Blog
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
50 Founders Plaza
East Hartford, CT 06108
There are a variety of techniques that criminal investigators and prosecutors may use to identify suspects and attempt to prove their guilt. While these techniques are referred to as "forensic science," they are often very unscientific. Unfortunately, far too many criminal convictions are based on "junk science" that does not hold up to scrutiny and does not accurately prove that a person committed a crime. Bite mark analysis is one of the most thoroughly debunked forms of flawed forensic science, but some people who were wrongfully convicted based on this type of evidence are still struggling to protect their rights and receive fair treatment in the criminal justice system.
The idea behind bite mark evidence may seem sound: if people have unique dental patterns, then it should be possible to identify a perpetrator based on the impressions left behind by their teeth on a victim's body. However, analysis of bite marks is unreliable due to multiple issues:
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives Americans the right to keep and bear arms. While there have been debates over the extent of this right, it generally allows people to possess and use firearms, as long as they do so within the bounds of the law. However, even though organizations such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) have fought to expand gun rights and prevent the government from limiting people's ability to own and carry firearms, they have failed to address one specific area in which these rights may not apply. People who have used certain types of drugs or who have allegedly committed drug crimes may be prohibited from possessing firearms, and this is an ongoing area of concern for many criminal defendants.
While the NRA has sought to prevent restrictions on the ownership of guns by most people, it has notably failed to address prohibitions on firearm possession by people who have used drugs. Federal laws state that people who are "unlawful drug users" or who are addicted to controlled substances are prohibited from possessing or receiving firearms or ammunition. While this law has been on the books since 1968, it was updated by the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act of 2022, which extended the prison sentence a person could face for committing this offense from 10 to 15 years.
Criminal justice reform has become a focal point in contemporary American society, with a growing consensus that the system is in dire need of an overhaul. At the heart of this conversation lies a pressing issue impacting the lives of thousands of individuals who were convicted of crimes at a young age and subsequently saddled with lengthy prison sentences. With advancements in neuroscience research shedding light on the cognitive development of adolescents and the role this can play in criminal behavior, there is a mounting call to re-examine sentences for youthful offenders and explore alternative paths toward rehabilitation.
In many cases, young people who are convicted of crimes face harsh sentences that limit the possibility of rehabilitation and prevent them from being able to be released and re-integrate into society. In recognition of the fact that young people's brains are still developing, which can limit their ability to understand the consequences of their actions, advocates are seeking to place limits on sentences for youthful offenders, such as by prohibiting life sentences without the possibility of parole for people under a certain age. They are also advocating for laws that allow sentences to be reviewed after a certain period of time to determine whether parole or other options may be available.
Mass incarceration is a major concern that has affected our criminal justice system. The United States has the highest rate of incarceration in the world, and over two million people are currently serving prison sentences. More than 50 percent of the people in American prisons are serving sentences of 10 years or more, and one out of every seven people who are incarcerated have been sentenced to life in prison. As part of their ongoing calls for criminal justice reform, advocates have stated that prison reform measures should be put in place, including a 20-year cap on sentences, reduced sentences for all criminal offenses, and other reforms that would reduce the prison population and improve rehabilitation rates.
Recently, multiple organizations that advocate for criminal justice reform have released reports detailing the benefits of reducing prison sentences and outlining changes that would benefit communities in the United States. A report by the Sentencing Project noted that mass incarceration has not improved safety or living conditions for people in the U.S., but has instead increased inequality and caused significant problems for many families. One out of every 14 children under the age of 14 have a parent who has been incarcerated, and this can affect parents' ability to provide for their children and ensure that they are raised in a safe and healthy environment. People with lower incomes and minorities are disproportionately affected by these issues, with Black children being twice as likely as white children to have a parent who is in prison.
There are numerous situations where people may face criminal charges due to stalking or harassment. Due to the ever-increasing use of digital technology and social media, many of these cases involve claims that a person posted messages online that caused others to fear for their safety. These cases sometimes involve issues that are difficult to resolve, since people may claim that they are exercising their right to free speech. The ways these matters are addressed can differ depending on state laws, and whether messages may be considered harassment is not always clear. However, the Supreme Court may soon offer some clarity on this issue, as it is scheduled to hear a case involving online harassment.
The case in question, Counterman v. Colorado, involved a man who was convicted under a Colorado law that prohibits sending repeated communication to a person in a manner that would cause them to experience emotional distress. The defendant in this case was accused of stalking a singer-songwriter over a period of several years. Even after being blocked repeatedly, he created new social media accounts and continued to communicate with the alleged victim, with many messages seeming to convey threats. The defendant was convicted of stalking and sentenced to 4.5 years in prison.
Over the past decade, the use of marijuana has become more and more accepted throughout the United States. Several states, including Connecticut, have made marijuana legal for both recreational use and medical purposes. However, marijuana is still considered to be an illegal controlled substance at the federal level. Because of this, the possession or use of marijuana can affect certain types of criminal cases. For example, federal law states that it is illegal for a person to possess a firearm if they are addicted to drugs or if they are an "unlawful user" of controlled substances. While this has led some marijuana users to face weapons charges, a federal judge recently ruled that this law is unconstitutional.
In the case of United States of America v. Jared Michael Harrison, an Oklahoma man was pulled over by a police officer, and during the traffic stop, the officer noticed the smell of marijuana in the vehicle. When the man's vehicle was searched, officers found a loaded handgun and several marijuana products, including joints, THC gummies, and vape cartridges. The man was charged with possession of marijuana and marijuana paraphernalia, and he also was indicted on federal charges for possessing a firearm as an unlawful user of marijuana.
Data privacy is an issue that has become increasingly important in recent years. As people have become more aware of the types of information collected by companies such as cell phone providers, social media platforms, and government organizations, laws are beginning to be put in place to ensure that sensitive information can be protected. As more attention is being paid to how technology firms and other companies use people's data, the ways this type of information is accessed and used by law enforcement have also received greater scrutiny. However, many people are unaware of what types of data police officers or other law enforcement officials can access and how this information may be used in criminal cases.
There are numerous ways that police officers may use data collected from multiple sources to investigate crimes. In some cases, searches involving data may be performed as police investigate a particular suspect or review information related to a specific event. However, they may often conduct much broader and more sweeping investigations, collecting and storing personal information and other data that could potentially be used to prosecute future crimes.
Based on how it is portrayed in TV and movies, forensic science can seem infallible. Police officers on TV shows seem to use amazing technology and deductive skills to determine exactly how a crime occurred, identify suspects, and prosecute those who are guilty. However, these fictional depictions of criminal investigations are very different from how cases are handled in the real world. In reality, forensic science is often unreliable, and in many cases, police must rely on guesswork, or they may approach a case with biases and use forensic investigation methods to confirm their suspicions. Far too often, “junk science” is used during the criminal prosecution of suspects, and evidence may be accepted as incontrovertible proof of guilt without questioning its flaws.
There are a variety of investigation methods used by police officers, and in some cases, supposed "experts" will encourage the use of certain techniques that are questionable and unreliable. In many cases, these methods will be based on the subjective interpretations of investigators and oversimplifications of complex factors. "Experts" often have limited evidence or scientific research to support their claims, yet they will portray their methods as conclusive, without acknowledging the possibility of errors.
The criminal justice system in the United States is meant to be fair, ensuring that those who are accused of crimes can defend themselves and that those who are convicted of crimes will be sentenced appropriately. However, there are many injustices in this system, and defendants often struggle to protect their rights and ensure that they are treated fairly. One issue that has recently received attention is the fact that people who are convicted of crimes may sometimes face longer sentences based on offenses that a jury determined they were not guilty of committing. This practice is known as “acquitted-conduct sentencing,” and it may soon be addressed by the U.S. Supreme Court.
In many cases, people who are involved in criminal cases will face multiple charges. When a person is convicted on some charges but acquitted on others, they should only be sentenced based on the charges they were actually convicted for. However, in many cases, judges consider other factors that may warrant an increased sentence, including offenses that a person was acquitted of. This means that even when a person is acquitted of a crime, they may face a sentence similar to what they would have received if they had been convicted of that offense.
Recently, people throughout the United States were shocked by a school shooting that took place in Virginia. The incident occurred when a six-year-old child brought a gun to school and shot and wounded his teacher. This case has raised questions about whether the child could potentially face criminal charges, and this has in turn led to an examination of the laws that determine when children can face criminal prosecution.
Most countries have laws that set a minimum age at which a person can be prosecuted on criminal charges. The average age of criminal responsibility is 14, and most countries also prohibit prosecutors from pursuing charges against children under the age of 7. However, the United States has no federal law that sets a minimum age for criminal prosecution. These issues are addressed at the state level, and currently, 24 states, including Virginia have no minimum age of criminal responsibility. Other states have set minimum ages for prosecution ranging from 7 to 13 years old.
50 Founders Plaza
