justice Harlan argues that the Thirteenth Amendment infers to all “badges of servitude,” suggesting that SBE is within that. This is, however, a hard case to make from this standpoint. Servitude (or a condition in which one lacks liberty) does not include SBE, because by the letter of the law under the separate-but-equal doctrine Blacks were entitled to receive the same public services and accommodations as were Whites. This was clearly not how it worked in practice; however, as facilities for Blacks were more often than not inferior to facilities for Whites.

It is also hard to make a legal argument against SBE under the Fourteenth Amendment as well. Justice Harlan tried to by attacking the decision based on the spirit of the Constitution and that SBE was in violation of this by tolerating the division of classes among citizens. Still, however, it is hard to make this legal argument within the text. For the time being, it had seemed as though those who were hell-bent on segregation had found a loop-hole in the Constitution that allowed them to sidestep this unethical and immoral practice by using heavily ingrained legal precedents.

A moral and ethical interpretation of this situation did not come for some years later. In Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954), the court began to repeal such restrictive laws when they concluded that “in the field of public education, the doctrine of ‘separate but equal’ has no place because separate educational facilities are inherently unequal.” So, it can be said that, in this particular case, the law was restricted to and shaped primarily by the philosophical underpinnings of political ideologies as well as the changing philosophy of society and the social uprising of the civil rights movement—more so than by the actual text in the Constitution.

The political climate during Miranda v. Arizona was clearly more modern in terms of thinking. However, the country was going through tremendous changes in the 1960s (politically, socially, and economically). Activism was in full swill and at the epicenter of the Civil Rights Movement and the Vietnam War. The 1960s saw a big rise in drug activity in America and a growing anti-establishment, rebellious subculture led by rock n roll and the hippie movement.

The Miranda decision was the most famous, and most bitterly criticized, confession case in the nation’s history. To those who opposed the decision, it was as though it symbolized the legal system’s determination to treat even the most despicable criminal suspects with dignity and respect, particularly those who attributed rising crime rates to lenient judges and softening laws that protected criminals more than law abiding citizens. However, the reality of this decision would come to serve all citizens of the justice system, and speaks to the underlying criminal justice philosophy of how the justice system is meant to operate.

Given the widely held view that police interrogations were largely invisible to the public; the philosophical underpinnings of the Miranda decision was that it helped even the average citizen from being taken advantage of by an already powerful police nation. The 1966 ruling was further enhanced and defined in later cases as well as was the philosophy behind it. In Michigan v. Tucker (1974), the court viewed the Miranda warnings as “not themselves rights protected by the Constitution,” but only “prophylactic standards” designed to “safeguard” the privilege against self-incrimination. Later still, in New York v. Quarles (1984), the court recognized the Miranda warnings as a “public safety” exception.

The Miranda decision was brought about to reinforce the Fifth and Sixth Amendments and ensure that the citizens were not being taken advantage of by police and the system in general for not understanding their options in such a pivotal situation. Dissenters to the ruling ultimately believed that the ruling would have a drastic effect and that once suspects were warned of their inalienable rights that they would almost always demand an attorney and deny police the ability to seek confessions. This flawed, and even dubious, philosophy suggests that most people do not know their rights and, therefore, the government will be better served by keeping a majority of its citizens ignorant. Moreover, it suggests that police are incapable of developing techniques to overcome such an obstacle as have educated suspects.

Both the Fuller Court and the Warren Court have viewed the Constitution very similarly, in retrospect. Both courts seem to have been bound by the social and political ideologies of their times, respectively. Certainly, the fact that the Warren Court came long after the Fuller Court, and the fact that time allows for an adjustment of thinking (corrective thinking) based on trial and error and things unseen at the time, plays a big part in each decision. Perhaps the biggest difference in the decisions was that the Fuller Court appeared to be viewing the Constitution with a more bias or prejudicial view, whereas the Warren Court appeared to be struggling more with the actual intention of the law rather than with trying to enforce their preferential beliefs onto the words in the Constitution.