After 30 years as a criminal defense lawyer, I’ve defended everyone you can imagine, charged with every kind of crime you can imagine.  Still, I have to say that sex offenders are in a category all their own when it comes to criminals.

I think the biggest difference comes from the fact that sexual assault is an “intimate” crime–not that the perpetrator wants “intimacy” with the victim as most of us would consider it.  Almost every other crime I can think of–robbery, theft of a car, assault, and even murder doesn’t involve such close contact with the victim.

Sexual assault is really “up close and personal.”  It takes a different type of criminal to commit this kind of crime.

I’m not a psychologist, but in my experience most sex offenders aren’t really turned on by the sexual act.  Instead, it’s the power and dominance they have for a brief time.  Around men, quite often, sex offenders are losers and unable to hang with men in easy relationships.  Most sex offenders I’ve worked with are loners, misfits, or outcasts.  By assaulting women, they “prove” to themselves they are studs and attractive.

One particularly dangerous offender I represented years ago, before his sentencing for several rape convictions, bragged to  the probation officer he’d had sex with 100 women.  That statement showed up in the pre-sentence report to the judge.  At his sentencing, the defendant corrected the report to say he really had sex with over 200 women!!  (If true, I hope they weren’t rapes…)

Almost every sex offender I’ve represented has denied the act and blamed everything on the woman.  Often, they use force.  When the victim fights back, the offender can accuse the woman of “starting it.”  Even after the victims come into court and testify against the offenders and juries find them guilty, many still deny their guilt.

Guys who are “kiddie twiddlers,” who sexually assault children, are the hardest to work with.  The usual reaction I get is, “I know I didn’t do it.”  Then, even after I confront them with evidence through statements of the victims, forensic proof, and other witness’ statements, the offenders still deny everything.

At first, I assumed this was simply the usual human response to deny or minimize our guilt for acts we’ve done.  Now, I realize something more subtle is at work.

These men who assault kids find the act inexcusable, like  normal people do.  They think it’s so horrible that they, the sex offenders, could never possibly have done it because…well, because  “I could never do anything so horrible and gross.”  They block any memory of the act from their conscious minds–which is why they think they’re being honest when they say, “I didn’t do it.”

Any thoughts from you?

The post Defending Sex Offenders appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  For over thirty years there have been laws on the books to pay crime victims.  In the courts it’s called “restitution.”  A victim has the right to receive money from the offender as part of the sentencing process.

2.  Whenever restitution is ordered by the judge, a restitution study is also part of the order.  This study is conducted by a department of the court system.  They contact the crime victim and ask for proof of the loss.  This could be records of valuables taken from a home in a burglary.  It could be the repair estimates for a damaged car.  It could be proof of lost wages or a list of valuables taken from a stolen purse.  Some crime victims also have medical bills for injuries.

3.  The Restitution Department checks-out the claims of crime victims to make sure they’re not padding their losses.  They would be able to use the power of the court to collect more than they’re entitled to receive.  The final report is given to the judge and the perpetrator.

4.  The criminal is ordered by the judge to pay the full amount to the Restitution Department—not the crime victim.  This avoids any possible trouble or further disagreements between the crime victim and the criminal.

5.  Does the criminal get any protection?  The Restitution Department has already checked-out the crime victim’s claim and proof of loss.  If the victim has been compensated by insurance for example, the victim can’t collect twice.  In that case, the judge would order the criminal to pay only the deductible amount the crime victim has paid out of pocket.  Also, if there were more than one criminal convicted, they will all share responsibility for payment—each of them paying a share of the loss.

6.  What if one of the criminals didn’t actually cause the loss to the crime victim?  The co-defendant is still liable for some part of the restitution because the law wants the victim compensated first.  The defendant’s rights come second.

7.  What if the criminal is unemployed and doesn’t have any money and can’t compensate the crime victim?  Most states have a Crime Victims Reparations Board.  This may be a source of money for the victim who must apply for compensation from the board.

Does this seem fair to you?  What would you do differently?

The post Do Crime Victims Get Paid Back? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In Minnesota, where I practice criminal law, the legislature has given crime victims several rights.  Here are some:

1.  Crime victims have the right to see a written list of all the rights they have.  They’re made aware of what protections and rights they have since most of us don’t know what those are.  When you’re a victim and, perhaps, traumatized you need to have a simple list to follow.

2.  Crime victims have a right to apply for reparations.  This means to get paid back for any financial loss they may have had.  It’s not only the value of stolen items but can also be medical bills, lost wages, etc.

3.  Domestic abuse crime victims also have many rights:

a.  They have a right to apply for a retraining order in court

b.  They can get a court order for the offender to leave the home

c.  Domestic abuse crime victims can also get orders to keep the offender out of their place of employment, out of the kid’s school, or out of the victim’s business

d.  They can apply for an order to get custody of the children or to get parenting time from the offender

e.  Crime victims can get an order for the offender to pay for child support during the criminal proceedings

f.  They can also get information about battered women’s shelters, counseling, and support groups

4.  Crime victims can get information about the nearest victim assistance programs

5.  If the offender is charged, the crime victim has a right to be informed of and participate in the criminal prosecution in the following ways:

a.  The victims can be notified and consulted about any plea negotiations to settle the case.  Although the final decision is up to the prosecutor, the crime victim will be consulted and kept informed about all the details

b.  Often, they will get an advocate for the pre-trial and if necessary, trial procedures.  Especially, if they need to testify against the offender, the crime victim will receive counseling and support for these courtroom proceedings.

c.  If the offender pleads guilty or is convicted in a trial, the victim has a right to make a statement to the court before sentencing.  The statement would describe the impact the crime has made on the victim.  Although the judge should not take sides during the sentencing, he can certainly take into account the effect the offender’s actions had on the victim and the family.

d.  The victim can also get restitution from the offender by a court order to pay.

Have you ever been a victim?  What assistance did you receive?

The post Do Crime Victims Have Rights? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

In my last post, I explored the movement across the country to privatize the prison systems in many states.  We looked at the high cost of maintaining prisons and one of the major reasons why the cost is suddenly so high–longer prison sentences and less chance for parole.

Starting in the 1980’s legislatures across the U.S. decided to “get tough on crime” by adding prison sentences to crimes that previously didn’t call for them and lengthening existing prison sentences, reducing the time on parole.

As a consequence, the prison populations in most states have sky-rocketed and so have the costs.

Before I look at an NPR story, I have to disclose that I am a member of a public employee union along with the prosecutors and public defenders in the county where I work.

A fascinating report from National Public Radio investigated the prison system in California.  See their story at:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?

storyId=111843426

Besides the increased prison sentences, they found a curious connection between the California Correctional Peace Officers Association–a public employee union–and the rising costs of the prison system there.  The union has become one of the most powerful political forces in the state.  Over the years, it’s contributed millions of dollars in support of tougher laws and longer prison sentences.  Since these laws passed, the number of union correctional officers has grown from 2,600 to 45,000.  The average salary in 1980 was $15,000.  By 2009 one out of ten officers made over $100,000.

Talk about an increase in costs!

NPR found that most of the funding to support new laws that increased prison penalties came from a political action committee that the union created for the purpose of  promoting a “Victim’s Rights Group.”  Question: why is a public employee union of correctional officers supporting victim’s rights?  And why should locking people away for longer time do much to help victims?

Today in California, most of the Corrections Department budget goes for salaries and benefits of the union employees. (70%) While just 5% goes for education and vocational training for inmates to give them job skills so that when they’re released, they don’t have to commit crime to support themselves.  To me, investing in job skills is actually going to help potential victims since the paroled inmates won’t be committing as many crimes.

I’m not saying that public employee unions have caused the same result in every state–but it sure looks like it in California.

What should we do about it?

The post Public Employee Unions=Too Expensive? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

Although I don’t know Mr. Petters, I’ve worked as a criminal defense lawyer for over 30 years and have represented/defended a few criminals like Petters but never anyone stealing such big. amounts. Unlike other criminals types, these guys have a unique personality type that’s fascinating. In addition, I had an uncle (long dead) who operated several scams and Ponzi schemes in the Twin City area before he was chased out of town. I remember him well.

SKILLS; Most of these types are very attractive–physically and personally. You can’t help but like them. They’re wonderful salesmen with all the skills of the best. Charming and persuasive, they could lie big–without even a tug from their conscience. Almost all were smart even if they weren’t well educated.

ATTITUDE: My uncle and others I’ve represented, shared an attitude that combined arrogance with ambition–not unusal in many people. The difference was the con men couldn’t wait for their ambiitons. They couldn’t take the time and effort necessary to build a legitimate business. Instead, they deserved immediate success. Most thought they were smarter than others, therefore they didn’t have to wait like the rest of us to grow their businesses.

Many came from poorer backgrounds and I suspect they harbored a deep suspicion that since things were stacked against them anyway, they may as well steal to get what they deserved. Each sucker or victim they conned represented a score against the “system” the con men were trying to beat–like a game. Another skill was the ability to lie convincingly to anyone. The more intimidating the challenge, the greater the “game” was to the con man.

SECURITY: Obviously, they coudn’t invest the money they stole so they spent it lavishly. Security was irrelevant to them–they didn’t have any except for their brains and guts to pull off the next con. I can’t think of many friends who could live peacefully without some security. Imagine the type of person who has only their ability to score another con for tomorrow’s food.

Surprisingly, the defendants I’ve represented readily admit their crime when confronted but have always had an excuse or a lie about how things happened to avoid the penalty.

Do you know anyone like this? What’s their story? Tell me about the personalities.

Go to my web site at www.colintnelson.com

The post What Made Tom Petters Run? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.