Assignment 10

According to the Criminal Justice Sourcebook’s report on the number of juvenile facilities per state, Hawaii had 4 privately run facilities during 2000, 3 during 2002, and 5 during 2004 (Sourcebook, 2004). The number of facilities decreased from 2000 to 2002 by 1(it went from 4 to 3 facilities); however, from the year 2002 to 2004 the number of facilities increased by 2 (it went from 3 to 5 facilities) (Sourcebook, 2004). The number of privately owned juvenile facilities remained pretty constant throughout the years. Hawaii is a very small state so it is not necessary to have 61 facilities like Colorado did in 2000(Sourcebook, 2004). One reason for the change from 2000 to 2002 could be that a facility went bankrupt because there were not enough juveniles committing crimes. Another reason for the slight increase in change from 2002 to 2004 could be that incarceration numbers increased so there was need for more juvenile facilities. The third reason for the change could be the population number increased so there were now more juveniles that could create trouble.

According to the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics, Hawaii was not represented on the list because their jurisdictions have State-operated integrated jail/prison systems (Sourcebook, 2003). Even though Hawaii is not on the list there was another source available to help determine Hawaii’s jail situation. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics Bulletin, Hawaii’s total prison inmate population as of June 30, 1999 was 4943, down roughly 3.7% from the previous year (Beck, 2000). This reduction in inmate population suggests to me that the state’s prisons are generally not overcrowded. The drop itself was the 3rd largest in the country, right next to Ohio (4.5%) and Rhode Island (11.2%). Reductions in inmate population obviously free up prison space, but such a nation-leading reduction is even more significant. Furthermore, incarceration rate (305) was below median level for the nation, and likely below average (Beck, 2000). Another reason as to the prisons in Hawaii are not overpopulated is Hawaii is a very small state, so its population is not as large compared to a state such as Texas, and the last reason why Hawaii’s jails would not be overcapacity would be that Hawaii has a good parole system. Their system of parole is a little more lenient allowing prisoners to be released a little earlier than other states. For these reasons, it appears that Hawaii’s prisons are generally not overcrowded.

According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, in 2000 the amount of female prisoners in the state of Hawaii stood at 561. However as the years progressed, there were more female prisoners (in 2006 there were 734 and in 2007 there were 746) (West and Sabol, 2008). The average annual change that occurred between the years 2000 and 2006 was 4.6% and from 2006 to 2007 the annual change stood at 1.6% (West and Sabol, 2008). One possibility of why the amount of female prisoners jumped from 561 to 734 because Hawaii’s population increased, having other people moving to the islands from the mainland. Another possible reason why female rates increased during the years was due to the higher availability of illegal drugs, such as meth. The last cause is the more criminal actives being done by females due to the fact that people wouldn’t necessarily believe that a woman would do those types of things. Plus too, others are more lenient towards females than they are to males.
Although the numbers for female prisoners seem pretty high, the number of Hawaii’s male prisoners was eight times as the amount of female prisoners. In 2000 there were 4,492 male prisoners; in 2006 there were 5,233; and one less in 2007, leaving the number of male prisoners at 5,232 (West and Sabol, 2008). From the years 2000 to 2006, there was a 2.6% average annual percent change, having it lower than the female prisoners, and 0% change from 2006 to 2007 (within one year) (West and Sabol, 2008). The reason for changes in the male prisoner number could be due to many reasons like males are generally more aggressive than females so it’s only natural that there are more male prisoners than females. It’s in a male’s gene to be aggressive so they tend to be more violent and have higher chances to be incarcerated. Males are more prone to doing heavier drugs than females are and tend to act out on their impulses than females do. However, it’s rather odd that there was one less prisoner in 2007 than 2006 because there isn’t much room in the prisons these days so they may let out those who have lesser charges.

Reference:

Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics Online. (2004). Public and private juvenile residential facilities. Retrieved on November 22, 2009, from University of Nevada Las Vegas, Webcampus Web Site: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t100092004.pdf

Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics. (2003). Number of jails, rated capacity, percent of capacity occupied, and number of inmates per employee. Retrieved on November 22, 2009, from University of Nevada Las Vegas, Webcampus Web Site: http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t198.pdf

Beck, J.A. (2000, April). Prison and jail inmates at midyear 1999. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/pjim99.pdf

West, H., & Sabol, W. (2008). Male prisoners under jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, December 31, 2000, 2006, & 2007. Retrieved on November 23, 2009, from University of Nevada Las Vegas, Webcampus Web Site: https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainF

West, H., & Sabol, W. (2008). Female prisoners under jurisdiction of state or federal correctional authorities, December 31, 2000, 2006, & 2007. Retrieved on November 23, 2009, from University of Nevada Las Vegas, Webcampus Web Site: https://webcampus.nevada.edu/webct/urw/lc33129041.tp0/cobaltMainF

Image from:
Derek Lilly. (2009).Welcome to Portbury Village Hall Website Retrieved on November 23, 2009, from www.portburyvillagehall.co.uk/Criminals.html

Assignment #9

(Source: http://blog.kir.com/archives/002648.asp)

The State of Hawaii does not enforce the death penalty but instead uses the life without chance of parole option. Before the death penalty was abolished in 1976 there had been 49 people killed in the state of Hawaii from the death penalty. Hawaii, like almost every other state in the union since 1976, has cut back on the number of executions (in this case Hawaii has done away with them completely). Without the death penalty there is no death row in Hawaii. The murder rate stands at 1.7 (out of 100,000), a relatively low to moderate number in comparison to the rest of the union. There has been no re-enactment of the death penalty in Hawaii. (Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/state_by_state)

The first recorded execution in Hawaii took place on November 7, 1856. The executed was an asian/pacific islander by the name of Ayou. Ayou was executed by way of hanging for committing a murder. No age was recorded.

The last recorded execution took place on January 7, 1944. The man's name was Domingo Adriano and he was asian/pacific islander. He was hung for murder at the age of 33.

Both executions were of Pacific Islanders and both were hung. This is a result of the island being primarily one race this early into its existence and injection was not the widespread method of execution at these points in time. The first recorded execution did not tell the age of the executed while the last one did. More care was given to keeping track of the information regarding executions later on it seems. (Source: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/ESPYstate.pdf)

Assignment #8

Being selected for a term of the year, the Grand Jury is picked by a list of nominees. Their purpose is to hear major criminal cases, such as felonies, presented to them by a District Attorney. After they hear the evidence given to them, the Grand Jury decides if there’s sufficient evidence for the accused person should have an indictment and be tried.
Unlike the Grand Jury, a preliminary hearing is held in the lowest local court system and is decided if a person charged with a felony should be charged for that crime. If there isn’t sufficient amount of evidence given, the preliminary hearing has the authority to dismiss the case. However, if they believe that the person who has committed the act should be tried for the crime committed, they send it to a higher court system (also known as superior, county, district or common pleas) were the trial would be most appropriate.
For Honolulu, Hawaii, it’s not quite obvious as to which method they use for their hearings. However, since it is a district court, chances are they use a preliminary hearing method since a district court is one of the lower local court systems in the state.

A California pastor was convicted of conspiracy for a second time in a scheme over the 2003 bankruptcy of Hawaiian Airlines. Spencer and Boghosian were charged with making false statements, including in depositions, concerning their ability to provide $300 million in new capital required for their plan. They solicited others to falsely support and invest in the plan, according to the indictment. Boghosian agreed to pay a $500,000 bribe to an undercover agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation posing as a New York hedge-fund manager in exchange for a $2.5 million loan from the fund, and Spencer executed a promissory note for the loan, according to prosecutors. One document submitted was a letter from two people falsely claiming to be officials of Amsterdam-based ABN Amro Bank NV confirming that Spencer had an account with $500 million, according to the indictment. None of the jurors were challenged for cause or preemptory challenges. All jurors stayed on the jury during the trial. The prosecution would want hard working people who make their money by working and not committing fraud. They wouldn’t like that Spencer and Boghosian committed fraud and tried to get extra money. The defense would want businessmen who know about business deals and how they work. They understand how business works and sometimes things go the wrong way and not in their favor.

According to Hawaii Legal News, in the case State vs. Line, two Hawaii police officers were obstructed from detaining a known criminal drug user. Initially, police came across Dean Line, who was caught with a crystal methamphetamine pipe, and agreed to set up a drug buy from his dealer. Dean then hid in his home, however, and a woman covered for him by saying he wasn’t there. The two officers, Perreira and Kikuchi, left the house, but returned three days later and spotted Dean outside his house, into which he quickly ran. The police officers followed, out of uniform, flashing their badges and weapons, and demanding entry to the house. Mrs. Line blocked entry by holding the door shut and, and when the police forced their way in without warrants, she struggled with them while Dean disappeared. In the aftermath, Perreira suffered a scratch and Kikuchi’s shirt was ripped (Lowenthal, 2009).
The charges of the case were those of hindering prosecution in the first degree, and assaulting a law enforcement officer in the second degree (Lowenthal, 2009). Direct evidence provided in the case would have been the testimony of both officers against Mrs. Line. Circumstantial evidence would likely be officer Kikuchi’s ripped shirt, which was damaged from the struggle with Mrs. Line. This evidence would have shown that at least Kikuchi was violently obstructed, and would support the assault charge. The testimony of the officers would have included the fact that they had no warrant to search the house, thus making the hindering prosecution charge much shakier in court. The ripped shirt, however, likely acted well as physical, albeit circumstantial, evidence in favor of the assault charge.

preliminary hearing. (2009). In law.com Law Dictionary. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1580.
Grand jury. (2009). In law.com Law Dictionary. Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=828.

Kitagawa, Marsha. (2009, November 02). Hawaii state judiciary. Retrieved from http://www.courts.state.hi.us/page_server/News/PressReleases/Articles/5F989417969FF73A11D1BC178B6.html

Weidlich, T. (2008, November 21). Man convicted of conspiracy in Hawaiian Air fraud case. Star Bulletin . Retrieved November 9, 2009, from http://www.starbulletin.com/business/20081121_Man_convicted_of_conspiracy_in _Hawaiian_Air_fraud_case.html

Lowenthal, B. (2009, August 20). Hawaii legal news. Retrieved from http://hawaiiopinions.blogspot.com/2009/08/hindering-prosecution-prosecution-not.html

Assignment #7

(Source: http://www.city-data.com/picfilesv/picv9876.php)

The State of Hawaii appoints supreme court judges for life of uses reappointment of some sort for the higher level courts. The State of Hawaii also does the same thing for intermediate appellate courts and trial courts as well. All three types give life tenure. “Tenure” refers to a position or office that is held for the person if the past the trial of the position they are applying for (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary). In other words, an individual can hold the high position of the Supreme Court job until he/she wishes to retire. Most times the individual decides to keep the job until it’s impossible for them to perform their duties. Just like selecting a council member of the Supreme Court System, Hawaii uses lifetime tenure for their Trial Court Judges and Intermediate Appellate Court Judges.
For example, in Hawaii’s Supreme Court System, the Chief Justice is Ronald Moon, who was sworn into the Supreme Court System in March of 1993. There he is supported by his fellow Justice Associates Simeon Acoba Jr., who was sworn in May 2000 after serving as a judge of the Intermediate Court for 6 years; James Duffy Jr., sworn in June 2003; Paula Nakayama, the first woman as a Supreme Court Justice member in 26 years, being sworn into office April 1993; and Mark Recktenwald who was recently sworn into office this past May (Hawai’I Sate Judiciary).
Appointing a judge based on popular opinion allows for the people to choose who runs their court system and the people will not be as mad at the selection because they chose who was appointed. The problem with popular opinion dictating who is appointed is that the judge who gets appointed may not necessarily be the best judge for the job. Popular voting can be skewed by the public. A well liked individual running for office may have the support from other individuals or Corporations who donate tons of money for the campaigns. The catchier the campaign, and signs are, the more people would notice that person. Although a person’s admired by the voters, it doesn’t guarantee that the person running for office will do his/her duty or the duties that he/she promised those who votes for them. It is common for a lot of people to make promises to the community in doing things to make it a better place, but when they win that office they ran for, they don’t fulfill that promise.
In Hawaii the Supreme court has 5 justices en banc. The supreme court has mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, disciplinary, certified questions from federal courts, and original proceeding cases. They have discretionary jurisdiction in civil, criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, original proceeding, and interlocutory decision cases.
Some cases are assigned to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. That courts has mandatory jurisdiction in civil, criminal, administrative agency, juvenile, interlocutory and decision cases assigned by the supreme court. They have no discretionary jurisdiction though.
The circuit/family court is more robust and on 4 circuits. It employs 33 circuit judges. 4 are specially assigned for family court proceedings and there are 14 district level family court judges. This level handles tort contract, real property, and miscellaneous civil cases. This level doesn't cover mental health, probate/estate, administrative agency appeals, domestic relations, juvenile, or traffic infractions.
The District courts is on 4 circuits and uses 22 judges with no jury trials. This level handles tort contract, real property, and miscellaneous civil cases exclusive up to $3,500. There are preliminary and misdemeanor hearings as well as hearings for traffic infractions, parking, and ordinance violations. This court is for smaller scale claims/cases.

There are 4 types of court systems in Hawaii. The lowest form is District court followed by Family court then the Court of Appeals, and finally the Hawaii Supreme Court. District court consists of 22 judges which decide the outcome of the cases because there are no jury trials
in District court. The case assignments are contract cases involving anywhere between $0 and $20,000. There are some civil cases pleaded in this court, and some can be as low as $3,500.
Family Court is the next step in the court system. There are 33 circuit judges and 14 district family court judges. These courts handle contract and property cases like district court however a much wider range when it comes to the money issue. Family court can handle cases involving $10,000 and up. Their exclusive cases that only they handle are juvenile, domestic violence, probate, mental health, and administrative agency appeals.
The next highest court is the Intermediate Court of Appeals. This court handles cases that can be passed to the Supreme Court. They take the cases that have not had a prior suit, but have questions of law that could have civil action involved. These case types are civil, criminal, administrative agency, and juvenile. Also the Intermediate Court of Appeals does not have discretionary jurisdiction therefore they must entertain every case filed. The link to the Intermediate Court of Appeals is http://tinyurl.com/yzxmmx5.
The final and highest court is the Hawaii Supreme Court. This court includes 5 judges that assign cases to the Intermediate Court of Appeals. They entertain the same types of cases that the Intermediate Court of Appeals does, but they have discretionary jurisdiction on all of those cases meaning they can choose which cases they want to hear. They also hear cases formally appealed cases from the Intermediate Court of Appeals. They can also hear cases involving certain questions from lower courts, certain questions of law from federal courts, complaints on elections, and the discipline judges. The link to the Hawaii Supreme Court is http://tinyurl.com/25w86k.

In Mililani, Hawaii, a felony arrest was made against a 22-year old man. The nature of the felony was first degree terroristic threatening and carrying a deadly weapon, after the 22-year old threatened a 45-year old man in a dispute over a parking spot. The crime occurred specifically at the Mililani Town Center. Due to the fact that this arrest was made on felony charges, this case will likely be heard by a Court of General Jurisdiction.

On Oct. 21 three excessive speeding cases were dismissed by a state appeals court, the Intermediate Court of Appeals, due to the recent ruling of the Hawaii’s Supreme Court regarding laser-gun readings of the offenders’ speed. These appeals were made on the grounds that the readings of said laser-guns weren’t adequately proven to be accurate. What is interesting about these dismissals is that they were predicted, shortly after the Hawaii Supreme Court ruling, by Honolulu Prosecutor Peter Carlisle.

References:

Advertiser Staff, . (2009, October 26). Parking stall argument in mililani leads to felony arrest. Retrieved from http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20091026/BREAKING01/91026047/Parking+stall+argument+in+Mililani+leads+to+felony+arrest

Dooley, J. (2009, October 22). More Hawaii speeding cases overturned on laser-gun issue. Retrieved from http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2009910220360

Fact sheet on judicial selection methods in the states. (2002, September 9). Retrieved October 23, 2009, from The American Bar Association website: http://www.abanet.org/leadership/fact_sheet.pdf

tenure. (2009). In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary.Retrieved October 26, 2009, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/tenure

Hawaii Supreme Court
Supreme court of Hawaii. (2009, October 24). Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Hawai'i State Judiciary website: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/page_server/Courts/Supreme/72D2460755E8199BEBD3ACE8C3.html

Hawaii Appellate Court
Appellate court of Hawai'i. (2009, October 24). Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Hawai'i State Judiciary website: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/page_server/Courts/Appeals/4942E2685D7AF75AEBD824637E.html

Hawaii Circuit/District Court
Hawai'i Third Circuit. (2009, October 24). Retrieved October 24, 2009, from Hawai'i State Judiciary website: http://www.courts.state.hi.us/page_server/GenInfo/Contact/36331383F1BEADEAE9DB7361C7.html

Hawai'i court structure as of fiscal year 2007. (2009, October 24). Retrieved October 24, 2009 from NCSC: Research website: http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/Ct_Struct/state_inc.asp?STATE=HI

Assignment 6

We don’t agree with Justice Breyer’s opinion. We think that finding evidence is instinct for police and the exclusionary rule will not deter them from doing what they think is right. The article is about all the different countries version of the exclusionary rule. The U.S. has one of the toughest, but a lot of people in the country support the rule. Also there are people that feel it is necessary, but needs to be rewritten to fit today’s society. Justice Scalia said, “The exclusionary rule had outlived its original purpose.” Evidence found illegally should not be used. Other countries let the judge decide if evidence can be used. We are the only country that does not let any of the evidence be used in the case. We think that we do not need the exclusionary rule. Evidence should be used to get criminals off the street no matter how it was found. Police are supposed to protect the people, but how can they do that when finding things illegally is always in the back of their minds. Criminals choose to break the law and should not have any rights. The police are getting punished for taking criminals off the street and must needs to stop. The police are doing their jobs.

In the case the State of Hawaii v. Lenee Propios police searched Lenee for cocaine possession as well as her house. She was on probation for a previous conviction of misuse of drug paraphernalia. Her probation officer was conducting interviews with her on a monthly basis as well as drug tests. The hope was Lenee was going to stop using drugs.
Her first interview Lenee admitted to using cocaine and marijuana. She also tested positive for both substances. Her second interview started leading towards the hint of a search. She said she was struggling staying off of drugs because she was still living with her boyfriend. Her probation officer took this as the boy friend was supplying her with the drugs. The probation officer suggested that if she tested positive, which she did, that they would do a strip search of her during her next interview. They also searched her residents where her boy friend, the drug dealer, was living. They swept through the house and took pictures. All of this was done without securing a warrant. (http://hi.findacase.com/, 2)
According to Hawaii state law a probation officer can consent her parolee to a warrantless search as long as there is reasonableness. Parolees do have a right to privacy, but can be searched without a warrant. I would consider this a crime committed in the presence of an officer type search. The officer knew Lenee was doing cocaine so that gave her the consent to search. The reasonableness in this case comes from the fact Lenee’s boy friend was a known drug dealer and that her past three drug tests were positive for cocaine. The search of the house was allowed since it was considered a supervisory search, not a search where they were looking for a conviction. (http://hi.findacase.com/, 3)

Muranaka, Gail. [interviewer]. Lenee Propios [interviewee]. (1994) Hawaii Supreme Court.
Retrieved from http://tinyurl.com/yfm5fs2.

The creation of the Miranda rights had been taken place after the incident in 1963, Miranda v Arizona. In this trial Ernesto Miranda was prosecuted after confessing to kidnapping and raping a mildly mentally challenged 18 year old woman. Due to the fact that they hadn’t read his rights to remain silence unless he wanted to be appointed counsel, his attorney fought to rule out his confession. Although the ruling was first denied, when it came in front of the Supreme Court in 1966, they ruled out the statements Miranda used since it lacked the protection of his constitutional rights. Subsequently today, during handcuffing a suspect or criminal, police quotes to the person in custody, “You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to speak to an attorney, and to have an attorney present during any questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be provided for you at government expense.” (Mount, S. (1995). The Miranda Warning. Retrieved October 19, 2009 from http://www.usconstitution.net/miranda.html) Regardless of the Miranda rights, there are certain cases that give authorization with statements given to authority from the person charged when the Miranda rights weren’t given. For example, in a situation where a weapon is involved, the “Public Safety Doctrine” allows police to ask where it is without having to say the Miranda rights. During incarceration, without plainly specifying that he/she wants to have a lawyer present during questionnaires, the police can no longer ask any more questions. However, if the person incarcerated says they “think” they “might” want a lawyer present, the questioning may continue. Only that sole person can ask for an attorney present for the Miranda rights to be in effect. If a family member sends in a lawyer without consent from the person held in question, whatever is said can be used against in them in testimony (Siegal p. 340).


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

Assignment #5


Source: http://thefreshscent.com/tag/hawaii/

Statistically there are many disparities among genders in police departments. Some things that might be of interest are:

1. How many females do male police officers let go for speeding as opposed to female police officers?

Male police officers may feel some kind of attraction to female people they pull over and thus give them less of a hard time for speeding whereas most likely a female officer will not harbor such an attraction and evaluate the situation accordingly.

2. What percentage of female officers do field work as opposed to men and how effective is it?

There is a stigma that women cannot do field work as well as men because they are not as physically capable. It would be nice to see if gender even matters in how well field work is accomplished.

3. What is the percentage of male police officers compared to female police officers?

It isn’t good to have a very homogenized pool of police officers. Diversity makes everyone better and more able to understand and interact with other demographics and cultures. If there is a noticeably uneven balance among officers maybe police departments should look into diversifying.

4. What is the percentage of male officers who quit in comparison to the percentage of female officers who quit?

Male police officers have an easier time becoming a part of the police force and women aren’t accepted as quickly or easily. Does this have an effect on the dropout rate of in training police or newly hired police and is there a fix that can be implemented?

5. How quickly do promotions occur for male officers in comparison to female officers?

Are promotions being given fairly in the police workforce and is there bias being shown in who gets promotions without regards to work ethic and accomplishments? In a more fair work environment more officers will be encouraged to do their best and stay a part of the team.

We believe that the officer in the video is The Law Enforcer. The Law Enforcer follows and enforces the laws. He plays it “by the book” and does what he can to make sure the laws are upheld. They work on all types of crimes with no bias. The officer is the video fits this category because he follows all the proper procedures. He pulls the man over for suspected drunk driving and is nice about the situation. After a fight with the suspect the officer was forced to take his life. Once he secured the passenger in the car, he still did his duty and tried to save the suspects life. During the whole confrontation the officer did everything how he was supposed to.

An account of police brutality by Honolulu Police went unreported and the account ended up in a Honolulu newspaper. A local man named Roger Tansley witnessed a number of police officers using excessive force to detain a prisoner.
Outside of a mini mart in Kaneohe two cop cars pulled up into the parking lot. A handcuffed man fell out of the back seat of one car and hit the pavement screaming for help. One police officer slammed him into the back bumper of his car, while the other cop put the prisoner in a chokehold. He also stuck his knee into the back of the convict so hard his eyes were bulging.
After the man was in a chokehold, other patrol cars pulled up. There were now 6 officers present holding the man down while one put leg shackles on the prisoner who was bleeding. Once the man was shackled 5 squad cars left and one drove up to question the witnesses. He did not explain his reasons for the excessive force. He just said the suspect kicked out his back window and was being arrested for kidnapping.
The force used in the assault was deadly force. The man was put in a situation where significant bodily harm occurred. The police officers did not need to use such force for a man who was already in handcuffs. If the man had been trying to escape standard police procedures taught in the academy could have been used to detain the subject further.
Instead of using deadly force to detain a defenseless criminal they could acted civilly and just did their job and take him in. If a criminal is already in handcuffs brutally beating him is not necessary. We believe that by the police officers actions it reduces the severity of the criminal act because now people will be more concerned about how the cops handled the situation, thus, possibly letting go the real criminal that was suppose to and should be punished.


References:

Tansley, Roger. (2002). Police Brutality in Subduing a Prisoner. Police Brutality in Honolulu Goes
Unreported. Retrieved from: http://archives.lists.indymedia.org/imc-hawaii/2002-September/000514.html.

YouTube - Police fights for his life. (n.d.). Retrieved October 3, 2009, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=81RIZephDfM

Assignment #4

(Source: http://www.istockphoto.com)

The Massie rape case is one of the most famous trial cases in Hawaii history. (Stannard, 2001, p.2) It received national attention. However, the actual rape case was not the trial worth remembering. The trial case of the 4 men who beat one defendant nearly to death and a couple who killed another defendant was the case that shows the courage of some local civilians.
In 1931 Horace Ida, a local man, was picked up by police at his home. He thought he knew why they were there. Two hours before the police showed up he was in a car wreck where he got into a scuffle with a woman from the other car. He filed charges just after the incident. However, upon arrival he was put under arrest for the kidnapping, beating, and rape of Thalia Massie. A Pearl Harbor Navy Officer identified him as one of 5 men to participate in the rape.
The trial for the 5 men was well covered in local papers. Every Hawaiian thought there was going to be a guilty verdict. However, they had the wrong men on trial. These men were strictly chosen because they were foreign. Each one had an ethnic background. Since the men were innocent, the courts also found it that way. The jury declared themselves deadlocked. The 5 men walked.
Citizens were outraged. Horace Ida was one defendant who took a massive beating. He was ganged up on, and nearly beaten to death. The other defendant wasn’t as lucky. (Stannard, 2001, p.2) Thalia’s husband and mother kidnapped Joseph Kahahawai and then shot him in the heart. He died instantly.
The Navy men who beat Ida and the mother and husband were all put on trial for their actions. This was the case that finally received national attention. The trial was covered on the radio and by the New York Times. Congress was even tapping into the case.
This case held in its hands the end of civilian rule in the islands. Congress warned that a fair decision by the jury could possibly end the civilian rule. The men were backed by the whole community since everyone thought the 5 men who were released committed the crime. Despite this, the jury rendered a decision. The convicted everyone on manslaughter carrying a 10 year sentence.
The jury showed a lot of courage for rendering a decision in such chaos. Everyone expected another hung jury, but the men and women chose the harder right, other than the easier wrong. They are the reason this case has stuck in Hawaii history.

At the time that the events of this story occurred, there were numerous issues with the criminal justice process, the most important of which is likely the rampant racism and prejudices of many Americans. According to the story, the rape defendants, even before they were tried, were prejudged as being guilty, not just by community locals, but by Congress as well. This prejudgment led to the beating of one defendant, and the murder of another. Even though these attackers and murderers were brought to trial afterwards, public sentiment was largely in support of them, and against the victims. Theoretically the most important consequence of this prejudice was the threat of “Commission”-based rule Hawaii if a fait verdict was reached, which ultimately did impede the execution of justice as the vigilante attackers and murderers were found guilty, but had their sentences commuted as part of a deal with the federal government.
In contrast, if these events had occurred today, I believe that racism would certainly be an issue, but not on the same level. A larger problem might be the failure of Thalia Massie herself to report her own rape if it had indeed happened, due to similar racial concerns. Massie might be prejudged as a liar and a racist, exaggerating her interaction with the defendants because of this. (Stannard, 2001)In popular media, charges against whites of racism by nonwhites is commonplace, and in spite of accuracies and inaccuracies, this has likely influenced the willingness of some whites to report crimes commited against them by nonwhites.

The state of Hawaii has four local police agencies. (Reaves, 2004) These four agencies are: Hawaii County Police, Honolulu Police, Kauai Police, and Maui County Police. Those agencies combined make a total of 3,559 personnel. This means there are 282 employees for every 100,000 residents, but some of them are sworn officers. A sworn officer has the power to arrest and detain someone while a non-sworn officer only has the power to write parking tickets and ordnance violations. Also a non-sworn officer can be a volunteer or a Public Service Officer. Out of the 3,556 personnel, 2,618 of them are sworn in officers. This brings the number of officers per 100,000 resident down to only 207. Hawaii is unique in that it is the only state that only has local law enforcement. There is no state law enforcement or sheriffs office, but in place of the state law enforcement, they have created The Hawaii Department of Public Safety (HDPS). (Reaves, 2004) It is classified as a special jurisdiction agency. It primarily provides court related services. I feel that Hawaii has enough sworn personnel for their population. The island is so small that it will not take a lot of time for numerous officers to get there. Next there is a low crime rate in Hawaii that makes the need for offices less. Finally having The HDPS takes some of the burden off of the officers.


References

Stannard, D. (2001). Honolulu Advertiser. The Massie Case: Injustice and Courage. Retrieved from http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2001/Oct/14/op/op03a.html

Reaves, B. A. (2004). Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004, NCJ 212749. 2004Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencis.