Bill Cosby’s fall from grace has taken a new incriminating turn. Recently released court documents reveal the comedic icon formally admitting to drugging women in the past. Unsealed testimony from a 2005 civil suit may finally end the plausible deniability routine that the now-disgraced comedian has used since accusations from over 30 women surfaced. As the evidence and claims against Bill Cosby mount, statute of limitation laws protect him from facing criminal charges in most cases. In light of this, it is important to ask why these statutes exist in the first place and whether they should apply to sexual assault cases.

Recently unsealed testimony from a previous civil lawsuit against Cosby, obtained by the Associated Press, shows the comedic icon admitting under oath to obtaining Quaaludes. He admits to giving the drugs to at least one woman and “other people” with the intent to have sex with them. The 2005 civil case was filed by Temple University employee Andrea Constand, who accused Cosby of sexually assaulting her in 2004. Cosby was not charged with a crime due to a lack of physical evidence, so Constad had to resort to suing him as a means of seeking justice.

According to the unsealed documents, Cosby was asked, “When you got the Quaaludes, was it in your mind that you were going to use these Quaaludes for young women that you wanted to have sex with?” to which Cosby answered “Yes.” He was then asked if he gave women the sedatives without their knowledge, but his lawyers objected before he could respond. Cosby’s lawyers later said that the women knew that he had given them Quaaludes.

Despite the growing number of accusations against him, Cosby has never actually been charged with a crime. This is primarily because most of the alleged crimes took place decades ago, leaving him legally free of charges due to state statute of limitation laws. A statute of limitation is a law that prohibits a prosecutor from charging someone with a crime after a specified period of time has passed. Proponents believe that these laws are to ensure that convictions are based only on valid evidence. Because evidence weakens over time, successfully convicting a defendant years after the fact is typically more difficult. These laws are meant to increase the validity of assault accusations in order to prevent fraudulent claims, and thus prevent an error that might convict an innocent person. Sexual assault cases typically begin with the victim describing what happened to authorities and creating material evidence vital to back up the victim’s accusations.

As of last November, 34 states and Washington, DC have statute of limitation laws for rape or sexual assault charges, ranging anywhere from three to 30 years. For example, charges must be filed within fifteen years of the crime in Georgia, five years in Connecticut, and just three years in Minnesota.

While making a case with deteriorated evidence is challenging, completely disallowing a victim’s ability to seek justice simply because evidence may have deteriorated does not seem fair. Improvements in technology are also slowing down that process, making evidence that was once unreliable much more useful. With more efficient DNA testing, authorities can now test decades old rape kits for DNA samples that previously could not be tested. A rape kit involves a medical inspection of a sexual assault victim and is a very useful means of preserving physical DNA evidence. Improved DNA science has started to give law enforcement agencies the ability to identify rapists dating back several decades.

One case that points to the unfairness of statute of limitation laws is the case of Charles Steele, a man who raped at least four Cleveland women in the mid-90s. The cases went unsolved for 20 years because police never tested the victims’ rape kits for DNA. Evidence collected from the bodies of each victim in 1993 and 1994 remained in storage until Cleveland police tested the kits 2011, leading them to Charles Steele who was already serving a lengthy prison sentence for a different rape. In 2014, Steele received an extended sentence for a minimum of 65 years in prison nearly two decades after the rape occurred. However, one of the indictments against Steele was thrown out due to Ohio’s 20-year statute of limitation law. The crime occurred on March 5th, 1993, but the indictment was issued March 6th, 2013–passing the 20-year limit by just one day. Cases like these are perfect examples of how a victim could be blatantly denied justice because the clock ran out.

As the Cosby controversy and other high profile cases gain public attention, many people are starting to question the validity of these laws. Wendy Davis, a state senator and former Democratic nominee for governor in Texas, proposed the elimination of the statute of limitations for rape and sexual battery cases last year. Davis’ efforts in Texas are one example of the growing opposition to these laws. Lise Lotte Lublin, one of Cosby’s accusers, recently testified at a Nevada Assembly hearing in support of a bill that would eliminate the statute of limitations for rape in the state. Nevada currently has a four-year statute of limitation for rape cases, which precludes Cosby from being charged for Lublin’s rape.

Because of statute of limitation laws, many of Cosby’s alleged victims may never get a chance at justice. Potentially allowing criminals to walk free simply because a certain time period passed, does not make the crime any less vile. Statute of limitation laws were initially created for justice, but now ironically serve as a barricade to it.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bill Cosby Rape Allegations Continue: Should We Have Statutes of Limitations for Sexual Assault? appeared first on Law Street.

One of the most important problems facing college students today is sexual assault, and a recent poll by the Washington Post-Kaiser Family Foundation further solidifies this fact. The poll found that one in five women are victims of sexual assault in college. The poll also indicates that very few cases of sexual assault are actually reported to police or campus authorities.

Conducted between January and March, the Post/Kaiser poll surveyed 1,053 college students who live on or near their school’s campus.

According to the Rape Assault Incest National Network (RAINN), 68 percent of sexual assault victims nationwide do not report the crime to the police, and the rate on college campuses is even strikingly lower. According to the Post/Kaiser poll, 72 percent of the respondents who experienced unwanted sexual contact or sexual assault said that they told someone about it. Of that, only 11 percent told the police or campus authorities.

How can a crime as traumatic and prevalent as sexual assault be reported at such a low rate?

A wide range of factors may prevent sexual assault survivors from reporting or even openly discussing the crime that has been perpetrated against them. Victims often remain silent because they fear that the police, school administrators, or their peers won’t believe them. A 2007 study by The U.S. Department of Justice found that 42 percent  of forcible sexual assault victims who did not report the attack said it was because they “did not want anyone to know.”

The fact that most victims know their assailant as well as the fear of being unfairly blamed and victim shamed, particularly when alcohol is involved, can make reporting very difficult. When a victim knows the person who assaulted them it can become very difficult to talk about what happened to friends or authority figures. According to the Post/Kaiser poll, 70 percent of victims said that they knew the person in some way, and nearly 50 percent said they knew the person well or very well. While those who are sexually assaulted are never to blame for what happened to them, victim blaming remains a reality for many on college campuses. This is particularly prevalent when alcohol is involved, which according to the Post/Kaiser poll happens in more than 60 percent of cases.

Finally, victims of sexual assault may not report the crime because it is simply unlikely that the perpetrator will actually receive punishment. According to RAINN, of the 32 percent of sexual assaults reported to the police nationally, only seven percent lead to an arrest, and an even lower two percent were convicted or spend a day in prison. Theories have posited that the reporting rate is so low because many victims believe that a two percent conviction rate is not sufficient enough to go through filing a police report, an invasive rape kit, and possibly testifying in a trial. Federal data also shows that punishment remains an issue on college campuses, as administrators often warn, suspend, or order counseling for offenders rather than expel them.

While the Post/Kaiser poll provides important insight into the issue of sexual assault on college campuses, and the one in five statistic is certainly striking, a lot remains unknown. The factors behind underreporting to the police may also affect the results of anonymous surveys. While these surveys provide a much better understanding of sexual assault compared to the number of cases reported to the police, polls still face their own challenges. Because the issue of sexual assault likely varies between campuses, national surveys cannot help us understand all of the problems that individual institutions face.

As sexual assault becomes an important national issue, colleges around the country are starting to take important steps to prevent assaults on campus. New programs and policies are starting to encourage victims to come forward, raise awareness,  and provide new resources to students. Programs like the Campus Grant Program and the Bystander Intervention Programs are just a few examples that can help reduce sexual assault cases. Last year, a dozen House members called on U.S. News and World Report to include efforts to prevent sexual assaults in its annual college rankings.

The White House launched the “It’s On Us” campaign to increase awareness and empower men and women to actively prevent sexual assault. The Obama Administration is also encouraging the Department of Education (DOE) to proactively deal with the issue using its Title IX authority. These efforts have led the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights to investigate more than 100 colleges and universities for potentially mishandling sexual violence cases.

It’s clear that sexual assault cases on college campuses are a huge problem that must continue to be addressed nationally. As a society, we must take action to deter these crimes instead of blaming victims. Colleges must create an environment where victims are encouraged to come forward and we can all work together to make sure these alarmingly high rates become a thing of the past.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sexual Assault: Still a Problem for Colleges appeared first on Law Street.

In 2010, the world banded together in a humanitarian effort to help the people of Haiti by donating to the Red Cross. But five years and nearly $500 million later, the world is left asking where all that money went.

In January 2010, a 7.0 magnitude earthquake devastated Haiti, killing over 230,000 and displacing 1.5 million people from their homes. Many nonprofit organizations participated in the relief effort, but the Red Cross raised the most money with over $488 million in donations worldwide, promising to change the lives of the people affected by the earthquake. Now, Haitians are still fighting an ongoing battle for reliable shelter, food, clean water, and more. In light of several recent revelations about the practices of large nonprofits, many now wonder if the Red Cross is part of an emerging trend of misconduct.

Funds donated to the Red Cross were given with the expectation of creating a better life in Haiti. The Red Cross set goals to build and develop brand new communities for the people of Haiti during its donation campaign. The Red Cross proposed building roughly 700 homes by January 2013, each with finished floors, toilets, showers, and rainwater collection systems. A review of the Red Cross’ efforts shows that these goals do not appear to have come to fruition.

A recent investigation into the Red Cross by Propublica and NPR found unfulfilled promises to build homes, wasted donation funds, unnecessary fundraising, and exaggerated claims of success. The investigation showed that many of the Red Cross’s shortcomings in Haiti were of the charity’s own doing. According to the investigation, a lack of expertise and leadership led to inefficiency and fund mismanagement. For example in 2012, documents revealed that nine of the 30 leadership positions in Haiti, including experts on health and shelter, remained unfilled.

In its progress report, the Red Cross said it “helped 132,000 Haitians to live in safer conditions—ranging from providing temporary homes and rental subsidies to repaired and new homes.” But according Propublica and NPR, the Red Cross has actually built just six permanent houses in Haiti, nowhere near the number of new communities that they planned. The Red Cross cited a lack of land rights for its inability to build more homes, yet other charities facing the same challenges with less funds managed to build approximately 9,000 homes. In an interview with PBS Newshour, NPR Investigative correspondent Laura Sullivan said, “we went to one project that was done by Global Communities and PCI, where we saw more than 300 homes being built. In the project now, they’re building 75 homes that have running water for people.”

Mismanaged funds include unnecessary expenditures like financial perks for non-Haitian officials. For example, a project manager–a position reserved for an expatriate–was given an allowance for housing, vacations, and other expenses for about $140,000 a year. But a senior Haitian engineer–the top local position–received only $42,000 a year. Shelim Dorval, a Haitian administrator who worked for the Red Cross to coordinate travel and housing for expatriate staffers told Propublica:

For each one of those expats, they were having high salaries, staying in a fancy house, and getting vacation trips back to their countries…A lot of money was spent on those people who were not Haitian, who had nothing to do with Haiti. The money was just going back to the United States.

The Red Cross also continued soliciting money from donors well after it had collected enough for its relief plans. In contrast, organizations like Doctors Without Borders stopped fundraising when they received enough money to accomplish their goals. The investigation also revealed that the organization used some of the extra money to erase a $100 million deficit that was unrelated to the Haiti relief project. The Red Cross declined continuous requests from NPR and Propublica to disclose details of how much money went to relief projects, and what the results of each project were.

A Recurrent Trend

This recent report falls in line with many other cases of mega nonprofit organizations involved in questionable practices. The most recent were the charges brought against four well renowned cancer non-profit organizations. Last month, the Federal Trade Commission, along with 58 law enforcement partners from across the country, charged four organizations and their operators with defrauding more than $187 million from donors. One of the charges alleged that the charities used telemarketing calls, direct mail, websites, and other methods to disguise their organizations as legitimate charities only to use the money to help friends and family acquire lucrative jobs, as well as for luxuries like cars and cruises. The organizations were The Cancer Fund of America, Cancer Support Services, The Children’s Cancer Fund of America, and The Breast Cancer Society.

These organizations and many others amass millions of dollars each year from donors trying to help those in need, but instead take advantage of their status. Organizations like Kids Wish Network repeatedly accepted millions of annual donations, of which large sums were given to solicitors rather than to the individuals that the organization was supposed to help. Federal tax filings from the last 10 years show that the Kids Wish Network received $137.9 million in donations, but used $115.9 million of the donations for “fundraising costs.” Put simply, that means paying people or companies to raise money for the organization. The Cancer Fund of America, one of the four charities recently charged with fraud, also received over $86 million from donors and gave $75.4 million to solicitors. The chart below shows the amount of money given to non-profits, and how much they spent on solicitors.

The reality is that many donors still donate to these charities because of name recognition without knowing where their money really ends up. Charity navigator, America’s largest charity evaluator, encourages donors to research and ask questions about a non-profit organization before donating. Questions like whether a non-profit clearly explains its goals, the specific problems it intends to improve, and whether it regularly achieves its objectives are all encouraging steps to finding the right charity. Researching, and questioning organizations like the Red Cross is the next step in holding said organizations accountable for the millions they receive from the people.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Red Cross: A Failure in Haiti? appeared first on Law Street.

Incarcerating teens–a punishment that is meant to prevent crime–often tends to push youth away from schools and into even more crime. This revelation comes from a recently published study in the Quarterly Journal of Economics, which found a new connection between juvenile incarceration and troubles later in life. The study’s conclusions might not come as a surprise, but it helps explain an all-too-familiar pattern in which offenders return to prison shortly after their release. These findings also point to a larger question: is it time to abandon juvenile incarceration for other alternative methods such as counseling and restorative justice?

In the study, researchers examined the outcomes of more than 35,000 juvenile offenders in Chicago over a 10-year period. They found that incarceration lowered graduation rates by 13 percent and increased the chance of adult incarceration by 23 percent. The incarceration of these juveniles, especially those around the age of 16, significantly decreased the likelihood that they would return to school and graduate.

Researchers compared groups of juveniles who–for the same offense–received either an incarceration sentence or some alternative form of punishment. Doing so helped the researchers understand the direct effects of incarceration, particularly because the likelihood of such a punishment varies between judges. Joseph Doyle, who co-authored the study, further explained this point in a press release,

Some kids get a judge who will place them in juvenile detention, other ones get a judge who will be less likely to do so, and comparing the outcomes of the kids across the judges, we can actually say what the causal outcome is of placing the kids in juvenile detention.

Doyle believes that during periods of incarceration, teens meet others who are in trouble, which could lead them to form social groups that are not beneficial to already struggling juveniles. Doyle also says that, “there could be a stigma attached to it, maybe you think you’re particularly problematic, so that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.” This is known as labeling theory in the criminology world, where an offender’s actions are influenced by the way he is described and classified. Labeling theory argues that by incarcerating an individual, he begins to see himself as a criminal and will likely commit more crimes in the future.

Juvenile incarceration creates a vicious cycle where an incarcerated teen eventually becomes imprisoned as an adult, which can often lead to the loss of federal assistance benefits such as loans, food stamps, and welfare. As a result, they have a harder time finding a job, which further incentivizes crime as a source of income. With 75 percent of state prisoners and 69 percent of federal prisoners having not finished high school, education seems essential to preventing criminal offenses. Incarcerating teens takes them out of school and dramatically increases the likelihood that they will not return later on.

In light of this research, alternative measures to combating juvenile delinquency might be the wave of the future. Alternatives like restorative justice, which focuses on repairing harm caused by the offender instead of simply punishing him, have already proven to be effective in combating delinquency.

A restorative justice program often involves both the offender and the victim through counseling, victim-offender conferencing, restitution, and community service. In victim-offender conferencing, both parties are encouraged to discuss their issues in the hopes of finding a resolution and punishment. This is often a more attractive alternative to putting the punishment and resolution process in the hands of a judge, who might be inclined to incarcerate the offender. Restitution simply involves showing remorse and paying the victim back for what was taken.

For more information on restorative justice check out Law Street’s explainer.

In an effort to find an alternative to juvenile incarceration, Barron County, Wisconsin Circuit Court Judge Edward Brunner helped form what would become the Barron County Restorative Justice Program back in 2000. The program employed incarceration alternatives including victim-offender conferencing and teen court, both of which gave juvenile offenders the opportunity to make things right with their victims and the community.

By 2007, Barron County saw a dramatic decrease in juvenile offenses relative to the rest of the state. Barron County’s juvenile arrest rate was 34.2 percent lower in 2007 than it was in the year before the program’s inception, meanwhile the rest of the state only saw a 21.7 percent decrease in the same time span.

Other places, both inside and outside the United States, also experienced decreases in juvenile crime after implementing restorative justice programs. New Zealand saw drastic reductions in juvenile offenses and recidivism after instituting a similar system, and its satisfaction rates among the victims and offenders rose as high as 90 percent.

This recent study shows that juvenile incarceration may not be the best solution for deterring future crime. Kids who are introduced to the juvenile prison system tend to commit more crimes and carry their high recidivism rates into adulthood, and as a result, the vicious cycle of a “career criminal” begins to emerge. If the goal is to prevent crime and help juvenile offenders, perhaps it is now time for society to seek an alternative to incarceration.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Does Juvenile Incarceration Actually Work? appeared first on Law Street.

It’s official–last month marked the third highest number of homicides in Baltimore history. The city saw 43 homicides in the month of May while arrest rates sharply declined. Since Freddie Gray’s controversial death in April, the relationship between the police and the public has taken a turn for the worse. Unrelenting media coverage and public outcry over police-related violence have made 2015 the year of police scrutiny, or as some may say, accountability. Recent cases of police-related violence have led to greater distrust in the police in many areas across the country.

The growing sense of disconnect between local communities and the police has led many to question whether law enforcement is the problem, not the solution. Some believe they are better off without the constant presence of the police. This belief is especially common in the city of Baltimore, where riots erupted after Freddie Gray’s death.

The protests sent a message to Baltimore police officers indicating that they were undesired in many communities. The riots also led to a rapid decline in proactive law enforcement techniques, an effort to appease many Baltimore residents. But in light of recent murder statistics, are people better off with less policing?

The month of May saw a drastic decline in police activity, with arrests going down approximately 56 percent compared the same period last year. In May 2014, police arrested 2,396 people in the first 19 days of the month, with an average of 126 arrests per day. Last month, however, there were considerably fewer arrests, as police arrested 1,045 people, an average of 55 arrests per day.

Anthony Batts, the Commissioner of the Baltimore City Police Department, attributes the dramatic decrease in proactive policing in Baltimore to the growing fear of prosecution among police officers. At a recent city council meeting, Batts said “There are people, and they’ve said this to me, ‘If I get out of my car and make a stop for a reasonable suspicion that leads to probable cause but I make a mistake on it, will I be arrested?’” This growing fear of legal action against officers appears to explain the sharp decline in arrests, which comes just one month after six police officers were indicted for their involvement in Freddie Gray’s death.

While the rate of arrests in Baltimore plummeted last month, the number of homicides did not. Instead, the city experienced its single bloodiest month in more than 40 years with a total of 43 homicides. The month of May saw more than 40 percent more murders relative to the previous year, and the rate nearly doubled the 22 homicides of the month prior. A total of nine murders occurred over a violent Memorial Day weekend, which also had nearly 30 shootings.

Last month’s raw homicide figures were the worst of any month in 40 years, and the third worst in Baltimore’s history. This is particularly shocking when looking back at the well-documented history of violence that made Baltimore one of the most violent cities in America for some time. August 1990 held the fourth bloodiest month in Baltimore history with 42 homicides, December 1971 takes second place with 44, and August 1972 tops the list with 45.

In terms of raw numbers, May saw fewer murders than December 1971 and August 1990, but when you adjust for changes in population the rate was actually much higher than any previous month. The murder rate last month was 6.9 murders per 100,000 residents, a stunning 38 percent higher than the rate in August 1972. This is because Baltimore housed roughly 280,000 more residents in 1972 than in 2015 according to Census data.

The chart below shows the adjusted murder rate for the four deadliest months in the Baltimore’s history as well as their total homicide counts.

Peter Moskos, a former Baltimore police officer and current professor at the John Jay College of Criminal Justice put these numbers in perspective in a recent blog post:

Even if no other people had been murdered in Baltimore before May, and even if no more people were killed from today until 2016, Baltimore would still have an above average annual homicide rate just based on the May killings.

In the first full month since the Freddie Gray protests two major changes have occurred in the city. Arrest rates have dropped by more than half, while homicides have risen by 40 percent. Antoinette Perrine, a Baltimore resident whose brother was recently gunned down near her home in West Baltimore told CBS Baltimore, “It’s so bad, people are afraid to let their kids outside… police used to sit on every corner, on the top of the block. These days? They’re nowhere.” It may be too early to tell, but a reduction in police activity might not be what is best for the city of Baltimore.

Kwame Apea

Kwame Apea is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2016 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Kwame at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Baltimore After Freddie Gray: One of the Bloodiest Months in History appeared first on Law Street.