Center for the Victims of Torture has been helping victims since 1985. To get help, donate, or volunteer check out their website.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kPfR69bn21Q&feature=related

Here is the song for the show and Sammy Davis Jr. sung it. Long time ago. 

This is why the public needs to be informed:

news: 

Dad stabbed in random attack on family

Updated: Wednesday, 04 Aug 2010, 10:16 PM EDT
Published : Wednesday, 04 Aug 2010, 10:16 PM EDT

• George Richert
• Posted by: Eli George

PORTER, N.Y. (WIVB) - In Niagara County, Police arrested a man they say randomly attacked a family in the town of Porter.

The most unnerving part is that it seems totally random. There is no connection between the suspect and this family, but police say they had him in custody within minutes.

Shawn Zimmerman said, "Gimme some privacy. What the **** is wrong with y'all."

He swore at photographers and asked for privacy as 30-year-old Shawn Zimmerman of Newfane was taken into court. Just after 6 a.m. Wednesday morning , State Police say he knocked on the door of a house surrounded by cornfields on Youngstown-Lockport Road in Porter.

Capt. Craig Hanesworth of the NYS Police said, "I believe he indicated he needed to use the phone."

A woman in the house brought him the phone, and then he apparently pushed his way in and said he had a gun.

"Right now we have no motive. It's not clear why the subject chose this house, picked this house to go into, terrorize this family," said Capt. Hanesworth.

One of two teen-aged daughters in the house called 911 on a cell phone. Police then talked to Zimmerman by phone.

Capt. Hanesworth said, "At which time, he stated that if the officers came into the residence that he was going to kill the occupants."

Then as he talked to police through an upstairs window, he got into a struggle with the man of the house and stabbed him in the chest, and the stomach with a butcher knife.

"It's not believed to be life-threatening injuries, that he sustained," said Capt. Hanesworth.

Amber Green said, "I think it's scary, especially with little ones. And you think someone could just knock on your door, come in and stab you...scary."

Shawn Zimmerman had just been released from jail three months ago on a burglary charge. He is now held without bail facing what would be his third felony conviction on assault, burglary and criminal possession of a weapon.

**********************

just released 3 months ago... 3rd felony conviction.... assault, burglary, possession of a weapon and what now? attempted murder????

hmmmmmm....do you think he deserves to be given a fresh start with a clean slate???? 

OH yes that is where that saying came from and was sung in the opening of the show which I loved watching. Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.  He and his wife lived about 20 minutes from where we lived as we found out later. The actor Robert Blake.

Thank you for the info on background checks. I found people on my own. But as for IP adress and other things you mentioned new to me except for intellius which I used once...

Thanks again...

Is that where that saying came from? lol! I never knew!

There are a ton of online searches that will do the background check for you - spokeo - the one I mentioned recently, is a good place to start. County records are kept online now, and are matter of public record, also things like fbi most wanted, county jail, tax records, etc... some you have to pay for, some not.. 

other sites like zaba search, net detective, ip address lookup ( various sites) - things like facebook and myspace are great resources as well - people post a lot of stuff for the publis to see and read and they are all picked up by other sites... 

It really is like searching for resources - if you know what you are looking for and are willing to spend the time - and sometimes the $$$- you can find anything. 

I have often felt the same way too when it comes to crime committed by someone. Especially when you get into the horrendous crimes. And I always thought that the theme of the Tony Berrata show was so right on, Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

Somehow when I was growing up that was remembered more by more people than later.. Hopefully there will be a turn around in being conscious on how to treat others which I always thought should be taught in school other than learning it at home and or in church...And the same goes for managing finances should be taught in school veres learning about the same thing each year. I could not wait to get to junior college where I got to choose things that interested me as I felt 10 grade through 12 should have been like junior college. My opinion...

Good points made by you whoknew

question ?

How do you do your own back ground check on someone??

thanks

I disagree. Why should felons be rewarded for their bad behavior? Don't we have enough politicians doing that as it is?

If you don't want the internet selling your information - don't put it out there. But don't forget the credit card companies and county public records too!

No one is forcing anyone to perform background checks - people do it to know who they are dealing with. I do it all the time to make sure I am not dealing with a wife beater, thief, child molester, murderer, etc....

The public has a right to know - period! I want to know where I am spending my money and whom I am spending my time with. As I am sure millions of other people do. Why should we put outselves at risk because others cannot control themselves and feel the need to hurt others? We should feel sorry for them? I don't think so. So they did their time- so what? What did the person do to deserve being victimized?They have to live with the results of the crime for the rest of their lives! While criminals get a slap on the wrist? 

I think our country is too easy on criminals. The punishment should fit the crime.  Someone was to brutalize a child? Put them somewhere, where it WILL happen to them - every day - their own personal hell on earth. And no early release for good behavior. 

Feel like shooting someone- put them on the front lines in the war - let's see how tough they are then. 

 Want to sell drugs to kids?  Toss them to the drug cartels- see how well they can fit in there. 

In the middle east they cut off your hand for stealing - maybe would start that here... 

Or how about we stick people in the city square in stocks and label them for their crimes - a little public humilation never hurt anyone did it? 

Everyone feels they are entitled to some sort of pay off -HA! The old saying still holds true -if you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

It is time to file a class action civil rights law suit against the insurance companies who are forcing employers to perform background checks that go back forever. Also the internet companies that sell a persons background check to anyone that goes back for a persons entire life.

I feel that the environment in the courts right now would be open to such a lawsuit despite the old law regarding our issue. There have been too many new researches & studies about how an ex-offenders chances of recommitting an offence drops off after a certain amount of years to equal or exceed that of a non-offender. This takes away the old law of "the publics right to know" philosphy, especially when the argument is that these companies policies and acts are denying our constitutional right to the pursuit of life, liberty, & the pursuit of happiness.

 I am pursuing this course of action as of right now, and I offer my time & researching the law abilities to any group willing to file such a class action law suit.

 "Have you EVER been convicted of a felony" has to stop now, & I think the studies & research results will support our position as citizens that our rights are being violated.

You are right that employers fear liability when it comes to hiring ex-offenders. In Minnesota, it is now illegal for employers to ask anyone if they committed a crime on the job application, so there is a chance for a job interview at least.

Collatteral damages from "lifelong sentences" are a fact among job seeking competition, especially when illegal aliens are snatching up any available jobs.

In addition, in Minnesota, 1 in 7 people are criminals due to the fact DWI's are criminal acts. In some states, like Wisconson, DWI's are civil offense.

http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=131733900186001

That link is to a Facebook group that has a vision to eventually see criminal records treated like credit reports for non violent, non sexual criminals. Men and woman are being denied good jobs due to the post 9/11 employment background check era. 36yo man riding in a stolen car as a stupid 18yo is a theif for life on paper. Time for change and forgiveness. Young adults make stupid mistakes and NOW they are becoming life sentences outside the prison walls.

If you must file a complaint against a police officer who chooses to falsify police reports or other types of police misconduct, please call the Minnesota POST Board at (651) 643-3060 or the local POST Board for Police Training. Be prepared to run through a Merry-go Around.

i'ts a blessing someone relize ex-offenders are people too..And i agree with the article, and the expunge process is a joke and a waste of $100 in the state of florida.They give you your rights back but not the right to work in an professional field.The goverment need's to step in and do something and let people work or they will have a big mess on thier hands later.The WOTC and the Federal Bonding program is worthless.I'm at my final straw with this non-sense i might re-offend!!!

 Concern X-offender

I agree with your response that Fear and protectionism are the leading problems for ex-offenders. Many communities across America support the Courts and the probation offices for public safety.

However, local and State governments profit from offenders recidivism. I argue that the criminal justice system keeps offenders under lengthy court jurisdiction, in which it causes collateral damages to the offender's family, friends, and society.

In addition, many people recidivate because employers and most people do not want to waste their time helping or trusting "criminals"--although many exoffenders correct their behavior or outgrow it.

Thanks for posting one of my videos.  You can get the rest at my blog:  http://www.jailtojob.com/wordpress

 Peace,

Eric

Thank you!

Yes, you're right to add on to what is already proven, and yet, the criminal justice system does nothing nor our elected officials do anything to remedy this type of self-victimization.

Reply to Grighan-Thankyou for answering my question, and so well I might add. You are absolutely right about our young people that we send into war. It is scientifically proven that young people under the age of 25 have underdeveloped frontal lobes and that is also the age hormones are at their highest. The ability to think logically expands as the frontal lobe reaches maturity at about age 24 to 25. I am in complete agreement that the american public needs to be educated and and at a very early age. I commend you for being brave enough for coming on to aidpage with your truth and honesty. You have educated me on a subject that we all need to address and the sooner the better. Thankyou ------ Oh!--and yes I would hire you, you sound like a solid and sincere person. Keep educating, make it start with you.  sincerely sheshe030

In 1986, I made a fragmentation cherry bomb that blew out a storefront window of a medical supply business in my hometown.

That begs the question why do we allow our young men to join the military when they cannot think logically because of underdeveloped frontal temporal lobes and raging testosterone.

Today, young women are equally dangerous alongside the men for violent behavior. We don't need to build more prisons--we need more educational and wellness institutions.

I feel like I put myself on the road to rehabilitation for nought because people fear liability of hiring an ex-offender.

In the next 10 years there will be more people being victimized with collateral damages that affect themselves and their loved ones depending on ex-offenders for jobs, housing, and education.

Reply to Brighan---I couldn't listen to your audio because where I live I can only get dial-up and it is just to slow for audio for more than a few seconds. I  have empathy for you not being able to get a job but I have but one question.What were you in for? That to me should determine weather I would hire you or not. my best sheshe030

Many ex-offenders, or ex-felons suffer from collateral damages that keep them from finding a job, housing, and voting long after they paid their debt to society.

According to the EEOC definitions, a qualified ex-felon means a person convicted of a felony under either U.S. or state law and hired within one year of his/her conviction or release from prison. To qualify, the ex-felon also must be a member of a family that falls within a specific income guideline. Id. § 51(d)(4). Only the DOL Form seeks specific conviction information, including dates of conviction and release; the IRS Form 8850 includes this category along with the vocational rehabilitation referral and several others in one broadly framed inquiry.

None of the Federal EEOC laws prohibit specific pre-offer inquiries concerning conviction records; a question concerning whether an individual is an ex-felony offender thus would not be unlawful. Moreover, courts have held that questions regarding conviction records may be probative of job-related characteristics and thus permissible. See, e.g., Green v. Missouri Pac. R.R., 523 F.2d 1290 (8th Cir. 1975) (request for and consideration of conviction records permissible; complete ban on employment of persons with criminal records may violate EEOC laws on proof of disparate impact on protected group). In this instance, your client seeks information about felony convictions not to limit the employment of an ex-offender, but to enhance the job prospects of the ex-offender by determining whether his/her employment entitles an employer to a tax credit. 

I condensed the talking points from the article; ABOLISH LIFETIME BANS FOR EX-FELONS by Shawn D. Bushway and Suny Gary Sweeten. The authors write that lifetime bans for ex-felons affect an estimated 1 in 19 adults and 1 in 3 black male adults in the United States (Uggen et al., 2006). These bans may have some short-term benefit in the period during which ex-felons are at a higher risk of reoffending.

However, after a relatively short time span, offending risk differences disappear. Life-course research on desistance shows that virtually all ex-felons eventually desist and that the risk of reoffending drops precipitously as the period of non-offending increases. Lifetime bans bar entry into many types of employment, impede formation of stable family units, and block access to education assistance, low-income housing, and public assistance. These bans block the very domains thought to be central to the desistance process (Giordano et al., 2002; Irwin, 1970; Laub and Sampson, 2003; Laub et al., 1998; Shover, 1996). 

Critics argue that short-term bans of ex-felons may be justified because of short-term increased offending risk. In addition, long-term bans may be justified in certain politically sensitive cases, such as barring child sex offenders from working with children. Criminological research does not support blanket lifetime bans of ex-felons, and these lifetime bans must end. 

Gorgus2 writes to the EEOC-- “There are so many ex felons that have paid their debt to society in the form of imprisonment that are being discriminated against getting a job, that it has become an epidemic. I think its time for the government to step in and do something and fast. I would like to be involved in seeing laws passed where it would be illegal to discriminate against any one with any criminal background as far as getting a job. It would seem to me that if society hands down a sentence to an individual to pay back society for the wrong they did, by doing time behind bars, that once that time has been completed then that’s it. We know that with out a job and at least a weekly paycheck you cannot survive, with out getting back into some kind of criminal activity. It is inhumane to deprive some one of the basic right to legally earn a living and feed oneself and or family. If society thinks that an ex felon is so bad that he is not fit to work and put food on the table, then keep him or her behind bars, and let the tax payers feed him. But do not send them back into society with out this basic protection. It is gravely needed, and at this point only the government can help stop this blatant act.”

We should be following the Wisconsin Bill that protects unpardoned ex-offenders. Here, experts suggest former inmates find an agency in their town that focuses on finding jobs for hard-to-place candidates and take advantage of whatever skills training they can get from the government, nonprofit groups and employment agencies with parolee experience.

America Works has locations throughout the U.S. that can be located on their Web site. Ex-offenders should check out the following Web sites for help: The Sentencing Project, The Legal Action Center, The Prisoner Reentry Institute, and Expungement Assistance Services.

The key to getting a job — especially for an ex-con — is references, experts say. To that end, some former inmates may have to take a low-level job, work their tails off, and use that employer for recommendations for the next gig. The Department of Justice has books and videos that help offenders find jobs.

Contact your State legislature and tell your elected officials that ex-offenders are growing and they need to have the same human rights for survival granted by the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In addition, visit the petition signing site for stopping ex-felon labeling and discrimination.

References— 

Giordano, Peggy C., Stephen A. Cernkovich, and Jennifer L. Rudolph 2002 Gender, crime, and desistance: Toward a theory of cognitive transformation. American Journal of Sociology 107:990–1064. 

Irwin, John 1970 The Felon. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall. 

Laub, John H., Daniel S. Nagin, and Robert J. Sampson.1998 Good marriages and trajectories of change in criminal offending. American Sociological Review 63:225–238. 

Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson 2003 Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press. 

Shover, Neal 1996 Great Pretenders: Pursuits and Careers of Persistent Thieves. Boulder,Colo.: Westview Press. 

Uggen, Christopher, Jeff Manza, and Melissa Thompson2006 Citizenship, democracy and the civic reintegration of criminal offenders. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 605:281–310.   

Thank you for giving me support and I will tell you that I am far from posting other works in progress in my blog. I am hoping to delve into the roots of poverty and bring people together as a community.

Brighan

Brighan: I wish you the best in your endeavours. Your blog is very impressive and quite informative. I hope others read what you have written and understand the seriousness of this problem and the ramifications if it continues unchecked. I am currently dealing with this issue and have developed a complete lack of faith in our "Law Enforcement/Judicial" System. I am an 8 year veteran of the US Navy, I took an oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and DOMESTIC, we are a country at war and are sending our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers to foreign countries to fight and possibly die to protect our way of life. Our way of life is founded in the principles set forth in the Constitution of the United States and I for one believe that it is worth fighting for. Our country needs people like you here on the homefront as educated "soldiers" to stand up and protect the rights that others are willing to give their lives for. This country needs lawyers like you, those with integrity and a strong conviction for the truth. May you have fair winds and following seas in your quest to becoming a licensed Attorney, you'll be one of the good ones. Good Luck, Captjay

What if I told you, you could own your own business for $39.95 a month? Work around your family's schedule. Work from home for yourself, but not by yourself. We have a FANTASTIC training and support program. Take a moment and see what sets us apart. Nationwide, Everyone is saying that our "CLEAN BURNING" Gourmet Candles are The BEST smelling candles ever made! Almost everyone you know has scented candles in his or her home! Chances are 99% of those candles are paraffin candles! The process of selling our Gourmet Candles is so simple. Since most people already buy scented candles they will be open to at least look at your Gourmet candles. Once you let them smell your candles you are assured a sale! A simple "show and smell" demonstration will put money in your pocket daily! There are many ways to sell our candles: Home parties,fundraisers, information seminars, direct face to face selling, booths,craft shows, etc. If you would like to send me your contact information and I will gladly send you a FREE CD,scent samples, and business information.Feel FREE to call 1(570)7603704 or CLICK www.officialmiabella.com Mia Bella's Gourmet Soy/Veg Scented Candles are made using a proprietary formula of natural, renewable materials from the American Farmland. This combination of vegetables, plants, soy and beeswax burns clean (which means no black stuff on the jars!) and is practically soot free. If you spill it, clean it up with soap and hot water. We use only the highest quality fragrances and the scent is infused throughout the entire candles so you get the same incredible fragrance from the top to the bottom. Once you try a Mia Bella Candle, you will know why scented candle customers nationwide are calling it the Best Performing Candle Ever Made! Join Us! We need help now! Independent Mia Bella Candle Reps Part-Time or Full-Time! Make money daily. Earn money from home, online, fundraisers, home parties, gift baskets, etc. You choose how you want to do your business! Set your own hours! Be your own boss. A product people already want. Learn our Simple "Smell and Sell" technique. Once you try a Mia Bella Candle, you will know why scented candle customers nationwide are calling it the "Best Performing Candle ever Made!" www.delectable-scent s.com
Delectable-scents

I sing Southern Gospel Music, This Music is going to die without our help,I want to tavel to churches,and communitys full time to sing and take this type of Music to people that can not other wise aford to pay a group to come sing for there church or organization,This would NOT be for Profit, but would be my sole sorce of income to pay the way to be able to go and do this Full time! Any help would be greatly app. Thanks Jeff M.
Eastbound Ministries

     It was a cold Sunday morning in St. Paul back in February of 2005 when I awoke to the pounding on my doors and windows from every side of the duplex. I went to look at my security monitor while my girlfriend answered the door. Deb came back panicking when she said it was the police. The police acted just as cold as the weather when I answered the front door wearing only a blanket and a pair of pants. They accused me of running back into the house, while the other officers kept pounding on my house. I replied that I was making sure it was the police before I opened the door. They asked who I was and what floor I lived.
     The police wanted to search for a man related to the upstairs tenants. According to Minnesota law, I knew the police were misrepresenting their purpose for gaining entry into the house. The rule of Hot-pursuit enables the police to use warrantless entry if they were chasing a suspect. I did not hear anyone entering the duplex before the police arrived. I called for the upstairs tenants to come out because they had “guests” at the front door. I kept calling for my tenants and ringing their doorbell to wake them up. The police commenced my Fourth Amendment rights when they waited for me to turn my back so I could close my apartment door.
     At that moment, the officers went upstairs and opened the unlocked door to my tenant’s apartment. I believe the police illegally entered the house looking for a suspect that was not there. The police can argue the hallway is a commons area shared by a member of the household and I implied consent to enter. I did not imply consent for the police to enter the house when I stood guarding the door half-naked and freezing for four or five minutes because the police refused to let me shut the door. The consequential legality is that any evidence recovered from the upstairs apartment should be inadmissible in the court of law.
      The intrusion angered me although the police arrested the tenants for committing a crime against their lease and state law. By law, the police spotted a large bag of marijuana on the coffee table and “held” the upstairs apartment while they got a search warrant. The police charged the upstairs tenants and confiscated their drugs, paraphernalia, and weapons.
      The upstairs tenants plead guilty because their public defender did not want to fight the charges based on the reports given by the police officers. Simply, it is limited economics and time whether the lawyer has to fight for people in low-income brackets. I took this experience to apply my knowledge and wisdom for interpreting the laws and the Fourth Amendment rights erosion, which I gave a copy to the tenants and posted at Aidpage.com.
      I tell the story because most people understand only partly their rights within a warrantless search and seizure. The U.S. CONST. Amend. IV, § 6 secures the rights against searches and seizures without a warrant, except on probable cause supported by Oath describing the search. The US Supreme Court expressed a preference for searching under judicial issued warrants. The holding in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 357 (1967) states the Constitution requires the deliberate, neutral judgment of an officer interposing on the citizens’ searches conducted without earlier approval by a judge or magistrate, are unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment—subject to a few specifically settled and well-delineated exceptions. The Fourth Amendment does not protect the property of foreign nationals and nonresident aliens. 
      The theory I shall argue is that some police officers use the Constitutional Fourth Amendment—search and seizure--against people stopped at a traffic stop, or “Terry Stop” in economically strained neighborhoods. According to the St. Paul crime maps, judicial records, and independent profiling studies, the low-income neighborhoods in St. Paul have more arrests. In my observations, people in upper and middle-class neighborhoods do not face the police as often.
      I remember the Albert Lea Police often used search and seizures in Terry stops against the poor, which I found some of the St. Paul police practicing when I moved here. According to my class instructor in Critical Issues of Policing, Officer Kris Sturgis said, “about 80% of the time the police do not find any evidence of a crime in Terry stops.”  Now, as a paralegal I am hoping to educate people about the police procedures used in traffic stops.
      My life mission as a legal student is fighting for justice and civil liberties. I volunteer to help many neighborhood organizations, such as ACORN—Minnesota, Heart of the City, and the St. Paul Police Federation at 2fewcops.com, and the neighborhood watch. The knowledge and experience I bring into this paper might answer why the Fourth Amendment affects the socio-economic strained neighborhoods when the police use traffic stops to solve crimes.
       
       It is difficult to answer the question of why the police use Terry stops. Is it true the police stop people equally? Do the police perform search and seizures against Eastsiders more often than citizens of Highland Park or citizens of St. Anthony Park? What is the police department doing to inhibit the practice of socio-economic profiling? The reader must understand that people take risks when they face the police because they can violate the suspect’s rights. I will show readers what their Fourth Amendment rights are and how to apply it at a Terry stop.

Socio-economic strains.
       The police respond to service calls among the economic hierarchy with frequent Terry stops. The St. Paul police patrol all of St. Paul, but I chose three distinct neighborhoods that show the disparity of policing associated with graduated income levels-- Eastside, St. Anthony Park, and Highland Park.
      The police developed their Terry stop policy when the Supreme Court expanded on the circumstances of reasonable suspicion holds to where people live can color innocent conduct with suspicion. The chances for a Terry stop increases when you are traveling along the socio-economic strained neighborhoods and corridors, such as, University, Arcade, Payne, Minnehaha, and White Bear Avenues. The evidence of crimes and arrests in the 2005 St. Paul crime maps show the Eastside of St. Paul has six times more Schedule I crimes like Homicide, Armed Robbery, Aggravated Assaults, Drugs, Burglary, and Theft. In addition, the police stop people when they fit a suspect’s description near the area of a service call. The frequency of 911 calls in impoverished neighborhoods frustrate police officers trying to be proactive in crime prevention rather than being reactive.
     People feel threatened by crime and they report it more often in economically strained neighborhoods because of wealth and extreme poverty living next to each other. I learned from Professor Tom O’Connell in my social studies class about Social Reflective Anxiety, or “keeping up with the Joneses.” Social Reflective Anxiety creates friction among the socio-economic opportunities and life-chances in desperate neighborhoods. Barring basic needs, people want the same material possessions and lifestyle enjoyed by the more fortunate people. Notably, the police frequent areas of businesses, absentee-landlords, commercial rental properties, and illegal immigrants. Having said that, old “beaters” and foot traffic cruising around or cutting through wealthy neighborhoods becomes suspicious to the residents who stereotype the drivers and walkers.
    People driving vehicles with many equipment violations will also draw the police officer’s attention, that is, taillight out or a cracked windshield. Often, the police are apt to stop old cars for routine insurance and license checks. Sometimes the police stop an automobile that happens to stereotype the driver’s education and social status. Many poor families do not have the money to maintain their cars, have valid car insurance, or license tabs. The result is a plethora of hardships and lifestyles that exposes the poor to law enforcement more often than people from upper-income levels.
    People living in the upper-income neighborhoods do not share the same exposure as the poor for meeting the police. The upper income classes can afford new cars, insurance, and license tabs. In addition, the officer also knows the driver can afford to pay their traffic citation, or hire an attorney. Often, the dominant classes stay close to their homes, businesses, and friends, in which case the luxury car may not raise the officer’s suspicion if there was a crime committed.
    However, the Lexis driving around known high crime areas and drug houses at odd hours will provoke a Terry stop. Regardless of whatever transport you are using, each person must be aware of his or her rights if they should meet a police officer on the street.

Rights of a suspect.
     Briefly, when a police officer signals you to stop, do so in a well-lit and public area regardless if you have to drive two blocks or more. Do not panic or try to flee. Pull over, relax, take the keys out of the ignition, and keep your hands visible on the steering wheel until the officer becomes comfortable with you. Also, be aware that you do not have to talk with the officer in idle conversation but be polite and respectful. Be also aware that you understand the difference when an officer is giving you an order or when he or she is asking you questions.
      Police officers face each Terry stop with their self-preservation first in mind. He or she will watch if you behave irrationally, and appear reaching for a weapon or hiding evidence. Police officers use their trained senses to explore for crimes while they are talking to the driver. Any suspicious conduct inferred by the officer’s senses gives him or her probable cause for a search. The police must tell you what traffic violation or crime you committed.
      The police officer cannot touch the suspect now because this would mean “seizure” under the Fourth Amendment, unless the officer asks the driver to step out of the car because he or she suspects a crime in progress and continues in further interrogative questioning. The Fourth Amendment protects you when the police give you an order, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect you if the police ask you questions at the Terry stop. People must remember the police have authority to detain and question you if they suspect a traffic violation or a crime committed.
     The officer has the right to ask for your driver’s license, insurance, place of address, automobile registration, and tell you the reason why they stopped you. The police officer can only detain the suspect within a reasonable amount of time required to effect either a citation or remedy the problem in the field—the reasonable standard of law says usually ten to fifteen minutes. The US Supreme Court said the police detainment at a Terry stop could be as long as 30 minutes if there is reasonable grounds to show excessive detainment. You can ask if you are free to go after the officer examines your license and insurance.
     However, a police officer can arrest, detain, and search a person in two ways. The first way happens when the police run your name through “warrants and checks.” Any detain order the officer receives motivates him or her to take the individual into custody and search the vehicle.
     The second way the officer may try to begin a search is if they sense any recoverable evidence of a criminal act. Probable cause is a reasonable belief of finding seizable items by balancing individual privacy against public policy.  The good faith doctrine limits the effects of probable cause. 
     The “good faith doctrine” excuses police misconduct when they believe the facts are valid in the warrant or there is evidence at the scene that provokes a search of the person and their property. Article I, Section 10, of the Minnesota State Constitution says that personal property is an “effect” and protected by the Fourth Amendment, which police officers cannot use to excuse their Fourth Amendment infringements.

     However, there is one exception to the good faith doctrine in Minnesota that people should be aware of is the "inevitable discovery doctrine." Inevitable discovery protects law enforcement from violating the good faith rule if they can show the confiscated evidence would have been found at a later time if they followed the proper procedure.

     The Vernado law protects people from the police using Terry stops to interrogate or investigate for crimes. The irony of probable cause within the good faith exception is difficult to prove when the police have 68 different violations they could use to pull you over.
     Thus, people might respond to the police officer’s Terry stop irrationally, which will trigger the officer’s suspicion to begin questioning the suspect. People make the common mistake by behaving rudely to the police, talking too much, and giving consent to a search. Often the police catch people with drugs and alcohol in their vehicles after the officer subdues the frantic or hostile person for safety reasons. If the police officer tells you to step out of the car, do so by rolling up the window and locking the door before closing it. Do not feel intimidated if you choose to exercise your rights, and do not argue with the officer.
     Regardless of income levels, the Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in Harris, 590 N.W.2d at 98 that a “seizure” happens when a person, under the totality of the circumstances, would have believed that he or she was “neither free to ignore the police questions nor free to end the meeting.” You give up your Fourth Amendment right when you continue to talk with the police or answer their questions.

Consenting to a search.
    If the police officer lacks evidence of a crime, he or she might ask you questions or try to gain consent to explore further. It is important that you vocally exert your rights to deny a search of yourself and property. In the court ruling of State v. George, 557 N.W.2d at 580, the absence of any protest does not necessarily mean the individual gave consent to a search voluntarily.
    One exception the Supreme Court recognizes to the warrant requirement is the individual consent given to the police officers. Consenting is the product of a person’s exercise of free will and often a common mistake made by citizens. Police rely on the person’s fear and ignorance of their right to deny the search, limit the search area, and withdraw their consent during the search.
     I believe some of the people in low- income neighborhoods when they answered that they feel intimidated or threatened by the officer’s presence or tone of voice, which compels the suspect to give consent to a search. Therefore, the police can use aggressive policing as a crime prevention tool in economically strained neighborhoods. In each case, the police might justify their reasonable suspicion to question the suspect and begin a search for any evidence of a crime on or near the suspect.
    The officer may then ask for consent to a search if it’s relevant to the Terry stop, and if the driver or a third party agrees, then that person has effectively waived their Fourth Amendment protection provided they did so with a full understanding of the waiver, voluntarily and intelligently without coercion or deception.
    Any contraband found gives the officer the right to arrest a suspect or give him or her citations. Police having consent do not need probable cause or articulable suspicion for searching the person or their belongings. Police entering by consent must prove the person consenting controls the property, such as their car or house. The person controlling the property can be anyone sharing the property with you, such as a passenger, roommate, a partner, or neighboring tenants-in-common. Any evidence found after consent is admissible in court. 
    However, if there is no evidence supporting a crime, then any evidence recovered is inadmissible in consent-to-search cases. A person can mistakenly give consent to a search when the police ignored to follow the laws of criminal and civil procedure.  In assessing voluntariness, the Courts look at the totality-of-circumstances surrounding the consent, examining the facts for pressure. The Courts will discount consent as voluntary when the officer asserts his or her official status and the individual yields. The person’s knowledge of the right to refuse consent is nonessential to voluntariness. Therefore, as a Fourth Amendment version of the Miranda warning the police do not tell people about their Fourth Amendment rights to refuse a search.    
     The Supreme Court ruled that consent by the suspect is an unknowing waiver. The police using noncoercive deceptions to get the suspect’s consent are lawful. Getting consent by deception is a useful law enforcement tool when it becomes impossible to gather facts to prove probable cause. Officers choosing noncoercive deception should document the supporting factual circumstances of consent given, the area searched, and the technique used. Consent gotten by misleading information voids the search and any infringements by police asserting a warrantless authority considers evidence inadmissible.  The latter case laws could have saved my tenants if they had money to fight the charges.
      However, every law might have some exceptions. Without getting consent, the police can use their physical senses within the circumstances of the “plain view doctrine” as a crime-fighting tool to detect and recover evidence of a crime.

The “Plain view doctrine” rule.
      The plain view doctrine allows police officers to seize objects falling within their physical senses, not intuition, when the law allows the officers to position themselves at the scene. For example, a police officer standing on the street who witnesses a crime through an uncovered window is legal. However, a police officer trespassing on private property so he or she could witness a crime through the same window is illegal.
      Without the “plain view doctrine” or firsthand knowledge from informers, or another, the police officer is lacking facts for a warrant. Limiting the “plain view doctrine,” the officers must believe that any items they detect are contraband before seizing them. For example, police can seize evidence after they served a search warrant or when they detect contraband in open view. If the officer needs a warrant to search and seize the legitimate observation, it will provide grounds therefore, and known as “freezing the status quo.” 
       Freezing the status quo happens when the police protect and barricade the property or detain the vehicle to preserve the evidence until they get a legal search warrant. The police can impound the car instead of taking you to jail, which the police department has constitutional immunity for conducting inventory searches because they are preserving impounded property.
      The police use developing technology that raises the officer’s senses, which cause protests of unwarranted intrusions by infrared and contraband detection sensors. Some law enforcement agencies are now using the P.A.S. III “Sniffer,” (Passive Alcohol Sensor), which looks like a flashlight, but senses alcohol in the environmental air near the suspect. Therefore, the electronic “Sniffer” detecting alcohol allows the police officer to recover evidence under the “plain view doctrine.” 11
      The American Civil Liberties Union protested against the “Sniffer” saying this is an invasion of privacy and against the Fourth Amendment. Protesters say it violates the “plain sight doctrine” because officers are not using their own senses, but an electronic instrument. The fear of detecting windshield fluid and other innocent items containing alcohol will spark a probable cause to a search. The A.C.L.U. reminds us the “sensory impressions” gained by an officer are admissible evidence. However, the ruling in United States v. Kyllo (2001) could overturn the use of the P.A.S. “Sniffer” and other detection instruments. The Court held the use of surveillance or detection equipment against houses and automobiles violates people’s privacy unless the technology is available to the public.12 St. Paul police do not carry the “Sniffer,” but they do have sniffing dogs riding around with the windows open.
       The Supreme Court obviously dislikes the exclusionary rule, which releases the guilty rather than convicting an innocent person. The Court fears the Constitution will become a basis of tort liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 with matters best left to the states. Thus, illegally recovered evidence is inadmissible in the court of law. People must remember the exclusionary rule under the Fourth Amendment protects individuals against coercive and overzealous practices of law enforcement agencies, especially at traffic stops in Minnesota.

Examining Police Responses to the Fourth Amendment.
       I am limited in my research efforts to support my observations because the St. Paul police dislike sharing their dirty laundry with the public. I could spend months researching the police department’s personnel files. Amy Brown from the St. Paul Police Statistics and Analysis Department said the difference between the wealthy and poor neighborhoods is the different priority calls the police receive.
         The police admit that some police officers do not live in St. Paul, which may lead to social conflicts because of their cultural unfamiliarity with the citizens. I watched many people standing in traffic court—from all income levels—fighting their citations, in which the lower income people out-number the stereotypical wealthier classes. The disparity of traffic citations given to people astounded me to ask people closer to home what they thought about the police and their behavior.
         I interviewed ten people at random by race, economic status, and age at the Eastside American Legion Post 577. The people I chose represented various backgrounds, including a homeless Ojibwa, the white, middle-aged working classes, retirees, and adolescents. The most common complaint is how the police mistreat people by talking down to them, searching for and seizing contraband, and barking out threats and orders. They sense the police are more likely to detain and question a person driving a beat-up car and search him or her and the vehicle without recovering any evidence of a crime. All people interviewed agree the police react to the suspect’s behavior by making an arrest, giving a citation, or releasing the suspect with a warning. Sometimes, the police officer having a bad day might misuse their authority of discretion to inconvenience the driver or walker.
      From the interviews, classes, and research there is a measurable belief in the lower-income neighborhoods of St. Paul that police do not give equitable treatment to minorities and teenagers. In my neighborhood, the minorities and teenagers discuss stories about their meetings with the police. The community may be right because the 2003 study conducted by the U of M Institute on Race and Poverty supports the public view that Minnesota police officers detain and search minorities more often than Caucasians. Overall, 24% of discretionary searches of Caucasians produced contraband compared to only 11% of African-Americans and 9% of searches against Latinos.13 The statistics show the people arrested follow this frequency pattern, African-Americans, Latinos, Asians, and Caucasians. The Terry stops also vary among the ethnic races and their treatment in the suburbs and rural areas. The metropolitan counties and its law enforcement administrations changed their policies to wrestle the public views of socio-economic and racial stereotyping. One of the ways to deal with the public opinion of economic stereotyping is to create a data collection file to find the solution to socio-economic profiling.
       In 2003, the metro area police departments began a volunteer data collection of traffic stops with 15+ different police departments in Minnesota. Now at each traffic stop in St. Paul, the police must make a written report. Each stop must include a list of information, such as the purpose of the stop, the officer’s badge number, the driver’s ethnicity, age of the driver, if there was a search, and the traffic stop resolution. In time, the collected data might show the “norm” for gauging police stops.
       However, three veteran St. Paul police officers interviewed--off the record-- will argue that each income class has a lifestyle pattern that favors a particular crime. Common stereotypes, such as a Harley-Davidson motorcycle rider might have methamphetamines after leaving a bar or riding near a known drug house. Maybe an African-American wearing “gangster” gear might have marijuana and crack cocaine. The Asians might receive traffic tickets based on their racing car stereotypes. Stereotypes do not cause traffic stops or an arrest unless there is unusual behavior suggesting a crime in progress.
     Minnesota law forbids police officers to stereotype people. The reality is the police can use policy loopholes to get past any arguments of socio-economic profiling. For example, the police officer could make a Terry stop without noting ethnicity if they radioed in a suspicious vehicle, an illegally parked car, or a suspicious person. It is difficult to know the statistics for sure because some police officers may not follow administration policies, especially the older veteran officers.

     Conclusion.
     The St. Paul police do not share their policy information and cultural practices with the public. For many people, the media portrays the police hiding behind a blue wall of silence. We will know in time if the police purposely use socio-economic stereotyping or if it is because the police often intercept low-income people committing crimes in economic strained neighborhoods. The Social Reflective Anxiety and socio-economic problems in low-income neighborhoods inhibit people’s life-chances and advancement. The result is more police calls serving the impoverished neighborhoods with already strained community services.
       Sensibly, people believe the wealthy do commit crimes at an equal pace parallel to the poor, although the wealthy limit their exposure to street policing. The media tells us that Enron and other fraud crimes usually involve people in the upper and middle-income levels. In traffic stops, the public may argue the middle and upper income classes receive more breaks from the police than the low-income class. If not, then the argument could support that upper and middle- income classes have a greater amount of economic and networking resources to fight the police in court.
       However, the poor have greater risks for a Terry stop because of their prolonged exposure to the police in public. In addition, the poor lack financial and social support for protecting their rights. Often, their public defenders have ridiculous numbers of cases, which they often choose to make a plea bargain instead of fighting the charges. Lawyers have to fight against police testimony and reports.  
      The police are human and they do make mistakes. Knowing your rights and the law can improve your chances from getting a ticket or arrested, especially if you live, work, or drive through the socio-economic strained neighborhoods. Low-income neighborhoods often contact the police as a pseudo-social service with calls for emergencies and dispute resolutions. Frustrating police work and its environmental influences cause cynicism in some of the police officers, which often the innocent becomes the focus of investigation.
       In conclusion, if you feel that you suffered from injustice at the Terry stop, you can file a police misconduct complaint with the police department and the civilian review board. This latter action will provide the St. Paul police an opportunity to review and improve their workforce policies and training. Consult with an attorney quickly with a copy of your citation and all police reports.

                                                                                                                          
                                                               Notes
1 Officer Kris Sturgis. Lecture notes. LAWE 330-01, Critical Issues in Policing. Metropolitan State University (Fall 2006).
2 Payton v. New York, 445 U.S. 573, 590 (1980); Steagald v. United States, 451 U.S. 204, 212 (1981); Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385 (1978).

3 Minnesota v. Olsen, 110 S. Ct. 1687 (1990).

4 United States v. Knights, 534 U.S. 112 (2001).

5 United States v. Arvizu, 122 S. Ct. 744 (2002).

6 United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897, 104 S.Ct. 3405 (1984).

7 Beck v. Ohio, 379 U.S. 89, 85 S.Ct. 223 (1964).

8 United States v. Matlock, 415 U.S. 164 (1974).

9 Bumper v. North Carolina, 391 U.S. 543 (1968); Johnson v. United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 (1948).

10 Amos v. United States, 255 U.S. 313 (1921); Johnson, 333 U.S. 10 (1948); Bumper, 391 U.S. 543 (1968).

11 Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 231-33 (1973).

12 The distinction that “off-the-wall observations” could be permissible while “through the wall” surveillance could be impermissible would lead to a trap as technology advances. The Court held that any other approach, “[w]ould leave the homeowner at the mercy of advancing technology-including imaging technology that could discern all human activity in the home…where, as here, the Government uses a device that is not in general public use, to explore details of the home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion, the surveillance is a ‘search’ and is presumptively unreasonable without a warrant.”

13  Council on Crime and Justice, Institute on Race and Poverty, Minnesota Racial Profiling Study: All Jurisdictions Report in Summary of Findings, Sept. 24, 2003 (U of M, Minneapolis, MN), 1.

I worked for the Adult Entertainment business in Minneapolis for different independent business owners. In my job, I faced people in wild situations of drug and alcohol abuse, gangs, prostitution, theft, abnormal sexuality, and mental health issues. The adult underworld gave me many opportunities to study the diversity of behavioral deviances in the community. For some time, I worked as a night clerk for loss prevention and security in adult bookstores and exotic dancing establishments. All of this is normal for a person who has seen the same behaviors inside the judicial system.

Diversity taught me that each person’s decision affects everybody. America is a crucible of multicultural values and emotional IQ’s. I believe America should next focus on restructuring education so all students have the critical and creative thinking skills needed for the changing American culture.    

People need to expand their awareness of social influences and connections people have with one another. Scholars must use everyone’s stories of history as “the mirror,” for choosing guidance from the past, or educating the future generations for a unified, national culture of modern Americans.

I and other people grew up learning the dominant classes use racism as a basic tool for diverting the attention of the disadvantaged from social inequality. The disadvantaged and the uneducated are unaware of the freedoms to overpower their oppressors from their social positions. Education at Metro State expanded my conscientious stage of critical thinking so I can interact with new ideas taught and exchanged with me from other cultures.

I learned a lot by interacting with my neighbors and the public. First, people wanting to lead an educational path must face the unknown, and break away from the mediocre learning methods taught in traditional institutions of learning. Second, people can learn and teach without overstepping the boundaries of dishonoring the individual’s intimacy and privacy. Third, a student can learn from and educate other cultures using their knowledge of history and languages. Languages bring new perspectives for a clearer understanding of American history and cultural diversity. Differences aside, people are the same everywhere and there is a need to enlighten ourselves.

America needs people to work for a new community leadership and teaching the educationally disadvantaged to make a spiritual transformation through nontraditional, multi-cultural education. Diversity taught me that everyone faces the same problems, but each culture has their way of resolving problems, some work and some do not. People need to have human contact, which antisocial behaviors like racism and prejudices builds walls between cultures.

Educating people of the social inequality reduces racism and the fighting among one another, like marionettes controlled by their oppressors. Would multicultural and personality trait education improve the lives of people in America? Do people ever forget their reality built on negative experiences, culture, values, or prejudices? Without good communication skills, people will not understand the ideas of important historical and traditional values guarded by society.

People take for granted of overlooking the simplistic method of asking questions about the causes of social problems people perpetuate in their behavior. Cross-cultural education and socialization with other cultures will help people understand in mind of their personal, historical, social perspectives of likenesses and differences. People must use everyone’s stories of history as “the mirror,” for choosing guidance from the past, or educating the future generations for a unified, national culture of Americans.

Many people fear of losing their cultural identity as naturalized Americans, which the cultural ignorance projects onto others as a social inequality in the community. The fear brings social inequity of racism and ethnocentrism into the dominant culture. The result of ethnocentrism excludes people from understanding other cultures because of their ignorance of their own cultural history, as well as the cultures of the scapegoat races. This happened when in our American history the English and other “white” Europeans were the dominant race, in which the Caucasian population reduces every year with some panic. The media contributes to the arising ignorance and racial tension among the exclusive, ethnic societies in the community.     

 
However, people cannot escape the racist terminology or political correctness because racism creeps into everybody’s life. Is calling a person or a group racist a form of racism? Why do people call somebody a racist when that person may be the same race, or do not have the power to oppress the person doing the labeling? I understand that racism is the systematic, institutionalized mistreatment of a group of people because of their racial heritage. Racism roots itself in the social inequalities exploited by the privileged, powerful oppressors of controlling the misperceived power over the disadvantaged. Who are the undefined oppressors? 

Racism exists within the cultural diversity, but people must learn to get along in the neighborhood. In Minnesota, there is a misunderstood term for internalized racism called “Minnesota Nice.” I thought that this is a disparaging phrase meaning the person curbs the internalized opinions about another and tolerating their individuality.        

However, people mind their manners in public, but our society gradually hides itself in privacy. I believe society is killing itself with the overuse and practice of “political correctness.” The well-meaning practice of sensitivity and courtesy expanded beyond helpfulness and it is turning into a harmful practice. Thus, the media exploits political correctness for shock value and it is harmful to the well-being of our society. Cable television airs politically offensive shows using stereotyped ethnic behaviors, which teaches the next generation that racism exist and it is to be laughed at the expense of others.

People need to meet their neighbors and elected officials because the problem now is that America is becoming an individualist society—antisocial with the use of the Internet, debit cards, and wireless communications. We need to get along if anyone wants to get ahead. My thoughts about multiculturalism and its issues are never ending, because people generalize their judgment of others out of fear and ignorance.

I believe that races, social classes, and education is not a barrier for a better world, but becoming a xenophobic society may be the new barrier. Individualism is a development the educated person confronts when he or she compares and tries to understand it through new, anthropological lenses. Each person must have the optimism in accepting everything in front of them and enjoy the full human experience of the American diversity offered by multicultural education. I find that diversity is the key to individual freedoms, but it also traps the person to conform to the norms of society.

 In the world we live in I represent the disadvantaged in the land of milk and honey you would believe that 3/4 of the population does not understand basic rights and diseases that affect the environment we live in. then, I ask you does world hunger still exist? Does voter's rights violation still exist? As the world becomes familiar with law, then through history, the emancipation proclamation is a foot-stool away on what became a concession is a recession. I believe in the world that there would be no more affirmative action but the world be based on the population and the law which will benefit those people; then the question becomes Will we be as a people wonderng for a thousand years becuase what it seems is technology is the gateway to this foot-stool.

If you are like me and wondering why Americans are worrying about other nation's human rights when we are experiencing the same fate as undeveloped countries. Whether your opinions or allegence are political or enduring for freedoms of others, read the Universal Declaration of Human Rights adopted by the United Nations. Yes, the United States is violating much of our rights long before the USA Patriot Act became in effect. Read on below and count your violations.

If you count the violations and your score is:  1-6= You have political influence.

                                                                    7-12= Average citizen.

                                                                   13-24= Did you immigrate from a Third-World country?

                                                                    25-48= I suggest booking the next flight to the Mir Space Station.

On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights the full text of which appears in the following pages. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon all Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and "to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories."
PREAMBLE
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Whereas it is essential, if man is not to be compelled to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion against tyranny and oppression, that human rights should be protected by the rule of law,

Whereas it is essential to promote the development of friendly relations between nations,

Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

Whereas Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms,

Whereas a common understanding of these rights and freedoms is of the greatest importance for the full realization of this pledge,

Now, Therefore THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY proclaims THIS UNIVERSAL DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS as a common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations, to the end that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms and by progressive measures, national and international, to secure their universal and effective recognition and observance, both among the peoples of Member States themselves and among the peoples of territories under their jurisdiction.

Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.

Article 2.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.

Article 3.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.

Article 4.
No one shall be held in slavery or servitude; slavery and the slave trade shall be prohibited in all their forms.

Article 5.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

Article 6.
Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law.

Article 7.
All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.
Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 9.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile.

Article 10.
Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.

Article 11.
(1) Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence.

(2) No one shall be held guilty of any penal offence on account of any act or omission which did not constitute a penal offence, under national or international law, at the time when it was committed. Nor shall a heavier penalty be imposed than the one that was applicable at the time the penal offence was committed.

Article 12.
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.

Article 13.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

Article 14.
(1) Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from persecution.

(2) This right may not be invoked in the case of prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 15.
(1) Everyone has the right to a nationality.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his nationality nor denied the right to change his nationality.

Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Article 17.
(1) Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

(2) No one shall be arbitrarily deprived of his property.

Article 18.
Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

Article 19.
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

Article 20.
(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.

(2) No one may be compelled to belong to an association.

Article 21.
(1) Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

(2) Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

(3) The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures.

Article 22.
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality.

Article 23.
(1) Everyone has the right to work, to free choice of employment, to just and favourable conditions of work and to protection against unemployment.

(2) Everyone, without any discrimination, has the right to equal pay for equal work.

(3) Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity, and supplemented, if necessary, by other means of social protection.

(4) Everyone has the right to form and to join trade unions for the protection of his interests.

Article 24.
Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

Article 25.
(1) Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

(2) Motherhood and childhood are entitled to special care and assistance. All children, whether born in or out of wedlock, shall enjoy the same social protection.

Article 26.
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.

(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.

Article 27.
(1) Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

(2) Everyone has the right to the protection of the moral and material interests resulting from any scientific, literary or artistic production of which he is the author.

Article 28.
Everyone is entitled to a social and international order in which the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration can be fully realized.

Article 29.
(1) Everyone has duties to the community in which alone the free and full development of his personality is possible.

(2) In the exercise of his rights and freedoms, everyone shall be subject only to such limitations as are determined by law solely for the purpose of securing due recognition and respect for the rights and freedoms of others and of meeting the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society.

(3) These rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations.

Article 30.
Nothing in this Declaration may be interpreted as implying for any State, group or person any right to engage in any activity or to perform any act aimed at the destruction of any of the rights and freedoms set forth herein.

This is my Extra Credit for Soc. 1154-91 in 2005.

This is a typical overview of our Juvenile Justice System (JJS) and the immediate need for society to take the initiative to share our values to our youth rather than locking them up. We must remember that all troubled youths are caused by the enviromental influences and the lack of guidance from our parents or society.

One such text book that I read for my JJS course offers the insight of our JJS Courts in America and its problems among society and juveniles needing attention. Enjoy.

1.) Confidentiality and Accountability of Juveniles in Secrecy.

       In the Juvenile Justice textbook by Humes, E. (1997), "No Matter How Loud I Shout", Judge Dorn wants the legislators to lift the veil of secrecy so the public can see the successes that the Juvenile Justice System (J.J.S.) of his jurisdictional model had accomplished and its need to be rebuilt instead of demolishing it (p. 354-56).
      Many Court Officers will argue over the confidentiality controversy that it should be preserved if the J.J.S. is going to be actively involved without causing stigma to the juvenile, instead of shelving him/her away to deal with later before it is too late for any salvageable chance of rehabilitation. A case on point is the twelve-year-old boy brought before Judge Dorn for his fourth violent outburst in the three previous months with an assault with a deadly weapon charge (p. 76). The probation department had failed to act to the prior instances, until first something else serious happens to endanger the public safety (p. 76). The secrecy of the J.J.S. had failed this juvenile and his problems.
       Judge Dorn often reminds his Court that all children from all lifestyles are deserving of the attention of a functional and working J.J.S. for help when they arrive into his Court (p.365). However, the climate of public opinion is angry and fearful for public safety when they hear or read of judges’ opinions in the treatment of sending juveniles to camps and rehabilitation facilities; asking for the recall and impeachment of the judges (p. 323).            
       For example, Jason, co-defendant as an accessory to Ronald Duncan’s armed robbery and murder trial; he was given an immunity agreement by the prosecution for his testimony against Ronald. The local newspaper bolsters the agreement in the story that Jason will go free. The public and the victims are fearful and outraged at the prospect that justice had failed (p. 280).
       The law of the J.J.S. in California will allow Ronald Duncan to leave the California Youth Authority (C.Y.A.) at age 25, unless he is eligible for his first aftercare hearing at age 23. When Ronald leaves the California jurisdiction, the public will not know of his past offenses or his rehabilitation efforts, nothing at all. He will walk with a clean slate as if nothing had happened. This will put the public safety and trust at risk of not knowing any of Ronald’s hidden, dangerous desires or compulsions he may have yet to resolve (p. 343-44). Another example of public outrage of the escalating juvenile violence in Humes is the armed robbery of Joseph Gutierrez.
         Joseph Gutierrez- the victim of John Sloan’s armed robbery- walked into the courtroom late to hear the juvenile disposition of John’s case to the C.Y.A., instead of an adult corrections facility. Humes (1997) wrote the quote of Joseph Gutierrez disbelief in the Judge’s opinion,

 “…That kid stuck a gun in someone’s face-my face —and he’s going to camp, he can even get out early if he’s a good boy. That’s not holding him responsible. That judge is guilty of exactly what he criticizes his parents for—being too lax. This is why everyone is so disillusioned with Juvenile court” (p.329-30).

      The public does not cry out for a public reform of the J.J.S. or its rehabilitative efforts, instead they want to erode away the J.J.S in their ignorance of the need for the juvenile’s confidentiality and they do not care if they try to sentence a fourteen-year-old juvenile in an adult court (p. 311). The failure of the parents to take constructive efforts to involve themselves with their troubled youth and the interagency rivalries for possession of the juveniles have stalemated the J.J.S. for any agreements to work together as a successful unit of rehabilitation between the relationships of the juvenile, his/her parents, and society; straining further the J.J.S. to deal with only the more serious juvenile cases (p. 364).
       The view of this type of leniency and strain of the Courts is well known to most inner-city juveniles that each offender has a 25% chance of staying out on the street (p. 53). This offers the juvenile numerous opportunities of reoffending against the public without thinking about the relation between the consequences and the offense before detention is ever imposed (p. 333). Carla James and George Trevino both knew from their education from their street friends that the Court is mandated to impose the least restrictive sentence possible for the lesser crimes and status offenses (p. 53). Some of these juveniles will outgrow this behavior, but some will continue to reoffend regardless of the Courts efforts, these juveniles are known by the J.J.S. as the sixteen percenters (p. 176).
      The sixteen percenters committing low-grade misdemeanor offenses have failed to get the attention and services they require for rehabilitation at their introduction of the J.J.S. and slip away in time, undetected by the confidentiality agreements between the agencies of the courts. The Courts lackadaisical practice of overlooking the warning signals of the offenses and in its keeping of inaccurate or lost juvenile records have resulted with minimal chances for troubled youths to receive services, as it was in the case of George Trevino (p. 176).
      George Trevino was one of the juveniles that had fallen through the cracks of the system without any intense supervision or continued support of rehabilitative programs to help keep him on track. The J.J.S. did not know of George’s prior offenses or failed probation supervision and home life, allowing George to stray further into delinquent behavior (p. 111). Now George is being tried for armed robbery and he claims the J.J.S. had failed him. In Humes (1997) it is written the quote of George Trevino,

 “That’s how the system programs you. They let you go and they know that it encourages you, and then they can get you on something worse later on. It’s like, they set you up. Of course, I’m to blame too, for going along with it. I didn’t have to do those things, I know that …but the system didn’t have to make it so goddamn easy.” (p. 333).

      George was succeeding in many tasks for self-improvement, like acquiring his High School Diploma, his poetry writing, his work as a mentor and tutor to the other juveniles before his appearance at the trial (p. 331). The interagency juvenile confidentiality agreements did not permit his own attorney from finding out his exemplary record to bring before the judge, his last chance for mitigating his offense for a final shot at rehabilitation was lost (p. 331).
     Locking ourselves out of the secrecy of the J.J.S. is a detrimental and ignorant behavior for any successful benefits to come out of it. The best route to start with society is in the baby-steps of instituting educational and social programs of open awareness in the process of juvenile crime prevention, education, and involving all juveniles to participate as an equal standing member of society in fixing the problems from all levels of the government. Every person wants someone to care for them and that as a progressive society, if using this interaction and intervention to help the troubled and desperate, society will end up reversing the crises into a win-win situation. The juveniles crying out for help and attention may respond and terminate their delinquent behavior when peers and community are aware of the juvenile’s situation.
     The J.J.S. must reverse itself from treating juveniles as hardened adults and spend more time rebuilding the focus on the root issues and causes of juvenile delinquent behavior. Money is funneled into outdated systems of justice where some of the people do try to make a difference, but the system must focus on preventive and support programs instead of the endless building of correctional facilities. There will never be enough prisons built in America, never enough laws made or enforced, and the growing population of young adults learned behaviors would supersede all efforts to control the juvenile without first having responsible parenting. Society must be involved with the youths as mentors long before the J.J.S. becomes involved, a point driven previously by Judge Dorn’s model of intervention.
     The breadth of discretionary powers of the judge in the J.J.S. is the last chance effort for Parens Patriae for each case-by-case need basis for rehabilitation of the juvenile, but there is a chance for indiscretionary bias that can creep into the justice system and cause more harm than good. However, allowing a flat State statute will allow more juveniles to slip through the cracks of the J.J.S. without having the benefit of a tailored disposition to their case without the influence of the judge’s discretion. The confusion and argument stands to what do we do to change the course of our youth together as a whole, if society does not accept the change in attitudes needed.
   
 2.) When is it Appropriate to Use Waiver into Adult Criminal Court?

     The growing concern about how society treats its younger offenders has eluded the rights and responsibilities of the Courts decisions to deal with the expanding population of juvenile criminals by the use of waiver. In Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541 (1966), the U.S. Supreme Court had ruled that all States must provide with some procedural Due Process protections during the waiver hearings for the “formalities” in the adjudication hearings of all States to choose whether the juvenile is tried in Juvenile Justice System (J.J.S.), or transfer into the adult criminal system.
      In Humes, E. (1997), "No Matter How Loud I Shout", the California “fitness” law allows a waiver into criminal court for juveniles sixteen years of age and older, unless hard evidence shows that the crime was not grave nor sophisticated (p. 101). The prosecution must examine five categories of the fitness test: the juvenile’s past criminal record, the time left to rehabilitate him, the results of the past attempts at rehabilitation, his criminal sophistication, and the seriousness of the crime (p. 97). Sophistication of the crime and its seriousness is the only two needed, but failure of any one of these requirements can result in the judge’s order for waiver (p. 97). Many juveniles in California that are waived into adult criminal courts, except for murder cases, end up serving less time at the California Youth Authority (C.Y.A.) than the juveniles disposed of in the J.J.S. courts (p. 102).
       Judge Dorn foresaw the Gerri Gault decision affecting the treatment of juveniles to be same as adults since 1964, where the J.J.S. and adult criminal courts are different by terminology only (p. 358). This discretionary power of waiver in the hands of the court in some states leaves the juvenile without much of any protections and rights of due process without a hearing or an appeal. As the New Jersey Supreme Court had noted,

 “Waiver to the adult court is the single most serious act the juvenile court can perform ... because once waiver of jurisdiction occurs, the child loses all protective and rehabilitative possibilities available.” (Redding, 1999).

 
     Some States have transfer laws that increased the “net-widening” of juveniles out of the J.J.S. by lowering the age requirement and expanding the lists of transferable offenses, or by eliminating some of the safeguards and protections the judges must consider before transferring the juvenile (Redding, 1999).
      Many Court Officers know from experience that the acquittal of the juvenile cases in the J.J.S. may not be in the kid’s best interest against the hard-line waivers to lock away the more serious offenders for rehabilitation efforts (p. 77).
      The L.A. District Attorney Gil Garcetti’s wants a two-tiered system of treating the worst offenders as adults and reserving the rehabilitative services for the salvageable youth without the system being treated as an application for social services (p. 175).
      Peggy from the Prosecution Office believes that the current disciplinary measures of juveniles is not working and by pushing the J.J.S. back into the nineteenth-century model where juveniles are treated the same as adults (p.166). She also believes in however, that an adult crime deserves an adult sanction regardless of the age of the culprit and excusing their behavior because of their age is no longer an excuse from not protecting the public from the other “Ronald Duncans”, or “John Sloans” out there (p. 68). Waiver issues presented the question of deciding judicial waiver requirements by statute between juveniles within the cut-off line of their sixteenth birthday, like Ronald Duncan and John Sloan.
      Ronald Duncan’s double homicide and robbery case allows him by California law to use adult defenses because of his youth status; he had narrowly escaped the waiver into adult criminal court because he is only nine days shy of his sixteenth birthday (p. 63-4). However, John Sloan’s charge of armed robbery will face the adult criminal system because of his being over the age of sixteen where he may be facing worse sanctions than the Juvenile Justice System (J.J.S.). Besides the fact that the whole family of Joseph Gutierrez had been disillusioned and traumatized for their safety in public, John’s crime did not involve homicide (p. 69). The punishment should fit the degree of violence of the crimes if committed by adults, but mitigating circumstances should also reflect on the personality and accountability of the juvenile charged. John had been the typical juvenile caught on the wrong path with one foolish mistake made that could alter his life.                                                            
      John Sloan is a bright student, from a good middle-class family, but he had problems in school of racial bigotry, and he was easily susceptible to pressure by his peers, namely his new street friend Richard (p. 91). Judge Dorn knows that the two biggest predictors of juvenile delinquency are the one-parent home and a failed educational experience (p. 76).     
      The Court of Judge Dorn ruled that John had committed armed robbery against Joseph Gutierrez, which John had met one of the twenty-four serious crimes of the State of California legislation requirements to transfer John into adult court (p. 96). However, the law ties the hands of individual discretion of Judge Dorn in whether he can declare John as an “unfit” juvenile and keep him in the J.J.S.(p.96).                                                            
       John’s behavior was reprehensible since he came from a good background and the crime committed was more serious than a prank (p. 101). If John were to show any remorse during the commission of the crime or had demonstrated any juvenile behavior, then the judge may indiscreetly break away from the statutes to offer a chance of rehabilitation (p. 101). However, Judge Dorn’s illegal decision to keep John in the J.J.S. for his amenably to treatment had saved John from adult sanctions; the double-jeopardy attachment from Dorn’s ruling was a very lucky break for him (p. 102). The best efforts of Judge Dorn and the J.J.S. to rehabilitate juveniles have enraged and disillusioned the public (p. 330).
      The public fears have changed policies in jurisdictions throughout America, which society had adopted laws that limit or eliminate the rehabilitative effects of the J.J.S. (p. 358). This action will produce unfair results of waiver decisions based on chronological age and not on the needs of the offender (p. 359). Waiver will not decrease crime, nor will it solve any future problems of rehabilitative issues when the Department of Corrections releases the convicted Adult-youth back into a different world. Neither the juvenile, nor society will feel any safer when the waived juvenile has the stigma of a permanent criminal record. 
      The J.J.S. response to curb fears and find new avenues of rehabilitation that will keep within the discretion of the judge is to work with each juvenile on a case-by-case basis and to catch all of the individual details within the juvenile’s life. The new rehabilitative model in the J.J.S. that seems to work for both sides of the issue of waiver is the introduction of the Blended Sentencing disposition.
      Blended sentencing is a combination sentence of either adult sanctions or juvenile probation, but not both. Juveniles benefit of receiving the blended sentencing reforms that may be the only required remedy to help curb the growing delinquency trends perceived by society instead of giving up on the juvenile. The juvenile offender’s rehabilitation would include restitution, community service, and crime victims’ panels so the juvenile will become part of society that they are rebelling against, understand the consequences of their behavior, and heal the generation gap.
      The juvenile successfully completing the blended sentencing or E.J.J. sanctions leaves without the adult criminal record to haunt them throughout their life. The alternative sentencing reforms will give the young offenders a chance to rehabilitate themselves, which other juvenile offenders ten years ago did not have this option.

In Minnesota, much of the same situations exist as in California and any youth may face the waiver into the Adult Court System at the young age of fourteen-years-old. Consult with your attorney on any matters of juvenile deliquency within your local jurisdiction. Society must participate equally with our younger generation.

                                                              
 
                        Work Cited
 
 
Redding, Richard E., “Examining Legal Issues: Juvenile Offenders in Criminal Court and Adult Prison.” Corrections Today Apr. 1999: Vol. 61 i2 pg. 92(9). InfoTracOneFile. InfoTrac. Inver Hills Community Coll. Lib. Inver Grove, MN. 15 Oct. 2004 http://infotrac.galegroup.com>. 
 
 
                                                                                                 
                                                                                                 
     
  3.) The most memorable characters in "No Matter How Loud I Shout." (Commentary)
    
      The most memorable characters that reflect the true operations of the Juvenile Justice System (J.J.S.) can be defined into three separate categories: successful, unsuccessful, and unknown.
     The J.J.S. has very few successes in California due to the large volume of cases coming into the Court system everyday. Downsized budgets, unavailable beds in the treatment facilities, and overworked caseworkers have lost track of their charges until another charge of delinquency was brought against them. Less than ten percent of the juveniles entering the J.J.S. have successfully completed the probation/aftercare since their Intake.
      The common knowledge of the street shared between the juveniles is the fact that the Court is mandated to impose the least restrictive sentence possible for the misdemeanor crimes and status offenses. This is said to be true of Carla James, a female gang-banger who runs with her “homeboys” for the thrill and respect of the young men to see that a girl can be so rough and play the games on the street and with her probation officer.
       The rarity of a female getting into trouble is not unheard of before in the J.J.S., but now it is becoming more of a commonplace occurrence and the Courts had seemed unaware of how to deal with them. It had seemed that Carla was given more chances by her probation officer to turn herself around than if she were instead a male. She had guidance counselors help her with continuing school and intensive, visitation contacts with her probation officer throughout her probation.
       
        The probation officer kept working with Carla to break down her barriers of emotional and self-esteem issues and gave her the resources to accomplish this task, which proved successful later in Carla’s life.
        However, juvenile rehabilitation in the J.J.S. is not easy for success if the system is unable or inept to provide the resources, or lost in the confusion of applying specific help needed by the troubled youth. Two such youths whom the odds are against them are John Sloan and George Trevino.
        John Sloan is a bright student, from a good middle-class family, but he had problems dealing with racial bigotry in school, and he was easily susceptible to pressure by his peers to join a gang, namely his new street friend Richard. Both had committed the act of armed robbery together for the thrill, but Judge Dorn had seen the amenability treatment potential of John. Judge Dorn disposed of John into the California Youth Authority (C.Y.A.) for a chance of education and self-esteem adjustment.
        John had accepted and participated successfully into his rehabilitation program through his introduction into the J.J.S.’s “shock therapy program” and he has not at the time of this book’s publishing been back into the system. The same could have been said true about George Trevino if the J.J.S. were to work properly for him, if it were not for fate stacked against him.
        George Trevino suffered a troubled childhood and became a ward of the court of California. The supervising agency of the Court had failed him. Problems became compounded for George when it had forced him to fend for himself in his developing years. Until he was introduced to, the J.J.S. George was one of the unlucky juveniles that had continued to fall through the cracks of the system, without any intense supervision or continued support of resources and rehabilitative programs to help keep him on track.     
       The J.J.S. did not know of George’s prior offenses or failed probation supervision and home life, allowing George to stray further into delinquent behavior. George was succeeding in many tasks for self-improvement, like acquiring his High School Diploma, his poetry writing, his work as a mentor and tutor to the other juveniles before his appearance at the trial. The interagency juvenile confidentiality agreements did not permit his own attorney from finding out his exemplary record to bring before the judge, his last chance for mitigating his offense for a final shot at rehabilitation was lost. This is a common theme and the focus of where the J.J.S. goes wrong to save good individuals needing the resources and supervision to succeed, leaving the juvenile to fall into a downward, unrecoverable spiral into a lifetime of misery.
      George, while at the C.Y.A., had shown himself to be resilient and driven to succeed by participating in his own rehabilitation efforts, but because of his environment, he had set himself back into gangs for his survival in the sub-culture of the detention hall and he was sent straight into adult corrections for the remainder of his sentence. This is a typical view of the everyday vicious cycle that males face in this system full of bias and ineptitude of tailoring the punishment to the person. One such person most deserving this kind of punishment given to George is Ronald Duncan. Ronald is the one juvenile in a class of the unknown sixteen percenters with a questionable future of recidivism, which it makes it more dangerous to society to have him released without a good profile of his background and a rehabilitative plan in place.
      Ronald Duncan’s double homicide and robbery case allows him by California law to use adult defenses because of his youth and juvenile offense status, and he narrowly escaped the waiver into adult criminal court, because he is only nine days shy of his sixteenth birthday. The law of the J.J.S. in California will allow Ronald Duncan to leave the California Youth Authority (C.Y.A.) at age 25, unless he is eligible for his first aftercare hearing at age 23. When Ronald leaves the California jurisdiction, the public will not know of his past offenses or his rehabilitation efforts, nothing at all. He will walk with a clean slate as if nothing had happened. This will put the trust of public safety at risk of not knowing any of Ronald’s hidden, emotional and psychological background of dangerous desires or compulsions he may have yet to resolve.
       Ronald Duncan still did not take any accountability for his actions or involve himself with any rehabilitative efforts provided by the C.Y.A. The J.J.S. will fail society by letting the offender walk out by statute at his twenty-third birthday at the earliest. Ronald is the textbook example of the person to keep inside the J.J.S., or adult corrections until he is proven non-threatening to public safety.
       The main problem of the system of all of the characters involved is the gamble that the punishment fits the offender, and that the rehabilitation efforts and resources are given appropriately and equally with continued supervision to carry on the juvenile throughout and beyond the process of successful completion.
 

I would like to start a nonprofit to benefit the disadvantage and at risk youth 

 and adults.To educate  people regarding ways that they can become

 productive individuals in the community,