It is perfectly fine for John Kitzhaber to have an opinion about the death penalty. However, it is not okay for him to go against the people he is representing. If the people of Oregon are in support of the death penalty, the death penalty should be carried out. No questions asked.

As a whole, Oregon has been on the fence about the issue concerning the death penalty over the years. Voters have outlawed and legalized capital punishment twice. The State Supreme Court has even “struck it down once.” However in 1984, Oregon legalized the death penalty with a 56-44 vote.

Since the legalization of the death penalty in 1984, two executions have been made. Kitzhaber said he should have never allowed Douglas Wright and Harry Moore to be executed in 1996 and 1997. It is not his responsibility to allow or prevent executions. A judge and/or jury are responsible for those decisions. Kitzhaber has described the death penalty system in Oregon as “an expensive and unworkable system that fails to meet basic standards of justice.”

Since this recent ban on the death penalty, Kitzhaber has preventing the upcoming death sentence for   Gary Haugen who was scheduled to be executed later this month. Haugen is a twice convicted murderer and has spoken directly of his opposition to this ban. He hired a legal team to express concern that “leaving an inmate uncertain of his execution is psychological torture.” Maybe this argument will prove to be effective and allow the death sentence to be carried out.

John Kitzhaber’s moral opposition and duty as a physician to “do no harm” are not legitimate reasons for him to ban the death penalty. According to the vote in 1984, Oregon wants to utilize capital punishment. Personal beliefs aside, the wishes of these people should be carried out. Kitzhaber stated his duties as a physician, what about his duty as governor to represent the wishes of the people of Oregon?

The post Oregon Governor Bans Death Penalty appeared first on Crime Museum.

Shirley Ree Smith was sentenced to 15 years to life in prison in December 1997 for the murder of her 7-week-old grandson. In 2006, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned her conviction by stating the case was a “miscarriage of justice.”

In November 2011, the Supreme Court Justices voted 6-3 to reverse the ruling in favor of Smith and to reinstate her conviction. Although the high court agreed that the doubts of Smith’s guilt are “understandable,” they believe the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals should have upheld the state’s conviction.

These “understandable” doubts about the guilt of Shirley Ree Smith are the result of an ongoing controversy about the existence of Shaken Baby Syndrome (SBS). SBS is a phrase used to describe child abuse involving head trauma that could be the result of shaking. The three main symptoms of SBS include subdural hemorrhage, retinal hemorrhage, and brain swelling or damage. These symptoms are believed to be caused by an adult holding a child by their body and shaking them rigorously back and forth, causing their head to rock as well. This theory is generally accepted due to the lack of evidence of an impact-induced injury.

Those who disregard the existence of SBS believe that shaking alone is not enough to cause such injuries that lead to death. They believe some sort of impact against a surface is necessary to cause this sort of damage. Many people have their own beliefs about the existence of SBS. An autopsy has proven that there was enough damage done to Smith’s grandson to tear his brainstem. Also, there was bleeding into his optic nerves as a result of contusions to the brain. These contusions are the result of “violent shaking.”

As you can see, there is a lot of evidence supporting the existence of SBS especially in the Smith case. However, the Supreme Court did not reinstate her conviction as a matter of opinion concerning her guilt or the existence of SBS. They reinstated her conviction on the basis that it is not their job, nor the job of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, to determine whether the state was correct in their theory about Smith’s guilt. That was the jury’s job.

The post Shaken Baby Conviction Reinstated appeared first on Crime Museum.

The number of cell phones inside prisons has quadrupled over the past three years. Prisoners are under secure monitoring, so how are they getting that many phones past security? These inmates, essentially these criminals, are making unmonitored phone calls while supposedly having their rights restricted while in prison.  

Former New York City Correction Commissioner Martin Horn argues that prison is used as punishment by separating the inmates from society. How does this punish them if they still have access to the outside world through the possession of cell phones? Horn believes these efforts are useless.

Facebook applications such as Farmville might not be the only thing they are working on using their Smartphones. As far as we know, they could be planning the same sorts of crimes for which they were sent to prison. The best example of an inmate continuing the criminal life through prison doors using a cell phone is Anthony Kidd. Kidd arranged the murder of his girlfriend from inside a prison in New Jersey. As technology improves and time passes, criminals get smarter. They think of new ways to get around the security systems the same way they think of other ways to commit crimes.

Since these inmates are getting smarter, how can the prisons keep these cell phones out? The security officials monitor the activities of the inmates to the best of their abilities, but they can’t watch the entire facility every second of the day. There has been talk of employing K-9 units to sniff out the cell phones inside the prisons. The dogs would be able to detect the ionization in the cell phone batteries. This may be effective in recovering some of the phones, but will it be available for use in all prisons?

Even the most watched inmates are finding ways to sneak phones in. Charles Manson had access to a cell phone. This man orchestrated several murders by simply convincing other people to commit them. Imagine what sorts of things he could be working on with this access to unlimited unmonitored calls.

For information on cell phones in prisons in general, go here or here.

The post Prison Cell Phone Usage appeared first on Crime Museum.

This infographic takes you from the exile of poachers in colonial Australia to the prison sentences for Somali pirates a few years ago. You’ll see how the world’s crimes and punishments have changed, yet also stayed the same, throughout the years. Here is a thorough explanation of crime through the ages.

The post Crime Through the Ages appeared first on Crime Museum.

The National Museum of Crime and Punishment wants to say congratulations to America’s Most Wanted for nabbing genuinely hard to catch criminals for 1000 episodes!

Read about a man who pretended to be a police officer

The post Non-Discriminatory Mugging appeared first on Crime Museum.

Read about another senseless crime here

The post Felony Laziness appeared first on Crime Museum.

Read about another senseless crime here

The post In a Jam appeared first on Crime Museum.

The big question today is how reliable bite-mark evidence is.  Bite-mark evidence has been used to convict a number of people, but has, with the advent of DNA, been proven to do so wrongly in a number of cases.  Many cases have surfaced in which people have been convicted of a crime using bite mark evidence and have been exonerated, unfortunately years later, using DNA.  In fact, a 1999 study found a 63% rate of false identification using bite-mark evidence.

Bite-mark analysis works much like shoe impression or fingerprint analysis, both class and individual characters are examined in order to make a positive ID.  The class characteristics for bite-marks, which narrow down evidence as belonging to a small group, include size, shape, and bite of the teeth. Individualizing characteristics of bite-marks, accidental traits that make the bite-mark impression unique to one person, include fractures, wear, and congenital malformations of teeth as left behind in the bite-mark impression.  So why is bite-mark evidence proving to be so unreliable?

Bite-mark evidence is mainly at issue when it involves the human skin.  Most of the problems come from some of the basic characteristics of skin.  Skin shifts when it is bitten, skin also stretches in different ways when a person is in different positions, so if the victim was moving and the skin was shifting during the bite incident how accurate of a pattern can the bite-mark leave behind for comparison?  Another factor that can influence the bite-mark and its examination is time.  One must consider how much time elapsed between the infliction of the bite-mark and when it is to be examined for comparison.   The natural healing and bruising process changes the skin and the wound over time, changing the pattern as it heals.

Given these uncertainties, many agree that bite-mark evidence, particularly on skin, is mainly helpful in excluding suspects but should not be used as an individualizing tool.   Everyone one agrees that the most important tool for examining a bite-mark is a DNA test. The saliva from a bite-mark, more than anything else, can be used to make a positive match to a suspect.

The post Bite-mark Evidence appeared first on Crime Museum.

Read about another senseless crime here

The post That Must Be Some Good Pizza! appeared first on Crime Museum.

Read about another senseless crime here

The post Stick to Your Day Job appeared first on Crime Museum.