Over the last few months, we have seen an influx of questions about the offenses, penalties and potential ramifications of being convicted of a sex crime in Minnesota.  We decided to conduct a three-part series to answer some of the most common questions surrounding criminal sexual conduct.  In Part 1, we explained what types of crimes require you to register as a sex offender in Minnesota.  Today, we’ll explain “How to register as a Predatory Offender in Minnesota”, and next week we’ll discuss “The Penalties and Community Notification Process in the Release of a Predatory Offender”.

According to Minnesota Statute 243.166, there are numerous regulations a person must follow if they are convicted of a crime that requires them to register as a predatory offender.   Once they are released from prison, the first thing they need to do is register as a “predatory offender” in person with their assigned corrections agent.  The registration must be done in person because the corrections agent needs a signed statement, fingerprints, and a current photo for their database.

In addition, in accordance with subd. 4a. “A person required to register under this section shall provide to the corrections agent or law enforcement authority the following information:

• The person’s primary address;
• All of the person’s secondary addresses in Minnesota, including all addresses used for residential or recreational purposes;
• The addresses of all Minnesota property owned;
• The addresses of all locations where the person is employed;
• The addresses of all school where the person is enrolled;
• The year, model, make, license plate number and color of all motor vehicles owned or regularly driven by the person.”
• A person must also register in another state if they enter and remain in that state for 14 days or longer

An individual is required to notify law enforcement or their corrections officer at least five days before moving to a new address.  When applicable, the offender must also give five days notice if any of the above information changes, i.e. a five-day notice before they start a new job.

Staying Registered

Registering as a predatory offender is not a one-and-done deal.  As the law states, “A person who is required to register is subject to the law for ten years from the time he or she initially registered in connection with the offense, or until probation, supervised release, or conditional release period expires, whichever occurs later.”  This means that each individual who has to register as a predatory offender will need to keep his or her registration current for a minimum of 10 years.  If part of a person’s sentence is 15 years of probation, they’ll need to register as an offender for 15 years.

Also, it’s extremely important for a predatory offender to follow the conditions of their registration, or they could be forced to register for a longer period then they expected.  The police have the authority to add five years to the end of an offender’s registration period if they:

• Fails to register a change in primary address
• Fails to register with the local law enforcement authority if the person has no primary address
• Fails to notify authorities of any other change in registered information
• Fails to return the verification form sent by the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension within ten days of receiving the form

In order to stay current with the BCA, the predatory offender must fill out and return a yearly verification form.  The BCA usually mails the form to the offender’s last known primary address within 30 days of the anniversary of the offender’s initial registration.  As noted above, once the offender receives the verification form, he or she has ten days to return the completed form or they will be subject to additional years of registration.

Most predatory offenders only need to complete the yearly verification form to stay current with their registration; however, some offenders (those who are deemed sexually dangerous, a sexual psychopath, or a level III offender) are required to complete verification forms on a more regular basis, sometimes as many as four per year.

Lifetime Registration

While 10 years is the minimum amount of time a predatory offender needs to keep his or her information current, some individuals are required to register for the rest of their lives.  Lifetime registration is required for three types of convicts:

Sexual Predators – Any person who is required to register following commitment as a sexual psychopathic personality or sexually dangerous person under Minnesota law is considered a sexual predator.

Aggravated Offenders – Any person who commits a sexual act with a victim of any age through the use of force or the threat of serious violence, or commits a sexual act on a victim under the age of 13 is considered an aggravated offender who must register for life.

Reoffenders – Any person convicted of a crime for which predatory registration is required who has previously been convicted of an offense where registration was required will need to stay on the predatory offenders list for life.

Related source: Minnesota House of Representatives

A neurocriminologist who has spent years studying brain development in criminals believes there exists a biological basis for criminal behavior.

Adrian Raine has spent 25 years in the US studying cognitive development, and before that he spent years in Britain attempting to decipher why criminals committed the crimes they did.  In 1994, Raine conducted a small but comprehensive study on 41 convicted killers and 41 “normal” individuals in a control group.  Raine used brain-imaging technology to reveal the size and functionality of different parts of the brain.  After looking at the images, Raine found that the two groups exhibited different metabolic activity in certain parts of the brain.  In the group of convicted killers, Raine noticed a significant reduction in the development of the prefrontal cortex, or the decision-making part of the brain.

Neuroscientists have done extensive research on the problems associated with an underdeveloped prefrontal cortex, linking it to many behavioral problems including:

• Less control over the generation of strong emotions, like anger and rage
• A greater addiction to risk
• A reduction in self-control
• Poor problem solving skills

All of these traits, of lack thereof, may mean a person is more predisposed to violence than other individuals.

The Slippery Slope

Raine has dedicated his life’s work to better understanding the criminal mind, piling up books of evidence that reveals humans may not be as in control of our actions as we believe to be.  While he has been able to define set of “biomarkers” which may make a person more predisposed to crime or violence, the question he keeps circling back to is, “What should we do with this information?”

If stopping crime before it happens sounds like something out of Hollywood, you’re not wrong; the film Minority Report tackled just that subject.  Set in a futuristic world, Tom Cruise works as a government agent that fights “PreCrime” with the help of three physics who can see into the future.  Crime is at an all-time low with this system, but the issue at the core of the movie is how guilty is a person who has yet to commit the crime of which they are accused?  Not surprisingly, the movie’s protagonist has no problem locking up would-be murderers until the physics foresee that he’ll murder someone, which causes him to run for his life all while proving that the physics are wrong.

The question at the center of Minority Report has been around long before it hit the big screen.  If you knew with 100% certainty that a person would commit a murder or sexual assault, should they be arrested for the crime before it is committed?  While it’s hard to argue that a person should be locked up before they commit a crime, if the tragedies at Newton or Columbine could be prevented, do we have an obligation to protect the innocent?  As Raine said, “If we buy into the argument that for some people factors beyond their control, factors in their biology, greatly raise the risk of them becoming offenders, can we justly turn a blind eye to that?”

Many will argue that we cannot lock up would-be criminals because you can never say with 100 percent certainty that they would have committed the crime.  Even if you knew with 99.9 percent certainty, there’s still a possibility that the person would decide against their actions.  While people can argue over the logistics of such propositions, it appears that Raine and his colleagues are getting closer to formulating an exact science for recognizing the likelihood to commit crime.

Technology in the Courtroom

As scientific evidence continues to mount, it seems more likely that brain imaging may soon become more popular in the courtroom.

“Raine’s findings could lead to new avenues for criminal defense,” said attorney Melvin Welch.  “Although it is not uncommon for the defense to argue that their client should be admitted to a mental health facility instead of a prison on the grounds of mental illness, these findings can help support the argument, which could greatly affect the outcome of the trial. Science may soon tell us that what is perceived as ‘normative’ is different for each individual based on uncontrollable circumstances.”

Raine touched on a similar issue when discussing who is actually at fault for committing a crime.

“Is it really the fault of the innocent baby whose mother smoked heavily in pregnancy that he went on to commit crimes?” said Raine. There is, and increasingly will be, an argument that he is not fully responsible and therefore, when we come to think of punishment, should we be thinking of more benign institutions than prison?”

Brain Scans at Parole Hearings

While preventing the initial crime before it occurs may not be feasible, Raine believes parole boards oftentimes use poor evidence when deciding if a criminal is fit for parole.

“The fact is parole boards are making exactly these kind of predictive decisions every day about which prisoner or young offender we are going to release early, often with crummy evidence,” said Raine. “At the moment, the predictors are social and behavioral factors, marital status, your past record. What is not used are biological measures. But I believe that if we added those things even now into the equation, we could only improve the prediction.”

To support his claims, Raine conducted two studies on prisoners who were set to be released form prison.  In the first study, he found that if the anterior cingulate in the brain is lower than normal before a prisoner is released, the person is twice as likely to be reconvicted within three years.

The second study found that is the prisoner has a significantly smaller amygdala, which helps process memory and emotion, the prisoner is 2-3x more likely to reoffend.

“Now, this is only two studies, but what they are beginning to show is proof of concept, that if we added neurological factors into the equation we could do a better job at predicting future behavior.”

Related source: Guardian.co.uk

Police in Cotati, California have come under scrutiny after a video surfaced of officers kicking down a person’s door and tazing two individuals who appeared to have their hands in the air.

According to the police report, officers were called to the home in response to a noise disturbance phoned in by a neighbor.  You can see video of the incident below.

As you hear in the video, both the man and the woman say there hasn’t been any domestic violence, and they acknowledge that one child is inside the house while another is outside playing.  When the cops ask them why they won’t open the door, the man responds, “Because we don’t live in a police state, sir.  Martial law has not been established in this country.”

This appears to upset the officers, and they order the couple to get on the ground.  The officers inform the couple “We’re going to kick in the door.”

Shortly after stating their intentions to forcibly enter the house, the officers break through the door.  The man responds by telling the officers “You have no right to be in here!”

The woman is seen with her hands in the air, but she begins to scream after she is tazed by an officer.  This upset the man, who receives some volts of his own seconds later.

The video has gone viral over the past week, with voices coming in from both sides.  Some argue that the police were within their rights to enter the house because they did not know the welfare of the child in the house, but others say authorities crossed the line when they used excessive force.  Legalities aside, this isn’t the first time the Cotati police department has come under scrutiny for using excessive force.

The above video is a little unclear, but it appears that the Cotati officers used excessive force during their arrest of a suspect.  Although the suspect was not complying with a demand to get on the ground, it hardly seems like two cracks of a nightstick and a Taser were necessary to subdue the individual.

Attempts to reach the Cotati Police Chief were unsuccessful.

Avery Appelman comments

We won’t speak to the issues in the second video because the audio is limited, but we did consult Criminal Defense Attorney Avery Appelman regarding the first video.  Here’s what he had to say:

First off, one needs to understand that the alleged victim of domestic violence is routinely uncooperative with the police and prosecution. The police know this. The victim of domestic violence can be coerced to alter their story by the abuser.

When the officers came to this home, the door was closed and those inside advised the police this was not a situation involving violence. The police confronted with people who were not cooperative, and that there was a child in the house, the police may assert that they needed to enter the home to check on the health and safety of the child. While they may fall back on the argument that they were protecting the welfare of the child, I am skeptical of this proposed defense of the police use of force: in this case the officers tazed two people.

Homeowners should be safe from warrantless searches and seizures in and of their homes. The police escalated this situation. They raised their voices when the homeowners exercised their rights and refused to come outside. The police then gave the homeowners warning that they were making a forcible entry into the home, and for what purpose? To investigate a crime and check on the safety of a child inside. Once the situation escalated, the officers screamed at the homeowners to get down.  Then the officers used a significant amount of force, a Taser, to put the people to the ground. This is simply unacceptable conduct by those police officers.

Each police department has a use of force policy, and I am certain that the circumstances these officers were confronted with would not justify the use of force employed. The homeowners should seek criminal prosecution of the police officer and should seek civil remedies, such as suing the individual police officers, the police department, and the city for civil rights violations.

Related source:  Liveleak.com

Over the last few months, we have seen an influx of questions about the offenses, penalties and potential ramifications of being convicted of a sex crime in Minnesota.  We decided to conduct a three-part series to answer some of the most common questions surrounding criminal sexual conduct.  In Part 1, we explain what type of crimes will require you to register as a sex offender in Minnesota.  In future posts, we’ll explain “How to Register as a Sex Offender in Minnesota”, and “The Penalties for Failing to Register as a Sex Offender”.

According to Minnesota law, any person convicted of specific sexual offense is required to register on the offender list.  In Minnesota, this list is known as the “Predatory Offender Registration”, and a person is required to keep their registration current for a minimum of 10 years.  Depending on the offense, a person may be required to say on the list for the rest of their life.

In order to be required to register as a predatory offender in Minnesota, a person must commit one of the following offenses:

• Criminal sexual conduct in the first, second, third, fourth or fifth degrees.  Specific offenses include unlawful penetration, contact, conduct, or lewd behavior.
• Felony indecent exposure.
• Criminal sexual predatory conduct.
• Soliciting a minor to engage in sexual conduct or prostitution.
• Possession, production or distribution of child pornography.  This also includes transferring pornographic images to minors.
• Murder while committing or attempting to commit criminal sexual conduct in the first or second degree with force or violence.
• Kidnapping.
• Using a minor in a sexual performance.

A person convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the first degree may be sentenced to imprisonment for not more than 30 years or a fine of up to $40,000, or both.  The majority of people who are convicted of a predatory crime will serve at least some time in jail.  Upon their release, they are required to register as a predatory offender with the state.  They may also face certain restrictions like mandatory curfews or the inability to live within a certain distance of a school, park, or daycare.

Predatory offenses are some of the most serious crimes a person can commit.  There is a general social stigma about sexual offenses because oftentimes the perpetrator occupies a position of trust in the eyes of the victim.  While this is not true in all cases, it is not uncommon to hear about these crimes being committed by close friends or family members of the victim.

In Part 2, we’ll explain the process for registering as a sex offender in Minnesota.  We’ll also talk about what happens when a Level 1, Level 2, and Level 3 Predatory Offender is released from prison.

A Wisconsin jury deliberated for over three hours on Tuesday before ruling that 35-year-old Aaron Schaffhausen was not insane when he murdered his three daughters last summer.

Schaffhausen had been charged with three counts of murder in the July 2012 deaths of his daughters Amara, Sophie, and Cecilia at their River Falls home.  The jury ruled that although Schaffhausen suffered from a mental defect, he had the capability to understand the implications of his actions.

Criminal Defense Attorney Melvin Welch spoke to KARE 11 news to offer his insights into the ruling.  He explained how a jury can find a man guilty despite recognizing that the defendant suffered from a mental illness.

“The standard that he had to prove, and it was his burden to prove, is that, first he is operating under a mental defect, and by virtue of that mental defect he could not know what he was doing,” said Welch.  In this instance, they met that first burden…but the second part of it, whether or not he was aware of the right or wrongness of his actions, that’s where they failed to meet their burden”.

Although it may become clearer once the jury releases a formal statement regarding the case, key testimony revealed that Schaffhausen had previously threatened his children.  He also called his wife to tell her that he murdered the children after the act, which may have aided the jury in their decision.

Welch had previously sat down with KARE 11 before the trial began to talk about how the case might play out.  He initially said it would be very hard for the defense to prove that their client was insane without having him take the stand, but Schaffhausen never testified in the case.  Welch said that decision left the jury with little evidence to prove Schaffhausen was insane.

“You put yourself in the jurors’ position; Are you going to be the one that says, ‘I’m not going to send this guy away for the rest of his life after he’s gotten done killing these three little girls who couldn’t defend themselves’?” said Welch.  “It is a very difficult thing to meet, and frankly, if you can’t speak to the jury, even to address some of the concerns they might have, I don’t know, and apparently they didn’t in this case.”

Welch also said proving someone’s sanity was different from constructive cases like drug possession.  In the constructive cases, the prosecution must use the evidence along with possible motives to build a case that can convict a person beyond a reasonable doubt.  In cases of insanity, the burden shifts to the defense to prove that their client is insane.

The general belief is that a person is “innocent until proven guilty”, but in mental cases, the person has already admitted to the crime, but they claim they couldn’t prevent their actions.  The sentiment then becomes “guilty unless proven otherwise”.

Although it may seem like a strange decision to keep Schaffhausen from taking the stand in his defense, Welch said it’s possible he could he dug himself in a deeper hole.

“The defense attorneys, they have a tough job,” said Welch.  “I don’t know what he would have said, and they know far better than I do what he would have said, so there’s decision making being made behind the scenes as well.”

Schaffhausen is now faced with a mandatory life sentence in prison.  At a minimum, he would receive 20 years in prison and supervised released after his sentence.

No sentencing hearing has been scheduled, but early speculation is that it could occur in July.

Related source:  KARE 11

In the first part of his interview, Melvin talked about his background as a prosecutor and as a Russian translator in the Navy.  In part 2, we hear about the strangest case he’s ever worked, and we throw some rapid fire questions his way.

1)  Tell us about the strangest/most impressive/weirdest case you’ve ever worked

As a criminal defense attorney, I once represented a man who was convicted of a felony Driving While Intoxicated crime and sentenced to several years in the Minnesota Department of Corrections.  Later, it came to light that he had been wrongly convicted of the felony DWI and had served an extra year in prison than he should have. In other words, he was wrongly convicted and unjustly imprisoned.  After he got out of prison, he fell off the wagon and returned to drink.  He then drove drunk again, and was convicted of felony DWI and imprisoned in the DOC for several years – this time without any errors.  At his sentencing, the probation officer dismissed the previous error as irrelevant and the district court judge sentenced him to the full sentence without any thought to the fairness of having imprisoned him unjustly for an entire year.  He asked for help in righting this wrong, and I took up his case just before I left for my last job.

Minnesota courts recognize two types of law:

(1)  Statutory law (written by the legislature and signed into law by the governor), and

(2)  Precedent (previously decided court cases which have binding effects on questions of law which arise through individual cases).

Under his situation, he had no recourse for his appeal – he was not entitled to have the previous year credited to him to set off his new sentence, and there was no precedent on the question.

I appealed his case to the Minnesota Courts of Appeal, arguing that this error was one of such magnitude and gross injustice that it could not be ignored as – in the words of the probation officer – “what’s done is done,” and that it was wrong for the judge to disregard the man’s objection to serving the entirety of his new sentence without regard to the extra year he wrongfully spent in prison.  Typically, when the appellate courts hear a case they are confined by the Constitution, the laws of the State of Minnesota, and precedent when making their decisions.  There was no basis to alleviate this injustice.  However, I was able to make the argument to the Court that a person’s liberty cannot be so callously disregarded by the black letter of the law, and that for a just system to operate as such – it must right wrongs where it has the opportunity.  We were successful in that case, enabling the man to be set free in response to his wrongful imprisonment. State v. Kraulik, 2009 WL 1047001 (Minn. Ct. App. 2009).

2) You’re a current or former member of three Native American organizations.  Talk about your family history and your experience with those groups.

My father’s genealogy traces back to the Oneida Indians of New York, and the surname (Welch) to Ireland.  The Oneida Indians were part of the Five (and later Six) Nations League comprising the Iroquois (including the Mohawk, Onandaga, Cayuga, and Seneca – later the Tuscarora).  The League primarily held its neutrality during the French and Indian Wars, but during the Revolutionary War it fractioned with only the Oneida Nation (and some of its subsidiaries) fighting for the new nation against the British.

Following the War, the Oneida Indians of New York secured their traditional lands through a treaty with the U.S. Federal Government, however subsequent treaties with the State of New York whittled away at that agreement during the government’s “encouragement” of Indian relocation.  My descendants were among those relocated to Wisconsin in the late 18^th, early 19^th centuries, and eventually organizing as the Brothertown Indians of Wisconsin.

I grew up in a southern Minnesota farm town (West Concord) in a family where the only Natives with whom I was familiar were my immediate relatives.  My interest in my heritage began to rise later in my life, after I had finished my travels and education and settled down to life in Minnesota.

At the University of Minnesota Law School, I became familiar with, and eventually joined, the Minnesota American Indian Bar Association, begun in the early 1990s by Natives from various locales practicing law in Minnesota to offer support and connections to others in similar circumstances.  It was the first opportunity I had to learn about my history and personal stories of colleagues and their tribal connections and experiences.  I continue to enjoy the friendship and camaraderie of those individuals, and foster a welcoming environment for Native Americans in the legal profession in Minnesota.

Rapid Fire Questions

1)  Favorite Food:  The West Bank Grocery store’s shawarma (gyro) – spectacular!

2)  Favorite Book: Reflections On The French Revolution, by Edmund Burke.

3)  Favorite Band:  Johnny Cash and Gorillaz.

4)  Favorite College/Pro Team: The Rough-hawsers.

5)  Favorite Hobby: Reading.

6)  Favorite Quote: Quid verum atque decens euro et rogo, et omnis in hoc sum.  Horace.

7)  Favorite TV Show: Supernatural – best metaphysical musings in the modern fantasy genre.

8)  Role Model: The Man of Mighty Malyuh. . .  the Mighty Malyuh Man.

9)  One Person From History You’d Like to Meet: Marcus Tullius Cicero (Roman Senator, philosopher, and co-Consul with Octavius Augustus).

10)  Favorite Criminal Defense charge to defend: Narcotics and Gun cases.

If you have any questions for Melvin, or you want his opinion on a case, give him a call at (952) 224-2277.

Former “queen of porn” Jenna Jameson was arrested over the weekend and charged with misdemeanor battery. According to Orange County, CA law enforcement, the altercation look place on Saturday night. Allegedly, Jameson assaulted someone at her Newport Beach home. That person then placed her under citizens arrest and flagged down police, at which time the former porn star was taken into police custody.

Although the police have not released many details regarding this weekend’s incident, various third-party sources have suggested and confirmed that the alleged victim is Jenna Jameson’s friend and personal assistant, the transgender porn actress Britney Markham. On Sunday, Jameson (@jennajameson) tweeted:

“Wow just got Robbed by a friend @britneymarkham she accused me of gusting her, and them broke into my home and took everything.”

Jenna Jameson’s Tweet has since been deleted. Seemingly in response, Markham sent a photo of herself in a hospital gown via Twitter with the caption:  “This what u did to me and u accuse me of stealing.”

In Minnesota, Jameson likely would be charged with 5th degree assault and battery, the least serious assault charge in the state. It can be either a misdemeanor or gross misdemeanor charge and carries a maximum penalty of 90 days in jail and/or a fine of  $1,000.  She was released and no bail was set. A court hearing has been scheduled.

Jenna Jameson, who is the most successful adult film actress in history, is no stranger to run-ins with the law. In May of 2012, Jameson was arrested and subsequently charged with a DUI after crashing her Range Rover into a light post and failing a field sobriety test.  As of this weekend, Jameson was still on probation for that DUI charge, and it is unclear how her battery assault will affect the status of her probation.

Although 5th degree assault and battery is only a misdemeanor charge, and overzealous prosecution team, an offender’s current probation, and any number of other factors can affect the outcome of a seemingly-small criminal charge. If you are arrested or under investigation for an assault charge in Minnesota, contact an experienced MN criminal defense attorney right away.

Related Sources:

CNN

TMZ.com

The Inquisitr

Although domestic violence deaths were at a 20-year low in 2012, the troubling start to the new year has prompted women’s rights advocates to petition state legislatures to allocate more funds to combat domestic abuse.

In 2012 there were 19 reported cases of homicide connected with domestic abuse, but there have already been eight such cases in less than three months in 2013.

To voice their opinions, domestic violence victims’ advocates gathered at the State Capital on Tuesday to ask for $3 million in funding over the next two years to help put a stop to domestic violence.

“[Domestic violence] won’t go away unless we collectively work on this issue,” said Minnesota Health Commissioner Dr. Edward Ehlinger.

State officials were encouraged when the 2012 Femicide Report showed that the 19 deaths in 2012 represented a 20-year low, but the state is on pace for 41 domestic violence deaths in 2013.  That’s 41 too many.

Domestic abuse has been in the news recently, as a St. Paul husband has been arrested and charged with second-degree murder of his wife, Kira Trevino.  Trevino has been missing since February 24, and there is dwindling hope that she’ll be found alive.

Victim Services

Many advocates point to the lack of funding for domestic abuse services.  Seven counties and four reservation communities had state funding for domestic abuse services taken away, and three domestic violence programs in Fillmore, Carlton and St. Louis counties have had to close due to lack of funds.

“It’s very alarming,” said Bree Adams Bill, who works as program manager for the St. Paul Domestic Abuse Intervention Project.

63,267 domestic abuse victims sought services from abuse programs in 2012, but officials feel that number greatly under-represents the actual number of victims.  According to their reports, only one in five abuse victims seek professional services.

Lack of state funding isn’t the only reason domestic violence programs have had to close their doors in recent years.  Advocates say donations and foundation funding as decreased roughly 10-20% over the past two years.

“Violence against women is preventable, but to be successful, we need continued funding and support from policymakers, business leaders and the wide range of communities that make Minnesota great,” said Dr. Oliver Williams, who works with the University of Minnesota’s Institute on Domestic Violence in the African American Community.

If you or someone you know has been a victim of domestic violence, please speak up.  Contact the police and an attorney to make sure you and your loved ones stay safe.

Related source:  Star-Tribune

While many people may have thrown a pillow across the room after Joe Webb continued to fire passes into the dirt during the playoff loss to the Packers, a new study shows that some people may be more likely to take their rage out on their partner after a disappointing loss.

A report in the Quarterly Journal of Economics found that NFL losses can result in a 10% increase in domestic violence reports within an hour of the final whistle.  Economists David Card and Gordon Dahl analyzed nearly 800 calls from over a half a dozen states during their research.  Their goal was to understand the factors that lead to domestic violence, which is the leading cause of injury to women in the United States.

Dahl said that domestic violence usually occurs out of a short fit of rage, as opposed to a long-term desire to abuse another person.

“A lot of domestic violence doesn’t happen because people like to hit or control people,” says Dahl. “It seems like there is a role for some people basically losing their temper, and hitting an emotional cue that allows them to do something in the heat of the moment that they later regret. That’s where our paper comes in. It doesn’t excuse domestic violence or say that domestic violence is a good thing, but it does help us understand what we can do to help stop it.”

Findings from the report are fascinating for sports fans and non-sports fans alike.  Below are some of the findings.

• Call volumes double if the team loses to a traditional rival or during a playoff loss.
• There was a spike in domestic violence calls when a team was expected to win and lost, while there was no increase when a team was expected to lose and lost.
• There was no beneficial effect of lower domestic violence when a team was expected to lose and won.
• The spike in domestic violence was common across racial and economic lines.

In concluding their research, Card and Dahl found that managing your expectations can go a long way in curbing domestic violence.  Dahl added that the key wasn’t whether the team won or lost the game, but whether they won or lost unexpectedly.

“It doesn’t matter whether you lose the game, but it does matter in your emotional reaction when you lose the game when you thought your team was going to win,” he said.  “Upsetting bad news is really bad, and upsetting or unexpected good news is okay, but doesn’t have the same positive effect as unexpected bad news has on emotions.”

Both researchers believe the study was a step in the right direction, but they want to dig deeper to determine if other factors such as marriage length or job stress added to the likelihood of a domestic violence incident.

“All of these would be extremely interesting in learning more about who might be most vulnerable to this type of influence,” Card said.

Related source:  TIME

In 2010, 73 percent of human resources professionals said their company conducted a criminal background check during the hiring process, and that number has likely increased over the past few years as more information is becoming digitized.  Most people don’t have anything interesting on their record, but job seekers who have a criminal record may feel that past convictions will start them off on the wrong foot.  Because background checks are becoming more common, we’ll explore some ways to best present yourself to an employer if you have a criminal record.

• Consider getting your criminal record sealed – Depending on what crime you committed, you may be able to get your record sealed.  Sealing or expunging your record doesn’t erase any information, but it does limit who can access it.  You can talk with an attorney or legal professional to determine if sealing your record is an option, or you can visit your state government’s website.

• Volunteer opportunities can speak volumes – Exploring volunteering options can provide many benefits for job seekers.  First, it can show a company that you are focusing on the future, not dwelling in the past. Also, volunteer opportunities give you a chance to develop solid references that can put in a good word if your prospective employer calls for a reference.

• Be knowledgeable about your conviction – It’s important to know exactly what you’ve been convicted of, as inaccurate information can be harmful in the interview process.  If you show an interviewer that you understand the charges and accepted the penalties, it can put you in a better light than those who don’t acknowledge or show remorse for their crimes.

• Participate in re-entry programs – There are plenty of programs that help job seekers with a criminal record re-enter the professional world.  In Minnesota, there are certain groups like the Minnesota Second Chance Coalition and 180 Degrees who work to get people with a criminal record a job by focusing on education, training and support.  These programs can be listed on a resume and discussed in an interview to show that you are committed to developing professional skills and have a desire to learn.

• Consider where you apply – During the application process, you’ll likely be asked if you have been convicted of a crime.  Read the section carefully, as some employers only ask for a certain time period (i.e. last five years) or for certain levels of crime (only list felonies).  If you’re applying at a larger company, you might have a tough time explaining your past convictions to a hiring manager.  Oftentimes at larger companies, human resources professionals without “hiring power” conduct an initial interview.  Second and third interviews with hiring and on-site managers are then conducted, and it can be difficult to explain your conviction to a person in charge if you have to go through multiple interviews.  By applying at a smaller company, you increase the likelihood that your initial interview will be with someone with greater hiring power and will give you a first-hand chance to explain any convictions.

• Honesty is the best policy – It’s always best to disclose any past criminal convictions, as neglecting to do so can be cause for termination, even months after you get the job.  With that said, don’t start the interview by jumping into your past legal troubles.  Prepare what you plan to say before your interview in case it comes up.  Also, consider discussing the prior conviction after the company had expressed interest in you.  When discussing your conviction, it’s important to walk the line between accepting responsibility for your actions and explaining yourself.  For example, I knew a colleague back in college whose house got busted for having a party.  He took the fall for his roommate who purchased the keg because the roommate was a criminal justice major, and a ticket for “supplying to minors” would result in his expulsion from the program.  The roommate paid my colleague for the ticket, but now he has to explain the supplying to minors ticket during interviews.  He said he often has to tiptoe the line between explaining his side of the story and accepting the consequences for making a rash decision to support a friend.  He is prepared for the question, and tries to turn his answer into a positive outlook on his character.  He admits that it doesn’t always work, but being prepared and answering honestly help explain a conviction that looks bad on paper.