Rape Statistics (last updated August 31, 2002) (back to top)
Rapes have become less common since the 1970s, as the number of rapes combined per 10,000 people aged 10 and older has fallen from 25 in 1973 to 6 in 2000, according to national surveys conducted by the Department of Justice's Bureau of Justice Statistics. This statistic includes reported and unreported instances, thus accounting for the high number of sexual assaults that go unreported (an estimated 64 percent in 1994).
However, while this statistic does show a general decline, the annual rate of rapes does differ dramatically for women and for men. In 1994, 46 out of every 10,000 women aged 12 or older were victimized by rape or sexual assault, compared to only 5 out of every 10,000 similarly aged men.
Most rapes and sexual assaults -- whether the victim is a woman or man -- generally are committed by someone known to the victim (about two-thirds of instances).
As for where rapes and sexual assaults are most likely to occur, that depends on whether the rape or sexual assault was committed by an acquaintance or a stranger. Rapes and sexual assaults committed by acquaintances are most likely to occur in the victim's home (45.5 percent of the time) or in the home of a friend, relative or neighbor (27.2 percent).
By contrast, rapes and sexual assaults committed by strangers do not occur primarily in one location, but in a variety of locations. They occur on the street away from the victim's home (19.5 percent), in the victim's home (12.6 percent), in the home of a friend, relative or neighbor (10.9 percent), in a parking lot or garage (8.9 percent), or in other locations.
Sources: Overall rape incidence data from 1973 to 2000 is taken from the National Crime Victimization Survey, compiled here. Rape incidence data from 1994 is taken from Violence Against Women: Estimates from the Redesigned Survey, which is written by Ronet Bachman and Linda E. Saltzman, published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, and is on-line here. Data on where rapes are most likely to occur is taken from Criminal Victimization in the United States, 1994, a report which was published by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and is on-line here.
Chain of Custody (last updated August 31, 2002) (back to top)
* In "Employee of the Month," the 3rd-season episode in which Dr. Melfi was raped, police detained the man who attacked and raped her but then let him go, supposedly because of a failure to establish a good chain of custody.
Evidence cannot be used at trial unless there are sufficient assurances that the evidence really is what the party introducing it says it is. Because of this authentication requirement, police must maintain a strict "chain of custody" for all useful evidence. If challenged, they must be able to show how evidence was brought from the crime to the trial, and that there was no tampering or substitution of the evidence somewhere in that sequence.
However, this requirement is not absolute; a complete and precise chain of custody is not necessarily required, and a missing link is permissible as long as there is sufficient proof that the evidence is what it seems to be and has not been altered in any material way. Courts have admitted evidence even when efforts to preserve the relevant chain of custody were "inexcusably lax," "weak," and "less than might have been desired."
Even when there is a large enough break in the chain of custody, that simply means that the physical evidence would be inadmissible at trial. Other evidence, such as witnesses' statements and testimony, would still be admissible.
Here, even disregarding all physical evidence taken from the assailant (such as Dr. Melfi's Palm Pilot, which was found on the assailant when he was arrested), it is unclear why the police would have had to give up the case entirely or let the assailant go, especially so early on in the process. Dr. Melfi could still have identified her assailant, and the doctors who treated her could still have testified about the injuries they saw and about whether they confirmed that she had been raped. And even if there really was a chain of custody problem, a prosecutor could have still used the evidence until the defense successfully challenged it, if the case even lasted that long.
Sources: Paul C. Giannelli, Chain of Custody and the Handling of Real Evidence, 20 American Criminal Law Review 527 (1983). Christopher B. Mueller and Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Evidence Under the Rules (Little, Brown and Company, 1996) (3rd edition).
Panic Disorder (last updated August 31, 2002) (back to top)
Tony Soprano reportedly has panic disorder, a specific kind of mental disorder. About 1.7 percent of American adults (about 2.4 million people) has panic disorder in a given year, according to the National Institute of Mental Health, with women about twice as likely as men to develop this particular kind of anxiety disorder. An estimated 22.1 percent of American adults (about 44.3 million people) suffer from some kind of diagnosable mental disorder in any given year.
The exact cause of panic disorder is unknown, but heredity, other biological factors, and stressful life events are believed to play a role. Panic disorder is characterized by episodes of intense fear accompanied by physical symptoms including chest pain, heart palpitations, shortness of breath, and dizziness.
Treatment for panic disorder can involve cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) that can teach people to anticipate and prepare for situations that trigger panic attacks; this kind of treatment generally requires 8 to 12 weeks (not years), but some people do take longer to learn the coping skills and to put them into practice. Treatment can also involve the prescription of medications (such as antidepressants and benzodiazepines) to alter the way chemicals interact in the brain.
Sources: The National Institute of Mental Health has general information and statistics on mental disorders on-line here. NIMH information specifically about panic disorder is on-line here and on treatment here.
Wiretapping (last updated June 9, 2002) (back to top)
The vast majority of wiretapping and communications-intercepting operations target people allegedly involved in narcotics-related crimes. In 2001, 78 percent of the court orders authorizing intercept operations involved narcotics-related crimes as the most serious offense, a dramatic increase in both number and share since the early 1990s.
After narcotics, intercept operations targeted gambling and racketeering crimes. Only a small handful (less than 5 percent) of the orders in 2001 involved homicide or assault crimes.
Except in emergency situations, federal and state law-enforcement must get prior approval from a judge before conducting a wiretap operation. Under federal law, a judge may authorize an order if he or she determines there is probable cause for believing that:
- The target of a wiretap operation committed or is about to commit a crime,
- Communications concerning that crime will be obtained as a result of a wiretap, and
- "Normal investigative procedures have been tried and have failed or reasonably appear to be unlikely to succeed if tried or to be dangerous."
In May 2002, Attorney General John Ashcroft revised the Department of Justice's operational guidelines to make wiretapping more readily available as an investigative tool. The new guidelines do not change the legal requirements for getting authorization to conduct a wiretapping operation, but reduce the internal DOJ approvals previously required before applying to a court. Accordingly, agents can seek court approval more quickly and with less oversight from superiors.
In announcing these revised guidelines, Ashcroft said that they would help law-enforcement combat terrorism more efficiently and effectively. The American Civil Liberties Union, among others, criticized this argument because the revised guidelines effect operations beyond terrorism and because wiretaps are used primarily in non-terrorism situations.
If granted, a court order authorizing a wiretap operation lasts no more than 30 days, though orders can be extended. After the expiration of the order and any extensions, recordings must be presented to the judge and within 90 days, the judge must provide notice to the targeted parties about the court order and whether communications were intercepted. If the targeted parties make a motion, a judge may in his discretion provide parts of the intercepted communications "as the judge determines to be in the interest of justice."
In 2001, the most active federal intercept operation was in the Central District of California, where a 27-day investigation of copyright infringement resulted in average of 660 interceptions a day. As for state operations, the most active was 43-day narcotics investigation in Lubbock County, Texas, in which 338 intercepts a day. Wiretaps were used in 2001 primarily in the Central District of California, the Northern District of Illinois (which includes Chicago), and the Western District of Texas.
As of early 2002, seven states do not authorize state law-enforcement to use wiretaps. These states are Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, South Carolina, and Vermont.
If a wiretapping or intercept operation commences without a warrant, it could violate the Fourth Amendment. Under the 1967 case of Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, the government violates the Fourth Amendment whenever it transgresses a citizen's substantive manifestation of a privacy interest and when the privacy interest is one legitimately accepted by society.
The government does not need a warrant when it listens to a two-party conversation with the consent of one of the parties. It also does not need a warrant to get a list of the telephone numbers you call, as you voluntarily convey that information yourself to the telephone company and thus do not necessarily expect to keep those numbers private.
Sources: The Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts makes annual reports on the wiretaps authorized by the federal and state courts, and the reports are available on-line here; the graph is based on information in Tables 3 and 7 of the 2001 report. Federal law concerning wiretap and intercept operations is codified in Chapter 119 of Title 18 of the US Code, which is available via Findlaw.com here. The Attorney General's new guidelines for the "lawful, warrantless monitoring of verbal communications" is available via the DOJ's Office of Legal Policy, on-line here. Attorney General John Ashcroft's May 30 speech announcing them is on-line here. The ACLU's May 30 press release criticizing the new FBI guidelines is on-line here. Stephen A. Saltzburg and Daniel J. Capra, American Criminal Procedure (West Publishing, 5th edition, 1996).
RICO (last updated February 2001) (back to top)
Watch enough television shows and movies about organized crime, especially the Sopranos, and you will hear federal prosecutors refer to RICO law. What is this RICO law anyway?
RICO, which stands for the "Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations" aspects of the federal criminal code, is the federal government's biggest weapon against just about any kind of criminal organization, whether it be a few low-level punks or the Mob.
Originally designed to prevent the infiltration of legitimate businesses by organized crime (through money laundering or investment), RICO was written broadly enough to target any kind of ongoing criminal organization.
According to the federal statutes, RICO can be applied to anyone who is involved in the "operation or management" of a "pattern of racketeering activity" designed to acquire or maintain an interest in an "enterprise." Because federal courts have interpreted an enterprise to be not just legal, legitimate entities, but any kind of group of individuals, even a Mob, it means that RICO can go after any group of criminals, no matter how small, who commit related crimes to help themselves continue doing so.
And that means RICO can go after much more than just the Mob.
Sure, RICO has been used to prosecute the heads of New York's "Five Families" for running the Mafia. But it has also been used to prosecute Croatian terrorists for bombings and extortion, members of the Black Liberation Army for a series of bank robberies, some New York City politicians for corrupting the awarding of contracts by the Parking Violations Bureau, and the recently-pardoned international commodities trader Marc Rich for his schemes to evade federal energy regulations and avoid paying taxes.
RICO is a very powerful statute, much more powerful and far-reaching than originally thought. It gives the federal government new weapons to fight organized crime. With RICO, the federal government can:
- seize a defendant's interest in legitimate enterprises and the proceeds from his/her involvement in a criminal enterprise. The federal government does not need to even wait for a conviction; it can file for forfeiture as soon as an indictment is filed, and thus cut off a defendant from a lot of his/her money early on, perhaps even hurting his/her ability to hire defense lawyers,
- expand traditional conspiracy law by merging multiple defendants into one prosecution, thus increasing the odds that lower-level people who might otherwise not be worth prosecuting individually will turn on their leaders in order to avoid conviction,
- get jurisdiction over crimes like murder that previously could be handled only at the state level,
- extend the statute of limitations by having it run only when the enterprise is completed,
- get evidence of other crimes into the trial, thus sidestepping traditional rules ensuring that a defendant is put on trial only for the specific crimes charged, and
- eliminate venue and jurisdiction problems that would prevent the joint prosecution of crimes committed in different states.
Some people have criticized RICO for giving federal prosecutors so much discretionary power and for being so expansive that it impinges on federalism issues. But it also gives the federal government the flexibility to prosecute cases which would otherwise be too diffuse and disjointed to bring individually. In any event, RICO is a very powerful weapon for the federal government.
Sources: Professor Gerard Lynch's seminal articles on RICO in the May and June 1987 issues of the Columbia Law Review.
Ecstasy and Club Drugs (last updated August 29, 2002) (back to top)
Ecstasy is the most popular of several illegal drugs that are commonly available at nightclubs and raves. Penalties related to Ecstasy-trafficking were increased in 2001, although deaths related to Ecstasy and other such club drugs are considered rare.
Originally developed by a German company in the 1910s as a weight suppressant, Ecstasy (scientifically known as 3,4-Methylenedioxymethamphetamine, or MDMA) has stimulant and hallucinogenic effects in humans. It reportedly reduces inhibitions, eliminates anxiety, and suppresses the need to eat, drink or sleep.
MDMA use is heaviest among youths and young adults, and its prevalence is increasing, according to studies measuring drug use in the United States. About 9.7 percent of 18-25-year-olds surveyed in 2000 had used Ecstasy once in their lifetimes, according to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. While Ecstasy use is growing among youths, the following graph shows that it is still less prevalent among high-school seniors than marijuana.
Deaths relating to club drugs are considered rare, according to a December 2000 study published by an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services. The number of club-drug related deaths reported to the Drug Abuse Warning Network was small, with medical examiners participating in DAWN reporting a total of 27 deaths from 1994 to 1998 involving Ecstasy.
Nevertheless, Ecstasy is often used in conjunction with other drugs, including alcohol, and has been mentioned more frequently during emergency-room visits over the course of the late 1990s.
Ecstasy is a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which means that the federal government has determined that Ecstasy cannot be used or prescribed except under specific federal exemptions. Possession and use of Ecstasy thus carries some criminal and civil penalties. Trafficking of Ecstasy can result in criminal sentences, now made more severe due to the Ecstasy Anti-Proliferation Act of 2000. Under regulations enacted on November 1, 2001, the maximum sentence for trafficking 800 Ecstasy pills was increased from 15 months to five years, and for trafficking 8,000 pills from 41 months to 10 years.
Ecstasy tablets are manufactured most often in Western European countries, particularly the Netherlands and Belgium, and are brought into the United States through organized-crime organizations. The Drug Enforcement Administration and the U.S. Customs Service has seized increasingly greater amounts of Ecstasy tablets imported from Europe. In 2000, the DEA seized more than 3 million Ecstasy tablets, and Customs officials seized 9.3 million tablets, with both agencies seizing far more that year than in previous years.
Besides Ecstasy, other commonly used club drugs include LSD, GHB, ketamine, methamphetamine, and Rohypnol.
Sources: The Drug Enforcement Administration's Drug Intelligence Brief on club drugs (September 2001) is on-line here. The Drug Abuse Warning Network report on club drugs from December 2000, published by the Department of Health and Human Services' SAMHSA agency, is on-line here. The White House Office of Drug Policy has information on-line about hereclub drugs and here. The U.S. Sentencing Commission's explanation of its amendments to the sentencing guidelines regarding MDMA trafficking was published in May 2001 and is on-line here. Trend statistics for marijuana and cocaine use and for substance use by high school seniors are taken from Health, United States, 2001, by the National Center for Health Statistics, available on-line here; Trend Tables 63 and 64).
|
|
|
Home / Calendar
The West Wing
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart
The Colbert Report
Saturday Night Live
Commander in Chief
Law & Order
*
Issues
Resources
Site FAQ
Search via Google
Ripped from the Headlines?
West Wing: Santos discusses a lawsuit about intelligent design
West Wing: Electoral map as of the 10/9 episode; Santos needs to catch up big-time
SNL: The Miers nomination
South Park: Inspired by Katrina
Boston Legal: End to assault-weapons ban
Daily Show: A 2004 study found that 21 percent of young people regularly get their campaign news from comedy shows like the Daily Show with Jon Stewart and Saturday Night Live. So, some footnotes.
NOTE: All photos are copyright their respective owners.
| |
