You don't need to be a San Diego criminal defense attorney to know that when punishments for crimes are excessive, it does nothing to reduce incidents of crime, but actually propagates recidivism rates. That is the lesson that we need to take away from an incident in Texas, where a judge ordered a person involved in a drunk driving accident, to visit the scene of the accident, wearing a sign, saying that he was a drunk driver who had killed the victim. The judge has now decided to suspend this appalling public humiliation.

The judge announced the punishment for 39-year-old Michael Giacona. In June 2011, Giacona was driving under the influence of alcohol, when he ran a red light, and crashed into a car driven by a 20-year-old man. The young motorist was killed instantly in the accident.

Giacona was convicted of driving under the influence of alcohol, and sentenced to 90 days in jail. He was also placed on probation for 2 years. One of the conditions of the probation was that he visit the site of the accident with a placard around his neck, reading I Killed Alan Pennywell While Driving Drunk.

He was required to wear the placard, and visit the accident scene between 9 am and 5 pm on every consecutive Saturday for 4 weeks. He was also ordered by the judge to keep a picture of the deceased motorist’s demolished car in his house, and asked to undergo an Alcoholics Anonymous program.

Giacona, as per the ludicrous terms of his probation, has been visiting the accident site with the placard. As to be expected, he has been subjected to extreme public humiliation, and threats. However, the judge has now agreed to reassess the sentence, and has suspended the punishment for the time being.

It's hard for San Diego criminal defense lawyer to tell exactly what the judge had hoped to accomplish by subjecting Giacona to this kind of humiliation.

For years, the public perception has held that teenage drivers are at a higher risk of driving under the influence, because of peer pressure. However, a new study indicates to San Diego DUI lawyers that that perception is no longer true.

According to the study, parents have a much bigger role to play in determining whether children end up driving under the influence, than friends. The study was conducted by a nonprofit group called The Century Council , which focuses on raising awareness about the dangers of underage drinking. The study has been released to coincide with Alcohol Awareness Month. The researchers were looking at the greatest influences on teenagers’ drinking practices.

According to the study, approximately 83% of teens between the age of 10 and 18 admitted that their parents were the biggest influences in their alcohol-related decisions. This included teens who did not drink all, drank minimally, or drank responsibly.

This was a surprising finding, because earlier studies have indicated that parents do not play a significant role in determining a person's drinking practices, compared to peers. In 2003, a similar study showed parental influence figures that were about 20% lower.

According to the respondents, there are other influences that also determine a person's risk of driving under the influence of alcohol. For instance, 28% of the persons admitted that the threat of punishment determined their risk for drunk driving. About 22% of the respondents said that their brothers and sisters influenced their drinking practices, and 23% said that law-enforcement officers influenced their drinking policies.

What this indicates to San Diego DUI attorneys is that parents must track their children's driving practices at all time. Look for signs of drinking, and monitor the kind of friends that your teenager hangs out with.

U-T San Diego ran a story this week about a Felony Assault Case involving two San Diego State University football players.  Attorney Michael Berg, who represents another player who was under investigation but ultimately not charged, is featured in the article. 

See the article here:  SDSU teammates at odds in felony case

According to a report by the Commission on Teacher Credentialing, there was an increase in the number of teachers charged with sex crimes in California last year. However, there was also a decline in the number of teacher misconduct complaints that were reported to the Commission during the same year.

During the year 2010-2011, the California State Commission on Teacher Credentialing opened 129 cases that involved allegations of sex crimes, an increase of 112 cases in the previous year. The Commission also saw an increase in the number of teachers charged with non-sexual crimes in the same period of time. These increased from 240 in the previous year, to 254 in 2010-2011.

However, what San Diego sex crime lawyers find really interesting is that the overall number of teacher misconduct complaints that were reported to the Commission actually declined from 5,662 the previous year, to 5,400 last year.

San Diego criminal defense attorneys are also not surprised to find that complaints alleging teacher sex crimes increased after the Miramonte Elementary School sex abuse scandal broke recently. A veteran teacher of that school has been charged with 20 counts of lewd conduct.

While San Diego criminal defense attorneys have sympathy for any victims who have been subjected to any kind of abuse by their teachers, it's also worrisome to see that when teachers are charged with sex crimes, they are treated as guilty until proven innocent. Accusations against teachers are widely reported in the media, and a teacher’s character and conduct is subject to great scrutiny even before the charges are unsubstantiated. Sometimes, when a teacher is charged with a sex crime, other children in the school are subjected to suggestive questioning by parents, leading to more alleged ‘victims’ coming forward.

Former University of Washington student George Huguely V was recently convicted of 2nd degree murder. The conviction came after a trial that was watched closely by San Diego criminal defense attorneys and captured nationwide media attention. The jury has recommended that he be sentenced to 6 years in prison.

Huguely, a former star lacrosse player at the University Of Virginia was tried on charges related to the murder of his girlfriend Yeardley Love. Love, also a University Of Virginia student, was found dead at her off-campus apartment. Autopsies revealed that she died from blunt force trauma to the head.

Huguely and his lawyers did not deny that he confronted Love at her apartment on the day of her death. They also did not deny that he was under the influence of alcohol at the time. By his own admission, he had consumed several alcoholic beverages just before he rushed off to her apartment to fight with her about her alleged infidelity.

Prosecutors alleged that Huguely killed Love in a fit of alcohol-induced rage. They alleged that he had made threats to kill her during earlier altercations, and simply made good on those threats. A jury has now agreed with them, and has found Huguely guilty of second-degree murder and grand larceny. The jury has recommended that he be sentenced to 26 years in prison, and his sentencing is scheduled for April 16.

The jury however did not convict Huguely on charges of first-degree murder, finding little evidence to show that the murder was premeditated. It also acquitted him on several other charges, including robbery and breaking and entering to commit larceny.

What this trial also did seem to point to was the close nexus between alcohol abuse in college, and crimes among college students. The Huguely murder trial was closely linked to alcohol use, and his friends admit that Huguely had a drinking problem. Even his defense lawyers dwelled on this fact, calling him a ‘stupid drunk’ who meant no harm, while trying to explain his actions on the day of Love’s death.

You don't have to be a San Diego criminal defense lawyer to know that the justice system in the United States has become increasingly aggressive and punitive over the last few decades. A new study confirms just how serious the problem of over-criminalization of American society is. According to the study, approximately one-third of Americans have been arrested for a crime by the age of 23.

The study analyzed data from the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, and is believed to be the first of its kind since the 60s to analyze arrest statistics pertaining to adolescents and young adults. The study found that approximately 30.2% of young adults aged 23, who were considered in the analysis, had been arrested for non-traffic crimes. The last such study was conducted back in 1965, and in that year, the number of people arrested was just 22%.

It's obvious that those higher arrest numbers are the result of the justice system becoming increasingly aggressive over this period of time. The arrest rates for some kinds of crimes, like drug crimes, have simply skyrocketed.

This particular study did not look at the difference in arrest rates based on race, but earlier studies have found that blacks were more likely to be arrested at a younger age, than people of other ethnic groups. Additionally, people from lower socio-economic communities were also more likely to be arrested at an earlier age.

According to the research, the risk of being arrested is at its peak when the person is about 18 years old. Approximately 15.9% of the persons in the survey had been arrested at this age. The arrest rates began to taper out when the persons entered their 20s.

The Supreme Court has agreed to take up two cases involving individuals who were sentenced to mandatory life term without parole, for murder crimes that were committed when they were fourteen years of age.

The two cases are from Alabama and Arkansas, and San Diego criminal defense lawyers are hoping that the court will place a limit on the kind of sentences young persons are handed for such crimes. There are currently approximately 73 prisoners across the country who have been convicted of similar crimes committed when they were fourteen years of age. All of these were then sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.

This is the latest in a flurry of recent activity at the US Supreme Court involving juvenile crimes. Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that that life imprisonment for juveniles, who have committed non-murder crimes when they were below eighteen, was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had earlier taken another decision banning the death penalty for juveniles.

In the state of California, anyone below the age of eighteen can be charged with juvenile crimes. However, individuals above fourteen years can be tried as adults in certain cases. These people may be tried as adults if they are charged with crimes like murder, rape and robbery with a weapon. Most juvenile crimes that California criminal defense lawyers come across involve DUI, drug crimes, sex crimes and violence.

In many cases, juvenile crimes are the result of external factors that include a history of physical or sexual abuse, and a poor family environment. Younger persons who live in neighborhoods that have higher rates of criminal activity are more likely to commit crimes. Juvenile crimes are also often linked to drug and alcohol abuse, and gang membership.

The recent actions of Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant coach of Penn State who is currently at the center of a sex crime scandal, provides valuable lessons for persons who have been accused of sex crimes. Last week, Sandusky spoke to NBC's Bob Costas in his first interview after charges of child sex abuse were filed against him. Those charges stem from allegations that he molested young boys at his Second Mile Foundation.

In the interview, Sandusky denies that he is a pedophile, but makes several statements that he could find difficult to deny later. For one, he admits that he frequently took showers with young boys. He also does not deny that he had touched these boys in the leg region, although without any sexual intent. He admits that in hindsight, he can see that he should not have showered with those boys at all.

The problem with the interview is that whatever he said is now part of the case against him. If his criminal defense lawyers were planning to use outright denial that he was ever in any shower with any boys as part of their strategy, that defense now goes out the window.

One of the first pieces of advice that San Diego criminal Defense attorneys would give any public figure accused of sex crimes is - be silent. Any public statement that a defendant makes can find its way to court in the form of testimony against the defendant.

What Sandusky could have done was release a public statement proclaiming his innocence, instead of exposing himself to the media. Very little good can come out of offering yourself up for public consumption in this manner. It's likely that the beleaguered former coach felt under pressure to have his say, but it is not a course of action that any San Diego criminal defense lawyer would advise any person facing serious criminal charges.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the state of California must release tens of thousands of inmates from prisons in order to address the problem of prison congestion.  This release of inmates must happen over the next two years. 

According to the Supreme Court order, the state must reduce the number of prisoners it has by more than 33,000.  The state must put forth a proposal outlining how it plans to do this within two weeks.  There are currently 143,335 prison inmates in California.

The transfer should go smoothly because lawmakers have already approved plans to shift low-level offenders to other facilities, including county jails.  The legislature has approved Gov. Jerry Brown's plan which would transfer more than 30,000 prisoners to county jails by the end of 2013. 

The Supreme Court order is based on the Court’s concern about the appalling conditions in California's prisons.  Justice Anthony Kennedy, who announced the decision, spoke about prisons cells the size of telephone booths, and toilets that are meant to be used by as many as 54 prisoners.  California criminal defense attorneys have also been very concerned about the medical neglect of prisoners.  There have been reports of prisoners who have died from cancer without even seeing a doctor, or suffered for years in severe pain without access to medical treatment. 

Justice Kennedy quoted a prison director who had an opportunity to take a tour of California's prisons.  The director claimed that the conditions of neglect in California's prisons were worse than anything he had seen in more than 35 years of observing prisons.

A recent survey shows that there is already public support in California for short-term incarceration or no incarceration at all for people convicted of small level drug offenses.  Releasing inmates is a very practical way of dealing with California's impractical and massive prison overpopulation problem. 

Should online dating websites begin screening their users for previous sex crimes?  And if yes, should the screening also be extended to other crimes including DUI and domestic violence?  San Diego criminal defense attorneys are asking these questions after a California woman filed a civil lawsuit suing Match.com, asking it to screen out sex offenders.

The woman had met a man on Match.com, and went out on two dates with him.  Unknown to her, he had two prior convictions for sexual battery in Los Angeles County.  The man followed her home and sexually assaulted her.  She is now suing Match.com, and asking the company to include screenings for users of the dating website.  According to the woman's attorney, the suit is calling on online dating websites to voluntarily include a screening process that automatically disqualifies people who have a history of sexual assault.  The lawsuit is also seeking a temporary injunction that would prevent Match.com from signing up more members until the woman's demands are met. 

There are several problems that San Diego internet crime defense attorneys will have with the woman’s demands.  For instance, under the kind of perverse sex crime laws that we have in California and across the country, even a high school student convicted of sending or receiving nude pictures of classmates on a cell phone, could be convicted as a sex offender.  In other cases, persons involved in so-called Romeo–Juliet relationships, where one person is above the age of 18, while the other is not, could also be charged and convicted successfully.  These persons would automatically be disqualified from any dating website, if such rules requiring screening, are implemented.

Moreover, people convicted of sex crimes already face a lot of problems reintegrating into society.  There are restrictions on where they live, and they must inform local authorities about any change of residence.  The need of the hour is to facilitate integration, not prevent it.  Besides, nothing could prevent other people from demanding screening for everything, from DUI and domestic violence to a bounced check.  This would set a dangerous precedent.