Juvenile Facilities, Jails, and Prison Populations

In 2000, 2002, and 2004, the state of Kansas had 34, 39, and 35 privately run juvenile facilities, respectively (U.S. Department of Justice, 2004). Although the number increased from 2000 to 2002, going against the national trend, it did decrease from 2002 to 2004, in line with the national average. A possible explanation for the increase and subsequent decrease in privately run juvenile facilities in the state of Kansas might be that the private companies were responding to demand from 2000 to 2002, but after finding the facilities to be ineffective, did not continue in the timespan of 2002 to 2004. Another explanation could be that from 2000 to 2002, the state-run juvenile facilities improved. It is also possible that it was found that state-run facilities were more secure.

During 1999, Kansas averaged 3 inmates per correctional officer, a relatively low number compared to other states - Utah's average was 7.3 and New Mexico's was 5.9. Kansas had 97 prisons, with an average of 5,565 prisoners per prison. This means that the rated capacity was 79%, giving the facilities 21% of capacity to spare (U.S. Department of Justice, 2001). Overall, the Kansas correctional facilities were not overcrowded in 1999. Compared to most other states, Kansas had more prisons, therefore having fewer prisoners per prison. Additionally, Kansas is composed of largely rural areas, which would likely cause the crime rate to be lower than that of the urban cities of other states. The lack of urban areas would also contribute to the lack of overcrowding because fewer crimes punishable by jail time would be committed.

The Bureau of Justice kept extensive records on the amount of prisoners in the United States for the past several years. Doing so allowed them to monitor changes in the prison population and the try to attribute it to causes. The studies in the years 2000, 2006 and 2007 showed the American prison male population to have 1,298,927, 1,457,486 and 1,483,896 prisoners, respectively (West, HCW, & Sabol, 2008). While the crime rate seemed to have been deterred, the prison population has increased on the national basis. From 2000-2006 there was a 1.9% increase on average, but from 2006-2007 there was a 1.8% increase. Considering the 12 states in midwest, the overall summary is promising. While accounting for more then a fifth of the states of the union, the Midwest accounts for 1/6 - 1/7 of the U.S.'s prison population. The numbers showed the male prison population admitted 222,780, in 2000; 243,743 admitted, in 2006 and 245,207 admitted in 2007 - an increase of only 0.60% in the past year. The female populous showed a larger increase than the males, but still only represent 1/15 of the state's total (West, HCW, & Sabol, 2008). (Image taken from criminaljustice.change.org)

Kansas specifically has incarcerated 7,840 males in 2000, 8,140 in 2006 and 8,071 in 2007. 2000-2006 had an average increase of 0.70% while during 2006-2007 it decreased by 1.3% - the third lowest drop next to South Dakota and Michigan. Females again are a different story - in 2000 there were 504 in prison, while in 2006 there were 638 in prison and in 2007 there were 625. All were tiny changes that caused the average to drop and fall drastically from an increase in 4% to a decrease in 2%.

Three causes of the dissipation of crime in Kansas could be attributed by:

• the economy may be in turmoil, but their unemployment system is different from other states. The State of Kansas has launched a new registration process that automatically registers Unemployment Insurance (UI) applicants for services.


• the population of the state itself as compared to larger states where crime is more rampant.


• the increase in drug crime, where females aren't as sparsely represented.

References

U.S. Department of Justice. (2004). Juvenile offenders and victims national report series. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from University of Albany website: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t100092004.pdf

U.S. Department of Justice. (2001). Census of jails, 1999. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from University of Albany website: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t198.pdf

West, HCW, & Sabol, WJS. (2008). Female prisoners in 2007. Bureau of justice statistics. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

West, HCW, & Sabol, WJS. (2008). Male prisoners in 2007. Bureau of justice statistics. Retrieved November 23, 2009, from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

The Death Penalty, Parole, Probation, and Restorative Justice

The state of Kansas currently has the option of the death penalty, but there have been no executions since it was reinstated in 1994. There are currently 10 people on death row, all of whom are men. Defendants can be sentenced to life without parole, and also can be sentenced to death even if he/she did not commit the murder. The method used for the Kansas death penalty is lethal injection, and after the sentence has been determined by a jury, only the governor can grant clemency, although this has never occurred.

The first person to ever be executed in Kansas was a Native American man of unspecified age named John Coon, Jr., who was executed in January of 1853. He was sentenced to death, and was executed by gunshot after being convicted of murder. The most recent execution in Kansas was on June 22, 1965, when James Latham, a 23 year old white male, was hanged for robbery and murder (Espy, 2002). Although the first execution in Kansas was that of a Native American, the great majority of executions were of white males. Both men were convicted of murder, but Latham was additionally convicted of robbery. The method of execution varied - Coon was killed by gunshot while Latham was hanged - but both of these methods are outdated compared to today's lethal injection.

The Bureau of Justice records statistics on the amounts of paroled and probation. Their findings show that in 2006 the United States had 485,882 citizens reported into parole and 1,846,224 into probation. From them, 469,768 and 1,780,590 exited, respectively (Glaze, LEG, & Bonczar, 2006). When broken down and looked more specifically on the state of Kansas, there were only 5,785 entries and 5,565 exits to and from parole and 19,835 entries into probation and 19,327 exits. When accounting for the 12 states of the midwest, Kansas effectively represents 11% of all parole, but 4.09% of all people in probation (Glaze, LEG, & Bonczar, 2006). Their numbers are a bit average for states in the midwest, but their number of people on parole/probation per 100,000 adults is far exceeding the average. Due to the low population in Kansas, when you compare it to another group like Ohio which has five times as many people in probation, the state of Kansas is above 1/4 as many people in standing.



The Kansas Department of Corrections offers a program that allows victims to speak one-on-one in meetings with offenders. Their program has two employees that work with the victims. Victims wishing to speak with the offenders must request to be put on the waiting list, and then wait for as long as one year before they can meet the offenders. In the process, victims and offenders are looked into in order to ensure that victims understand the process and are ready to meet the offenders, and the offenders are analyzed to see if they can have reasonable meetings with victims. The process is extensive, and nothing is guaranteed - since 2002, only 7 meetings have taken place. Still, the program has been effective. It provides a meaningful experience for both victims and offenders, and there have been talks of expanding it through volunteers working for the Department of Corrections (Janney, 2009). (Photograph originally found at http://www.flickr.com/photos/parsec1/719012048/)

References
Espy, M. (2002). Executions in the U.S. 1608-2002: The ESPY File. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from Death Penalty Information Center website: http://deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYstate.pdf

Glaze, LEG, & Bonczar, TPB. (2006). Adults on parole. Bureau of justice statistics. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Glaze, LEG, & Bonczar, TPB. (2006). Adults on probation. Bureau of justice statistics. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainFrame.dowebct

Janney, Cristina. (2009). Victims of violence meet with offenders in program. Retrieved November 17, 2009, from Newton Kansan website: http://www.thekansan.com/news/x1312012843/Victims-of-violence-meet-with-offenders-in-program

"State by State..", DPIC. (2009). State by state database: death penalty. Retrieved November 16, 2009, from Death Penalty Information Center: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state

Juries, Evidence, and Speedy Trial Statutes

In Kansas, a preliminary hearing is generally the first step in the pretrial process. However, a grand jury can be summoned in any county in Kansas if thought to be in the public’s best interest. A grand jury must be summoned within 60 days after the petition and must be signed by 100 electors and 2% of the number of votes cast for governor in that county in the last election (Justia.com).

After the petition is signed, the judges in the district court will review the petition and if it is proper and complete, a grand jury with be summoned. The grand jury consists of 15 people who are legally qualified to serve. (Justia.com)

The grand jury has two roles, to act as an independent investigator and to act as the community’s conscience. In the first role, they look for general criminal activity then report their findings in a presentment. In the second role, they question witnesses and examine evidence then decided if there is need for prosecution. If there is probable cause for prosecution a true bill is affirmed; if there is no probable cause a no bill is passed (Siegel, 2008).

In a preliminary hearing, the goals are generally the same, however, the approach is different. The hearing is conducted before a lower court judge and may be open to the public. In the hearing, the defendant and his counsel are present as well as the prosecuting attorney. First, the prosecution presents it case with witnesses and evidence to the judge. The defendant is then allowed to cross-examine witnesses and challenge the prosecutor’s evidence. After the hearing, the judge will decide if there is sufficient probable cause that the defendantcommitted the crime and if there is he will then have a trial. If there is not sufficient cause, the charges are dismissed and the defendant is released (Siegel, 2008).

There was a doctor in by the name of George Tiller. He was in charge of one of three clinics in the country that perform late-term abortions. Two years back, he was charged with 19 different misdemeanors. Without getting a second option, Tiller performed several late-term that were risky due to certain circumstances; however, a reasonable professional would second option them. So the state's attorney general filed the charges and he was put under review (Winter, 2007). He was acquired, but sadly all publications on the trial caused some unwanted attention by pro-life supporters. The Kansas doctor, George Tiller was killed. The suspect, 51-year-old Scott Roeder, was charged with first-degree murder and aggravated assault. He later admitted to killing George Tiller, altering his plea to non-guilty by "Necessary Defense" (Associated Press, 2009).


(From the movie "12 Angry Jurors" taken from The Play House)

The jurors' selection was under constant review (Hegemen, 2009). This wasn't just a case of murder, but it was murder in the defense of unborn children and could have become a landmark case for pro-life or pro-choice supporters. Mark Rudy, the attorney representing the state, said,

"The abortion issue is so contentious, that by eliminating pro-life jury panelists impartiality is compromised. It is the contemplation of a heated deliberation, by jurors of all views, including those who are pro-life, that will insure impartial jurors."

He took the path to show that to be perfectly impartial, the selection cannot push aside pro-life or pro-choice advocates. Of course the prosecution would prefer the pro-choice supporters who would see this simply as the killing of a man instead of something greater. The defense would prefer pro-life activists who perhaps could think deeper into such a defense, but even then it could mean very little. There's no statement in the bible which condones murder, and any pro-life supporter would chime that we are not who gets to decide who will live or who will die.

In a different criminal case, Robert Jarman of Columbus, Kansas, was accused of second-degree murder after shooting his wife Suzanne in 2007. The incident occurred when Jarman and his wife were supposedly placing a shotgun into a gun safe. Jarman claims that there was an accidental discharge of the weapon, and the shot hit Suzanne in the back of the head, killing her.

In determining whether the firing of the shotgun was intentional, the direct evidence that the prosecution used include testimony from expert witnesses - the combination of a forensic pathologist, blood pattern specialist, and gun expert - claiming that the gun was held in the traditional firing position and that accidental discharge was not possible. Also used as direct evidence was testimony from Jarman's psychologist, who stated that the prescription drugs Jarman used had the potential to cause impaired judgement. Circumstantial evidence that was used in the case included the shotgun used in the incident, a 911 call that Jarman made immediately following the incident, claiming that he accidentally had shot his wife, and Jarman's jeans, which contained blood stains (McKinney, 2009).

The witness testimony supports the prosecution because it determined that in the given scenario, Jarman would have had to intentionally fire the gun to kill his wife - the blood patterns, forensic evidence, and handling of the gun would require it, according to those who testified. The prosecution countered the psychologist's testimony by saying that although impaired judgement was possible, there was no evidence that it was a factor in the homicide. The 911 call would likely work against the prosecution because Jarman was clearly distraught in the recording, which was argued by the defense. The gun and jeans were used by the prosecution for the examination of blood stains on the two pieces of evidence that would support the intentional homicide argument.

The state of Kansas acknowledges the right to a speedy trial. Within 90 days of arraignment, those charged with a crime must be brought to court, with the exception of a requested delay by the defendant or the court issuing a delay that is within the law (Lawyers.com, 2009). The state of Nevada is less specific in recognition of a speedy trial, although the Sixth Amendment provides the right to a speedy trial. Nevada states that the court must have the trial within 60 days, unless the person charged with the crime requests a delay in the trial (Lawyers.com, 2009).

References

Associated Press, AP. (2009). Ap: suspect admits killing Kansas abortion doctor. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from USA Today website: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2009/11/ap-suspects-admits-killing-kansas-abortion-doctor/1

Hegemen, RH. (2009). Juror beliefs an issue, says defense. Retrieved November 9, 2009, The Wichita Eagle website: from http://www.kansas.com/news/crime-courts/story/1033645.html

Justia.com. (n.d.). 22-3001. Grand juries; summoning; membership; quorum. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from Justia.com Website: http://law.justia.com/kansas/codes/chapter22/statute_12056.html

Lawyers.com. (2009). Criminal Process in Kansas. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from Lawyers.com website: http://research.lawyers.com/Kansas/Criminal-Process-in-Kansas.html

Lawyers.com. (2009). Criminal Process in Nevada. Retrieved November 10, 2009, from Lawyers.com website: http://research.lawyers.com/Nevada/Criminal-Process-in-Nevada.html

McKinney, Roger. (2009). Murder trial begins for man accused of shooting his wife. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from The Joplin Globe website: http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/local_story_299214132.html/resources_printstory

Siegel, Larry J. (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Winter, MW. (2007). Kansas abortion doctor charged with 19 misdemeanors. . USA Today, Retrieved from November 7, 2009, from http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2007/06/kansas-abortion.html?csp=3

Judges, Elections, and State Courts

For state high courts in Kansas, the state holds uncontested retention elections after an elected official's initial appointment. The same uncontested retention elections after the initial appointment are used in the intermediate appellate courts. Kansas selects trial court judges through different methods for different counties/districts - partisan, nonpartisan, or retention (American Bar Association).

Selecting judges through popular elections gives the people more of a say in the judicial system compared to judges being appointed. It is more democratic, and judges can't reach public office purely due to friendship with a high-ranking official that has the power to appoint someone to a position. By appointing judges through elections, the judge has to use discretion in his rulings - if he or she makes unfavorable rulings, re-election becomes much more difficult. Through election, the people are entitled to have a say in who does or does not become a judge, although this can also backfire - some voters might not be able to distinguish who is and is not a qualified and potentially effective candidate. Additionally, running for office can be very expensive, which can prevent some candidates from entering the election.

Kansas has a "basic" set up for its court systems. They have every standard method of courts and it flows normally as apposed to states like Nevada which do not have an Intermediate Appellate Court. Kansas has two trial level courts - Municipal and District - and two levels of appeals - Court of Appeals and the Kansas Supreme Court.

The locally funded Municipal Court handles most traffic infractions. There are no jury trials for the cases they oversee. The Municipal Court can be appealed to the District Court. There the bulk of cases are handled in the state. 243 judges oversee civil disputes and appeals, small claims, domestic relations, criminal felonies, misdemeanors and criminal appeals as well as several traffic infractions as well. Jury trials are held for most cases in this level, and generally just skipped in minor claims or the traffic violations. If appealed, it goes to the court of Appeals. There, the court review case that was previously in the District level. They don't normally hold trials, but instead go over the briefs of the previous trial to look for any fouls of conduct anywhere, research the law and publish their thoughts and ruling on the case. They can deny to hear a case for others of more importance or because they would not have the jurisdiction to give a ruling on it. In the latter, it'll be sent to the Supreme Court or the "Court of Last Resort." It's the highest ruling court in the state that has a large power of jurisdiction baring the state. Unless it expressly challenges one of the fundamental rulings of federal law, the court can hear it.

Aside from the municipal courts, the judicial branch of Kansas provides a website and overview to them. You can visit them here:

District Courts
Court of Appeals
Supreme Court


(Chart taken from the National Center for State Courts)

Chart Guide

A = Appeal from Administrative Agency

LJC = Limited Jurisdiction Court

GJC = General Jurisdiction Court

IAS = Intermediate Appellate Court

COLR = Court of Last Resort

Arrows = Route of Appeal

A 61 year old delivery man was kidnapped while delivering pizzas for Pizza Hut in northeast Kansas City. On the evening of October 12, 2009, the man went into an apartment complex where a woman in a towel answered. The man was then pushed in the back, forcing him to go into the apartment. While there he was robbed of twenty dollars while tape was applied to his eyes and mouth by the woman. The kidnappers later put him in the trunk of his own delivery car and dumped him, alive. Two males were taken into custody. One was an unnamed 18 year old Kansas City resident and the other was identified as Devon Wood. Vanesha Dillard was also arrested three days later. All three suspects are charged with robbery, kidnapping, auto tampering and armed criminal action (Swobota, 2009). This case will be heard in a court of general jurisdiction, more specifically the District Court which hears misdemeanor cases as well as exclusive felony cases.

A 66-year-old woman was arrested and charged with seven years in prison in November of 2006. Linda Kaufman and her husband, Arlan, were found guilty of forcing residents of their group home to do their work naked and also perform sex acts. During this abuse, the victims’ families were being billed for “therapy.” A U.S. District Judge in Wichita, KS, heard arguments on whether the sentence for the woman should be extended. An appellate court threw out the original sentence, claiming the trial judge should consider more factors of the case in the decision (New Vision Television).


American Bar Association. (n.d.). Fact sheet on judicial selection methods in the states. Retrieved October 26, 2009, from American Bar Association Website:
http://www.abanet.org/leadership/fact_sheet.pdf

New Vision Television. (n.d.). Judge mulls sentence of nurse over 'nude therapy'. Retrieved Octobe 26, 2009, from http://www.ksn.com/news/local/story/Judge-mulls-sentence-of-nurse-over-nude-therapy/KFUOXxjl1kiUYGsNjtTfqA.cspx

Swobota, V. (2009, October 20). Two charged in pizza delivery man's kidnapping. Retrieved Octobetr 26, 2009, from http://www.nbcactionnews.com/content/news/crime/story/Two-Charged-in-Pizza-Delivery-Man-s-Kidnapping/7h4mRU_Mmk-QTmT23XT0mA.cspx

The exclusionary rule, warrantless searches, and the Miranda warning

In 2004, Bradley Harrison was caught transporting 77 pounds of cocaine by a Canadian police officer. Although clearly guilty, it was ruled that the officer violated Harrison's rights for the stop and search he conducted, which he tried to justify by claiming there were issues with Harrison's license plate. Despite the improper procedure, it was decided that the exclusion of the evidence was unnecessary, and Harrison was sentenced to 5 years in prison in a ruling that would not have been possible in the American legal system (New York Times, 2008).

Although the exclusionary rule, which disallows evidence to be used if the evidence was collected improperly, seems to be a deterrent to police misconduct, it seems to be far too harsh and has the potential to be too large an impact on cases. The idea is appropriate, but its implementation is poor - something that could be easily supported by the fact that the United States has the only legal system of any country that immediately throws out evidence in the event of police misconduct. The exclusionary rule is important in that it provides protection from warrantless searches, but can also interfere with the justice system. It is an imperfect solution to the problem of violations with search and seizure - it can shield those who are guilty, but it also has no benefit to those who are innocent and have done nothing wrong in the first place.

On October 9, a federal judge ruled that evidence was obtained illegally in a case in which a van was caught illegally trafficking tobacco. The van was stopped by Kansas Highway Patrol to inspect for a commercial load, but the judge ruled that the search was not legal. The incident was examined and it was determined that the wholesale business was attempting to avoid paying cigarette taxes (Associated Press, 2009). The type of search was an automobile search, and it was most likely performed without a warrant because the highway patrol officer recognized something about the van and stopped the van at that moment to avoid missing the opportunity (Siegel, 2008). In the end, though, because the evidence was dismissed, the officer's efforts were not enough. (Image from tobaccocampaign.com)

The purpose of a Miranda warning is to protect a criminal suspect. After the court case of Miranda v. The State of Arizona in 1966, when arresting a criminal suspect, the party must be informed of all of his and her rights before an interrogation begins. Generally speaking, if a suspect is not informed of these rights before-hand then testimony given cannot be admissible in court cases. There are several exceptions of course which predominately were stated in case law later on, some of which include:

A witness becomes discovered by a criminal suspect’s testimony, which was not done properly or was ill-informed of their rights of interrogation can still be brought up in court.

Fairly straightforward, but think of Fred and Kelly going out shopping. Fred goes to the food court for thirty minutes, while Kelly continues browsing the stores. Kelly gets “caught” trying to steal $1500 USD worth of electronics and gets taken away by the police. When asked where she was, Kelly states she was with Fred the entire time. Kelly was never informed of her rights, but the prosecution has discovered a witness and that witnesses testimony is not affected by the failure to read off Kelly’s rights.

A witness must make an assertive claim of their rights in-order to stop questioning themselves. This ties in with two rules. The person must make the claim themselves and it must not be ambiguous.

Using the same scenario above, Kelly was now informed of all of her rights properly. She phones her parents about the arrest and they come down to the station where she is being questioned right away. They inform the police that they have hired an attorney for Kelly, however she did not specify that she wants it yet and so the questioning may continue. Down the line, she states, “Maybe I should speak to an attorney before I answer that” and the police coheres her saying it isn’t necessary. Because it was an ambiguous question/claim, she’s still forsaking her rights and not requesting an attorney at that time.

According to the Public Safety Doctrine, any suspect can be questioned on the field without a Miranda warning if the information sought for is relevant to public safety.

A robber goes into a supermarket and holds up a register. As he tries to leave the store, he’s tackled and padded down. During the pad down, the weapon he used was not found on his person, so it was discarded somewhere in the store. Since anybody in the store can find it, even children, it could endanger a lot more people. They may also contaminate the evidence, so the police may question the robber on the spot regarding it (Siegel, 2008). Information on the history of the Miranda warning can be found here.

References
Associated Press (2009). Judge tosses key evidence in Kan. tobacco trafficking case, rules search illegal. Retrieved October 20, 2009, from http://www.kfsm.com/sns-ap-ks--tobaccoindictment,0,7159605.story

New York Times (2008). American Exception - U.S. Is Alone in Rejecting All Evidence if Police Err. Retrieved October 13, 2009, from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/19/us/19exclude.html

Siegel, Larry J. (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Police and Law Enforcement

On the evening of December 28, 1950, in the small town of Salina, Kansas, the Salina Police Department received a call claiming that a local liquor store was being robbed. Officers Smith and Rodgers reported to the scene to find two suspects preparing to make their escape. Officer Smith pulled one perpetrator from a car and restrained him as the other was leaving the store. Smith told his partner to watch the woman leaving the store, but the woman was able to reach the car, remove a shotgun, and fire at Rodgers. Officer Rodgers was knocked to the ground, but fired alongside Officer Smith and the liquor store owner at the woman as she escaped in the car. (Image of Kansas police officers originally from City of Pittsburg, Kansas)

The female perpetrator was able to get away from the scene of the crime, but was caught by police the following day. She turned out to be a man named Teddy Pearsall, who became known as the "Petticoat Bandit" for his tendency to masquerade as a woman in robberies. Both were charged and convicted for their crimes and were sentenced to the Kansas state penitentiary. Officer Rodgers was seriously injured, but survived, although he was unable to return to his job as a police officer and retired in May of 1951 (City of Salina, 2006). Other Kansas police department histories can be found here and here.

Over 50 years have passed since that incident. Although crime rates were probably lower in 1950 than they are now, the types of crimes would likely have been the same - property crimes, burglaries, and such, with the exception of internet crimes. At the time, the police force didn't have access to the technology that is frequently used today. Problems they might have encountered would likely have been with communication. Without cell phones or GPS tracking, things were very different. The organization that police have today would have been much harder to accomplish with the technology available to police in the 1950s, who didn't have personal computers like officers have now. The above story could've played out very differently today, with police having Tasers available to them that could've incapacitated the perpetrators before a single shot had to be fired.

In contrast with 1950s police, today's police offers face entirely new situations, including internet crimes. Other problems that are likely much more prevalent include identity theft, drug trafficking, and vehicular theft. Identity theft is more of a problem with the internet and credit cards, and vehicular theft has increased due to many more people having vehicles today than they did in 1950. Besides this, the problems the police encountered then, such as funding, keeping crime rates down, and other related issues, are similar to what they would encounter today - the difference is how they go about solving them.

Community Policing is described as "a police philosophy suggesting that problem solving is best done at the neighborhood level, where issues originate, not at a far-off central headquarters (Siegal, 2008)."

From the Kansas City Police Department on community policing:

"Principles of community policing are the foundation of the KCPD commitment to the people, highlighted by our Mission Statement: To protect life and property while reducing fear and disorder (Kansas City Police Department, 2008)."

The Community Policing of Kansas City connects with the community by having officers regularly attend community meetings, and provide presentations on safety and crime prevention. The police department also has a downtown bike patrol unit that works closely with downtown Kansas City businesses and residents in addressing crime and safety. They are viewed as accessible to residents, business owners and visitors in the area and routinely speak with residents to remain aware of any current or potential problems. This police department also teams up with community and neighborhood groups to help and prevent problems such as drug use, homelessness, teen parties, and also to create outreach programs to keep school-aged kids out of trouble.

One problem that can come from community policing is reorienting police values. Officers may feel dissatisfied with community policing compared to traditional crime control oriented policing (Siegal, 2008). It is even thought that community policing may be looked down upon within the department. The Kansas City Police Department confronts this problem by engraving the philosophy into every officer’s mind from the beginning:

"Although KCPD has established several proactive units that deal more directly with community, early on community policing was adopted as a department-wide philosophy, not just a program for specialized units. For this reason, all officers are involved in the problem identification and problem solving associated with public safety issues. The current economic situation and pending budget cuts, with the threat of lay-offs and long term officer vacancies, has the potential to highly impact our programs. Funding from the COPS Hiring Recovery Program will provide the necessary means to continue, and enhance, our community policing efforts (Kansas City Police Department, 2008)."

Locally, the state of Kansas has 238 police agencies, with 5,292 total officers and 4,039 sworn personnel. Kansas has 104 sheriffs' offices with 3,758 total officers and 1,975 sworn personnel. On a state-wide level, Kansas has 840 full-time employees and 541 sworn personnel. The numbers of sworn officers per 100,000 people for local police, sheriffs' offices, and state police are 149, 72, and 20, respectively (Reaves, 2007).

Kansas seems to have an adequate amount of police officers per 100,000 people. Its numbers are rather high compared to most other states. Additionally, Kansas isn't known for high crime rates. Besides that, Kansas is already facing budget problems and has a good community policing program (Kansas City Police Department, 2008).

References
City of Salina. (2006). Salina Police Department Officer's Stories. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from http://www.salina-ks.gov/content/126/193/1634/1471/2271.aspx

Kansas City Police Department. (2008). Budget and Community Policing. Retrieved September 28, 2009, from www.kcpd.org/masterindex/informant/08_25_grantApp.doc

Reaves, Brian A. (2007). Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, NCJ 212749. Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Siegel, Larry J. (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Felonies, Misdemeanors, and Insanity Tests

In Kansas legal statutes, it is a felony to kidnap someone and a misdemeanor to commit an act of assault. Kansas law, under Statute 21-3420, defines kidnapping as "the taking or confining of any person, accomplished by force, threat or deception, with the intent to hold such person." It further states that expressly illegal scenarios include ransom/hostage situations, facilitation of a crime, inflicting bodily injury to the victim, or interfering with a government function [1]. Kidnapping is listed as a level 3 felony. Statute 21-3408, describing assault, states that it is unlawful to "intentionally [place] another person in reasonable apprehension of immediate bodily harm." Assault is listed as a class C misdemeanor [2]. Image by Barangay RP.

Although kidnapping is not listed as a common-law crime in the list, it relates to some of the other crimes listed - one of the scenarios mentioned in Kansas statutes under kidnapping refers to battery and assault, and any crime against the person except robbery could be tied to the kidnapping. Assault is listed under the common-law crimes as the "intentional placing of another in fear of receiving an immediate battery [3]," closely relating to the definition in Kansas law. Although the descriptions seem to mean the same thing, Kansas law uses the phrase "reasonable apprehension" while the common-law crime description says "fear." The difference may be negligible, but "fear" seems to have more urgency than "reasonable apprehension" and the former seems to favor the victim more than the latter, which in including "reasonable" leaves more room for an argument to be made.

If you've ever watched the popular police drama Law and Order by Chris Wolf, you've probably seen a defense attorney say something along the lines of, "Not Guilty, by Reason of Insanity" once or twice already. At that point, there's usually unfriendly criticism from the opposing acting counsel trying to stay strong to the image of an adversarial system. But how is the Insanity defense shined upon in real life? It is not the most accurate depiction of law, but it is a fairly large gambit where the state or other injured party can lose greatly. Insanity is an allowed defense and if the defense attorney is successful can get their client off with less than a slap on the wrist. Kansas particularly uses a ruling derived from the 1800s. According to Frontline PBS twenty-five states (including Kansas) adhere to the M'Nagten Rule as do Federal Courts and the District of Columbia. The rule is named after the man Daniel M'Naghten, who attempted to kill Sir Robert Peel, England's Prime Minister in 1843. He failed and he ended up killing the minister's secretary instead. M'Nagten first claimed that it was out of Self-Defense as Sir Peel had been intentionally and vengefully causing harm to himself. His rantings went on and nine witnesses, including medical experts testified in his defense. He was found not guilty due to reasons of insanity [4]. The public and Queen Victoria were outraged by the outcome and demanded the House of Lords review it. Images by ceand.com and UCLA's Political Science Dept.



From that, they established that if a person did not know that his actions or intentions were wrong at the time it occurred, that they could not be held accountable afterwards. The rule is defined better by Larry Siegel's Intro to Criminal Justice 12ED. If a person were to be insane at the time of the act, under duress or defect of reason arising from a disease of the mind and therefore could not tell both the nature and quality of the act was wrong, they could not be held accountable for their actions [3]. In short, if they were unable to tell right from wrong due to mental disease or disorder, they did not have the mens rea or criminal intent for the act.

The M'Naghten rule, although accepted by over half of the US, can be interpreted differently by each state and have differing outcomes. You may research individually here. Kansas sticks to the conservative view. People can be found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect. If they are, treatment is mandatory and the court will act as the committed party's guardian.

A report of internet crimes in the state of Kansas in 2007 listed 1,418 total complaints. Auction fraud and non-delivery of merchandise/payment topped the list by far at 34.5% and 25.1%, respectively, with 8 other categories of complaints comprised mostly of frauds completing the list. The report lists exactly 75% of perpetrators as males and 25% as females. Those who reported crimes were nearly evenly split at 53.7% males and 46.3% females. The largest group of complainants was those in the 20-29 age range at 24.8%, with all other groups being close except those under 20 at 3.0% and those over 60 at 7.8%; however, the amount of losses reported rose rather consistently as age rose, ranging from $475.00 at age 20-29 to $1100.24 at 60 and older [5]

[1] Kansas Statutes (2009, April 04). KSA 21-3420: Kidnapping. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from Kansas Statutes Website: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_34/21-3420.html
[2] Kansas Statutes (2009, April 04). KSA 21-3408: Assault. Retrieved September 21, 2009, from Kansas Statutes Website: http://kansasstatutes.lesterama.org/Chapter_21/Article_34/21-3408.html
[3] Siegel, Larry J (2008). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Exhibit 4.6 Common-Law Crimes and Various Insanity Defense Standards (pp 150-152). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[4] Educational Foundation (WGBH, 2000). State Insanity Defense Laws. Frontline PBS. Retrieved September 20, 2009 from Educational Foundation Website http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/crime/trial/states.html
[5] Internet Crime Complaint Center (2008). Kansas's IC3 2007 Internet Crime Report. Retrieved September 22, 2009, from Internet Crime Complaint Center's Website http://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2007/Kansas%202007%20Report.pdf