Posts
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Debby Rabold for her son Aaron Daniel
FreeAaronRabold@aol.com
Monday, April 27, 2009 @ The Capitol Rotunda in Harrisburg
An OPEN LETTER - to Pennsylvania’s Senior US Senator Arlen Specter
Subject: Judicial Corruption … Malicious Prosecution, Wrongful Convictions, Alarming Prison Population and Overcrowding, and Inmate Abuse
Senator Specter: I have visited your Scranton and Harrisburg offices on numerous occasions over the last couple of years, and attended a town meeting you had held in Stroudsburg/Monroe County, Pennsylvania. I have spoken with your staff members and have given them copies of documents that I had filed in Federal Court … as well as had provided copies, thereof, to The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, including in-depth reports with supportive documents submitted to The Pennsylvania Board of Pardons.
The issues that are raised in those documents and in my conversations with your staff members concern:
1) The high … and continually growing prison population in Pennsylvania,
2) Malicious Prosecutions … subsequently resulting in Wrongful Convictions,
3) The violation of Constitutional and Civil Rights by The Courts and its Officers,
4) The abuse of prison inmates … and,
5) Evidence that counties within northeastern Pennsylvania [Monroe, Luzerne, Carbon, Lackawanna, Schuylkill, and others] have clearly been operating in blatant violation of: Federal RICO Statutes … and furthermore, are constantly bringing about Wrongful Convictions on our helpless law-abiding citizenry.
Especially outrageous are the assaults upon the disabled, as in the case of my autistic son, Aaron Daniel Rabold, who was maliciously prosecuted and wrongfully convicted in Monroe County without any evidence to suggest that he was involved in the incident at-issue. He was never tried for committing a criminal act – but rather, as to whether he was mentally ill or legally insane.
He was neither. He suffers from: Autism Spectrum Disorder – which is a biological and neurological disorder. Furthermore: All of the evidence directly relative to the specific alleged incident at-issue was clearly exculpatory, and subsequently was withheld from the jury.
My son, Aaron was incarcerated for over two years before going to his sham: Show-Trial, as his Public Defender filed continuance after continuance. My son had made a conscious decision NOT to waive his Rule 600 [Right to Speedy Trial].
His public defender intentionally signed the waiver without my son’s knowledge, nor his consent.
My son was sentenced to fourteen to twenty-eight years in state prison. He has been incarcerated since March 13, 2003 – [now over six years]. For two of those six years he was completely cut off from any contact with his family and the outside world, as he was unable to put anybody on his visitor list, and the prison personnel would not help him.
He is presently being held at SCI Waymart. He is emaciated due to his severe digestive disorders. He is very over-medicated and suffering the life-threatening side effects of that medication, and resembles a typical inmate held at a Nazi Concentration Camp - or recently, such a camp in the former Yugoslavia.
He has been sexually assaulted, beaten, and tortured [with electricity]. This had occurred at various State Correctional Institutions in Pennsylvania. He has been held at five State Correctional Institutions, plus the depraved Monroe County Correctional Facility -- which has rightfully earned a reputation for sexual abuse by the guards, as well as far too many other indiscretions to begin addressing right now.
It is my understanding that you have joined: US Senator Webb [from Virginia] in addressing the appalling rate of imprisonment in our country. This high rate is definitely not due to any overwhelming rate of actual criminal activity, except, of course, by members of the judiciary, et al -- as has been clearly demonstrated by the outrageous and well-covered incident which finally had been identified in Luzerne County regarding the atrocities which were committed by: Judges Ciavarella and Conahan.
If a preliminary investigation was ever dared to be carried out in other counties – specifically in Monroe, Lackawanna, Schuylkill, and Carbon – there would be no doubt, whatsoever, that many other violations of the law are regularly being committed by: The Police … District Justices, District Attorneys and their cohorts in-crime [the Public Defenders], as well as the County Judges.
Some information about this situation may be gleaned by reading the documents which I had diligently shared with The Federal Court [Ref: 03: 06 CV 2474 ... 03: 07 CV 2031 ... 03: 08 CV 0445] … as well as the entire folder of documentation docketed with:
The Pennsylvania Board of Pardons … per: Application No.: 23753 (Aaron Daniel Rabold).
Further: The Pennsylvania prisons are over-crowded, and too many inmates are being deprived of a nutritious diet, as well as appropriate medical care. These inmates have been reduced to abject poverty, are physically and psychologically abused by the prison environment, and are evidently being denied their Civil and Human Rights. Additionally, we have an overwhelming rate of:
Wrongfully Convicted Innocent Inmates and those who had received extremely harsh sentences for what were forgivable types of minor offenses. Today’s prison situation in our Commonwealth may aptly be considered as: Modern-Day Slavery – and as well: “Cruel and Unusual Punishment”.
Please take the time to read the documents that I had referred to you, and bring investigations against these corrupt counties in northeastern Pennsylvania – and the illegal, unethical actions of the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections.
Finally: Please do whatever you can to come to the aid of my innocent, gentle, abused, indigent autistic son - and to secure his immediate release from the custody of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -- while he remains alive. It should go without saying here - that one would now expect you to promptly incite a full-fledged Federal Inquiry into the unforgiving facts which I had just briefly outlined, herein.
Responsibly yours,
Debby Rabold
http://heros-heroines.blogspot.com/2009/11/debby-rabold.html
FreeAaronRabold@aol.com
Showing posts with label Wrongful Conviction. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Wrongful Conviction. Show all posts
Monday, January 13, 2014
Sunday, March 25, 2012
INNOCENCE: Prevalent Causes of False Confessions
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/innocence-prevalent-causes-false-confessions
INNOCENCE: Prevalent Causes of False Confessions
Posted: March 14, 2012
A recent article in the New York Times discussed the most common reasons why suspects under interrogation confess to crimes they did not commit. The article, adapted from “Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America,” a forthcoming book written by David Shipler, observed an overrepresentation of children, the mentally ill, those with intellectual disabilities, and those who are drunk or high among suspects who made confessions that were later proven false. Shipler concludes, “They are susceptible to suggestion, eager to please authority figures, disconnected from reality or unable to defer gratification. Children often think, as Felix did, that they will be jailed if they keep up their denials and will get to go home if they go along with interrogators. Mature adults of normal intelligence have also confessed falsely after being manipulated.” Shipler also pointed out that interrogators are trained in various techniques to induce suspects to waive constitutional rights and to get suspects talking. He writes, “Officers are taught to use all the tricks and lies that courts permit within the scope of the Fifth Amendment’s shield against self-incrimination.” According to the Innocence Project, false confessions are among the most prevalent causes of wrongful convictions. False confessions played significant roles in roughly 24% of approximately 289 convictions later reversed by DNA evidence, among which were cases that would have resulted in execution.
INNOCENCE: Prevalent Causes of False Confessions
Posted: March 14, 2012
A recent article in the New York Times discussed the most common reasons why suspects under interrogation confess to crimes they did not commit. The article, adapted from “Rights at Risk: The Limits of Liberty in Modern America,” a forthcoming book written by David Shipler, observed an overrepresentation of children, the mentally ill, those with intellectual disabilities, and those who are drunk or high among suspects who made confessions that were later proven false. Shipler concludes, “They are susceptible to suggestion, eager to please authority figures, disconnected from reality or unable to defer gratification. Children often think, as Felix did, that they will be jailed if they keep up their denials and will get to go home if they go along with interrogators. Mature adults of normal intelligence have also confessed falsely after being manipulated.” Shipler also pointed out that interrogators are trained in various techniques to induce suspects to waive constitutional rights and to get suspects talking. He writes, “Officers are taught to use all the tricks and lies that courts permit within the scope of the Fifth Amendment’s shield against self-incrimination.” According to the Innocence Project, false confessions are among the most prevalent causes of wrongful convictions. False confessions played significant roles in roughly 24% of approximately 289 convictions later reversed by DNA evidence, among which were cases that would have resulted in execution.
Saturday, February 12, 2011
The Situation Not Personality
A modern test of an ancient bible story demonstrates the power of situations to
trump personality in determining behavior.
A fundamental mistake we often make when judging other people is assuming that
their behavior mainly reflects their personality. Unfortunately this ignores
another major influence on how people behave staring us right in the face: the
situation.
Our personalities certainly have an influence on what situations we get into and
how we deal with them, but situational factors — even relatively subtle ones —
can completely obliterate the effects of personality.
Don't take my word for it, though, consider a modern take on an ancient bible
story. Prominent social psychologists Darley & Batson (1973) were interested in
what influences people's helping behaviors and decided to test the parable of
the Good Samaritan. The parable is about a Jewish man traveling to Jericho who
has been attacked by bandits and lies half dead at the side of the road. A
priest and temple assistant pass him by before finally a Samaritan (who
stereotypically hated Jews) stops to offer his assistance.
The moral of the story is clear enough but, wondered Darley and Batson, have we
judged the priest and the temple assistant too quickly, perhaps they were just
in a hurry?
A good Samaritan
In their classic social psychology study the experimenters recruited 67 students
from the Princeton Theological Seminary and told them it was a study about
religious education and vocations. They were asked to fill in some personality
questionnaires and told they were going to give a brief talk in a nearby room.
Some were asked to give a short talk about the types of jobs that seminary
graduates would be suited for, while the others were asked to talk about the
parable of the 'Good Samaritan'.
Unknown to the study's participants, they were to experience their very own
'Good Samaritan' test. For after filling out their questionnaires and while
making their way to the other office to give their talk, they would encounter an
experimental confederate lying in a doorway, doubled over, eyes closed and
coughing. Participants would have to pass the apparently highly distressed man,
but would they stop to help?
The experimenters thought it would depend on how much participants were hurried,
so they manipulated this by giving them a map and one of the following three
instructions:
"Oh, you're late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago. We'd better get
moving..."
"The assistant is ready for you, so please go right over."
"...It'll be a few minutes before they're ready for you, but you might as well
head on over..."
This created three conditions: high, medium and low hurry. So some students left
the office thinking they needed to go quickly, others less so, while some were
relaxed. Each of these conditions was also split into two: half about to deliver
a talk on the Good Samaritan, the other half on job prospects for seminary
graduates. This meant that the experimenters could assess both the effect of
hurry as well as the talk they were giving on the students' helping behaviors.
Would having a relevant parable uppermost in their minds nudge participants into
helping?
Before I give you the results try to predict them for yourself. How many future
priests do you think would stop to see if the man was OK? Would you stop? What
will be the effects of the situation compared with the individual personalities
of the seminarians?
In a hurry, can't stop
Here's what happened. On average just 40% of the seminary students offered help
(with a few stepping over the apparently injured man) but crucially the amount
of hurry they were in had a large influence on behaviour. Here is the percentage
of participants who offered help by condition:
Low hurry: 63%
Medium hurry: 45%
High hurry: 10%
The type of talk they were giving also had an effect on whether they offered
help. Of those asked to talk about careers for seminarians, just 29% offered
help, while of those asked to talk about the parable of the Good Samaritan,
fully 53% gave assistance.
What these figures show is the large effect that subtle aspects of the situation
have on the way people behave. Recall that the experimenters also measured
personality variables, specifically the 'religiosity' of the seminarians. When
the effect of personality was compared with situation, i.e. how much of a hurry
they happened to be in or whether they were thinking about a relevant parable,
the effect of religiosity was almost insignificant. In this context, then,
situation is easily trumping personality.
Judge on context
Before I asked you to imagine what the results might be, were you close? Perhaps
you were surprised by how little effect personality had on whether the
seminarians stopped? That is what catches most people out because of what
psychologists call the 'fundamental attribution error'. This is the
aforementioned tendency to assume that other people's behaviour reflects on
their personality rather than on the situation they are in. Contrary to our
instincts, however, studies such as this one demonstrate that it is frequently
the situation that controls our actions more strongly than personality.
If you saw the trainee priest stepping over the moaning man, what would you
think? Perhaps time for them to switch to a career in investment banking? Maybe,
but in the light of this experiment that's probably unfair on the priest (and
the investment bankers) because we all of us have situational pressures on us
that can easily drown out the influence of our personalities (see also the
bystander effect). 'Bad' actions don't necessarily mean 'bad' people just as
'good' actions don't issue forth solely from 'good' people.
The old adage that a person can be judged on their actions isn't the whole
truth. Often people's behavior, and our own, may say very little about our
personalities and much more about the complexities of the situation in which we
find ourselves.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/12/when-situations-not-personality-dictate-our-beh\
aviour.php#more-8305
trump personality in determining behavior.
A fundamental mistake we often make when judging other people is assuming that
their behavior mainly reflects their personality. Unfortunately this ignores
another major influence on how people behave staring us right in the face: the
situation.
Our personalities certainly have an influence on what situations we get into and
how we deal with them, but situational factors — even relatively subtle ones —
can completely obliterate the effects of personality.
Don't take my word for it, though, consider a modern take on an ancient bible
story. Prominent social psychologists Darley & Batson (1973) were interested in
what influences people's helping behaviors and decided to test the parable of
the Good Samaritan. The parable is about a Jewish man traveling to Jericho who
has been attacked by bandits and lies half dead at the side of the road. A
priest and temple assistant pass him by before finally a Samaritan (who
stereotypically hated Jews) stops to offer his assistance.
The moral of the story is clear enough but, wondered Darley and Batson, have we
judged the priest and the temple assistant too quickly, perhaps they were just
in a hurry?
A good Samaritan
In their classic social psychology study the experimenters recruited 67 students
from the Princeton Theological Seminary and told them it was a study about
religious education and vocations. They were asked to fill in some personality
questionnaires and told they were going to give a brief talk in a nearby room.
Some were asked to give a short talk about the types of jobs that seminary
graduates would be suited for, while the others were asked to talk about the
parable of the 'Good Samaritan'.
Unknown to the study's participants, they were to experience their very own
'Good Samaritan' test. For after filling out their questionnaires and while
making their way to the other office to give their talk, they would encounter an
experimental confederate lying in a doorway, doubled over, eyes closed and
coughing. Participants would have to pass the apparently highly distressed man,
but would they stop to help?
The experimenters thought it would depend on how much participants were hurried,
so they manipulated this by giving them a map and one of the following three
instructions:
"Oh, you're late. They were expecting you a few minutes ago. We'd better get
moving..."
"The assistant is ready for you, so please go right over."
"...It'll be a few minutes before they're ready for you, but you might as well
head on over..."
This created three conditions: high, medium and low hurry. So some students left
the office thinking they needed to go quickly, others less so, while some were
relaxed. Each of these conditions was also split into two: half about to deliver
a talk on the Good Samaritan, the other half on job prospects for seminary
graduates. This meant that the experimenters could assess both the effect of
hurry as well as the talk they were giving on the students' helping behaviors.
Would having a relevant parable uppermost in their minds nudge participants into
helping?
Before I give you the results try to predict them for yourself. How many future
priests do you think would stop to see if the man was OK? Would you stop? What
will be the effects of the situation compared with the individual personalities
of the seminarians?
In a hurry, can't stop
Here's what happened. On average just 40% of the seminary students offered help
(with a few stepping over the apparently injured man) but crucially the amount
of hurry they were in had a large influence on behaviour. Here is the percentage
of participants who offered help by condition:
Low hurry: 63%
Medium hurry: 45%
High hurry: 10%
The type of talk they were giving also had an effect on whether they offered
help. Of those asked to talk about careers for seminarians, just 29% offered
help, while of those asked to talk about the parable of the Good Samaritan,
fully 53% gave assistance.
What these figures show is the large effect that subtle aspects of the situation
have on the way people behave. Recall that the experimenters also measured
personality variables, specifically the 'religiosity' of the seminarians. When
the effect of personality was compared with situation, i.e. how much of a hurry
they happened to be in or whether they were thinking about a relevant parable,
the effect of religiosity was almost insignificant. In this context, then,
situation is easily trumping personality.
Judge on context
Before I asked you to imagine what the results might be, were you close? Perhaps
you were surprised by how little effect personality had on whether the
seminarians stopped? That is what catches most people out because of what
psychologists call the 'fundamental attribution error'. This is the
aforementioned tendency to assume that other people's behaviour reflects on
their personality rather than on the situation they are in. Contrary to our
instincts, however, studies such as this one demonstrate that it is frequently
the situation that controls our actions more strongly than personality.
If you saw the trainee priest stepping over the moaning man, what would you
think? Perhaps time for them to switch to a career in investment banking? Maybe,
but in the light of this experiment that's probably unfair on the priest (and
the investment bankers) because we all of us have situational pressures on us
that can easily drown out the influence of our personalities (see also the
bystander effect). 'Bad' actions don't necessarily mean 'bad' people just as
'good' actions don't issue forth solely from 'good' people.
The old adage that a person can be judged on their actions isn't the whole
truth. Often people's behavior, and our own, may say very little about our
personalities and much more about the complexities of the situation in which we
find ourselves.
http://www.spring.org.uk/2009/12/when-situations-not-personality-dictate-our-beh\
aviour.php#more-8305
Monday, February 7, 2011
Over Zealous DA
This is the DA that was on Amber's case: Just posting to show how hateful & quick to get kids into prison she is* Gellybean
>>SAN BERNARDINO (AP) — A 16-year-old Southern California boy was charged Wednesday as an adult for allegedly starting two arson wildfires in San Bernardino County earlier this year.
Ricky Sean Lukacs will be arraigned in adult court on Dec. 28 and is being held in juvenile hall, said Deputy District Attorney Karen Khim.
He is charged with two counts of arson of an inhabited structure for fires on Aug. 30 and 31 in the Yucaipa area, 65 miles east of Los Angeles.
Lukacs was originally arrested and charged as a juvenile, but the charges were refiled in adult court, said Susan Mickey, district attorney spokeswoman.
The fires did not cause serious injury or death, but one burned about 1 1/2 square miles in the community of Oak Glen, and the other threatened about 400 homes in Yucaipa before it was contained.
At the time of his arrest in September, authorities said they were investigating the teen for 12 to 14 other arson wildfires going back to 2006 because of a “commonality” between the blazes.
Khim, the prosecutor, said she could not comment on the evidence and declined to say if more charges would be filed.
Arden Wiltshire, sheriff’s spokeswoman, said because structures burned in the two fires in question, authorities could file charges in adult court. She did not know if charges in the other blazes under investigation were filed or would be filed in juvenile court, where all proceedings are confidential
>>SAN BERNARDINO (AP) — A 16-year-old Southern California boy was charged Wednesday as an adult for allegedly starting two arson wildfires in San Bernardino County earlier this year.
Ricky Sean Lukacs will be arraigned in adult court on Dec. 28 and is being held in juvenile hall, said Deputy District Attorney Karen Khim.
He is charged with two counts of arson of an inhabited structure for fires on Aug. 30 and 31 in the Yucaipa area, 65 miles east of Los Angeles.
Lukacs was originally arrested and charged as a juvenile, but the charges were refiled in adult court, said Susan Mickey, district attorney spokeswoman.
The fires did not cause serious injury or death, but one burned about 1 1/2 square miles in the community of Oak Glen, and the other threatened about 400 homes in Yucaipa before it was contained.
At the time of his arrest in September, authorities said they were investigating the teen for 12 to 14 other arson wildfires going back to 2006 because of a “commonality” between the blazes.
Khim, the prosecutor, said she could not comment on the evidence and declined to say if more charges would be filed.
Arden Wiltshire, sheriff’s spokeswoman, said because structures burned in the two fires in question, authorities could file charges in adult court. She did not know if charges in the other blazes under investigation were filed or would be filed in juvenile court, where all proceedings are confidential
Monday, January 17, 2011
Innocent Young Man Serves 16 Years Before Being Freed
Report SLAMS COPS, & PROSECUTORS IN SLAY CASE
Innocent Man Spent 16 Years in Prison.
BY JIM FITZGERALD THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, July 5th 2007, 4:00 AM
A report on the wrongful murder conviction of a Westchester man who spent 16 years in prison sharply criticized police and prosecutors in the case.
The report by a panel of judges and criminal lawyers said police and prosecutors fixed on the then-schoolboy suspect as the killer long before they should have and refused to be dissuaded by DNA and other evidence.
And once he was imprisoned, former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro repeatedly refused his requests for new tests on the crime scene DNA, extending his unwarranted imprisonment, the report says.
The report, requested by current Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore, examines the case of Jeffrey Deskovic, who was convicted in 1990 of raping and killing a high school classmate.
Deskovic, now 34, was cleared and released last year after DiFiore agreed to run the crime scene DNA through the system and came up with a match to a man already imprisoned for murder; that man confessed.
The report, while finding no malice or illegality, sharply criticizes the prosecution of Deskovic on several grounds, especially the "tunnel vision" that kept investigators from looking beyond Deskovic.
It said detectives got a false confession by interrogating Deskovic "in a manner that improperly exploited his youth, naivete and psychological vulnerability." They then stopped investigating.
Prosecutors took the case to a grand jury before the DNA evidence was in, and when it came in they "developed strained and shifting theories to explain that evidence away," the report said.
The defense did not capitalize on the DNA evidence, the report said, and ( failed to introduce evidence that might have helped jurors understand why Deskovic would confess to a crime he did not commit.)
"The entire system failed Mr. Deskovic," DiFiore said, "the police, the prosecutors, his defense attorneys, and of course we can never ever bring those years back to Mr. Deskovic."
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2007/07/05/2007-07-05_report_slams_cops_prosecutors_in_slay_ca-1.html
Innocent Man Spent 16 Years in Prison.
BY JIM FITZGERALD THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Thursday, July 5th 2007, 4:00 AM
A report on the wrongful murder conviction of a Westchester man who spent 16 years in prison sharply criticized police and prosecutors in the case.
The report by a panel of judges and criminal lawyers said police and prosecutors fixed on the then-schoolboy suspect as the killer long before they should have and refused to be dissuaded by DNA and other evidence.
And once he was imprisoned, former Westchester District Attorney Jeanine Pirro repeatedly refused his requests for new tests on the crime scene DNA, extending his unwarranted imprisonment, the report says.
The report, requested by current Westchester District Attorney Janet DiFiore, examines the case of Jeffrey Deskovic, who was convicted in 1990 of raping and killing a high school classmate.
Deskovic, now 34, was cleared and released last year after DiFiore agreed to run the crime scene DNA through the system and came up with a match to a man already imprisoned for murder; that man confessed.
The report, while finding no malice or illegality, sharply criticizes the prosecution of Deskovic on several grounds, especially the "tunnel vision" that kept investigators from looking beyond Deskovic.
It said detectives got a false confession by interrogating Deskovic "in a manner that improperly exploited his youth, naivete and psychological vulnerability." They then stopped investigating.
Prosecutors took the case to a grand jury before the DNA evidence was in, and when it came in they "developed strained and shifting theories to explain that evidence away," the report said.
The defense did not capitalize on the DNA evidence, the report said, and ( failed to introduce evidence that might have helped jurors understand why Deskovic would confess to a crime he did not commit.)
"The entire system failed Mr. Deskovic," DiFiore said, "the police, the prosecutors, his defense attorneys, and of course we can never ever bring those years back to Mr. Deskovic."
http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/bronx/2007/07/05/2007-07-05_report_slams_cops_prosecutors_in_slay_ca-1.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)