Interview With Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lou Leary-Office of Justice Programs-DC Public Safety Radio

Welcome to “DC Public Safety” – Radio and television shows, blog and transcripts on crime, criminal offenders and the criminal justice system. We currently average 90,000 page views a month.

The portal site for “DC Public Safety” is http://media.csosa.gov.

Radio Program available at http://media.csosa.gov/podcast/audio/2012/06/interview-with-acting-assistant-attorney-general-mary-lou-leary-office-of-justice-programs-dc-public-safety-radio/

[Audio Begins]

Len Sipes:  From the nation’s capital, this is DC Public Safety.  I’m your host, Leonard Sipes.  Today’s interview is with acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Lou Leary of the Office of Justice Program’s U.S. Department of Justice.  Miss Leary has 30 years of criminal justice experience at the federal, state and local levels, with an extensive background in criminal prosecution, government leadership and victim advocacy.  Before joining the Office of Justice Programs in 2009, she was Executive Director of the National Center for Victims of Crime.  She also served in leadership roles at the office of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia.  From 1999 to 2001, she held several executive positions at the Department of Justice including the Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, Deputy Associate Attorney General, and Acting Director of the Office of Community Oriented Policing Programs. For the sake of brevity, the Office of Justice Programs oversees the work of the federal effort to evaluate fund and provide technical assistance to the country’s criminal justice system.  Before getting into the bulk of the interview, I want to provide just some of the examples of the Office of Justice Programs in terms of what they do.  Just some of the topics, bullying, DNA backlogs, domestic violence, elder abuse and mistreatment, faith-based programs, hate crimes, human trafficking, identity theft, indigent defense, mentoring of offenders, juvenile justice law enforcement tactics, prisoner reentry, victim assistance, and a database as to what works.  Acting Assistant Attorney General Mary Lou Leary, welcome to DC Public Safety.

Mary Lou Leary:  Well thank you, Len.  It’s a pleasure to be here.

Len Sipes:  I’m really happy for you to be here.  Then we had Laurie Robinson on before she left.

Mary Lou Leary:  I know.

Len Sipes:  And we had a real exciting interview, I think, and a very popular interview.  How does it feel going … and Mary Lou has left, she was the Assistant Attorney General, and now you’re in the Acting position.  That’s a lot of responsibility thrust on your shoulders.  But you’ve been in this position before.

Mary Lou Leary:  I have, Len.  It actually is quite a natural transition for me.  I was serving as the Principle Deputy Assistant General to Laurie Robinson at OJP for the three years of this administration.  And then when Laurie moved on, I stepped into the role of the Acting Assistant Attorney General.  And for me it feels just right.  I did this before during the Clinton Administration.  And it’s kind of funny, we’re into repeat performances.

Len Sipes:  Yes, we are.

Mary Lou Leary:  Because Laurie was the Assistant Attorney General during that administration.  And I came in when she left and served as the acting for the rest of the term.

Len Sipes:  But it’s such a broad, big organization.  Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, National Institute of Justice, the National Criminal Justice Reference Service that I worked for for five years early on in my career.  I mean, it just goes on and on and on in terms of the agencies.  Office for Victims of Crime, the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Community-Oriented Policing, you have such an amazing amount of organizations under you.

Mary Lou Leary: Yeah.  Well that’s what makes this job so exciting, and really, so much fun.  There is this incredibly broad spectrum of issues.  We are the only federal agency that is dedicated to serving state, local and tribal public safety entities.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  And so public safety includes every piece that you could possibly find in the criminal justice puzzle.  All the systems, all the programs, it’s quite an extraordinary range.

Len Sipes:  Well one of the things that I brought up in Laurie’s interview was the fact that you get all these technical reports on CSI, Crime Scene Investigation.  All the fallacies and the fact that you watch these programs on television and most of what you see is not how it’s ordinarily done. But all these technical documents that develop all that expertise come from your shop.  You are Madam CSI.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yeah.  Well, in a way.

Len Sipes:  You are.  You’re Madam everything.  You’re Madam offenders leaving the prison system, you’re Madam corrections, you’re Madam law enforcement, you are the very epitome of the criminal justice system at the federal level.

Mary Lou Leary:  Well that’s exactly what OJP does.  We cover every single issue in the criminal justice system.  And it’s wonderful that we do that and that we have that broad scope.  Because we know that the best approach to take, and the one that really works, is a comprehensive approach.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  You can’t deal with one aspect of the criminal justice system without paying attention to the whole of it.  So for instance, if you increase the number of arrests that you’re making, that’s going to have an impact.  It’s like a domino effect all the way through the system.  The pre-trial, the prosecutor’s office, the court system, the prison system, probation, parole, reentry, it all is impacted, each piece by what happens in the other.

Len Sipes:  Yeah.  Nobody’s in isolation.  Everybody’s dependent on everybody else.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.

Len Sipes:  So what one part of the criminal justice system does affects the other parts of the criminal justice system.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.  And that is, in fact, one of the primary messages that OJP delivers to the criminal justice field.  We are all in this together and the only way we can attack these problems and have success is by working together and by being conscious of the impact that one individual agency’s actions have on the rest of the system.

Len Sipes:  There are three things I want to get to pretty quickly in the interview.  Number one, a practitioner focus.  I’ve spoken to you in the past and one of the things that you’ve been adamant about is this idea of serving the practitioner, serving the people who actually run the criminal justice system, being sure that they have the research and the facts and the technical assistance to make sense of their day-to-day lives.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yes.  That is one of my primary goals at OJP.  I, myself, as a practitioner for 30 years, I was a local prosecutor, I was a federal prosecutor, I ran a national victim’s advocacy organization.  So I know how difficult it is for practitioners who are incredibly busy, to learn about what’s actually being researched in their field, and what works, what doesn’t work, what are the latest trends.  You are putting out fires all day, every day and you don’t really have the time to dig up the evidence and maybe base what you do on what is known to be effective.  And so that’s our job. We’ve got to figure that out.  We have to do the research.  We have to do the statistical analysis.  We have to read all the literature and understand the evidence about what does work in the criminal justice.  And then one of our most important jobs is translating that.  You have to make that understandable and accessible to practitioners in the field.  A mayor should be able to just go to a website or make a phone call and communicate that, “Hey, you know what we’re having a big problem with youth gangs in our city.  Do you know if anybody out there is doing something that’s been effective?  Do you know if there are any researchers who are really looking at this problem?  Help me out here.”  That’s our job.

Len Sipes:  Right.  You have said that they need to get answers.  They don’t need to get a telephone-sized book of research.  They don’t need to be given an esoteric overview, they need answers.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.  But those answers better be good ones and they better be based on real evidence.

Len Sipes:  Right.  And I wanted to start the interview off with that background.  Because you are Madam criminal justice, you have served in the criminal justice system, you’ve been a practitioner.  So you’re just not a policy wonk that hangs out in DC.  You have actually served in the bowels of the criminal justice system and you know what it’s like, how difficult it is to get ahold of research and make sense of research.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yeah.  Exactly.  And I think that that is one of the things that I bring to the job that, frankly, makes me effective in that position.  Because I really understand, I get it.  I know what’s happening on the streets.  I learned everything … I know about that from working with local police departments.  I ran the cops office for a while which provides police to communities across this country.  And I think it’s important to have real respect for research and science, but also to have that practical, pragmatic approach to problems.

Len Sipes:  Absolutely.  You’ve been there.  So that’s the message I wanted to get out.  But having said that, research is an extraordinarily important part of what it is that you do.  Which we say we can substitute best practices for that word research.  Research, that word is a little scary to a lot of the people in the field. What you’re trying to do is establish best practices.  Because states and localities, they’re running out of money.  The budget issue is such a huge issue throughout the country for criminal justice organizations.  They’re basically saying, “Fine, if we’ve got to deal with a 15% reduction in our budget, we’ll do what we have to do.”  But what’s the way … what does the research say … or what are the best practices to maximize what it is we do?  Is there technology; is there new ways of doing things?  What can we do to maximize what it is that we do on a day-to-day basis?  And that’s what you’re emphasizing.

Mary Lou Leary:  Right.  Well you hit the nail right on the head, Len.  It’s true that resources are really tight.  And looking ahead, we can only presume that they will be getting tighter.  And so in that climate, it’s more important than ever that you base your strategy on what is the best practice, what we know works.  And it’s just as important not to waste any time, not to waste any resources human or financial, on things that don’t work.  Because we do know a lot about what doesn’t work as well and we want to discourage the use of those approaches that don’t work.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  We’re trying to make that approach easy and accessible, understandable.  In fact, just last year, we launched something called crimesolutions.gov.

Len Sipes:  Yeah.  Good.  Thank you.

Mary Lou Leary:  That’s a website.  Yeah.  It’s a great tool.

Len Sipes:  Crimesolutions.gov.

Mary Lou Leary:  It is a wonderful tool.  We’ve gotten great feedback from people.  And here’s how it works.  We have a group of researchers who scour the literature and look at all the practices, and rate programs that have been used across this country to address different crime problems.  So they rate them and we put it up on the website.  So you can see what’s effective, what’s working, and what’s not.  And you can search it every which way with all kinds of different search terms.  So say you’re the chief of police, or you’re running the youth program in your community, and you want to know is there anything out there that is evidence based that has worked on this issue.  You can go to crimesolutions.gov and search.  And you will see what programs have been used in that context, and which ones have been proven effective, and which ones have not really had an effect, and which ones are still kind of in the proving stage.  And this website now has over 200 programs on it.  And if you don’t find what you’re looking for the first time, go back for sure, because we are adding new programs every single week.

Len Sipes:  And the thing I want to emphasize about the website is that again, it’s not this esoteric, oh my God I’ve to spend five years reading this stuff.  It gives you a very quick chart in terms of what works and what doesn’t.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.

Len Sipes:  And then once you’ve figured out what works, what doesn’t, then you can research it from there.  So people should not be afraid, “Oh my God, not another esoteric website or piece of research.”  It’s easy to read.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.  It’s not wonky in any respect.

Len Sipes:  There you go.

Mary Lou Leary:  And if you are more interested in reading the study itself, the methodology, and so on, you can do that.  You can just go deeper into the website and really get that kind of a nuanced understanding of it. But if you want something that’s quick and dirty and practical, that is your tool.

Len Sipes:  There you go.  Now you’re also talking about opening some sort of technical assistance outreach program, right.  So once they say, “Oh, geezies, peezy” this particular thing works in terms of what you said, in terms of gangs.  Here are the research in terms of where it works.  I wonder what funding technical assistance other research is available.  And so you’re now instituting a help desk, if you will.  Once they’re moving in that right direction they can talk to somebody who knows the subject well.

Mary Lou Leary:  Well, in fact, we have several ways of getting at that.  You can go on the website, ojp.gov and you can look under funding opportunities.  And then you also look at our science agency’s National Institute of Justice, and Bureau of Justice statistics to see what research reports are coming out, what statistical reports are coming out.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  But if you have a problem that you don’t really quite understand in your community and you need some expert help in assessing the problem, trying to figure out what is really going on here.  We are working on the development right now of something called the Diagnostic Center which would be kind of a companion piece to crimesolutions.gov.  Crimesolutions.gov will tell you about the programs that already exist and whether they work or don’t.  The Diagnostic Center will bring in some expert technical assistance to help you get a handle on what is my problem in my community.  And then we’ll match you will technical assistance and experts who can help you marshal the evidence-based practices to address that.

Len Sipes:  So we’re talking about a one-stop shop.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yeah.  Absolutely.

Len Sipes:  That’s amazing.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yeah.  It’s very exciting.

Len Sipes:  I’ve been in the criminal justice system for 42 years.  Why did it take us so long to do that?

Mary Lou Leary:  I know.  It is quite remarkable.

Len Sipes:  It is quite remarkable.  What you have done is significant.  It is one of the very few times in my 42 years in the criminal justice system that I’ve said that I can go to one spot, get a quick summation of the research, talk to somebody, get quick answers, that is just incredible.

Mary Lou Leary:  It’s very exciting.  And it really is the embodiment of what we have been encouraging for years.  Which is you know what criminal justice practitioners, there’s some sound research out there that could actually help you get your job done every day.  These researchers, they’re not a bunch of egg heads who don’t know how to talk to cops and other folks.  They do know and they want to talk, because they figured out all this cool stuff that you could be using to do a better job every day.

Len Sipes:  Right.  And again, with the budget situation people are looking for answers. I want to re-introduce Mary Lou Leary, Acting Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.  Giving out the website, it is www.ojp.gov, www.ojp.gov.   You did a heck of a YouTube video a couple years ago when you were Director of the Office a Center for Victims of Crime.  So obviously, you’re interested in new ways of bringing material, fresh ways of bringing material to the criminal justice system.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yeah.  Very interested in making all of our information easily available, quickly available.  You got to meet people where they are.  And we know from research that actually in a … not very long, most people will be accessing internet, for instance, from their mobile devices as opposed to a desktop. So if you can’t get to where the people are, your message will not be heard.  So we’re very interested in exploring the full gambit of social media, Twitter, You Tube and all kinds of things that my teenage daughter could probably tell you more about than I could. But we know that that’s the way that you got to go if you want to be helpful to people.

Len Sipes:  Your background, former prosecutor, former Executive Director for the National Center for Victims of Crime.  A lot of people are going to take — they’re going to like that.  I’ve heard people throughout the decades saying, “Too many policy wonks at OJP, not enough real people who have been in the criminal justice system.”  You’re a former prosecutor; you’re a staunch advocate of victims of crime. That brings … I’m not going to say a new perspective to the Office of Justice Programs, but it brings … in the minds of a lot of people … a refreshing perspective.  You understand how this system works, you understand criminal victimization.

Mary Lou Leary: Well I certainly do.  And I’ll tell you, having been a prosecutor for so many years, this is my dream job.  Because all those years I saw these problems that were seemingly intractable in the criminal justice system.  And you would see the same defendants.  You’d prosecute them this month and then you’d prosecute them next month for a very similar offense.  And sometimes you just kind of felt like you were just doing a clean-up operation and not really solving the problem.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  And you could see that the problems that played out in the courtroom were so related to many, many other public safety issues that never came into the courthouse. So now this … OJP puts me in a position where I can actually address those issues.  And I can reach out and develop partnerships with all kinds of public safety agencies, tribal leaders, philanthropic organizations, foundations, private sector, all kinds of partners all of whom really see that this issue matters, it’s so fundamental to the way we live in this country.

Len Sipes:  One of the things that you said to me is the idea of bringing everybody to this table to maximize our impact on the criminal justice system, so whether it’s foundations, whether it’s private organizations, to take all these dollars, all that expertise, and marshal it to have the greatest impact.  And I find that interesting.

Mary Lou Leary:  Oh, it is fascinating.  And we’re really just scratching the surface.  We had a meeting at OJP with foundations, a number of foundations about 60 of them, all of whom have interest in various aspects of criminal justice.  A number of them, for instance, are really interested in kids who get involved in the criminal justice system.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  Many of them are interested in preventing kids from getting involved in that system.

Len Sipes:  Sure.

Mary Lou Leary:  There’s a whole domestic violence community out there with interest in the philanthropic sector.  And we have been partnering with a number of those kinds of philanthropic groups projects that we are doing at the Office of Justice Programs.

Len Sipes:  So nobody’s out there in isolation.  It is not [PH] PIU versus the Office of Justice Programs of the Department of Justice.  It’s PIU in concert with the Office of Justice Programs.

Mary Lou Leary:  Absolutely.

Len Sipes:  And that applies to the Urban Institute, that applies to the International Association of Chiefs of Police, the National Correctional Association.  It doesn’t matter, the whole idea is let’s all work in lockstep because state and locales are hurting from a budget point of view.

Mary Lou Leary:  That’s right.  And if you … what we try to do is we try to seed innovative projects around the country, new approaches to problems.  But after a certain period of time, the program has to move forward on its own and we try to seed other places.  So in order to plan for sustainability of those innovative approaches, you have to look to other places in the community, other places in the philanthropic world, and so on.  So we work with our grantees to try to educate them about that.  And we are able to facilitate communication between the philanthropic sector and grantees.

Len Sipes:  But I don’t want to get too far away from that answer, the question I had a couple minutes ago.  Your role as a prosecutor has been firmly established.  And a lot of people feel very comfortable about that.  But you’ve seen victims, talked to victims of crime, you’ve represented the National Center for Victims of Crime.  You understand the nature of criminal victimization on a very personal level.

Mary Lou Leary:  I certainly do.  This actually is a real passion of mine.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  And it has been ever since I started as a baby prosecutor decades ago.

Len Sipes:  Yes.

Mary Lou Leary:  I worked in the Middlesex County DA’s Office.  We had one of the very first victim/witness assistance units in the country.  And in fact, it was established by Senator John Kerry when he was the DA in Middlesex County.  And I learned from those advocates, how critically important the way you treat victims can be to their ability to recover. They need to be treated with respect and dignity.  And you need to make a victim feel safe.  And you need to make sure that a victim is heard.  That’s the most important thing.  So much more important than winning your case.  And I really feel that.  And I have really supported victims throughout my career.  And at OJP is a great opportunity to continue that. I am really excited because part of what we do, a big part of what we do at OJP, is working on victim issues through our office on victims of crime.

Len Sipes:  Right.

Mary Lou Leary:  And we have spent the last two years talking to folks who work with victims of crime all over this country.  We’re talking to practitioners, we’re talking to researchers, we’re talking to advocates, we’re talking to cops, you name it.  Anybody who has an interest in victim issues. What’s happening in this field, what are the unmet needs?  Crime has changed so much over the years.  Now we have all these financial frauds -

Len Sipes:  Yes, we do.

Mary Lou Leary:  – and internet perpetrated crime, and stalking through the internet, through devices you place on people’s cars, and so on.  There’s just a whole new world out there.  And it will continue to evolve. So the Office of Victims of Crime is looking at that and talking with people in the field saying, “Okay, we have a lot of these needs that have been with us forever that we haven’t met yet.  How do we meet those needs better, and at the same time, deal with these emerging crime issues and these emerging needs of victims?”

Len Sipes:  And I just wanted to point out there’s a lot of people out there who will be applauding as they listen to this.  Because, again, they have this image of people at the top of the Office of Justice Programs as being stoic policy wonks.  You’re not.  You’re a real live human being who’s suffered through this issue personally, directly, and you know, you’ve tasted it, smelled it, felt it, you know what’s going on out there.

Mary Lou Leary:  That’s exactly right.  And that’s why it’s so important to get out in the field and talk to people.  You have to see it, you have to talk, you have to hear it, you have to walk the walk. What we will see coming out of this big effort with Victims of Crime this summer, I believe, at the end of the summer is a report called Vision 21.  And that is to shape the path forward for the victim services field, into the 21st century and beyond.

Len Sipes:  That’s great.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yeah.  The Victims of Crime Act was passed in 1984.

Len Sipes:  Yes.  A long time ago.

Mary Lou Leary:  Things have changed a lot since then.

Len Sipes:  Yeah.  They have.

Mary Lou Leary:  And it’s time to revision the way we serve victims.  So I am just so excited.  I can’t wait to see that report and to most importantly, act on the recommendations.

Len Sipes:  In the final minutes of the program, one of the things I suppose that we want to do, is to assure that regardless of whether it’s law enforcement, corrections, parole and probation, the judicial system, the juvenile justice system which Attorney General Eric Holder is certainly a huge proponent in terms of this issue of tremendous violence being directed towards children.  It doesn’t matter what the issue is, your job is to be sure that the best research is being done, answering questions on the part of people at the county and state and local level, giving them access, quick access to this information via the new databases that you’re putting out.  So that’s the bottom line.  If there are questions, or if there are issues, they can come to the Office of Justice Programs for answers.

Mary Lou Leary:  Absolutely.  And they’ll find real people, and people who care very, very much about their work and about public safety in this country.

Len Sipes:  In the sense of being evidence based, we … I don’t want to get into a methodological discussion but it’s a matter of taking a look at the better research.  The research that’s fairly well done.  And trying to draw conclusions from that research.  And that’s essentially what you guys have done, in terms of crimesolutions.gov and in terms of the Diagnostic Center. Take a look at Project Hope, which is a wonderful program in Hawaii which has dramatically reduced recidivism as a parole and probation program, a substance abuse treatment program.  And what you’re doing is funding its replication in other areas throughout the country to see if the success that they had in Hawaii, which was considerable, can be replicated in Baltimore and in Des Moines, and in San Antonio.

Mary Lou Leary:  That’s exactly right.  In fact, we do that a lot with different kinds of projects.  Project Hope, this probation program was developed by Steve Alm, who was a former U.S. Attorney in Hawaii.  And right away we could see that his approach was different and that it was really interesting and promising. So we worked to support that program from the get go and then we sent in a team to research and evaluate it.  Those evaluations would knock your socks off, it just made such a big and positive difference.

Len Sipes:  It does.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.  So now that’s just kind of like the business of OJP.  You get good programs started, you evaluate them, if the evidence shows, ‘whoa, this really works’, then you want to get it out to as many communities as possible and tweak it to apply to the needs of that particular individual community.

Len Sipes:  And getting that information out to those communities in the right way.  That you don’t have to struggle.  It’s like, oh my God, I remember when I worked for the Maryland Department of Public Safety, this is decades ago.  The Public Safety Secretary would bring this document from NIJ, telephone-size book, plop it on my desk and go, “Sipes, I don’t have time to read this.  Give me a one-page summation.”

Mary Lou Leary:  Right.

Len Sipes:  “Just tell me if it works, doesn’t work, and why it works and doesn’t work.” Because he knew that I used to work for the National Criminal Justice Reference Service.  So he sort of figured I would know how to read this big, long, esoteric document. What you’re trying to do is to take this research and make it come alive.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yes.  Make it real.  And you demonstrate that through actual programs in the communities.  Reentry is a great example of that.  We are helping communities across this country to deal with the massive return of incarcerated offenders.

Len Sipes:  Seven hundred thousand a year.

Mary Lou Leary:  Seven hundred thousand a year.  And where do they go?  They go right back to the neighborhoods that they came from.  The same environments, the same folks, the same buddies in the neighborhood. And you can’t just release people from incarceration, send them right back to that environment and expect that they are going to do just fine.  They’ve learned their lesson and now they’ll behave.

Len Sipes:  No.  It doesn’t work that way.

Mary Lou Leary:  No.  You have to provide support, and it has to start right from the moment of incarceration.

Len Sipes:  And if we did that, we could reduce the budgets of states and locals by huge amounts.  If you get just a 15% reduction in recidivism in the rate of return back to the prison system by providing programs, you’ve just saved that county, that state, tens of millions of dollars.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.  And that is one of our major goals.  Not only to help them save that money, but at the same time, to improve public safety.  Because if your reentry programs really work, you will not only save money, but people in that community will be safer and you will reduce re-victimization.

Len Sipes:  And that’s the common theme throughout this entire program, reducing re-victimization.

Mary Lou Leary:  Exactly.

Len Sipes:  That is what … you’re the office of reducing re-victimization.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yes, we are.

Len Sipes:  Yes.

Mary Lou Leary:  And for me, that’s a wonderful orientation because I am so passionate about crime victims.

Len Sipes:  Final seconds of the program.  The law enforcement side of things, it’s people, places, little focusing on high-risk offenders, high-risk places.

Mary Lou Leary:  Yeah.  We know a lot about hot spot policing, for instance, where you look at the hot spots through your crime mapping and so on.  And that’s where you want to target your resources.  We know that works.  We know that there are innovative approaches to dealing, for instance, with youth violence.  We know that there are ways of saving money on incarceration and then reinvesting it in things that do work.

Len Sipes:  And a beauty about all this is that if you go to www.ojp.gov and if you go to the Crime Solution’s database you can get a tremendous amount of information on all of this.  Really want to express my appreciation to Acting Assistant Attorney General, Mary Lou Leary for being with us today.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is DC Public Safety.  We really appreciate all of the cards, letters, comments and criticisms at times, in terms of what it is we do.  We really appreciate your participation.  And we want everybody to have themselves a very, very pleasant day.

[Audio Ends]

Share

Victim Rights in the Pretrial Process

Welcome to DC Public Safety – radio and television shows on crime, criminal offenders and the criminal justice system.

See http://media.csosa.gov for our television shows, blog and transcripts.

Radio Program available at http://media.csosa.gov/podcast/audio/2011/05/victim-rights-in-the-pretrial-process/

We welcome your comments or suggestions at leonard.sipes@csosa.gov or at Twitter at http://twitter.com/lensipes.

[Audio Begins]

Len Sipes:  From the national’s Capital this is DC Public Safety. I’m your host Leonard Sipes. Back on our microphones – Will Marling, the Executive Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, www.trynova.org. NOVA has a long history, decades-long history, of protecting victims’ rights and the topic of the show today is going to be victim’s issues and pretrial release. What happens when a person is arrested and then released back out to the community and what it means to victims and victim protection? To discuss the pretrial end of it we have Tim Murray. He is the Executive Director of the Pretrial Justice Institute – www.pretrial.org. Before we begin the show a couple of announcements. I’ve been asked to promote a variety of organizations.  One is the National Reentry Resource Center. It’s a project of the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, US Department of Justice. It is a comprehensive website in terms of reentry issues. You can reach them via the website – www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org. The American Probation and Parole Association, they’ve asked me to promote the fact that there is an entire week in July promoting the work of probation agents, not only in the United States, but throughout the world. You can reach them via their website at www.appa-net.org and also it’s interesting. I spoke to our friends down at the Louisiana Department of Corrections. They’re the only other entity in the country doing radio shows on reentry. The Louisiana Department of Corrections Division of Parole and Probation and their web address is simply way too long for me to give out on the radio. It’ll be in the show notes and so we get back to Will Marling and Tim Murray. Welcome to DC Public Safety.

Will Marling:  Hey, Len. Good to be with you.

Tim Murray:  Thanks Len. Appreciate it.

Len Sipes:  Well, gentlemen, this is an interesting topic. It really is and I can’t think of anything dicier or more controversial than this issue because, Will Marling, the victims’ issues are something that the entire criminal justice system should be embracing. I’m not quite sure if we embrace them to the fullest possible extent, but we are here not only for the protection of citizens, we’re here, needless to say, for the protection of victims and you and I have had a variety of discussions where the criminal justice system just is not as good as it should be in terms of protecting victims’ rights. And now we have Pretrial Justice Institute, Tim Murray, to discuss this whole issue of pretrial. The problem is that states and local jurisdictions throughout the country are complaining bitterly.  Their jails are filled to capacity and what they’re saying is that either builds another jail – either invests hundreds of millions of dollars in terms of construction and operating costs – or we have to make decisions as to who we let go before trial. That the more dangerous individual needs to stay – nobody would doubt that, but the lesser offender – that means that he is going to be put out on some sort of bail or some sort of pretrial release. In the District of Columbia we have an entire organization, The Pretrial Release Agency, The Pretrial Services Agency, who’s there to supervise people on pretrial, but citizens object to that, that somebody gets arrested and three hours later the person is back on their block. So there’s a lot of controversy involved in this. Will, did I frame all this correctly?

Will Marling:  Yeah. I think you covered the bases pretty well, but the question and the whole operation for us is where do victims stand? How are they involved? Are their needs represented specifically, first and foremost, for safety and security? But then, of course, the approach to justice and all of these things, mixed together sometimes not clearly and we’re just constantly trying to affirm that victims always…the Pew Institute’s research regarding safety and security, the one thing that comes out in that research is…that’s the number one thing in all of these discussions communities agree on and that is we want safe and secure communities. Of course, the disagreement or the discussion, if I could soften it even there is, well, what does that look like and how does that work? And so when we’re looking at this pretrial justice issue and saying what are the realities because most people aren’t well educated on it? And I’m coming up to speed myself so that I can better serve victims.

Len Sipes:  Tim?

Tim Murray:  Yeah. I appreciate the opportunity to talk about this on your broadcast and I appreciate the opportunities that have developed with Will and with NOVA. When Will and I first started having conversations about these issues we both shared a remarkable number of concerns. I think criminal justice professionals have done a less than adequate job in recognizing and effectively dealing with victim issues, needs and concerns and that’s despite the fact that many localities have passed very robust victims’ Bills of Rights and similar legislation. When you get to the bread and butter practitioner, the men or women that are working in our courts or our jails or with our probation or parole populations, they’re relatively unversed as to what services are available to victims; how victims access those services and they’re relatively unversed in how to deal with victims who confront them regarding their dissatisfaction or misunderstanding of how the justice system works. The one thing that Will and I come to constant and consistence agreement regarding is the public’s demand and expectation for safety and even though we both work at organizations that on the face of it might seem fields apart in terms of our individual interests, there is congruence when we start talking about public safety. I think that victims, as you’re described, Len, often don’t understand how the justice system works and I think the justice system often – these are my words – runs and hides from victims when victims raise concerns and I think Will and I have agreed to agree to do what we can with our organizations to remedy both of those situations.

Len Sipes:  Tim, the issue here, it strikes me, is making a proper assessment of the individual within our custody on a pretrial basis and to make sure that if the person poses a clear and present risk to society that that person is kept behind bars. If the person is not that clear and present risk or danger to society, alternative means need to be considered either through monetary bail or through what we do in the District of Columbia is actually have a Government-funded organization to supervise offenders in the community on a pretrial basis. So I think the heart and soul of this in terms of being fair to victims and fair to the larger issue of justice is our ability to figure out who’s dangerous and who’s an acceptable risk. Am I correct?

Tim Murray:  Yeah. I think you’re correct on most of that. I would probably pick apart a couple of assumptions you’re making, but let me first start by saying I think that all of us expect the justice system to make sense and in this particular part of the criminal process it often does not. In this part of the criminal case process if you have a pocketful of cash, regardless of how dangerous you are, you are likely to be released in almost every jurisdiction in this country except the District of Columbia and one or two others because in most localities in this country, cash is what’s used to determine who gets out of jail and, conversely, who stays in jail and cash on the same front does absolutely nothing to enhance or maintain community safety. Once I pay that money as someone’s has been arrested to a bail bondsman, I don’t get that money back if I behave and I don’t lose more money if I misbehave. That money has already changed hands. The jail door has opened and I’ve walked back into the community unfettered by supervision, accountability or monitoring. The conversations that I’d had with Will have focused on the need to change that paradigm. Cash is often used as a reason why the bail system is broken in this country because it discriminates against the poor and while that is absolutely true, what is not discussed often enough is that it also pays no service to community safety. It endangers victims. It endangers communities as a whole. Just within the last few months there have been tragic instances where people have paid money to a bondsman shortly after arrest – the kind of area you described, Len, at the beginning of your show – a case just in the last two weeks that the man was arrested in a domestic violence case.

We’re all familiar with the challenges associated with domestic violence and hopefully we would all agree that a rational response to domestic violence is not requiring someone to give someone else a couple of hundred bucks. In this case, in Washington State, there seemed to be a joint charge for domestic violence. He pays the $2,000 bond, goes homes, burns down his house with his five children in it as well as him killing himself and I wish that was an isolated instance. It is not. We know that people who get arrested are problematic. Some of them pose significant dangers. We believe and support the idea that danger can’t be addressed, identified in lesser degrees of danger can be transparently managed in the community rather than hide behind dollar amount and pretend we’re all safer because a dollar amount has been fixed on someone’s pretrial freedom or liberty.

Len Sipes:  I’m going to brag for a second. Our Pretrial Services Agency here in the District of Columbia, which is a federally-funded agency, has a much lower failure to return rate than most Pretrial Service Agencies throughout the country and that’s a pretty decent track record and they’ve been able to combine both public safety and getting the overwhelming majority of people in court to trial, but, Will, again, Tim mentioned it, this is a real dichotomy for victims. This is a real dichotomy for citizens. I agree with Tim that the average person doesn’t really understand the criminal justice system and if think that’s principally our fault within the criminal justice system for not being vocal enough, which is why we do these programs, but it is tough for that person to understand. I mean the person has committed a crime. As far as they’re concerned, the person is as guilty as sin because they watched him do it or they were the victims themselves and how that person could be released within hours of being arrested as far they’re concerned their safety is jeopardized by that release and how we overcome that, how we explain that, well, we’ve got limited finances. We can’t keep everybody behind bars for every crime that’s been committed. We have to pick and choose between the most dangerous and the people who pose an acceptable risk to public safety. That’s an almost impossible concept for victims of crime to understand.

Will Marling:  Well, sure. If you take each individual victim and look at the loss that they’ve experienced, the injustice that they’re endured, we naturally absorb a reaction from them, an anger from them that says, “I’d really like something to be done about the perpetrator.” We recognize that and we certainly honor and respect it. We also try to educate victims on these issues to say, “Now, what’s realistic in the world in which we live, in the justice system in which you are now engaged? What is truly realistic?” And victims were sensible people, most of them, before they were victimized and they’re sensible people after they’re victimized. So you can discuss these issues. I think what Tim and I have engaged on in respecting and reflecting on this issue, respecting one another, is that there are some clearly nonsensical things going on that to say that a person and the risk that he or she poses to society is based solely on a relatively subjective monetary standard…

People don’t realize that’s what’s transpiring. They figure that there’s got to be some sophisticated thought that went into determining that and that it has some level of protection and what we’re realizing is that is just not the case. So we want to look at the issue for the sake of victims because you go to the doctor and you want that doctor’s opinion on behalf of your medical condition, even though you might have perceptions. You might defer saying, “Okay, I understand that you’re focused on this.” So we want to be representing the needs of victims while also working sensibly to bring about meaningful change within the system and so that’s why Tim and I, we’re collaborating on this issue because we believe ultimately it serves society, it serves victims and it serves the process. We’re in a period in our lives, in our culture, in our society, where finances have to be considered. So now we’re driven to consider these things because the jails are overcrowded. We can’t build enough prisons and so on. So this is a good time actually to discuss this. What truly works, what’s truly meaningful in addressing the risk factors? What is sensible for serving victims?

Len Sipes:  I think your example yesterday, Will, when we were talking about this. Okay, so the guy is a major drug dealer. He’s involved in organized crime and what happens is he gets $10,000 bail. He gets a $25,000 bail. That’s a considerable amount of money, but for people involved with organized crime it may not be and that person posted the $25,000 bail and the person’s suddenly out. So there the decision is not necessary made on the dangerousness to society. It’s done purely because he has access to the money.

Will Marling:  Well, absolutely.

Tim Murray:  Len, if I can jump in here.

Len Sipes:  Yeah, Tim.

Tim Murray:  I think it’s important for everybody who is listening to remember that our nation’s court have always dealt with the issue of danger when they set pretrial release conditions, but our traditional way of dealing with danger is setting a dollar amount and keeping our fingers crossed that the bad guy doesn’t have the money and in many cases that turns out to be exactly the case, but decision-makers never know for sure. Maurice Clemens was a defendant in Tacoma, Washington, a year and a half ago or so. They sent a $190,000 bond on this guy with, I believe, child molesting, sexual molestation of an underage child – $190,000 bond. He pays it and shortly thereafter he walks into a diner and shoots and kills four deputies.

Now, as a result of that tragedy the state of Washington is looking at creating legislation that resembles the legislation in the District of Columbia and that’s something that Will and I have talked about. The court should have the power to detain someone pending trial and the Prosecutor makes a case, rebutted by Defense in an open evidentiary hearing and when the Prosecutor makes the case that this defendant is so dangerous that no condition of supervision or combination of conditions can reasonably assure appearance, then that individual, as is currently the case in DC and in the federal system, is helped. He has some safe bets that go along with that. Their trial has to be accelerated. You can’t just keep them locked up on an accusation for years at a time, but that is a fair transparent and rational and, I believe, an honest way of dealing with an issue that the courts have always had to deal with, but have done so in a hypocritical way – by pretending that a $100,000 bond is actually going to protect the community. It only protects the community if the defendant doesn’t have it and in some cases…the case that you discussed yesterday. Those cases raise the issue….in the case of a drug dealer who get s $25,000 bond, where did he get the money to pay the bond? And it’s not unheard of in this country that defendants make deals with commercial bondsman. They pay them over time. They literally get released. Go out and commit further crimes, creating more victims, in order to pay the bounty for their release. It’s just no way to administer justice and it’s really time to end it once and for all and I think the voice of the victim’s community is a powerful one and when people like Will start having these conversations out loud, officials take notice and listen and I think that’s an important conversation for officials to pay attention to.

Len Sipes:  We’re way more than halfway through the program. I want to re-introduce our guests. Will Marling, the Executive Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, www.trynova.org. Tim Murray, the Executive Director of the Pretrial Justice Institute, www.pretrial.org. Gentlemen, in the final minutes of the program, the final ten minutes, I want to cut to the chase now, okay? We’ve had a larger philosophical discussion. What I’m hearing is…what you’re saying, Tim, is that you want to see supervision upon release and you want to see that the person released from pretrial incarceration from our jails throughout the country, that release decision should be made solely upon the person’s level of dangerousness. So it’s supervision plus that conscious decision as to the degree of dangerousness. Do I have that correct?

Tim Murray:  Yeah. Let me try and give you very succinct answer. We had had the right to bail in most countries since 1789. That accompanies are presumption of innocence, but as you’ve described it, many people see the crime occurs. It’s a slam-dunk the crime occurred, as are that particular defendant. It’s not a shocking surprise to see the tremendously high conviction rate of those who are arrested. Cops arrest the right guy for the right reason most of the time. There are due process considerations, which we all support and defend. In making the constitutional right of determining who is released pending trial, when I am asked base that decision on the risk of that defendant not by the number of dollars he can get a hold of and if that defendant poses a risk that is greater that the community supports to manage it, then hold that defendant without the option for release and bring them to trial in a speedy manner.

Len Sipes:  Will Marling, the other issue is that we have these wonderful tools now and we’ve have thirty years of development trying to figure out who poses a clear and present risk to the public and who’s an acceptable risk in terms of release on a pretrial basis, but you’re not perfect.

Will Marling:  Sure.

Len Sipes:  And even under the best of circumstances the decisions that we within the criminal justice system make, some of them are going to blow up in our face and then the victims community is going to…well, not just the victims community, but society in general is going to rightly sit back and say, “Well, what’s up with this? I mean, don’t you guys know what you’re doing?” I mean, so somewhere along the line the victims community and society at large really has to give us a lot of leeway because we’re going to get it right 95% of the time, but that other 5% is going to kill us.

Will Marling:  Well, sure, and accountability works its way in there, hopefully, appropriately so because when things don’t go as they should go we naturally say, “Was there a gap? Did there need to be a change somewhere? Is there a policy change in view?” I think what really gets us is when the state is designed to fail, okay. When somebody gets out on bail and goes and injures children, for instance – like Tim was articulating in a recent story, a recent reality – we ask the question: Well, okay, where was the gap? Well, when you discover the gap is built in, the process is built in, that’s what creates the greatest outrage for us and victims, again, they’re sensible people and they say, “You mean actually it wasn’t based on risk assessment there? It was just based on money?” And that’s where we stop and say, “Now wait a minute. Come on. Let’s work on this.” Nobody can solve this problem perfectly because we’re humans, but clearly there’s a gap that we’re either brushing over or for other agenda reasons ignoring. That really becomes problematic and that’s what we’re advocating.

Len Sipes:  Tim, we have a criminal justice system. I’ve been in it for over forty years. You’ve been in it for quite some time. We’re overburdened. We have high caseloads. We have literally thousands upon thousands of offenders entering and leaving the criminal justice system. We have severe budget cuts all throughout the United States. The local jails as well as the prison system are basically saying that we’re maxed out. We just don’t have the capacity to hold everybody that everybody wants us to hold. So there’s almost at times a natural inclination. I mean, this isn’t NASA. I mean, this is really dealing with thousands upon thousands of decisions and I mean, are we that precise? Are we that good within the criminal justice system that we can get it right the vast majority of times?

Tim Murray:  No. We check in our decision-making because we’re naming dollar amounts associated with individual charges, not even based on the background on the individual, but simply by what the charge is. The way they all decided in this country, Len, from coast to coast is judges have a card on the bench and that card relates to an offence – let’s say car theft. And it names an amount and that’s what car theft costs in that jurisdiction. It doesn’t matter if you’re Jesse James or Mother Teresa.  That’s what it costs and for the very reasons you’ve just articulated – the fact that we’re in an economic downturn, the fact that public treasuries are smaller than they’ve been in any time in our lifetimes – we must make the best use of the resources available to our justice system. We must make the best decisions we can possibly make. It’s time to throw away the archaic way of doing business of the last hundred and fifty years from an economic standpoint and from a fairness standpoint and from a safety standpoint. It is a win all round. Will it have failure? Absolutely, it will. Is it foolproof? No, sir, it is not. Is it light years better than the system we currently suffer from? Undoubtedly.

Len Sipes:  Is it fair to say that both you gentlemen want an individual supervised regardless of how they’re released, whether it be monetary bond or whether it be by a Pretrial Services Agency? You want them supervised regardless, correct? You want them to be held accountable. Drug tested. You want them to check in with people.

Tim Murray:  Yeah.

Will Marling:  I mean, there should be accountability when a person is charged with a crime. The level and nature of that, of course, is what we’re considering, but any victim wants to know that the person that injured them is going to be held accountable and even before the official court proceedings, the official justice processes, we want to believe that their safety is still in view and they’re being held in good measure, so sure. Absolutely.

Len Sipes:  So the bottom line…

Tim Murray:  I think that accountability reaches the justice professionals that staff of criminal justice systems throughout the country and I don’t believe that we have even come close to the kind of professional accountability, which with regard to victims that is essential to justice. I think victims, as I kind of mentioned at the beginning of the show, are oftentimes simply pushed to the side by this system and by system actors. I think accountability extends not only to the defendant, but to the justice system as well. When a victim shows up at the door of the Pretrial Services in a community and says, “I got hit over the head last night. I hear the perpetrator was in court. Where do I go?” They should get clear and concise and accurate information as how to connect with victims coordinators; how to reach the prosecutor’s office before that court hearing, where and when that hearing will occur and what their options are regarding the same.

Just as they should have explained to them clearly and concisely what the defendant’s obligations are, how we needs to be held accountable if, in fact, he is released. I would argue with you that the law should release me on the year that defendants who post money have done nothing, but move cash from one pocket to another. Money does nothing to ensure community safety. It simply separates those who have I from those who don’t and I don’t believe money is part of this conversation in a meaningful way when it comes to determined pretrial release.

Len Sipes:  Well, you‘re not going to hear any disagreement from me, Tim, in terms of the fact that the criminal justice system really does need to…I mean, it just can’t be a victim’s coordinator. It has to be an entire fundamental change and we have all of these federal and state constitutional amendments talking about what it is that we could do and what it is that we should do. I mean, these are mandates, but I think it’s a philosophical understanding that we have to do a much better job of protecting victims’ rights, but from talking to practitioners, as you do, sometimes I just simply get the sense that we’re exhausted by the process and victims. It’s like “Oh my God! I just don’t have the time to sit with this person for half an hour. I’ve got a thousand other things to do.” I sometimes feel that that’s the dichotomy of very overworked, overburdened, challenge criminal justice system that just lacks the penance, the wherewithal, to give victims the sensitivity and the time that they deserve.

Tim Murray:  Yeah, but we’re not talking about handholding. We’re talking about delivering as public servants essential services that individuals are guaranteed. Whether that guarantee comes under the Bill of Rights for the right to bail or that comes as to the rights that each victim of crime has. We can’t turn our back on either set of lives. We are in the business of serving the public and we have to get better and smarter and more effective at doing that job.

Len Sipes:  We’re out of time and one of the things that I do want to do…Will, let’s do this again in a couple of months because I feel that we’ve barely scratched the surface on this issue, but I really am appreciative that you and Tim were coming on today to discuss this whole issue of pretrial and victims’ issues. It just needs further explanation, I think, but Will Marling, our guest today, Executive Director of National Organization for Victim Assistance; the web address for NOVA – www.trynova.org. Tim Murray, the Executive Director of the Pretrial Justice Institute, www.pretrial.org.

Again, as I said at the beginning of the programs, we’ve been asked to promote the National Reentry Resource Center, www.nationalreentryresourcecenter.org, a project of the US Department of Justice of the Office of Justice Programs and the American Parole and Probation Association. Again, they do want you to respect and honor the sacrifice of parole and probation agents, what we call Community Supervision Officers here in the District of Columbia. www.appa-net.org. Ladies and gentlemen, this is DC Public Safety. We really appreciate all of your calls and letters and interaction with us. Watch for us next time as we explore another very important topic in today’s criminal justice system. Please have yourselves a very, very pleasant day.

[Audio Ends]

Share

Offender and Victim Advocacy: Is there a Middle Ground? DC Public Safety-220,000 Requests a Month

Welcome to DC Public Safety – radio and television shows on crime, criminal offenders and the criminal justice system.

See http://media.csosa.gov for our television shows, blog and transcripts. We now average 200,000 requests a month.

We welcome your comments or suggestions at leonard.sipes@csosa.gov or at Twitter at http://twitter.com/lensipes.

This radio program is available at http://media.csosa.gov/podcast/audio/2010/04/offender-and-victim-advocacy-is-there-a-middle-ground-dc-public-safety-220000-requests-a-month/

[Audio Begins]

Len Sipes:  From the nation’s capital, this is D.C. Public Safety.  I’m your host, Leonard Sipes.  We have, what I believe, is another very interesting show.  We’re going to be talking about crime victims, and I know we’ve been talking a lot about crime victims lately, but this time, we’re going to do it from the faith based perspective, the fact that my agency, the Court Services and Offender Supervision Agency really has what I consider to be one of the best faith based programs in the United States in terms of reaching out to criminal offenders, volunteers and churches, mosques, synagogues to help them readjust from prison, or even on probation, but in this context, we’re going to be talking about it in terms of the faith based initiative.  Anne Seymour is one of our guests today.  She is with Justice Solutions.  She’s a national expert on the issue of victims and victimology.  Anne’s website is www.justicesolutions.org.  I’ll be giving that out again all throughout the program.  Reverend Bernard Keels, the director of the University Memorial Chapel at Morgan State University in the great city of Baltimore, Maryland, where I am from, www.morgan.edu, he’s also joining with us today.  He’s a mentor and facilitator in terms of faith based groups.  Before we begin the show, our usual commercials, we’re up to 200,000 requests a month for D.C. Public Safety, television, radio, blog, and transcripts.  That’s media, M-E-D-I-A – dot-CSOSA – C-S-O-S-A – dot-gov.  Your input into these shows is what makes the show enjoyable, and what makes the show come alive, and we really appreciate every email, every comment on our comments box, your responses via twitter, and your responses, once again, via email.  If you want to get in touch with me directly, it is Leonard – L-E-O-N-A-R-D – dot-Sipes – S-I-P as in Peculiar-P-E-S – @csosa.gov, or you can follow us via twitter at twitter.com/lensipes.  Back to our guests, Anne Seymour and Reverend Bernard Keels.  Welcome to D.C. Public Safety.

Anne Seymour:  Thank you.

Bernard Keels:  Thank you.

Len Sipes:  Anne Seymour, now I’ve read your resume and been on your website, Justice Solutions, www.justicesolutions.org.  You’ve done a ton of work with the U.S. Department of Justice in terms of victims’ issues.  You are, what I was told by Christine Keels, the person who heads up our faith based program, truly one of the national experts when it comes to victims’ related issues.  We’re approaching National Victims’ Week in April.  Give me a sense as to what’s happening with the victims’ movement throughout the country.  Is there a way of summarizing that in a couple minutes?

Anne Seymour:  Yeah, I think, boy, summarizing the victims’ movement, we’re a very, very diverse movement.  So it’s hard to summarize, but I will say that, you know, we’ve got 32,000 laws across the states and the Indian country at the federal level that protect crime victims.  A big issue now for victims is making sure that these laws are more than just rhetoric, and so we’re looking a lot at compliance issues.  For me personally, one of my big issues is also making sure that we’re identifying victims who choose not to go through the justice process, which is the majority of victims who don’t report crimes, and they never know that services are available to assist them, and so I’m working a lot now with victims who choose not to report, as well as with agencies like CSOSA, which has been really a national model in terms of the work they do with crime victims.

Len Sipes:  And I think, and I thank you for that, and I think Christine Keels, the person who heads the faith-based program, really deserves a lot of credit for that and really has re-invigorated the whole faith based initiative. It’s interesting you talk about people not reporting crimes.  Most crimes are not reported to law enforcement.  40% of property crimes and about 50% of violent crimes are reported.  So I’ve oftentimes wondered what happens to those people who float through their victimization without going through the formal criminal justice system; that you’ve just brought up a very interesting issue.

Anne Seymour:  It’s interesting, and I think it’s also very sad.  I mean, one of the things we need to do is to make sure that everyone in a community knows about victims’ services, because I may not report to the police, but I may talk to my hairdresser, to my child’s student, or if I’m at school, I may talk to the school nurse and still not want to report.  That’s my choice, and I support victims who choose that, but we still want them to know that they can access services for mental health counseling, for medical services that they may need.  There’s a lot of services that do not require reporting and going through the system.

Len Sipes:  Okay.  Reverend Bernard Keels, director, University Memorial Chapel, Morgan State University in the great city of Baltimore, again, where I’m from.  Morgan, www.morgan.edu, one of the well known institutions of higher learning in the Baltimore Metropolitan Area.  You’re a mentor and a facilitator in terms of faith based organizations where, here in D.C., in Baltimore?

Bernard Keels:  Yeah, with the Family Reunification Program in D.C.  One of the things that I think Anne has touched on that is so powerful is that the whole issue of the rhetoric that is present in our society, churches and faith based organizations oftentimes had to separate the historical imperative from what’s happened in contemporary times.  Going back to the Cain and Abel saga, where the first, probably the first victim was Abel, I think churches have to really begin to understand that there is a duality, if you will, with how people who are victims of crimes need to have restitution, need to have restorative justice that happens to them, and many, many times, churches tend to be so caught up into the dogma of worship that they forget the everyday issues that affect the people who are worshipping, i.e. crime victims, and yes, people do report crime victims to hairdressers and to strangers, and sometimes, the last place they come is a faith based institution because of the built in negative images of what it means to accuse, for instance, a cleric of abuse.  Some of the institutional abuse you hear about, pedophilia in some of the mainline denominational churches, so faith based churches and institutions need to really broaden their understanding that it’s okay to leap out with your faith, but to understand the very basic issues that affect people, because people, after all, bring the whole idea of parishioners, and I think that’s where we have to become more relevant.

Len Sipes:  The, especially when it applies to women victims, most, in most cases, women know who attacked them.  In most cases, there is prior knowledge or a prior relationship.  That is extraordinarily difficult when your best friend/brother/husband/friend of five years/somebody that you’ve known for the last 30 days victimizes you, and thereby the struggle, and we understand that, in terms of people not reporting crimes, they see this in many cases as a personal event, not necessarily an event that you would report to the criminal justice system, but she’s a victim nevertheless.  So I would imagine, I can see that person going to their Imam.  I can see that person going to their priest, going to their minister, going to their rabbi, and saying, although I don’t want to report this to the criminal justice system, I am reporting it to you, I need spiritual counseling in terms of best, next steps.  What should I do, correct?

Bernard Keels:  Yeah.  Not only are you correct, but it’s so incumbent upon that spiritual director to recognize the boundaries of their ability, his or her ability, to become a meaningful mentor, a meaningful person that could intervene in it.  So many times, people will go to their cleric, the imam, the rabbi as a way of sort of ameliorating the situation and saying that prayer will change that, or the fact that I’ll come to church will make it easier, and it takes a very strong and well-trained cleric to realize that it’s okay to be able to access those governmental, or organizations like a CSOSA, to be able to partner with those governmental organizations and partner with Anne’s group, and to be able to say, help me learn how to translate what I do so that a victim actually has a face and a person they can believe in in the process of healing.

Len Sipes:  Now before going on in the program, to cretae clarity, some clarity out of all the issues we’re dealing with over the course of the next 25 minutes, we have to deal with the faith based component, and the faith based component, ordinarily, is one of mentoring people under supervision. So we’ve got to be dealing with the fact that there are people under supervision, and we use the faith community to mentor to them, to help them regain their footing, not do drugs, get together and take care of their families and not continue a criminal lifestyle.  We’ve got to deal with that.  We’ve got to deal with that in the context of the victims’ movement, and we’ve got to deal with the victims’ movement across the board.  So that’s three gigantic topics that we now have, oh, 20 minutes to deal with.  Do we want to start off with the mentoring to people under supervision/criminal offenders?  Do we want to start off with that component and how that interacts with the victims’ movement?

Bernard Keels:  Yeah, one of the ways that we started was to be able to help offenders understand that there’s not that much difference between a mentor and a mentee.  So many times, we draw an invisible yet concrete barrier between those who have transgressed society and those who are nice, normal people.  I’ve found that it’s important to tell your story and be a very good listener so that a person realizes that no matter how far you’ve gone, you can come home.  The Hebrew biblical story of the prodigal son comes to mind.  It’s important to realize that if we live against society, rehabilitation and restorative justice is possible, then that offender has to have the very realistic goal that if he or she can begin to first seek some forgiveness within themselves, their higher being, whatever it might be, then and only then can they begin to go to that person that they’ve transgressed and try to be able to create a more helpful and hopeful dialogue.  So mentors have to be very careful not to prejudge a situation based on their own concept of morality, their own concept of religion.  Religion becomes so narrowly defined sometimes that it can become dangerous when we begin to judge people from a unidimensional yardstick that says, if you’ve done this, then this is the result.  I don’t know a person’s story, but I can hear who they are and interact with who they’ve been, and then share a bit of my own story.  So I think that that mentoring thing, in the faith based community, has to be able to step outside of its own power, if you will, its own sense of history, and look in the universal sense of, what does it mean if I have offended Anne, to know that Anne has the right to come to her own terms of forgiving my offense.

Len Sipes:  All right, so basically what I’m hearing is, first, the individual has to heal themselves.  The faith based mentor, whatever religion that persons happens to represent, can’t be too judgmental.  He’s there to help that person cross a bridge, but there is a certain point where he or she needs to acknowledge that they’ve done a tremendous amount of harm to another human being, they need to acknowledge they’ve done harm, a tremendous amount of harm to the community, so it’s just not that particular act in isolation.  There’s no such thing as a burglary.  There’s no such thing as a rape.  It is multiple, multiple victims.  It may be one person that the state uses to prosecute, but there’s an entire family, there’s an entire community that’s been harmed, and that offender needs to come to grips with that community –

Anne Seymour:  And their own family as well.

Len Sipes:  Yes.

Bernard Keels:  Good.

Len Sipes:  Go ahead –

Anne Seymour:  Oh, I was just going to say, that’s the whole concept of restorative justice, is that you really need to look at the harm you’ve done to yourself.  I really agree.  You’ve got to go to yourself first.  It’s not about me first as a victim advocate, or as someone who’s a probation officer, it is really looking at you and the harm that you did, but how I hurt you and your family first, and then your victim, and then your neighborhood, and then your community, so it’s very, very important that we understand, it’s almost like a tidal wave that occurs.  It may start out as a little wave, but when you think about the impact of crime, it goes so far in our society, and I think traditionally, a lot of folks that are under community supervision, we’ve never made them think about it, and a big part of what we’re talking about today is that we want them to think about it, and we’re going to give them help to acknowledge that they have caused harm to people, and that we’re giving them an opportunity to make up for the harm that they’ve caused.

Bernard Keels:  From a spiritual point of view, acknowledgment is only part of it, Leonard.  Understanding becomes an even deeper part, because when you understand something, there’s a possibility for transformation to take place.  So many times, people carry on the label of being an alcoholic or a drug addict or a recovering drug addict.  I try to get a person to the point where they both acknowledge and understand they can become a delivered person so they don’t go that pathway again.  They discover new pathways to conflict resolution, new pathways to understand that their personal issues don’t have dominance over someone else’s issue because of their role or their gender or their relationship or their wealth, and so many times, society begins to casually assign value on crimes based on who’s committing the crime.

Len Sipes:  Well, the society puts labels on each and every one of us for a thousand different reasons, whether you’re African American, whether you’re white, whether you’re short, whether you’re tall, whether you’re Hispanic, whether you’re a male, whether you’re female, whether you’re from the United States, or whether you’re from Germany, we all tend to provide stereotypes.  So the stereotype of the criminal offender, or the stereotype of the person under supervision, however you want to describe that person, doesn’t that come with the territory?  Anne?

Anne Seymour:  You know, I think it does.  I think we are judgmental, even though we’re all mamby pamby and say we’re not supposed to be, but we do judge.  We very often do judge a book by its cover.  But it’s the same thing when, you know, when we talk about victims, people see victims as weak, as someone who might have been partially responsible for what happened to them.  We make judgments about victims, and when we talk about why crime victims don’t report crimes, it’s because they are afraid that no one’s going to believe them, and they’re afraid of being blamed, and the thing that you mentioned, Leonard, I think is so important.  Very often, they know the person, and so they don’t want to get that person in trouble, or they’re fearful of that person.  So we need to recognize that we do judge people who have committed offenses, and very often, I think our judgments are way off, just as they are with crime victims, that we should not make assumptions that anyone is a certain way because they committed an offense, or because someone committed one against them.  With victims, for me, it’s always so important to, despite all the research that tells us about domestic violence victims, and kids who are child abuse victims, everyone is unique.  Every single person has their own story.  Every person came to the path of victimization with a lot of stuff that came before that we need to recognize, which is going to affect how they cope with the victimization.

Len Sipes:  I want to reintroduce my guests halfway through the program, and it’s going by like wildfire.  Anne Seymour, Justice Solutions, www.justicesolutions.org, national expert in terms of victim assistance.  Reverend Bernard Keel is director of University Memorial Chapel at Morgan State University in grand and glorious Baltimore, Maryland, www.morgan.edu.  We go with the research, and you go with a certain sense of pragmatism, and I just want to touch upon this whole sense of labeling very quickly and then move on.  If I don’t introduce that, if I don’t introduce the anger on the part of the crime victims, if I don’t introduce the anger on the part of the average citizen who happens to listen to this program, they don’t see the program is relevant.  They say, Leonard, for the love of good god, at least acknowledge the fact that we are suffering and the community is suffering.  Yeah, I do understand that programs need to be there for offenders/people under supervision.  I need, I understand all of that, but somewhere along the line, you’ve got to acknowledge the harm.  Okay, so if we acknowledge the harm, then we can move on and say that the research is pretty clear that these programs, and programs run the gamut from drug treatment to mental health treatment to finding jobs to dealing with a wide array of other social issues, do have a way of lessening recidivism, which means fewer offenders go back to the criminal justice system, which saves a) victims from being victims, and b) taxpayers from having to pay additional taxes.  The research indicates that there’s approximately a 10-20% reduction in recidivism, so Reverend Keels, by mentoring to individuals, helping them cross that bridge, that’s accelerating that process, is it not?

Bernard Keels:  Not only is it accelerating the process, but it really assures that recidivism does not become the revolving door that so many times is in the criminal justice system.  Apart from the understanding of the offender, I want to really talk a bit about the victim.  So many times, the victim, in his or her silence, has been shunned by all of the institutional support.  Most of the institutional support in America is for offenders, and so the support, there’s parole, probation, there’s –

Len Sipes:  98% of it is focused on the person, the participant within the criminal system.

Bernard Keels:  This is where the community becomes important.  The community becomes the holistic vehicle by which we can rally around the whole adage about, it takes a village to heal something, can rally around and begin to say that it’s not your fault, that there is a way of you being able to come to grips with your own hurt, and maybe someday, at your pace, forgive, but not to put the victim in a sense of being revictimized.

Len Sipes:  Yes.

Bernard Keels:  So many times, faith communities make that mistake, Leonard, to revictimize the person.

Len Sipes:  And that’s part of the problem here, in terms of the calls and letters that I get, or the emails, is that, don’t revictimize people who are victimized by crime.  We do understand that you’re advocating for more programs for criminal offenders, and we understand that, but somewhere along the line, you have to advocate for us, which is the reasons why we’re doing these radio shows in.

Anne Seymour:  I just remember, as a young victim advocate, and this was 25 years ago, I was training probation officers, and a woman lingered afterwards, and told me about being a battered woman.  She was a probation officer who was in a chronic battering, and she told me about going to her minister, and he said to her, if you would just be a better wife and think about your children, it’s important that you stay with him for the sake of the family.  And I remember her crying, and I remember crying myself thinking, oh my gosh, we have to do something if that’s the advice that faith communities are giving to victims, and that’s why I’m so happy to be addressing this subject today, because people do not, they’re not mean to victims intentionally, but they say the wrong things, and the faith community, in trying to keep the family together and trying to stick with, especially the Christian requirement forgiveness can be extremely hurtful to victims.  So we have partnered, over the years, and developed wonderful training programs, and a lot of work like the mentoring that the reverend is doing, that helps them understand that they have two options: they can help victims, or they can hurt victims, and we’re kind of hoping that everyone sides on the help part, because there’s a lot of help needed by victims.

Len Sipes:  There is middle ground.  From what I’m hearing from both of you, there is a way of mentoring to victims, and to be sure that their rights and responsibilities are constitutional rights in most of the states, so there is a constitutional right in terms of the federal crimes, they are, they have constitutional protections.  There is a way of taking care of the victim, and at the same time, being sure that the people under supervision, by my agency or any other agency out there, we’re talking about five million human beings, seven million people caught up in the criminal justice system and the correctional system, but the vast majority of them belong to us, the people who provide community supervision.  There is a way to take care of the victims’ issues, and there is a way to take care of the people under supervision to provide them with that bridge, and in many ways, and I’ve seen it first hand in the 20 years that I’ve been dealing directly with the offender community, there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who have crossed that bridge, who do come to an understanding that they’ve done a tremendous amount of harm, who have gotten the programs and the services necessary to help them go from tax burden to taxpayer.  So we can do it all, is the point.

Bernard Keels:  Traditionally, institutions like faith based institutions have done, by every means necessary, to protect the pristine image of being perfect.  Nothing bad happens here.  Everything that walks through this door gets returned to a perfect relationship with the creator and all those kinds of things.  One of the things that I try to do personally and professionally is to realize the need to be able to acknowledge brokenness with the victim, and to talk about those issues both biblically, historically, interpersonally, where broken does, when it becomes uncared for, brokenness becomes a characteristic, if you will, or a habitual cyclical thing where people feel to be broken.  Case in point, and Anne reminded me so much, you’re talking about that crime victim went to her pastor, I had a young lady come to me some years ago, battered and bruised, and told me that she needed to be a better wife because she knew her husband loved her, and I said why, because he beat me.  And you know, for her, that was her Judeo-Christian training in terms of wives, submit to your husbands.  Property issues.  And I said to her that, let’s rethink that again.  If you remain in a state of brokenness, normally, you do not become well, you might pass that brokenness on to your offspring.  So your children may begin to understand that that’s the role of a woman, to be battered, not to be made, self-actualized through her own abilities, her own talents, and when pastors and imams and rabbis are not properly trained, they will almost always go to maintain the integrity of the institution, and not the integrity of the individual who’s hurting within an institution, so it’s critical to do that.

Len Sipes:  These are all extraordinarily sensitive issues, and I think we’re tackling them rather well.  We’re not avoiding them.  We’re not being a bunch of bureaucrats.  Let me throw in one more.  The great majority of, according to research, especially women caught up in the criminal justice system, they’ve been crime victims themselves.  Males, I mean, there’s a strong piece of research, series of research articles out there talking about the fact that everybody caught up in the criminal, not everybody, the majority caught up in the criminal justice system are subject, have been the recipients of child abuse and neglect.  The instance of women offenders being sexually assaulted, especially as children, especially by people they know is astounding.  I understand why, after 40 years in the criminal justice system, why so many people do take to drugs, why so many people, in fact, it’s 50%+ claim mental health issues, not diagnosable mental health, but they claim their own mental health issues.  I understand a lot of that, not trying to rationalize the criminal behavior or excuse the criminal behavior, but when you come from that sort of a background, I understand why they get into drugs, and I understand why drugs, in many cases, leads to criminal behavior.  Who wants to tackle that?

Anne Seymour:  Well, I’m happy to tackle that, and thank you for bringing up female offenders.  I think a real theme of what we’re talking about is that, in the old days, we would have the people who worked with offenders, or people in prison on one side, and the victim people way on the other side, and we have come to a rightful conclusion that it is not black and white.  We are all gray in this, and you raise a great example of women offenders, at least 90% of them have victimization and trauma in their background, which causes them very often to use and abuse, to cope with the trauma, which puts them in dangerous situations, which sometimes lead to criminal situations.  Now tell me that’s not a victim assistance issue!  And I actually am starting  to work on women offender issues, but similarly, I think of CSOSA as a great example.  Why does CSOSA have a victim assistance program? People go, they’re supposed to be working with people on probation.  It is great!  Every probationer, and people talk about victimless crimes.  I’ll make the case that there is no such thing as a victimless crime!  For every probationer, someone is hurt by that.  So they need to be having victim services to be able to recognize that fact, and I will give you another example.  Prison rape is an issue.  That’s a huge concern now in this country.  Who is stepping up to the plate to work with people who are incarcerated, men and women and youthful offenders?  It is victim advocates.  We have a moral obligation to not say, this person’s a criminal or a murderer, or they raped themselves.  That doesn’t matter to us.  They’re a victim in need of help, and so I just say that, because we not only judge people, as we said earlier, but we tend to pigeonhole people, and the beauty of what CSOSA is doing, and I hope a lot of other programs out in this country and internationally is recognizing that we’ve, we can’t box ourselves in anymore.  We just can’t.  Everyone is or knows a victim of crime.  Everyone knows someone who has been through some sort of criminal or juvenile justice supervision, so let’s look at it from that perspective.  This affects every single one of us.

Len Sipes:  It’s a massive amount of suffering, whether you’re the victim, whether you’re the person caught up in the criminal justice system, whether the person caught up in the criminal justice system who was victimized when they were young, there’s just a massive amount of pain going on out there, and I guess it’s our job, in terms of the victims’ community and the faith based community and government, I sort of have to laugh when you say government.

Anne Seymour:  No, it’s a big role.

Len Sipes:  Well, we would like to, but I think the leadership is going to come from the victims’ community, and I think the leadership is going to come from the faith based community, quite frankly, because you all can say and do things that we can’t in government.

Anne Seymour:  The giant sucking sound we want.

Len Sipes:  The giant –

Anne Seymour:  – to get wrapped into what we’re doing.

Len Sipes:  The giant, the giant sucking sound.  Well, but we also want, at the same time, we want to convince people that it’s all shades of gray, that there’s very little black and white here, that it’s very little E=MC2, that there is a massive amount of suffering.  If the faith community steps up to the plate and provides the leadership which they’re so capable of doing, and can mentor to individuals in a way that government, quite frankly, cannot.  I’m paid to do what I do.  So that person, regardless of where I spent my career, part of my career in terms of helping people caught up in the criminal justice system, I’m still paid to do it.  The mentors are there because they see it as God’s work.

Anne Seymour:  And the keyword in all that is servant leadership.  Leadership by itself does not hold, I think, the true sense of what can be accomplished by serving others, a servant leader takes, at the very center of his or her setting to meet a person at the point of their need, and the need of victims, the need of offenders, the needs of the secondary and tertiary victims who sometimes feel helpless because someone they love has been victimized are really, really important, and one of the things that I try to consistently understand is this marvelous study in the Hebrew scripture about Nathan, the friend of David.  David had victimized people without realizing, because his authority said you can do it.  You’re the king, take Uriah and kill him.  You know, you’re the king, do whatever you want to do, and Nathan appeals to the core of who he is, and here through the friend, the king, who has an influence over his subjects, comes and writes one of the most powerful restorative psalms that you can read in Hebrew scripture.  So I think that it’s important that that victim realizes, never be forgotten, that Anne and I are crucial to what you do, but you are crucial too, because a part of the government, the rules and the issues become subtle and arrived at, and we’ve got to be able to go into institutions and say, for instance, the homosexual rape, indeed, is victimizing people.

Len Sipes:  Okay.  Anne, I’m going to give you the final 30 seconds of the program.

Anne Seymour:  I just want to reiterate that I think we’re all in this together where we are victims or people who choose to victimize others, everyone’s going to have needs, and we as a community, I think, have an obligation to identify the needs of victims and try to meet them, but also recognize, I really appreciate what we’ve said, this whole thing is that, I think a lot of offenders, not all of them, a lot of them deserve a second chance, and the only way they can get that chance is if a community is willing to accept them and accept the fact that they have done something terribly wrong and give them opportunities to be held accountable to their victim and to their own community.

Len Sipes:  Our guests today have been Anne Seymour of Justice Solutions, www.justicesolutions.org, a national expert on the issue of victimology.  Reverend Bernard Keel is director of the University Memorial Chapel of Morgan State University, www.morgan – M-O-R-G-A-N – dot-edu, a mentor and faith based group facilitator.  Ladies and gentlemen, this is D.C. Public Safety.  Once again, we are extraordinarily appreciative of all the contact that you provide us, either through the show notes, the comments, and our four websites at media – M-E-D-I-A – dot-csosa.gov, or reach me directly via email, Leonard – L-E-O-N-A-R-D – dot-sipes – S-I-P-E-S – @csosa.gov, or follow us by twitter – twitter.com/lensipes.  I want everybody to have themselves a very, very pleasant day.

[Audio Ends]

Share

Scam Victims United-NOVA-DC Public Safety

Welcome to DC Public Safety – radio and television shows on crime, criminal offenders and the criminal justice system.

See http://media.csosa.gov for our television shows, blog and transcripts.

This radio program is available at http://media.csosa.gov/podcast/audio/2010/03/scam-victims-united-nova-dc-public-safety/

We welcome your comments or suggestions at leonard.sipes@csosa.gov or at Twitter at http://twitter.com/lensipes.

- Audio begins -

Len Sipes: From our microphones in downtown Washington, D.C., this is D.C. Public Safety. I’m your host, Leonard Sipes. Back with the National Organization for Victim Assistance with Dr. Will Marling, the Executive Director of NOVA, and Shawn Mosch. She is a victim of fraud, but she turned that victimization into positive action. She is now with Scam Victims United at www.scamvictimsunited.org, but before talking to will and talking to Shawn, I want to thank everybody, once again, for listening, watching, and reading the materials that we have at our website at media.csosa.gov, D.C. Public Safety radio, television, transcripts, and blog. We are up to 200,000 requests on a monthly basis for everything that we do, and we are extraordinarily appreciative of everything that you’re providing us with, even the comments as to how many times I screw up, or ideas for new programs and directions in terms of where we should go, and meaningful conversations in terms of the comments log. You can log into the website, again, media.csosa.gov, or you can email me directly at Leonard L-E-O-N-A-R-D.sipes S-I-P not T, P-E-S@csosa.gov or you can follow us via Twitter. That’s Twitter.com/lensipes,L-E-N-S-I-P-E-S, no break in those words. Back to your program. Dr. Will Marling, the Executive Director of NOVA, and Shawn Mosch, the person basically in charge of Scam Victims United, and to Will and to Shawn, welcome to D.C. Public Safety.

Will Marling: Thanks, Leonard.

Len Sipes: Will, I’m going to start off with you. How does the National Organization for Victim Assistance get involved with this issue of fraud. It’s pretty apparent to me – first of all, ladies and gentlemen, National Organization for Victim Assistance has been around for decades. At the very beginning of my stint in Washington, D.C., thirty years ago, there was the National Organization for Victim Assistance. When I worked as a senior crime prevention specialist for the Department of Justice’s clearing house, they also gave me the victim’s beat, which I knew nothing at all about, and the folks at NOVA were wonderful in terms of instructing me, and now we have Dr. Will Marling, who is now in charge of NOVA. How did we get into the scam and fraud issue?

Will Marling: Well, I tell you, we have a victim assistance line, Leonard, and you know, our expertise is primarily in violent criminal victimization and identity theft, but we get a lot of calls on this line. And of course, when people are looking for assistance, they see victim assistance, and we get, sometimes, a wide range of victim calls, but fraud victims, is there any angle, opportunity, remediation? What do they do? And while that’s not our area of expertise, we felt it important to start looking for at least some resources. We want to be able to at least hand them something, and that’s when we had the opportunity to connect with Shawn Mosch and Scam Victims United. And she’s a great resource, and the website’s fantastic. It’s a really useful tool.

Len Sipes: Is there any difference between identity theft and scams and frauds. It’s all pretty much the same thing, correct?

Will Marling: Well, no, no. I mean, you know, it all depends on the nature of the victimization, of course. Identity theft, you can have your identity stolen and never even know about it. The average identity discovered, the average identity theft discovery is twelve months, maybe, with a victim. With a scam situation, you’re engaging in something, and you believe that it’s an ethical, reputable approach, and then you discover that it’s not. There’s deception and this kind of thing, so there are different dynamics to it, and Shawn’s situation is even more irritating. She can tell you about that, but especially when people think they’re getting something, but they’re not, actually, that’s fraud.

Len Sipes: Absolutely. Now, I think I’m a perfect example of where I did not know. I mean, I’ve been in the business for forty years and I’m having a hard time distinguishing between identity theft and fraud. So, you know, there’s probably lots of people out there who may see – maybe they’re as dumb as I am and they see these issues as being one and the same. I mean, in essence, we’re concerned with burglary, we’re concerned with theft, we’re concerned with robbery, but much more money leaves our pockets through ID theft or through fraud and scams than through garden variety street crime, correct?

Will Marling: Well, you know, statistically, some of that’s hard to track. You know, we have uniform criminal reporting and a lot of that is related to the violent criminal side of things, which is horrific. But from the financial side, the emotional impact could be significant as well. When people take your earnings and something you’ve been saving for, or sometimes people end up losing quite a bit, and end up having to try to recover that, but at the heart of it, it’s an attack on us, personally, and it really steals something from us emotionally, many times, traumatically, and that’s why we still emphasize that. We recognize that certain outcomes from physical violence are different, and we as an organization are still committed to supporting violent criminal victimization folks who have that need, but we definitely see the growing, increasing demand on supporting fraud victims, because it’s there. And in the economic situation we’re in, these perpetrators are looking for every angle to still line their pockets with more money.

Len Sipes: And we’re going to do our very best today to stop them. Shawn Mosch, a victim of fraud. Tell us a little bit about that story and what brought you to create scamvictimsunited.org or scamvictimsunited.com.

Shawn Mosch: Well, back in 2002, my husband and I were selling a 1951 Buick Special that he had owned since he was in college, and we didn’t have a place to store it anymore, so we were selling it, and put an ad online, got some people that were interested. There was one person that sent us a cashier’s check to pay for the car and also to pay for shipping the car from us to them.

Len Sipes: Right.

Shawn Mosch: And we brought the cashier’s check to the bank, and because we didn’t know this person at all, we said to the bank, “We’re selling a car and we want to make sure that this check is good. You know, I don’t want to ship the car off or start using the money from this check and find out later it’s bad, and then we’re left in the hole.” And they said, “Oh, no, it’s a cashier’s check. Those are verified, it’s good in twenty-four hours. No problem.” And I said, “Wait, verified as good in twenty-four hours? That seems a little fast.” And they said, “Yeah, because cashier’s checks process faster.”

Len Sipes: Right.

Shawn Mosch: Twenty-four hours. That’s all you need to wait.

Len Sipes: I thought a cashier’s check was as good as cash. I’m sorry, go ahead.

Shawn Mosch: That’s the other thing that, you know, “Oh, they’re as good as cash,” so they assured me it had been verified, it was good, it was clear. The funds were available. And I said, “Okay,” so we went forward with the transaction. So part of that money was for shipping the car, and that we did to the person that was going to take care of that transportation, and then the other part was for the sale of the car, which we kept. So one week to the day later, the bank called us and said the check was counterfeit. And I said, “Well, what does that mean for me, because you already told me it was good and it was clear. You can’t un-ring that bell.” And they said, “That means you owe us the money.” I said, “What do you mean, I owe you the money? You told me it was good. I wasn’t going to touch the money – ”

Len Sipes: Until you told me it was good.

Shawn Mosch: Until I knew it was good and it was clear and it was verified. “You told me it was. What did I do wrong?” And actually, once I got talking with our legal department, my husband even asked them, and this was now days after we had found out it was counterfeit, and he said, “How long does it really take for a cashier’s check to clear?” And they put him on hold and then came back to the phone and told him, “Twenty-four hours, sir.” And we said, “Well, wait a minute. If that was accurate, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.”

Len Sipes: It is, it is -

Shawn Mosch: Like it’s the real time, and they were never able to give us that information. So basically, I was upset. I started talking about this to anyone and everyone that would listen, started a message board, and through the message board, we found other people that this was happening to. So at first, I thought it was just my bank’s policy was messed up. So then, as I started to look at it, I found, ‘No, it’s the banking system.’ The banking system will tell people the check is good, it’s clear, and make the funds available in twenty-four hours before the check has been honored by the issuing bank. So now you can use and spend that money and then it could be 7-10 business days later that it comes back as counterfeit, and then you are liable for all that money.

Len Sipes: And how did you, how did all this make you and your husband feel?

Shawn Mosch: Oh, we were very upset.

Len Sipes: Yeah.

Shawn Mosch: So, we started talking to the media, and once it started to get in the media, we got even more people that were telling us, “Oh, it happened to me. Oh, same thing,” so then we started the website, Scam Victims United, and that was in early 2003. In the first two years of our website being operational, we helped stop over $2,000,000 from going into scams.

Len Sipes: That’s amazing. Now, okay, so you hold the key, then, for the rest of us, to tell the rest of us what not to do.

Shawn Mosch: That’s ironic that you used that phrase, because I did a presentation called ‘Education is the key.’

Len Sipes: Right.

Shawn Mosch: So we can all hold the key. Education about scams and frauds is the key.

Len Sipes: But every day, we are confronted with these scams, and I remember being on my computer and being three-quarters of the way through this statement from my bank and it just struck me – again, I’ve been a senior crime prevention specialist for the federal government. I’ve been involved in the crime prevention arena for a decade. I’ve been in the criminal justice system for forty years, and I was within a keystroke of sending fraudulent information through a phishing scheme. Any one of us could fall for this. I was on Gmail the other night and, you know, the scams that run on Gmail seem to be every single day. This is amazing. I mean, we are under attack.

Shawn Mosch: Every time we think we got the word out about this scam, they’re going to invent another one.

Len Sipes: And they look so legitimate.

Shawn Mosch: Oh, yeah, so many of them, they use the logos and all the right letterhead, and you get the check – the bank managers can’t even tell, by looking at the check, if it’s good or not.

Len Sipes: That’s amazing.

Shawn Mosch: But this is why I always tell people that if you are sent a cashier’s check or money order – because they’re also counterfeiting money orders and traveler’s checks – if you’re sent any one of those for payment for anything – something you’re selling online, a donation to a charity, payment for a room you’re renting, if you are sent cashier’s checks, money orders, traveler’s checks, and then told you need to wire any money to anyone, it’s a scam. They will go as far as doing on Craigslist – they’ll go out there and find somebody who’s renting a room. They’ll say, “Yep, I want to rent your room, send you a cashier’s check for the first month’s rent and deposit.” Then, once they know you’ve deposited the cashier’s check, they’ll say, “Oh my gosh, something happened. I’m not going to be able to move in with you. I’m so sorry. I have to back out of our contract. Can you just wire me back the money?”

Len Sipes: Wow, that’s amazing.

Shawn Mosch: This is the thing that I get all the time. So many people would say, “Well, I wouldn’t be dumb enough to wire money to somebody I don’t know.” But in that situation I just described, if you were renting out a room in your home to someone, and then they emailed you and said, “My mother passed away. I have to stay where I’m living to help out the rest of my family and I have to back out of our contract and not move into your room. I know I already sent you a thousand dollars. Keep a hundred for your trouble and inconvenience. Wire me back the rest.” Most people go, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry. Yes, of course, I’m going to send you your $900.”

Len Sipes: Right. Okay, well, what are the three major things, as consumers, as regular, everyday people, that we can use to prevent this sort of thing from happening to us?

Shawn Mosch: Like I said, if you’re sent any sort of check, cashier’s check, money order and asked to wire any portion of it to anyone for any reason – I don’t care if their grandma died and their house fell down on top of them and they need the money – don’t.

Len Sipes: It’s a fraud.

Shawn Mosch: That’s the first thing. I mean, absolutely 100%, every single time I have ever talked with a person and that is their situation, it is a scam.

Len Sipes: Okay, give me another.

Shawn Mosch: Again, like you were talking about with the phishing scams, never ever click on a link in an email. If you get an email from your bank that says that there’s a problem with your account, call the customer service number to your bank and talk to a real human being.

Len Sipes: And don’t call the customer service number listed on that email. Right.

Shawn Mosch: Yeah, you can’t call the phone number listed in the email, because that might be redirected to the scammer, who is going to tell you, “Oh, yes, we need your information.” You know your bank. You bank with it every day. Pick up the phone and call their local number. Same with credit cards, where they say there’s a problem with your credit card. Flip over your credit card; look at the back. There is a customer service phone number. Call that number and say, “Hi, I got an email saying there’s a problem with my account.” If there really is a problem with your account, their help center will be able to pull it up and there will be a big flag on your account that says, ‘Yep, here’s the problem we need to fix.’

Len Sipes: But even -

Shawn Mosch: Don’t click the links on the emails.

Len Sipes: The example that I gave a little while ago with Gmail – I mean, all they’re asking for is account information, and I’m saying to myself, “Well, they’re not asking for my social security number. They’re not asking for my date of birth. They’re not asking for my home address. They simply want the account information. How could that possibly help them?” And then I said to myself, “Oh, silly, everything in there – something in there – whatever it is that you used to sign up for it provides them with access to practically everything else that you’re doing. Don’t do it.” And I emailed it to Gmail and they emailed back saying, “Yes, it’s fraudulent. Don’t worry about it.” But what that does is there are so many of these frauds going on, it almost makes you wary of any official correspondence coming to you via the Internet.

Shawn Mosch: It does, and I noticed that with myself, that every email I read, I kind of look at it and go, “Well, is this person really up and up?” And I do my research now. Google is a wonderful resource. If you are in doubt at all, copy and paste the person’s email address into a Google search, and if they have done this scam to somebody else, there is probably a post somewhere. We have had so many people come to our website because they did just that. They either Googled the name of the scammer, their email address, the companies they said they were working for, or their phone number, and it brought them right to our website, because so many people have posted, “Here’s the name and information about our scammer on our message board, so then we’re helping others to prevent the scams, because they did the Google search and found the information.”

Len Sipes: We’re more than halfway through the program. I want to reintroduce our guests. Dr. Will Marling is the Executive Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, long, venerable, and honored within the criminal justice system for the work that they do. You can reach the National Organization for Victim Assistance, www.trynova.org. www.trynova.org. Our other guest today is Shawn Mosch. She is a victim, but more important that she took her victimization and turned it into something wonderfully positive. She is the person who organized Scam Victims United and it’s www.scamvictimsunited.org or www.scamvictimsunited.com. All right, so basically, any time you get a cashier’s check, any check, and you’re asked to wire the money back, that’s an obvious fraud. You know, never click any attachment or an email asking for any personal information. Go back to your bank, go back to your credit card company, go back to Google and just be suspicious of just about virtually any email requests that you get. But I bet you people are scammed all the time by regular U.S. mail.

Shawn Mosch: They are. The ones we see the most are the Internet ones, because most of the scammers are in another country and the problem is, you report the crime to your local police, and they can’t do anything jurisdiction-wise because they’re in another country.

Len Sipes: Because they’re in Russia.

Shawn Mosch: Now if Nigeria, the United Kingdom, usually. Sometimes Canada. But Nigeria is probably – if I had to put a top three, it would be Nigeria, U.K., and then Canada.

Len Sipes: Mm, that’s amazing. So I was overly stereotypical, because I heard so much about servers in Russia, even if they’re in other countries, being used for scams, but England and Canada and Nigeria, those are the three. All English commonwealth countries.

Shawn Mosch: Exactly.

Len Sipes: Interesting, interesting.

Shawn Mosch: Yeah, with Canada, the big one was the Canadian lottery, that they would get a letter saying that they had won the Canadian lottery and then you have to contact this person. Now you might get that first letter of contact via snail mail, but after that, things like the cashier’s check are usually sent overnight, like FedEx, the reason being the scammers know if they mail that counterfeit cashier’s check in the U.S. mail, that’s mail fraud.

Len Sipes: Yeah, and there’s a whole organization to -

Shawn Mosch: They use a delivery system, then it’s not.

Len Sipes: Okay, understood. I mean I get the British lottery scam every single night in my Gmail. When I open up my Gmail, the British lottery scam is there every single night.

Shawn Mosch: Oh, I get it too. I get it sent to admin at scamvictimsunited.com.

Len Sipes: [Laughs] Well, again, what is the larger perspective in all of this, Will Marling, Executive Director of NOVA. What is the larger perspective? Have we covered it in terms of our introduction? I would imagine – my guess is that this is happening a hundred times more than burglary, even though we don’t have hard data on it. My guess is that this is happening far more than street variety crime, and that this is a real issue, not only for this country, but for organizations like yours.

Will Marling: Well, sure. I mean, it’s hard to quantify, certainly, because these spamming situation, they can send out a hundred million emails and even a very tiny percentage of response is still a meaningful response for them, because it’s just the law of large numbers. Our main concern is educating people, like Shawn does so well, because really, at the end of the day, a lot of it truly is common sense, and that isn’t to minimize people or to criticize people who have fallen for this, because to be honest, we’ve had people perpetrate on our organization for things. And sometimes, you know, you want to step forward and, with an open hand, meet people and assume the best, but then you discover later on – but with a lot of these things, it plays on certain intrigue that we all have. The opportunity may be to get something for nothing, like some of these phishing opportunities, but as much as that, many times it’s just stopping and thinking. You know, does the bank need to ask you for all your personal information? Shouldn’t they have it already? I mean, why would they need to verify all that?

Len Sipes: But it’s impossible, though, Will. I mean, don’t you think, in the situation with Shawn, somebody handed her a cashier’s check. If somebody handed me a cashier’s check and if my bank said, “You know what? You’re good to go,” I would pretty much bet the farm that I’m okay.

Will Marling: Well, sure. And that’s because you have a good relationship, at least at the time, with the bank, and you’re trusting them. But again, you know, we’re talking cashier’s checks, and so it’s an awareness issue. It’s a consumer consideration to say exactly what’s going on here, and to be honest, it’s going to continue, I presume, at that level, until the banks become more committed to educating consumers themselves, and their clients, their customers, as to what truly can happen. I can’t see any reason for the bank to say, “No, we need to hold onto this. There could be a concern. We see a profile, we see a pattern, and here are the steps we recommend you take. Let’s work together on this.” But the bank just needs to recover their money.

Shawn Mosch: Banks don’t have any incentive – the bank doesn’t lose any money. It’s the customer that has to pay back, so if the bank was liable, you know there would be changes, that they would be making sure that the check is legitimate before a penny went out. And I have stressed to people that all it would have taken was for the bank to say, “The funds are available, but the check might not clear for 7-10 business days.”

Len Sipes: Right, so let’s not touch the money until -

Shawn Mosch: Probably 96% of the scam victims. Excuse me?

Len Sipes: I said, so the bank would say, “Let’s not touch that money until it does clear.”

Will Marling: Right.

Shawn Mosch: Right, but on a banker’s stand, because I’ve talked to the bankers on this issue, they say that for every cashier’s check that comes in, you have to hold it for 7-10 days, we’re going to get pissed off customers coming in and going, “Well, it’s my money. I want my money now.” You know, “My brother-in-law wrote me that cashier’s check, so I know it’s good.”

Len Sipes: Well, let him sign a release, then.

Shawn Mosch: In that case, have a form that they sign that says, “I’m releasing the bank of any liability. I understand that it might still come back on me.” At least tell people that it could take 7-10 business days, versus saying “Twenty-four hours. Good as gold.”

Will Marling: Right. I mean, all you need to do is hold onto the money. My thing is, okay, clear as the bank hands you the money – well, hold onto the thousand dollars for two weeks, because you can turn it back into the bank, right?

Shawn Mosch: Exactly.

Will Marling: But people don’t think about that. Naturally, we’re trying to conduct our business, and if the people you trust, which is your bank, like Shawn’s saying, since she was fifteen – you know, the bank says, “Hey, you’re okay.” Well, you know, it’s like somebody in the business saying, “It’s okay.” And that’s what needs to change.

Len Sipes: It’s sort of like the automobile industry years ago, where in the crime prevention field, we knew that by computer chips and keys, would virtually eliminate, to a large degree – now they can come along and tow the car away – but if you would have a computer chip in a key, that would eliminate probably 70% of automobile thefts. They’ve done that, and automobile thefts have plummeted. It’s the same way with the banks. They’ve got to step up and take responsibility, it sounds like.

Will Marling: That’s what it sounds like to us, too.

Shawn Mosch: Exactly.

Len Sipes: Okay. Shawn, we only have a couple minutes left. This program has flown by like wildfire. Give me a couple more tips in terms of what people need to do.

Shawn Mosch: Again, Google is your friend. Google everything and anything. Go to places like our website. We have a message board where we update information on scams. You can do a search there. We’re also on Twitter and Facebook, where you can follow our blog, where we’ll let you know about the latest and greatest and newest twists in scams.

Len Sipes: I’m going to do that.

Shawn Mosch: Also checking out the Internet Crime Complaint Center. When we were talking about statistics and how much money is lost to scams, the Internet Crime Complaint Center keeps track of that kind of information.

Len Sipes: Is that the FBI center?

Shawn Mosch: They always say – excuse me?

Len Sipes: Is that the FBI center? The Internet crime center that you just mentioned?

Shawn Mosch: They are a coalition between the FBI, the national white-collar crime center, and a couple other organizations.

Len Sipes: Okay. What’s their website? Do you know offhand?

Shawn Mosch: Um, the ic3.org, I believe?

Len Sipes: Pardon?

Shawn Mosch: It’s Internet Crime Complaint Center is probably the best place to go.

Len Sipes: That’s why – just Google that and people can get to it. All right, do you have another one?

Shawn Mosch: Exactly. Well, I was just going to say that even their statistics, though – and they will tell you this, too – are low, because they know that not everybody reports scams and frauds. Because most people will say, “Oh, I’m embarrassed that happened to me, that I fell for it.”

Len Sipes: I was mortified when it almost happened to me. Go ahead, please.

Shawn Mosch: If somebody robs you on the street corner, you would report it.

Len Sipes: Right.

Shawn Mosch: People who are victims of Internet scams and frauds need to report that, too, so that we have accurate information of how much is being lost so that we can encourage our lawmakers to change things to protect the customers, because if we would have kept all that money in the U.S., the economy would be doing a little bit better right now.

Len Sipes: Oh, absolutely. And you’re right, looking at it from an economic point of view, you’re a thousand percent correct. I wonder how many millions or billions are leaving the country every year due to fraud. We have a minute and a half left.

Shawn Mosch: If just our website can stop $2,000,000 in two years.

Len Sipes: Wow. Okay, and I’ll give out the website at the end of the program. Will, do you have any closing remarks?

Will Marling: Yeah, just to clarify, it’s ic3.gov. Ida Charles three dot gov is the Internet Crime Complaint Center.

Len Sipes: Right. Ic3.

Will Marling: Yeah, that’s the one we give out, and snopes.com is also another site that collects scams, aberrant emails – it’s snopes.com.

Len Sipes: Okay.

Will Marling: And I think we’re becoming more educated – there’s no question. But you feel for folks who just don’t realize what’s down the pike. Wailing is another issue for even executives, where people get information on the inside a little bit, enough to go through, say, an administrative assistance and forward on, and so the executive thinks that it’s legit because the administrative assistant forwarded it on. It all looks legitimate. So even within a company, you just have to be careful with your email. You have to know exactly who you’re talking to and what they’re talking about.

Len Sipes: Well, we’re out time and I do want to summarize; what I’ve heard today is that if you’re sent a cashier’s check and your asked to wire money back for whatever reason, don’t. It’s a fraud. Never click on an email where they’re asking for personal information. Contact the bank, contact the credit card company. Every email request, be extraordinarily suspicious as to what it is that they’re asking for. Google is a friend, one of the things I heard from Shawn. Google that information to see if there’s anything that pops up on the Internet in terms of fraud information. You’ve got the Internet Crime Complaint Center, i3g.gov, and we’ll mention snopes.com S-N-O-P-E-S.com. And I do want to emphasize, again, Shawn’s website: www.scamvictimsunited.org or www.scamvictimsunited.com. And once again, for Dr. Will Marling, the Executive Director of NOVA, it’s www.trynova.org. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you again. 200,000 requests. We couldn’t be successful unless we had your input, your suggestions, and criticisms, and feel free to point out all the times I screw up. I am enjoying those. And again, for those of you who ask us questions that are outside the scope of the radio show, that’s fine with us. We’ll find help for you, so feel free to get back in touch with us if you like. Again, it’s leonard.sipes@csosa.gov. Again, that’s for the Court Services and Offenders Supervision Agency in downtown Washington, D.C., or follow us via Twitter at Twitter.com/lensipes. I want everybody to have themselves a very, very pleasant day.

- Audio ends -

Share

Crime Victim Rights and the Courts-DC Public Safety-NOVA

Welcome to DC Public Safety – radio and television shows on crime, criminal offenders and the criminal justice system.

See http://media.csosa.gov for our television shows, blog and transcripts.

This radio program is available at http://media.csosa.gov/podcast/audio/2009/12/crime-victim-rights-and-the-courts-dc-public-safety-nova/

We welcome your comments or suggestions at leonard.sipes@csosa.gov or at Twitter at http://twitter.com/lensipes.

- Audio begins -

Len Sipes: From our microphones in downtown Washington, DC, this is DC Public Safety. I’m your host, Leonard Sipes. Back on our microphones, Will Marling from the National Organization for Victim Assistance. NOVA has been around for eons in terms of being what I consider to be the premiere organization representing victim’s rights all through the United States. I can remember a long time ago when I worked for the Department of Justice’s clearing house, they gave me the assignment of being the Senior Specialist for Crime Prevention and Victim Assistance, and that’s when I found out about NOVA, interacted with NOVA, and I’ve had a deep and just a complete respect for NOVA ever since that happened, and that’s close to 30 years ago. With Will Marling today at NOVA, we have what I consider to be a supreme honor, Richard Barajas. He is the Chief Justice, Senior Status, Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas, talking about a judicial approach to victim assistance. Before we get into our program, the usual commercial – ladies and gentlemen, we are up to 230,000 requests a month for DC Public Safety, that’s media.csosa.gov. If you want to get in touch with me to give suggestions, criticisms, suggestions for new programs, please feel free to do so. My e-mail address is leonard.sipes@csosa.gov. You can follow me via Twitter at twitter.com/lensipes, and to Will Marling and to Richard Barajas, welcome to DC Public Safety.

Will Marling: Thanks, Leonard.

Richard Barajas: My pleasure.

Len Sipes: You know, it is really interesting, this whole concept of a judicial approach to victim’s assistance, because for years, we’ve sort of seen the judiciary as being, well, not exactly the best of friends of victim assistance, but then again, the entire criminal justice system could be seen as not being the best friend of victim assistance and victim’s issues. I think we’ve all, whether it’s law enforcement, whether it’s corrections, whether it’s parole and probation, or whether it’s the judiciary, have improved our act in recent years, and now we have Richard Barajas, again, Chief Justice, Senior Status, Texas Court of Appeals. He’s also at the moment running a college program at Cathedral High School in El Paso, Texas. Will or Richard, tell me a little bit about this concept of a judicial approach to victim assistance.

Will Marling: Judge, you fill us in.

Richard Barajas: I think the approach, Len, is not so much a new approach; it’s perhaps a resurrection of sorts. It might be a misstatement to talk in terms of the judiciary as not being friends. I think the problem historically has been that the judiciary has seen itself as being detached from many of these issues in an overbearing effort to appear to be fair and impartial, but the truth is, the way our Constitution is drafted, the way the state laws are drafted, we do pay tremendous deference to the criminal defendant in our courts system, but at the expense of the crime victim, whereas we do have Constitutional protections in many of the states, of course federal laws, that would render rights for crime victims, but then they’re often overlooked out of fear for appearing to have an imbalanced criminal justice system in favor of a crime victim. So it’s really all about balancing the rights of the criminal defendant and the intended victim.

Len Sipes: And I think you’re 100 percent correct, and you would be considering your status, but it’s just that – we have a criminal justice system that has,you know, when I came up through the criminal justice system, I was schooled in balance. I was schooled in rights. I was schooled in Miranda. I was schooled in all the processes that you have to go through to be sure that the person who you arrest is fairly treated and the case being presented properly in court, and the victim was seen as sort of a sidebar issue. The victim was seen as basically a tool to help you prosecute this individual, bring this individual into court, so the rights were constantly emphasized for the offender. We didn’t receive a lot of emphasis on the rights of the victim, and I think that that’s changed dramatically over the last 30 years, but I think there is still room for a lot of improvement. Will?

Will Marling: Well, definitely. We get completes on our toll-free number from victims, and we have an 800 nationwide number, 800-TRY-NOVA, and one of the complaints is, is that very issue that victims feel like they are really neglected in the process. Part of that is within our justice system because the emphasis is on the accused versus the state and so on, but it’s amazing that even in law enforcement, it’s some of the simple things that can tell people, that can communicate to victims, that they matter, that we’ve sensitive to their issues, listening to them, and these kinds of things. Of course, I think Judge Barajas, his heart, his understanding of recognizing the needs of victims is significant, and in some ways educating that particular and significant important component of our justice system, to be significant to meaningful contributions to these people at many times the worst point in their lives.

Len Sipes: So what does the judiciary bring to the table, your honor or Richard? Again, we in the larger criminal justice system have lots of room for improvement, and I must say, it’s interesting this whole sense of the detachment of the judiciary. I’m doing more and more programs involving the judiciary throughout the country, more and more programs involving court systems, where the courts are taking a very, very, very active role in terms of bringing the entire criminal justice system together to do a better product, whether it’s reduce crime, whether it’s victim assistance, whether it’s a wide array of different things, I see an evolving judiciary. I see a judiciary that’s not so much detached as it was 10 years ago, 20 years ago. I see the judiciary more and more as almost being a full partner with the other criminal justice agencies as long as we understand that you have a specific job to do, and ultimately you must be fair to all parties. That’s exactly what the law requires.

Richard Barajas: I think the interesting thing, Len, I go back to being on the bench, to 1991, and recently retired to take the position I have now, but before that, I was an elected district attorney in the state of Texas, so I will tell you my perspective is one from an elected prosecutor who through no coincidence ran on purely a crime victim’s platform when I was first elected back in 1987. But I think what it is, is the evolution of the judiciary, and a lot has to do with what the Supreme Court has done, for example, with how judges can voice opinions and things of that nature, so that they’re not detached anymore, but rather can be more than simple robot [PH] drones that call balls and strikes. Let me give you a simple example because Will has heard me say this many, many times when I’ve spoken – imagine for a second a world where you bring a criminal defendant in who is accused of a crime, and the judge on the bench admonishes that defendant of every right he has under the laws of this country and in the state, as he should, and then he turns to the victim of crime and admonishes the victim of crime of every single right that victim has under federal law and the laws of every state. The balance that that would have, and the impact that would have on society will be monumental. We are simply afraid to take that step, so that’s why I’ve often lectured on the proper balance of these issues, is that years ago I wrote a law review article, and the research we did was really telling that originally the founding of our country, crime victims had rights. They had a place at the table, but it eroded over a period of time, and one would argue, the purists would argue that crime victims still have that right under the 9th Amendment, but it’s kind of taken a backseat to more expressed and delegated rights that criminal defendants have. If you could just openly express, in court, in front of the defendant, in front of the public, that this is a balance system that alone will dramatically change the perception of the judicial system in this country forever.

Len Sipes: Why doesn’t that happen, your honor?

Richard Barajas: They’re afraid. I think they’re often afraid of making people believe that they’re overly balanced in favor of the victim, whereas I think with more education, and I think education, Will and I have had this discussion, I think judges as a rule are afraid of crime victims in the courtroom, almost without exception. I was. The big reason is that you can have a perfect case all the way up the criminal justice,perfect not in the sense of guilt or innocence, but in the sense of the process that the system was meant to pursue, and then one judge can screw it all up by saying the wrong thing because he was sensitive or not knowledgeable, but by the same token, they’re afraid to really turn to a crime victim and tell them they have rights. Police officers do it all the time, well, crime victim advocates across this country do it all the time, but how often have you ever heard a judge actually say that in open court? I can see a day when the judge will tell us, and I mention the crime victim, you’re there to be notified and tell this crime victim, and if you are not notified, I want to know about it. What a change.

Len Sipes: Oh, it would be a tremendous change, and I can understand the fear, I can understand the apprehension on the part of the judiciary. All of us who have been schooled in offender rights, and we’ve been schooled extensively in offender rights, regardless of whether it’s my time as a police officer going through six months of the police academy, regardless as to my criminological training, regardless as to my law training, this whole I guess atmosphere, this whole training, volumes and volumes have been written on the evolution of the rights of the offender, the taking of the Bill of Rights and applying it to the states. That’s a fascinating history, but when you’re schooled in that for decades, suddenly the victim comes along and you go, what do I do with this person? That person doesn’t fit nicely in terms of all of my training. The nationalization of the Bill of Rights, the application of the Bill of Rights from the federal government to the states, and that slow, gradual evolution and how it was applauded along the way as being what a fair and just government does, nowhere along the line did it say the word ‘victim.’

Richard Barajas: I think, Will, you would agree, without any question, nobody can deny we’ve made great strides in the area, but I’ll tell you, Len, as a former district attorney in speaking to so many of my then peers and colleagues, a crime victim was seen as a necessary evil within the criminal justice system because you had to deal with them and you had no control over emotions, so you may have had a good case and then it all just kind of unravels in court with a victim that you can’t control the emotions. So for generations, prosecutors simply did not know how to deal with crime victims, and if the prosecutor can’t deal with them, that scares the heck out of the judge. We’re talking maybe a retrial and then mistrial.

Len Sipes: Well, that’s just it – isn’t that the issue? In this day in age, everybody in the criminal justice system has a tremendous amount on their plate, whether it’s law enforcement, whether it’s corrections, it really doesn’t matter. Everybody has just a tremendous amount of work on their plate, and for a judge to have a decision overturned because he or she inappropriately, as far as the appeals court is concerned, did not give enough consideration to the defendant’s rights and gave a bit more to the victim’s rights, and that possibly could be seen as prejudicial, isn’t that the fear that judges are going to find decisions overturned and a tremendous amount of time and effort is going to be wasted in the process, or am I over blowing the situation?

Richard Barajas: I don’t think you’re over blowing it. I think it’s multi-faceted. Of course in jurisdictions where you elect judges, nobody wants to be reversed anywhere, but within jurisdictions where you elect them, this kind of insensitivity is a disaster for defeat in an election. In areas where they are not elected, whether it’s a recall election or whatever the case may be, once again the emotion behind this thing is tremendous. I’ve reversed cases based on,well, you have a judge where you don’t really know,[INDISCERNIBLE] on the rulings, unfortunate until they say something they shouldn’t say. We’ve had cases where the judge will all of a sudden blame the crime victim. That’s a question of sensitivity. We have a sexual assault, and you still see that today, and that’s a question of judicial education. I think, quite frankly, that this country has yet to really understand how to educate judges, perhaps by judges, so you have that sense of comfort with who’s actually doing the lecture without the emotion that sometimes they fear, to let them know it is all right to say things and it is not all right to say other things. I’ve never been to a judicial conference that addresses that issue, Will, in all the years I’ve been on the bench.

Will Marling: Right.

Len Sipes: I think the entire system has that fear. The bottom line is this – I think all three of us would agree, that what we have in most of the states and at the federal level, is we have constitutional protections now for victim rights, and that is probably just the beginning step, but it is,having those rights and implementing those rights are two different things. I’ve had other shows on victim assistance and victim’s issues where I’ve interviewed people who are on the street level, the law enforcement level, the parole and probation level, the corrections level, who I’ve looked at them, they’ve been in my studio and I’ve looked at them in the eye, and I’ve said, okay, now that we’ve established the fact that these Constitutional rights are in place, how many times have you had to go back to your administration to remind them that those Constitutional rights are in place? So having rights in place and enforcing it, and having the system really deal with it, I think are two different things, and I think that’s the lack of comfort. We all want to move in the best interest of the victims. We all want to move in the best interest of public safety. We all want to move in the best interest of the offenders that we’re dealing with, and sometimes we’re just scared that the victim is going to somehow, someway, mess things up. I think that’s the heart and soul of it; that’s what we’ve got to get over.

Will Marling: Sure. And if I could speak to something there on behalf of the victims, the issue of educating the victims in the process gives them an opportunity to understand how they can contribute to that potential conviction. They don’t want it overturned anymore than the judge does. That’s what people don’t understand. The problem is, in terms of educating them, if we can work with the victim to educate them as to how this process works, then they will serve us by in large. Will they be impacted by emotion? Yes, but many victims have to learn under incredible pressure how to demonstrate a real resolve against demonstrating any emotion. Imagine if we could work with them to communicate, here’s the process, which is what this is supposed to be doing. That’s what advocacy does. It informs them about these things, so that in that process, they actually will contribute in meaningful ways to the appropriate just outcome. The fact is, that whoever is accused, the victim is still there. It’s the same victim. If you acquit this guy and then arrest somebody else and bring them into the same courtroom, it’s still the same victims, and sometimes that’s what’s completely missing here. The accused should have rights, of course, for a balanced process, but there is always a victim and they still have to deal with the realities of their losses.

Len Sipes: Again, the Executive Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance (NOVA), who’s been around for decades, has a superb reputation in the world of victim assistance and throughout the criminal justice system. Richard Barajas, the Chief Justice, Senior Status for the Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas, has had to leave and go to another appointment, so we’re going to continue the conversation with Will. Will, to summarize the first half, basically what we were talking about is the idea of the judiciary getting more actively involved with this issue of victim’s rights, even to the point of the judge from the bench, and we all know how the judge from the bench reads the rights of the defendant and makes sure that the defendant understands his or her rights upon prosecution. He was even suggesting that the judge reads the rights to the victim, so the victim or the victims understand exactly where they stand within the criminal justice process. I think that that’s an extraordinarily powerful incentive, so I really do thank Richard Barajas for stopping by today and talking about that. But let’s continue with the conversation, because if you work with victims beforehand, I guess principally on the law enforcement end of things, and if you build your case well, and if you really respect victim’s rights because in most states there is a constitutional amendment respecting or delineating or spelling out victim’s rights, if you do everything before you get the person to court, the less the court has to worry about victim’s rights, correct?

Will Marling: Yeah, that’s exactly right. Thirty-three out of fifty states have victim’s rights in their constitution, and of course the idea of victim’s rights, Constitutional rights is an important one because it doesn’t really affirm what we already hold to be true, and of course, we articulate those rights because then we want to make sure that people know that, they’re articulated that way, and then enforcement of those rights, protecting those rights. Well, if we were to articulate and protect the rights of the victims, then a lot of things happen then. The respect for that person who’s been through a horribly traumatic situation and suffered probably great losses if it’s a survivor of homicide for instance, and then helping that person address the issues that they’re facing. The unique thing about a crime victim, of course, is the added dimension of trauma, and that’s sometimes what is so assumed, that the person’s been traumatized, but it’s how you work with that person. I will admit that say, for instance in law enforcement, when you’re dealing with somebody who’s been traumatized and maybe you’re not trained in that, you learn to deal with it, but you might not really understand what’s going on there inside that person. So the trauma,if you know how to address that person, if you know how to speak to them, if you know how to support them meaningfully, they are going to be most likely an asset to the case that you’re trying to build in the violation of law and the prosecution of this case. That’s what we would promote.

Len Sipes: One of things that we discussed in the first half of the program was the fact that in my training, at least in my 40 years in the criminal justice system, it was 99.9 percent the training was focused on the rights of the victim, and the message was consistently there – if you focus on the rights – I’m sorry, focus on the rights of the defendant, and if you screw up those rights, if you violate those rights, if you do not appropriately read him his Miranda rights in terms of a custodial interrogation, now, it’s funny because you didn’t have to read the individual’s rights unless you were going to interrogate him, but everybody sees on television that as soon as the arrest is made he’s Mirandized, but our folks were saying, oh, no, go one step further. Advise him of his rights right up front, even though you don’t have to and even though it’s not required by the court because we don’t intend on asking him anything because we have a witness who basically saw him do what he did and that’s all we need. It goes that far. It’s like protect the rights of the defendant and the victim? Well, the victim is there to help me prosecute – what more do I need to know about the victim? If we did a better job, if we made sure that the victim was properly prepared, if we respected the various rights mandated in most states of the victim, the right to,just basically the right to be informed and the right to proper treatment on the part of the criminal justice system, that would make for a better case. It would be easier for the state to prosecute that case, but we’ve got to do that upfront.

Will Marling: Yes, absolutely, and the education of victims in terms of this process, the judicial process, the criminal process, that comes into victim’s rights. A lot of the victim’s rights statements, whether they’re legislative or some kind of statutory decree or in a Constitutional setting, those rights are an articulation of information for those victims. They have the right to know about certain things, to be fully informed of the process. Well, when people are made aware, typically that helps them understand how to contribute. You’re not going to find a victim who wants to cause a problem in a court setting. They don’t want to jeopardize those proceedings, but they don’t actually know that what they might do could jeopardize that, for instance, an emotional outburst in front of a jury. So what happens is, if they’re historically even allowed in the courtroom, and may times a defense attorney would simply put them on the witness list even though they were never intended to be called, they couldn’t participate in that. We have lots of stories of people listening to their trial of their deceased loved one, murdered, as they stand outside the courtroom with their ear pressed against the door. They’re not even allowed in. Of course, they’re the one most impacted by it. If they are allowed in, but they don’t realize that that outburst could cause a problem in terms of the proceedings, they don’t know. Well, if they’re informed of these kinds of things, how this process works, why it’s important for you to maintain your decorum, why it’s important for you to recognize if this is too traumatic for you, then that helps everybody because we want to have fair and just proceedings, but in every case, there is going to be a victim. Even if you change the setting for the accused, the accused is acquitted and somebody else is arrested, it’s still the same victim. They still have to go through that same process, so that’s why if this concept of victim’s rights were to be more firmly implanted into our processes, as we are trying to do with the Constitutional Amendments and so on, that in and of itself would put it on our radar. We would recognize the victims in their role, and of course respect that. Historically, it’s the state versus the perpetrator, and that, of course, is one of the reasons why we have such a challenge when dealing with the perpetrator’s rights.

Len Sipes: And I always go back to the same concept – an individual who is about to be thrust into the criminal justice process, that is just beyond my comprehension. Thank God I have never been the victim of a crime. I have certainly known lots of people who have, and I’ve certainly tried to help walk them through the process, but to them it is just,the criminal justice system is this wall, and this wall is 150 feet high, nobody’s smiling, nobody’s holding their hand, nobody is giving them all the information they need. It’s just a wall, and they see that wall, and that’s got to effect that person’s decision as to whether or not to help law enforcement or to help prosecute the case because all they see is this gigantic wall, and that’s why we have victim service representatives or victim assistance representatives, where we can sit down with that individual, explain the entire process, and make sure that they’re very comfortable with what’s about to happen. But it can’t be just the victim representative on the part of law enforcement or the prosecutor’s office or parole and probation or corrections. It has to be everybody that’s going to come in contact with that victim. Everybody has got to understand that they could blow the whole thing simply by being insensitive, and 99 percent I think, and you correct me if I’m wrong, of what victims want is simply information about how the process unfolds and what’s going to happen now.

Will Marling: And you’re basically right. At maybe a higher level, they want to pursue a notion of justice, but at a personal level, there is this emotional impact of dealing with a system that is really not compassionate. It is simply a system. So does it have compassion of people in the system? Well, we hope so, and that’s what,some people seem to think that if you demonstrate compassion to a victim, you’re in some way imbalanced or inequitable in terms of your ability to render justice, but again, every victim in this situation is a victim, so you can just recognize that as a fact. Now we all struggle again with the emotional impact some people demonstrate, but if at every point the folks in the justice system would make a meaningful contribution to the forward movement of that victim, I personally believe, and I think we can be demonstrated by testimony of the victims, that it would move everything forward. It would mean a fair and just system, or a fairer and more just system, and a process that victims themselves could come away saying, you know, I understand the system itself is not compassionate, but I appreciated the sensitivity and the pursuit of justice in the course of my victimization, and that to me is a meaningful thing.

Len Sipes: But Chief Justice Barajas did bring up, I think, a very important point that the judiciary still needs to guarantee the rights of the crime victim. The judiciary used to sit back and be separate from the rest of the criminal justice system, and I understand that sense of impartiality. I understand that need, that legal need to separate themselves. They’re not part of the prosecution, they’re not part of the arrest process – they’re simply there as to be fair arbitrators of the facts and the law, and that’s their job. I understand the detachment, but nevertheless, you can have that legal detachment and at the same time be extraordinarily sensitive to the rights of the victim. I think that’s what the judge was saying, and so I don’t want to let the judiciary completely off the hook, regardless of the job the rest of us do in terms of victim services. When that victim gets to court, that judge should still ensure that that victim, that his or her rights are taken care of and the judge should ask. He said, why can’t the judge ask from the bench? What’s there legally to stop the judge from asking from the bench about the rights of the victim? So I still think that’s a great idea, and this is one of the reasons why I think that it was pretty neat for a former Chief Justice, Richard Barajas, from Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas, to come onto the radio program for the first 15 minutes and explain that concept.

Will Marling: That’s exactly right. Now, I think what happens is, some people would argue that you have to pit rights against rights, so if you give more rights to victims, actually you’re taking away from the rights of the accused, but that’s really not the case because they can run parallel. If it’s an understanding, just like the judge was saying, if you get up and say, we want to affirm the rights of the accused, we want to affirm the rights of the victims and move forward to protect the rights of both parties in this endeavor, wow, that’s a powerful way to handle this. But if you do think that it’s a take-away, if I give you more rights I’m taking more rights away from this other party, then that’s a problem. But no victim really, I don’t think, wants the wrong person accused of a crime. They really don’t because that means that the person who truly did it is still out there and has not been held accountable.

Len Sipes: They simply want justice for themselves and they want justice for their families and justice for their communities and justice for the rest of the criminal justice system. Well, you’ve got the final word. We need to wrap up. Will Marling, the Executive Director of the National Organization for Victim Assistance, one of the most respected, I guess, advocacy groups within criminal justice circles, been around for decades and decades. I really appreciate you being on, and Richard Barajas the Chief Justice, Senior Status, Texas Court of Appeals in El Paso, Texas. Chief Barajas is now doing a college program at Cathedral High School at El Paso, Texas, and so we really appreciate him coming on today. The website for the National Organization for Victim Assistance is www.trynova.org. www.trynova.org. Feel free to get in touch with them via the website. Ladies and gentlemen, this is DC Public Safety. We are up to 230,000 requests on a monthly basis for the radio and television shows, for the podcasts, for the transcripts, and for the blog, and we really appreciate all of your comments. We appreciate even some of your criticisms and suggestions in terms of new shows. Feel free to get back in touch with me via Leonard.sipes@csosa.gov or follow me via Twitter, that’s twitter.com/lensipes, and please have yourselves a very, very pleasant day.

- Audio ends -

Terms: court, judicial, victim, victim rights, crime victim, judge, NOVA

Share