» » Study Guide for Siegel’s Essentials of Criminal Justice

Free eBook Study Guide for Siegel’s Essentials of Criminal Justice download

by Larry J. Siegel

Free eBook Study Guide for Siegel’s Essentials of Criminal Justice download ISBN: 0538738332
Author: Larry J. Siegel
Publisher: Wadsworth Publishing; 7 edition (January 1, 2010)
Language: English
Pages: 400
Category: Enactment
Subcategory: Criminal Law
Size MP3: 1119 mb
Size FLAC: 1146 mb
Rating: 4.3
Format: mobi txt mobi lrf


New study tools including online homework, flashcards, test prep and study guides. A career center where you can boost your job skills and explore career options

Customers who viewed this item also viewed. New study tools including online homework, flashcards, test prep and study guides. A career center where you can boost your job skills and explore career options.

Larry J. Siegel was born in the Bronx in 1947. He applied his interest in social forces and human behavior to the study of crime and justice. While living on Jerome Avenue and attending City College of New York (CCNY) in the 1960s, he was swept up in the social and political currents of the time. He became intrigued with the influence contemporary culture had on individual behavior: Did people shape society, or did society shape people? He applied his interest in social forces and human behavior to the study of crime and justice. After graduating from CCNY, he attended the newly opened program in criminal justice at the State University of New York at Albany, earning both his .

Good book to get if you want to know the basics of the criminal justice.

Study Guide for Siegel/Senna's Essentials of Criminal Justice, 5th. ISBN. 0538738332 (ISBN13: 9780538738330). Good book to get if you want to know the basics of the criminal justice. Shakil rated it it was amazing Feb 22, 2013. toni rated it liked it Jul 30, 2018. Tia Allen marked it as to-read Jan 15, 2013. Angela Ransdell marked it as to-read Jan 22, 2013. Shawna Miller added it Aug 11, 2013.

Study Guide for Siegel's Essentials of Criminal Justice. by John L. Worrall and Larry J. Siegel.

Books Movies Music Classical All Products Sellers. Essentials of Criminal Justice. With its cutting-edge high-profile cases, detailed career information and resources, integrated learning objectives, and unique myth-busting theme, this eye-opening text and its supporting resources will help you excel in this course and beyond. The MindTap that accompanies this text guides you through your course and includes video cases,.

Larry Siegel) Ch. 13. Learn vocabulary, terms and more with flashcards, games and other study tools. Hearing in which a decision is made to waive a juvenile to criminal court. Business of Media Exam 2 Study Guide. Essentials of Criminal Justice (7th Ed. Criteria include, age, prior offenses, and nature of offense. Fact-finding Hearing. In re Gault decision. The Court ruled that the concept of fundamental fairness is applicable to juvenile delinquency proceedings. Ushered in an era of legal rights for juveniles. - Larry Siegel) C. 4. - Larry Siegel) Ch. 12.

Часто встречающиеся слова и выражения. Larry J. He became intrigued with the influence contemporary culture had on individual behavior: Did people shape society or did society shape people? He applied his interest in social forces and human behavior to the study of crime and justice.

Study more effectively and improve your performance at exam time with this comprehensive guide. Written to work hand-in hand with ESSENTIALS OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE, 7th Edition, this user-friendly guide includes a wide variety of learning tools to help you master the key concepts of the course.
User reviews
terostr
This is the first used book I’ve bought from Amazon. As advertised, it was in good condition. The cover is creased, but apart from some small “dog-ears”, the pages are in very good condition. And the book arrived quickly.

As with my previous reviews - such as of Nancy Grace’s “Objection!”, Jeff Mariotte’s “Criminal Minds”, and Steven Brandl’s “Criminal Investigation” - I will be restricting my review to what the authors wrote about the David Westerfield-Danielle van Dam child kidnapping and murder case (San Diego, 2002). It’s on pages 246 and 286 of the fifth edition. Unless otherwise stated, the comments below refer to page 246. As is true of other books on that case, the authors only have a superficial knowledge of it, gained from media reports, which are unreliable. The definitive account is in my book, “Rush to Judgement”.

Danielle’s body was found under an oak tree, and there was thick brush between it and the road, but much of that site is a meadow, so I think it an exaggeration to call it a “wooded area”. And it wasn’t by a “remote roadside”: the road was a busy one, carrying traffic to the nearby casino, and the site is diagonally opposite a golf course, with a housing development opposite that golf course, and a school not far away in the opposite direction.

Regarding her parents’ sex life, in addition to what is stated in the book, her mother and her mother’s girlfriends engaged in drunken behavior and “dirty dancing” at the bar the night Danielle was abducted (and the previous Friday night), and they even invited strangers home for sex. This would have attracted the attention of any “sleazy characters” in the bar.

Not only did Westerfield, who was already middle-aged, not have a felony record, he had not previously even been a suspect in a sexual or violent crime. And he doesn’t fit the profile of either a death row inmate (for example, he wasn’t poor and uneducated) or a pedophile (for example, he didn’t hang around places children frequent, wasn’t a member of any child-related porn chat rooms on the internet, and only 1% of his nudes or porn was even considered questionable).

The scientific evidence which proved that he could not have dumped the body, was the calculation by the forensic entomologists that she most likely died almost two weeks after he was placed under 24-hour police surveillance. If that calculation was wrong, then it was out by an extraordinarily large margin for this type of evidence under these conditions. And it was the police’s own regular expert, who was brought onto the case by them, who gave this estimate. And his estimate was supported by a further three nationally-known experts, including the one subsequently hired by the prosecution. The post-trial interviews with the jurors showed that they had misunderstood this testimony: the dates the entomologists gave were not the latest dates the insects colonized the body, they were a range: earliest to latest. Also, there was an indication that the green bottle fly was present, which would not have been the case had the body been dumped at the beginning of the month as the prosecution argued. Similarly, the meadow grass at the drag trail was still trampled, also pointing to a recent dumping.

The authors state that physical evidence found in his home proved very damaging in court. Not correct. This evidence consisted of just a few hairs - a few human hairs that could have come from her, and a few dog hairs that could have come from her dog. The prosecution scenario was that he took her (but not her dog) to his house, and she was there for several hours. During that time he presumably would have sexually assaulted her repeatedly (the supposed motive for the abduction), yet the only evidence was a few hairs. No blood. None whatsoever. That boggles the mind. A much more likely explanation is that those hairs were left behind from earlier that week when she and other family members visited him. True, some of those hairs were on his bedding, and she was not known to have been in that room. But she might have gone there during that visit: her brother had wanted to go upstairs. Even if not, Westerfield said his laundry was out during that visit, and she was prodding it, so her hairs could have got onto it then, and then been taken to his room.

In any case, the jurors did not single out this evidence in their interviews: they were instead most influenced by the fingerprints and especially the blood, which were in or from his RV. So the authors’ more general statement on page 286 is more accurate: it was the physical evidence presented at trial that persuaded them. So what other physical evidence was there? In his RV there was a single drop of blood, a single handprint; and again some hairs (three human and three dog). Plus on the dry-cleaning from his RV: a single small bloodstain (on his jacket) and two dog hairs.

There was also some fiber evidence. Five carpet fibers in his RV which could have come from her bedroom - but could equally have come from another room in her house, or even another house in that neighborhood. One orange fiber on the body which matched some fibers in his house and SUV. Some blue fibers with the body which might have matched some in his house and RV (they weren’t fully tested, so they might not have matched at all). But the sources of those orange fibers and blue fibers were never identified: they might have come from something in Danielle’s own house, and therefore have had little or no evidentiary value against him. And the blue fibers might have come from the police. In any case, the blue fibers were probably relatively common. There were many other fibers with the body (including some red fibers with her fingernails), which the criminalist said came from the last environment Danielle was in, but these didn’t match anything in his environment, so his was not the last environment. And no fibers from either her pajamas or her bedding were reported found in his environment, even though he supposedly kidnapped her from her bed in her pajamas.

Once again, this is an incredibly small amount of evidence for a supposed weekend-long kidnapping, repeated sexual assault, and murder. And there are question marks over all that evidence. For example the criminalists didn’t photograph or measure that blood drop; the handprint was matched on an unusual part of the fingers and using rehydrated skin; the jacket stain wasn’t seen by the dry-cleaners, nor could it be seen on the photo taken of the jacket when the police seized it; and all but one of the hairs were matched using mitochondrial DNA, so the human hairs could have come from her mother or brothers, and the dog hairs could have come from another dog. Also, although Danielle was not known to have previously been inside the RV, she could have been there, as it was often parked in the streets very close to her house, and often unlocked. And there are good reasons to believe that this evidence, if valid, was from just such a prior innocent visit: the blood drop initially didn’t give a DNA type for one of the markers (suggesting it had started to degrade); all the human hairs were blonde, yet her hair was darkening (so recently-shed hairs should have been partly darker); the jacket stain was very faint (consistent with it having been previously dry-cleaned); and neither the search dog nor the cadaver dog alerted to her scent (which they should easily have been able to detect, had she been in that RV that weekend, dead or alive).

The jurors said it was the DNA which convinced them, but they apparently made no allowance for the obvious innocent explanations, and they (like the police) ignored the unknown DNA in bloodstains on her bed, the very bed she was supposedly kidnapped from, and the unknown hair under her body, the body of a murder victim.

I’m a great believer in physical evidence, but not just the evidence that’s there, also the evidence that’s not there but should be there for the postulated scenario to be correct. Taking both aspects into account, it can be seen that the evidence of Westerfield’s guilt was very weak. And there was strong evidence of his innocence. So why did the jury deliver a “guilty” verdict? I think it was the emotional impact of both the crime (some jurors were disturbed by the autopsy photos) and the alleged child porn video clips shown in court (even the prosecutor thought those females were probably over 18). And I fear they were also influenced by the anger in the community - for example, they didn’t want Danielle’s mother to identify them, and were concerned at being followed to their cars by someone and having their car license numbers written down. Furthermore, one juror exclaimed “that’s cold” in response to a remark by the defense attorney, and some reportedly had tears in their eyes when they left after viewing the RV, which implies they had already decided that Westerfield was guilty.

However, the authors’ main reason for mentioning this case was not the evidence, but the ethical questions raised by the story that Westerfield’s lawyers tried to broker a deal in which he would reveal the location of Danielle’s body in exchange for a guarantee that he would not face the death penalty. The authors appear to believe that highly damaging story. Damaging because it implies firstly that Westerfield is guilty without a doubt, and secondly that his attorneys knew this but still consciously misled the jury, smearing Danielle’s parents in the process.

But is that story true? The authors quote two supporting references. One reference says that the story was based on anonymous law enforcement sources, and that his lawyers tried to broker a deal. The other is more specific: it says his attorneys told prosecutors that he would tell them where to find the body. The difference is important. Under the first version, his lawyers might just have been attempting to find out how strong the case against him was, and Westerfield might not have known anything about it. And it is disturbing that the story is based on anonymous sources: these are not reliable. Admittedly, the then District Attorney (DA) did subsequently confirm the story. But that violates ethics guidelines regarding confidentiality, and how can you believe someone who is being unethical?

The main participants in this scenario were the prosecutor, the defense attorneys, and Westerfield himself. The lawyers on both sides declined to comment. Danielle’s parents initially said they knew nothing about it, but later said they asked for the deal. Westerfield said the offer came from the prosecution, and his lawyers just listened to it - which agrees with the parents’ second version. The very first media report (Harry Jones, San Diego Union-Tribune, September 17, 2002), merely says that his lawyers were negotiating: it says nothing about Westerfield wanting such a deal. And that report makes it clear that Westerfield rejected the offer: the report doesn’t say why. The DA thinks it was because he knew it was Danielle’s body which had just been found, but it could instead be because he didn’t know, and anyway was innocent and so wouldn’t plead guilty.

The other fundamental flaw in this story, also casting considerable doubt on it, is the claim that the possibility of a deal collapsed following the discovery of the body. Although widely believed, this doesn’t make sense, because the prosecution still stood to gain considerable benefits from a deal: a guaranteed conviction and saving the taxpayers a lot of money.

The bottom line is that the supporting evidence for this story is weak, so we cannot conclude from it either that Westerfield is guilty, or that his attorneys knew he was guilty. The attacks on those attorneys are therefore doubly unjustified.

The authors pose the question: should defense attorneys cast doubt on their clients’ guilt even if they know beyond doubt that their client is guilty?

I would turn that question around: should prosecutors cast doubt on the defendants’ innocence even if they know beyond doubt that the defendant is innocent?

I say that because, in my review of Nancy Grace’s “Objection!”, I give proof that the prosecutors in Westerfield’s trial knew that he was innocent of both the kidnapping/murder charges and the child porn charge. I’ll give additional evidence here. First, the child porn charge. A detective examined Westerfield’s images, and declared that they were not child porn. The defense naturally wanted him to testify to this, but the prosecution fought that, arguing that this was not a suitable subject for expert testimony. And so the judge did not allow his testimony. Furthermore, the expert hired by the defense is a former U.S. Customs Special Agent, specializing in child pornography crimes. He said that these images were not of the type normally seen in prosecutions for child pornography.

And secondly, the death penalty charges. The strongest evidence of innocence was the entomology. The prosecution argued that the dates calculated by the entomologists were irrelevant, because the body had been rapidly mummified, thus preventing insect colonization until it was opened up by probably coyotes. Flies normally find a dead body within hours, so the mummification would have to have been extremely rapid. Yet this was not the middle of the Sahara desert in summer, where mummification would have been rapid; it was California in winter. This area has a mild climate. It is not Death Valley. And the Santa Ana - the hot dry wind which would have speeded mummification - only began a few days after the body was dumped (according to the prosecution scenario). Furthermore, at the time the body was found, after two Santa Anas, mummification was only superficial (as can be seen from the Autopsy Report). The “rapid mummification” theory is therefore a non-starter. Also, coyotes prefer to scavenge fresh carcasses, and have a keen sense of smell, making it likely that they would have discovered the body quickly, and would not have scavenged it had they only discovered it after two weeks.

I searched Amazon for books mentioning this case, and the only hit for this book was this fifth edition. I see that the discussion on this case was first added to this edition (page xvi). Presumably this means that subsequent editions do not include this box insert. If so, perhaps it was removed because author Siegel himself had concerns about the reliability of those plea deal reports, and therefore the accusations against the defense attorneys.

This is the only part of the book I’ve studied so far. But I have glanced through the rest of the book and it seems to be good. So in awarding stars, I will only penalize it slightly for its inadequate and misleading portrayal of the Westerfield-van Dam case.
MrCat
As JS scholar this book is a must to read. However I enjoy reading it since it is a big help to understand using simple vocabulary for a complex system!
Lli
It was a pleasure doing business with this individual. Not only did the book arrive on time, but it was also in great conditions. Thank you very much for making this happen and I look forward to conduct business with you again. Have a great weekend.
Sharpbinder
This is what I just needed for school. And I bought the used one in great condition, no markings on the book and the appearance of the book was pretty good.
lubov
:D
Rivik
Very fast shipping. Great product.
Bluecliff
With a great instructor, this is an excellent textbook. A newer edition may be more useful and well dated information.
The text covers the basic essentials that you want someone who is beginning their studies into the field of criminal justice to know.