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

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.

Prom season is already in full swing, and as the school year winds down many high school students look for ways to celebrate.  One celebration ritual that some people can relate to involves consuming alcohol before or after their high school prom.  While this wasn’t a huge deal 30 years ago when the legal drinking age was 18, nowadays school officials are looking for new ways to make the end of the year dance safer for those in attendance.

One way some high schools have combated underage drinking if by enforcing mandatory alcohol screenings before teens can enter the dance or walk in graduation.  Lac qui Parle Valley High School and Montevideo High School instituted mandatory breathalyzers last year during prom, and they believe it helped deter underage drinking.  While it may stop teens from consuming alcohol before the dance, does the mandatory testing violate a person’s 4^th amendment rights to unreasonable searches and seizures?  We’ll take a closer look at the issue.

Can Schools Legally Test?

A couple of high schools that have instituted breathalyzer testing before prom claim to be doing it for the safety of the attendees and of those people who have to share the roads with the teens.  By breathalyzing before the event, officials hope all students will arrive completely sober.  While the school may not be able to control the students once they leave the event, they can attempt to keep them sober on their way to and from the event, which is important considering the leading cause of death among 15-19 year olds is traffic accidents.

St. Charles High School Superintendent Mark Roubinek echoed those sentiments when he explained why his school breathalyzed students before last year’s graduation ceremony.

“It would’ve been a terrible situation if some kids would’ve gotten hurt or killed,” said Roubinek.

Nobody will ever know if Roubinek’s actions prevented any tragedies, but some parents felt that their children’s rights were violated by the mandatory breathalyzer.  They argue that only the students who appeared intoxicated should have been tested, while others say if the teens have nothing to hide, why not consent to the test?

Defense Attorney Avery Appelman, who routinely handles cases surrounding unreasonable searches and seizures, said it’s a bit of a gray area, but some regulations allow the schools to conduct the tests.

“It’s similar to a ‘student-athlete code’, which states that a student must abstain from certain activities if they want to participate in sports,” said Appelman.  “If you want to participate in school functions, you may have abide by their policies.”

Appelman added that schools can hide behind the clause that they are looking to protect the “greater good” of all their students when conducting the tests.

Consequences of Testing

Besides the debate over 4^th Amendment rights, forcing mandatory breath tests on prom-goers isn’t a perfect system.  Some opponents of the process say teens will simply turn to drugs like marijuana in order to bypass alcohol detection, while others say students may skip the dance altogether because they want to drink without detection.

Another reason why across-the-board testing of all students isn’t a perfect science is because sometimes breathalyzers report a “false positive”.  As we’ve written about before, diabetics, dieters and asthmatics all have an increased likelihood of registering a false reading on a breathalyzer, and it could be devastating to a teenager to be refused entry to their prom because of an inaccurate test.

Related source:  CBS Local Minnesota

When people began running red lights, city officials installed red light cameras to catch suspects and issue tickets without being on scene.  Could a similar system soon be in place to prevent bus-arm violations in Minnesota?

While such measures have yet to be seriously considered in the state, bus cameras are becoming more popular across the country in hopes of keeping school children safe as they enter and exit a school bus.

Some bus camera recordings have made their way onto the Internet, and they highlight the dangers some kids face when drivers fail to stop.

In the above video, three cars speed by a stopped bus with its stop-arm engaged.  A child is seen waving at some classmates while crossing in front of the stopped bus when the third car narrowly avoids hitting the kid.  Thankfully the child was unharmed in the video, but incidents like this happen all across the county on a daily basis.

One county in Georgia decided to equip their school buses with cameras, and in just over four months of monitoring traffic Cobb County had issued 412 tickets for failing to stop for a bus.  Not only are they catching perpetrators, but the cameras also act as a deterrent.

“I’ve noticed [people] are stopping more than they have in the past. I think now the word is out, so they know they had better stop,” said Brenda Turner, a bus driver in Cobb County.

Unlike the video above, the cameras in Cobb County aren’t recording during the entirety of the trip.  The cameras, which are located in the front and back of the bus, automatically turn on when the driver activates the flashing stop sign that signals the bus is coming to a stop.

“Once the stop arm is out, this camera is activated,” said Cobb Police Lieutenant Hawk Hagebak.

Stop-Arm Penalties

Although the state doesn’t have cameras on buses, stop-arm violations in Minnesota can be an expensive ticket for someone who intentionally or unintentionally passes a stopped bus.

According to Minnesota Statute 169.444:

When a school bus is stopped on a street or highway, and is displaying an extended stop-signal arm and flashing red lights, the driver of a vehicle approaching the bus shall stop the vehicle at least 20 feet away from the bus. The vehicle driver shall not allow the vehicle to move until the school bus stop-signal arm is retracted and the red lights are no longer flashing.

In addition, subdivision 1a of MS 169.444 reads “no person may pass or attempt to pass a school bus in a motor vehicle on the right-hand, passenger-door side of the bus when the school bus is displaying the pre-warning flashing amber signals”.

A stop-arm violation in Minnesota is punishable by a minimum fine of $300.  Any subsequent violations could result in increased fines, possible jail time, or both.

Related source: 11Alive.com

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

Four members of a St. Paul family have been charged with a variety of felony charges after it was uncovered that they have been running a sex-trafficking ring for almost two years.

During those two years, two brothers and their uncles ran what Ramsey County Attorney John Choi called “an evil conspiracy” that severely impacted the lives of the alleged victims.  The perpetrators allegedly used the controversial website Backpage.com to advertise the services.  Although more details are expected to be made public, at least one of the victims was a 15-year old girl.

Otis D. Washington, 29, Antonio D. Washington-Davis, 27, and their uncles Calvin R, Washington, 49, and Robert J. Washington, 56, were charged with multiple sex trafficking crimes in connection with their involvement in the ring.  A female accomplice, Elizabeth Ann Alexander, 25, was also charged for her involvement.

When announcing the arrests, Choi said the defendants were motivated by greed.

“All of the defendants are a part of an evil conspiracy to enslave women and girls for their own financial gain,” said Choi.  “The defendants have caused unimaginable horror and harm to the victims as well as to our community over a considerable period of time.”

Exposing the ring is a step in the right direction, and it highlights how important it is that we continue to fight against sexual abuse.  In a previous post, we noted that April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month, and a new bill called the Safe Harbor for Sexually Exploited Youth bill is making its way through Minnesota legislation.

The bill asks for $14 million to provide shelters, services and treatment for victims of sexual assault.  Many proponents of the bill say it is a response to the rising amount of sex-trafficking taking place across the state.

The bill is running under the campaign “MN Girls Are Not For Sale”, and Choi offered a similar, localized sentiment when announcing the latest arrests.

“Women and girls are not for sale in Ramsey County,” said Choi.

Related source:  Star Tribune

A 10-year-old and an 11-year-old have been charged with conspiracy to commit murder after investigators say they orchestrated a plan to kill a girl in their fifth-grade class because she was “really annoying”.

The Washington prosecutor said it is “very rare” for the state to try children with the felony charge, but they felt it was necessary because the children’s actions were premeditated.  Behavioral experts also classified the children as “a danger to others”.

The fifth graders were initially arrested in February after a fourth grade student informed school officials that a fellow student had brought a knife to school.  A search of the student and a friend who was with him turned up a knife, an ammunition clip, and a .45 caliber Remington 1911 semi-automatic handgun.

After they were detained, the 11-year-old told officers that he was going to be the “knifer” and the 10-year-old was going to be the “shooter”.  A third individual knew about the plot, but the two fifth graders planned to give him $80 to keep the plan a secret.

“I just want her dead”

Before they were taken into police custody, a school staff member asked one of the boys why he brought a gun to school.  He said the pair planned to “get” a fellow.  The staff member asked the boy to explain what he meant, and the fifth-grader said they “were going to get S.L.T. away from the school and do her in.”

When law enforcement officials asked the boys about why they wanted to kill their classmate, the boys said it was because she annoyed them.  The 10-year-old said he knew his actions were wrong and against the law, and he added “I just want her dead.”

The court filing also shed some light on a possible motive.

“[The 11-year-old] stated that he had been friends with her [S.L.T.] for several months but that he hated her now,” the filing said. “He also indicated that S.L.T. had recently become rude and would pick on him.”

The 10-year old told officials that he and S.L.T used to date, but would not provide any further details.

Boys Had More Targets

Although S.L.T. was their main and first target, the boys told police that they had six additional people they wanted to kill.

The 10-year-old allegedly stole the gun from his older brother, who had initially taken the gun from their deceased grandfather’s house a few months earlier.

“I’m going to come back and kill them”

Possibly more disturbing than the actual murder plot is that the 11-year-old mentioned that he wanted to kill whoever told on them.

According to a report, while they were waiting to be taken to a juvenile detention center the 11-year old told the 10-year-old “If I find out who told them about our weapons I’m going to kill them. I don’t care, when I get out of jail I’m going to come back and kill them.”

Looking at the law

State laws vary from state to state, but it will be interesting to see how the case plays out.  Under Washington law, a child under the age of 8 is not capable of being charged with a crime because the state says they cannot comprehend the consequences of their actions or exhibit criminal intent.  The state also says that children between the ages of 8-11 are given the presumption that no such mental capacity exists unless the state can thoroughly prove otherwise.

Washington prosecutors decided to go forward with felony charges because they argued that the boys understood their actions were wrong and they tried to conceal the plot.

Likely not harsh enough in most people’s mind, the pair face a maximum sentence of about two-and-a-half years under the current state guidelines, but a judge can increase the penalty if he decides the punishment doesn’t fit the crime.  The judge has the ability to confine the children until they are 21, but that is the maximum penalty under Washington law.

Although this is an extremely rare case, Criminal Defense Attorney Stacy Kaye said she believes the case would play out in a similar fashion if it occurred in Minnesota.

“According to MN Statute 609.055, which references a child’s ability to commit a crime, the general rule is that children under the age of 14 are incapable of committing a crime because they can’t form intent,” said Kaye.  “However, based on the extreme nature of the case, the fact that they tried to conceal the crime, and their testimony when questioned by police, the State of Minnesota may decide to seek confinement until either the age of 18 or 21 if the crime had occurred here.”

Related source: ABC News

Appelman Law Firm’s newest attorney Melvin Welch sits down for a Question and Answers session to give us a look into his background, interests and hobbies.  In Part 1, Mel talks about his background and his work all over the globe.

1)  What first got you interested in law, and more specifically criminal defense?

My interest in the law began at a young age, and I attribute it to my father who studied the human condition and its relationship to government.  I recall his discussions of government around the coffee table at local old-timer haunts, and his tireless attention to the relationship of the individual and the governing authority.  The lion’s share of this relationship, aside from voting, is when a person finds themselves accused of a crime and is now facing the full weight and authority of the state and federal government as it seeks to take his liberty, property, and on some occasions – life.  The lawyer fulfills an important, necessary, and just role when these occasions occur.

I began my legal career with the Minnesota State Public Defenders.  When a person has been convicted of a crime they have a constitutional right to appeal their conviction.  The SPD provides this assistance to defendants with little to no means.  During my time at the SPD, I defended poor clients who had been convicted of crimes, appealing their sentences to the Minnesota Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.  I also helped individuals seek post-conviction relief.

In addition to these tasks, I also defended people who were on parole from prison in disciplinary hearings and individuals seeking to challenge their registration requirements.  There are a few crimes which, when convicted of, a person receives an offender registration level.  These crimes are related primarily to conviction of sex and/or violent crimes.  A person convicted of one of the prerequisite crimes and assigned an offender registration level also has the right to appeal  to the Office of Administrative Hearings to contest whether the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) has properly designated the registration requirement and level.  I am one of very few people in the State of Minnesota who has experience appealing these risk level assessments.

My experience contending with the Attorney General, the DOC, and as a former prosecutor, has shown me that the interests of the government and the person accused are not at all compatible and consistent.  The system is, after all, made up of its parts and is subject to errors – sometimes accidental, other times not.  I know that it is imperative for a person accused of a crime to have the best possible representation to stand up to the powers of the State and Federal Government; to ensure that they receive fair treatment at the hands of people not interested in their personal plight; and to guarantee that they obtain the best possible results and finest trial experience.

2)  Your bio says you can speak Russian and Serbo-Croatian. Did you grow up around it, or did you decide to learn those languages for another reason?

I learned Russian for my profession in the Navy as a Cryptologic Technician – Interpretive, which was pretty fun: living for nearly two years in pleasant digs in sunny Monterey, CA.  My duties allowed me to sail the seven seas, down in the quiet of the deeps . . . about which I can’t legally speak.

After working as a Russian linguist in the Navy, I found employ through then-TRW Systems, now-Northrop Grumman as a contract linguist to the Department of Defense for KFOR, the multi-national peacekeeping mission in Kosovo.  I lived with the U.S. Army Intelligence Group and Special Forces in Kamenica, in the mountainous, northeastern region of the partially recognized country, where we conducted joint missions with the Russian 13^th Tactical Group.

While working in Kosovo, I engaged the local population – both Albanian and Serbian – through work with locale interpreters, civic and religious events, and military operations.  By virtue of my close relationship to the Russians, I met a lot of Serbians and naturally absorbed the language.

3)  Tell us a little bit about your background out east, how did that lead to your work with the Department of Defense?

Following my training in Monterey, CA, I underwent additional technological training for my naval trade in San Angelo, TX, during the scathing heat of a Texas summer.  From Texas, I transferred to Naval Security Group Detachment – Fort Meade, MD, where I worked in the “Black Box” that is the headquarters for the National Security Agency.

After I finished my service in the Navy, I graduated from the University of Maryland, College Park (Go Terps! Go Gophers!).  I cast around for a year in Maryland, where I lived in Baltimore, working odd jobs and regularly traversing the Atlantic coast and Appalachian Mountains to Maine and back, until I received direction from my Albania consigliore, A. Leka Bucaj, to consider translation work through TRW Systems.  From there I went to Kosovo.

4)  What brought you to Minnesota?

I am a farm boy, born and raised in West Concord – west of Old Concord.  West Concord is in Dodge County, the county seat of which is located in beautiful Mantorville, where the majestic and historic courthouse perches atop the bluff, overlooking tree-framed and wandering Zumbro River with its lovely, covered bridge.  Incidentally, the Dodge County Courthouse, built in 1865 and the oldest operating courthouse in Minnesota, was the location at which I first appeared in court many years ago to face charges of operating a motor vehicle without a license – it can happen to anyone.

5)  How will your background as a prosecutor benefit you as a criminal defense attorney?

When a person has been accused of a crime, he is facing the full force of the state.  The accused’s life doesn’t stop merely because he’s alleged to have committed a crime. He has a family, work, financial and filial obligations, and a life.   This does not matter to the State – only prosecuting the offense to its finality matters, and they bring the strength of unlimited resources and their perceived authority to bear on the accused.  In that capacity, I prosecuted hundreds of cases from DWIs, drugs, guns, and murder.  I tried dozens of cases a year, using the cloak of authority and resources of the office to convict people accused of crimes, and prevailed in all matters except two.

During my time as a prosecutor, I paid especial attention to my own temperament, preconceptions towards the accused and the crime, and my expectations of outcomes. It is as important for a prosecutor to constantly reassess their own mind and perceptions of the case, and their prosecutorial power, as it is to prosecute the case.  That said, I was one of many prosecutors and many approaches to the law.  Already in my time as a criminal defense attorney I have seen the unresponsiveness of the State in response to requests which would expedite resolution.  I have experienced the ambivalence of judges in hearing about matters which “don’t concern the case,” but which enormously impact the recovery of the accused’s life.  Unfortunately, not everyone is introspective and often the high workload of the prosecuting office does not allow for such a measured approach.

Stay tuned for part 2 of our Q & A with Melvin next week. If you’d like to reach out to Melvin to discuss your case, do not hesitate to call him at (952) 224-2277.

Men’s basketball coach Mike Rice has been fired by Rutgers University less than 24 hours after Outside the Lines aired an investigative report that showed Rice verbally and physically abusing players.

“Based upon recently revealed information and a review of previously discovered issues, Rutgers has terminated the contract of Mike Rice,” the university said in a statement on Wednesday.

Although the video below begins with Rice yelling at officials and players during games, it soon reveals his abusive nature during team practices.

As you can see in the video, Rice repeatedly grabs, shoves, kicks, and even throws basketballs at his players.  Adding to the outrage, the university first learned about the abuse in December of 2012, but they did little to curb Rice’s actions.  The school suspended Rice for three games and fined him $50,000 after they initially saw the video detailing the abuse.

Athletic Director Tim Pernetti took some responsibility for Rice’s actions, saying he hoped the punishment along with further corrective actions would have changed Rice’s behavior.

“I am responsible for the decision to attempt a rehabilitation of Coach Rice,” Pernetti said in a statement. “Dismissal and corrective action were debated in December and I thought it was in the best interest of everyone to rehabilitate, but I was wrong. Moving forward, I will work to regain the trust of the Rutgers community.”

The videos were first brought to the school’s attention by Eric Murdock, who formerly worked as a director of player development at the university.

The immediate backlash over the incident was widespread, especially in the world of social media.  Many athletes voiced their opinions on Rice’s coaching techniques, including LeBron James, who hinted that Rice is going to have trouble finding forgiveness among players and fans.

If my son played for Rutgers or a coach like that he would have some real explaining to do and I’m still gone whoop on him afterwards! C’mon

— LeBron James (@KingJames) April 2, 2013

Rice spoke to ESPN about the incident, and he expressed regret for the way he treated his players.

“I can’t say anything right now except I’m sorry,” Rice told ESPN. “There is never going to be a time when I use any of that as an excuse. …I’ve let so many people down — my players, administration, Rutgers University, the fans, my family sitting huddled around just because their father was an embarrassment to them. It’s troubling. At some time maybe I’ll try to explain it. But right now … there is no excuse for it. I was wrong. I’m going to tell everybody who believed in me that I’m deeply sorry for the pain and sorrow that I’ve caused.”

Related source:  ESPN, USA Today

Although you might be busy filling out brackets for your annual March Madness pool, it’s important to note that people across the nation are working towards putting an end to a completely different type of madness.  Right now, students and teachers are expanding their efforts to combat youth violence by participating in National Youth Violence Prevention Week, which runs from March 18-22.

The goal of the National Youth Violence Prevention Campaign is to raise awareness and to educate both students and teachers on effective ways to reduce or eliminate youth violence.  According to the Centers for Disease Control, youth violence is the second leading cause of death for young people between the ages of 10 and 24.  The weeklong campaign focuses on a new aspect of youth violence prevention each day.  You can see the topics below.

Day 1 – Promoting Respect & Tolerance

Day 2 – Manage Your Anger, Don’t Let It Manage You

Day 3 – Resolve Conflicts Peacefully

Day 4 – Support Safety

Day 5 – Unite in Action.

The City of Minneapolis has also joined the fight to curb youth violence.  In conjunction with PeaceMaker Minnesota, the Minneapolis Public Schools, and the Minneapolis Youth Congress, the city is asking local businesses and the general public to participate in events to help end youth violence.  The NYVPC has put together a youth violence prevention toolkit that you can download if you’re interested in getting involved, and if you know somebody who has helped prevent youth violence, you can nominate then for the Minneapolis PeaceMaker Award, which recognizes outstanding members of the community.

We’ve already documented the correlations between youth brain development and decision making, so teaching students effective ways to manage their anger and emotions should be beneficial in their cognitive development.  For more information on the campaign, or to learn how you can get involved, visit the Students Against Violence Everywhere site.