In 1984, Jennifer Thompson was raped at knife point. Her description of the attacker was used to develop a composite. Police received a tip that Ronald Cotton, Jr. was the man in the drawing. Two days after the attack, Thompson viewed a photo lineup of six men.

She wanted to be positive. Although she quickly eliminated four of the men, she took 4 to 5 minutes trying to decide between two others. Then she picked up Cotton's photo.

THOMPSON: This is the man who did this.
POLICE: Are you sure?
THOMPSON: I'm positive.
POLICE: We thought that was the guy.

Later, after a live lineup in which Thompson chose Cotton again, she asked if she did okay. An officer said, "You did great, that was the guy you picked out in the photo lineup."

With this positive feedback, Thompson felt 100% positive of her identification by the time the case went to trial. Her strong, believable ID is what sent Cotton to prison for rape. It took 11 years before DNA exonerated him and led law enforcement to Bobby Poole, the actual rapist.

Since then, Thompson and Cotton have co-authored a book, PICKING COTTON. You can view the video Getting it Right: Eyewitness ID with both of them and the police chief who worked the case at the Innocence Project website.

Although Thompson had been told that her attacker might not be among the photographs, she felt compelled to do her part to take a rapist off the streets. She couldn't do it quickly despite research findings that the strongest memories are the easiest/quickest to retrieve (Economist.com). Thompson, a Caucasian, struggled to identify her Black attacker. Studies have shown that people have more difficulty distinguishing faces of people of other races (Salon.com). She studied two of the photos until she chose one as her attacker.

No one asked Thompson how certain she was of that first ID before proceeding. Instead, she was relieved to be told that she'd picked the "right" man. Police officers, family members, and even other witnesses can unconsciously shape a witness's memory and influence his/her level of certainty (Salon.com).

Research suggests that lineups should be double-blind and administered sequentially (See blog: Your Lying Eyes: How to Improve Police Lineups), neither of which were done in this case. Let's look into the roll that positive affirmations play on eyewitness testimony.

A study reported in Psychological Science, found that confirming feedback led witnesses to not only feel better about their identification/misidentification (the murderer's photo was not in the lineup), but it also distorted their memory of how confident they had been initially and how good of a look at the perpetrator they believed they'd gotten.

Of "the eyewitnesses given positive feedback - 50% rated their confidence at either a 6 or 7 on a 7-point scale." In addition 47% of those getting positive feedback thought the grainy security camera footage was clear (6 or 7 on the 7-point scale). In contrast, of those who got negative feedback, only 15% rated their confidence high, and none of them thought the poor footage was clear (PSYBLOG).

Witnesses should make a statement about their level of confidence in their own words. "The legal system should...collect the primary dependent measures (confidence information and other statements) from the eyewitnesses prior to debriefing them regarding the status of the identified person" (Psychology.iastate.edu).

Itiel Dror, cognitive neuroscientist with the University College of London, stated that psychological research has shown "time and time again no correlation between confidence and accuracy" (Salon.com) Yet, confidence sells an identification to juries.

Changes to police procedures have been slow in the US and in the UK (PSYBLOG). Law enforcement agencies are getting more pressure to adopt policies on eyewitness identifications which are supported by research (Officer.com). The following procedures, excerpted from Wisconsin's Model Policy and Procedure for Eyewitness Identification, were developed in an attempt to minimize eyewitness errors and secure court-admissible identifications.

1. Utilize non-suspect fillers chosen to minimize any suggestiveness that might point toward the suspect;
2. Utilize a 'double blind' procedure, in which the administrator is not in a position to unintentionally influence the witness's selection;
3. Give eyewitnesses an instruction that the real perpetrator may or may not be present and that the administrator does not know which person is the suspect;
4. Present the suspect and the fillers sequentially (one at a time) rather than simultaneioulsy (all at once). This discourages relative judgment and encourages absolute judgments of each person presented, because eyewitnesses are unable to see the subjects all at once and are unable to know when they have seen the last subject;
5. Assess eyewitness confidence immediately after identification;
6. Avoid multiple identification procedures in which the same witness views the same suspect more than once.

In addition to those practices, the Innocence Project also recommends that lineup procedures be videotaped. This protects innocent suspects and also documents legitimate police procedures. "Officers should also be prepared to articulate in court how the procedures they used ensure the greatest reliability of the eyewitness evidence gathered" (Officer.com).In the future, most lineups may be conducted on computers to further remove human influence.

Our judicial system may place too much weight on eyewitness testimony...especially when it runs counter to more tangible evidence. Even an honest eyewitness ID, like that of Jennifer Thompson, can be completely wrong. We must eliminate practices that we know can lead to miscarriages of justice.

Other Links:

• Dean, Jeremy, "Wrongful Conviction: 50% of Mistaken Eyewitnesses Certain after Positive Feedback," PSYBLOG, February 6, 2008.
• Economist, "Unusual Suspects: How to Make Witnesses More Reliable," The Economist, March 3, 2012.
• Russell, Sue, "Why Police Lineups Can't be Trusted," Salon.com, September 29, 2012.
• Van Brocklin, Val, "Defending Your Lineup in Court," Officer.com, July 18, 2011.
• Wells, Gary L, and Amy L. Bradfield, "Distortions in Eyewitnesses' Recollections: Can the Post-identification Feedback Effect be Moderated?" Psychological Science, 1999.

"He did it," the witness proclaims from the stand. Eyewitness testimony sways juries...but what if there is no other evidence against the accused? Should it hold enough weight to convict?

You have seen countless police lineups on TV shows and movies. The practice of bringing in one suspect along with four or five "fillers" and lining them up along a wall marked with heights is being questioned by research findings and defence lawyers. Everything about which persons/images are chosen for a lineup and how they are presented affects the likelihood of witnesses selecting the real culprit rather than identifying an innocent person.

In practice, police rarely bring in live people for a lineup. It is much more common for a photo lineup to be used. I remember pulling together 6-packs for some of my cases years ago. This was a term used to describe a single page showing the photos of six possible suspects at one time. Research now suggests that there are two big problems with the procedure I used: the method and the administrator.

Whether using live people or photographic images, there are two primary methods of presenting a group of possible suspects to a witness. They are simultaneous and sequential. The simultaneous method, as pictured in the silly photo above, shows all of the five or six possible suspects to the witness at one time. The problem: people tend to compare the faces to each other. Even if the perpetrator is not in the lineup, the witness is inclined to choose the closest match.

"While we like to think that our eyes won't mislead us, mistaken eyewitness identification accounts for more than 70% of wrongful convictions that are ultimately overturned by...more objective DNA evidence" (Time.com). 

The sequential lineup method, shows each suspect individually. The witness is forced to compare the person  to his/her memory, rather than to people next to them. According to David Harris of the University of Pittsburgh Law School, "Agencies should bring in suspects one at a time" (Minnesota.publicradio.org). However, he is not suggesting that the suspect should be the only person presented to the witness.

Maurice Caldwell spent 20 years in prison for murder based on eyewitness testimony. Of four witnesses, only one identified him, but that one identification persuaded the jury despite a lack of physical or forensic evidence. Caldwell was seen in the area after the crime was reported. Police brought him to the witness and they asked her if he was the man she had seen. The process confirmed in her mind that he was involved in the crime (CBSlocal.com).

According to a CBS affiliate in San Francisco, "Even without realizing it, an investigator can send nonverbal cues to the eyewitness." It may be a deep breath, the way they lean, or a facial expression. The one way to completely guard against this influence is to have an uninvolved officer administer a sequential lineup.

A police officer who does not know which image is the actual suspect cannot manipulate the witness's response. This is called a double-blind lineup. Dallas police have taken this to the extreme. They have a special unit that does only lineups. They are not involved in investigations and therefore will not influence the witnesses. They have specialized training and follow written procedures for each lineup that include showing photos sequentially (NYTimes.com).

It is imperative that a move toward double-blind, sequential lineups be made standard practice. For more details, you can watch a segment of Rock Center called "Photo ID: Are Police Lineups Reliable?" at this link.

When Caldwell's case was reopened, another man came forward and confessed to the murder. Caldwell is now arguing that his civil rights were violated in a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco. It is unconscionable that a murder case had even gone to trial with so little evidence.

Next week: More of the latest research findings on eyewitness identifications.


Sources:

• CBS 5, "Man Wrongly Convicted In SF Murder Questions Police Lineups," Sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com, 5-7-2012.
• Goode, Erica and John Schwartz, "Police Lineups Start to Face Fact: Eyes Can Lie," NYTimes.com, 8-28-2011.
• Guy, Shoshana, "Police Photo Lineups Challenged after Series of Wrongful Convictions," Rock Center, 4-4-2012.
• Szalavitz, Maria, "How to Improve Police Lineups and ID the Right Culprit," Time.com, 9-4-2012.
• Weber, Tom, "Do We Do Police Lineups Correctly?" Minnesota.publicradio.org, 11-8-2012.

President Barack Obama pardoned the national Thanksgiving turkey(s) today. This ceremonial pardoning is a lighthearted event. The more serious constitutional role of granting clemency to people gives presidents a role in the judicial system. Presidents have varied in their application of the power to pardon. Some of their choices have run afoul of public opinion.

A full pardon officially removes all records of punishment and guilt, thereby restoring constitutional rights to formerly convicted felons. Presidents can act on any federal crimes, while lower-level offenses may be granted clemency at the state level, usually by governors. (USBlawg.com) The power has been used to help heal the nation. Other times it has been used for purely personal or political reasons.

According to Northern Public Radio, White House spokesman Matt Lehrich stated, "President Obama takes his constitutional power to grant clemency very seriously, and each recommendation received from the Department of Justice is carefully reviewed and evaluated on the merits." (Northernpublicradio.org)

Apparently most recommendations haven't measured up to Obama's standards. P.S. Ruckman Jr., a political scientist at Rock Valley College, reports the rate of pardons granted by the past five presidents (Northernpublicradio.org):

• Ronald Reagan: 1 in 8
• George H.W. Bush 1 in 19
• Bill Clinton: 1 in 16
• George W. Bush: 1 in 55
• Barack Obama: 1 in 290

Why do our two most recent presidents appear so stingy? In part, the number of recommendations continues to grow. Also, many pardons are made at the end of a presidency, so we'll have to recheck Obama's rate at the end of his term in office. If you'd like to request clemency from the president, follow this link to the Department of Justice.

The king of last minute pardons was Bill Clinton. On his last day in office, he served up 140 pardons (USBlawg.com), some of which were highly controversial.

Of the presidential pardons, here are a few of the biggest turkeys, based on the level of public acceptance:

Like Andrew Johnson's pardon of all who had served on the side of the Confederacy during the Civil War, President Jimmy Carter wanted to help the nation mend. However, his pardon of those who had evaded the military draft during the Vietnam War was not as well received (About.com).

In another bid in the name of healing the nation, a highly controversial pardon was granted to former president Richard Nixon for anything he might have done or might be accused of having done during the years of the Watergate scandal (About.com).

Nixon issued questionable pardons of his own. He pardoned Jimmy Hoffa who had been convicted of jury tampering and fraud. Hoffa supported Nixon's re-election bid in 1972 and then disappeared in 1975 (Time.com).

Ronald Reagan also had a couple doozies. One went to George Steinbrenner, former Yankees owner who had plead guilty to obstructing justice and making illegal campaign contributions to Richard Nixon. Another went to Junior Johnson, an early NASCAR superstar, who had served a federal sentence for running moonshine (CNN.com).

President George H.W. Bush received criticism by some in 1992 when he pardoned former Secretary of State Caspar Weinberger and five other Reagan administration officials for their roles in the Iran-Contra Affair (About.com).

Bill Clinton's last-day pardons included one for his half-brother, Roger Clinton, who had been found guilty of cocaine distribution. Another was given to financier and tax-evader Marc Rich. This was noteworthy since Rich's ex-wife had donated to Clinton's presidential campaign and library (Discovery.com).

No wonder many pardons aren't made until the president is heading out of public office. Yet, no matter how much criticism a pardon receives, it will stand. A president's power to pardon goes unchecked by any other branch of government.

"It's conceivable that the Founding Fathers were not worried about giving one individual such absolute authority, as the U.S. Constitution as originally written specified only treason, piracy and counterfeiting as federal crimes. After more than 200 years of growth in the government, approximately 4,500 criminal offenses are under the jurisdiction of the federal government" (Investopdedia.com).

There have been many thousands of presidential pardons handed down, some for the good of the country and a sense of justice, some, it would appear, for the good of the pardoner and his partners. Since it is a U.S. holiday, maybe we should just grin at Obama's pardon of the Thanksgiving turkey.

Resources:

Clark, Josh, "How Presidential Pardons Work," Howstuffworks.com, (accessed 11-20-2012).
Discovery Channel, "Which Presidential Pardons have been Controversial?" Discovery.com, (accessed 11-21-2012).
Fox, Eric, "Notorious Presidential Pardons," Investopedia.com, 9-24-2012.
Gill, Kathy, "Controversial Presidential Pardons," About.com, 1-3-2009.
Institute of Government Studies at the University of California, Berkeley, "Presidential Pardons," NYTimes.com, (accessed 11-21-2012).
JRO, "Controversies in Pardons and Commutations of Sentences," USBlawg.com, 8-6-2012.
Shapiro, Ari, "Tough Turkey: People Have a Harder Time Getting Pardons Under Obama," Northernpublicradio.org, 11-20-2012.
Time Magazine, "Notorious Presidential Pardons," Time.com, (accessed 11-21-2012).
Trex, Thand, "11 Notable Presidential Pardons," CNN.com, 1-5-2009.

In January 2011, Jared Lee Loughner plotted, laid in wait, and then opened fire on former Arizona congresswoman Gabrielle "Gabby" Giffords and a group of her constituents. He killed 6 and wounded 13 that day. Last week the survivors had the opportunity to deliver a statement in court.

Surviving victims and family members had the chance to make victim impact statements. They could confront the offender and inform the court about the pain and loss caused by the crime.

According to victimsofcrime.org, a victim impact statement (VIS) may be written or oral. It may include the following:

• Physical damage caused by the crime.
• Emotional damage caused by the crime.
• Financial costs to the victim from the crime.
• Medical or psychological treatments required by the victim or his or her family.
• The need for restitution.
• The victim's views on the crime or the offender (in some states).
• The victim's views on an appropriate sentence (in some states).

Victim statements become part of the official record and may be considered by parole boards, probation officers, or correctional institutions. They are also heard by judges before sentencing as in the Loughner case.

Mavanell "Mavy" Stoddard, who had been shot three times and watched her husband die in her arms, made a statement in front of Loughner. "Jared, when you took my precious Dorwan, you ruined my whole life" (WSJ). After expressing the grief and loneliness of losing her love, she said, "We will never let you win. You will not take our spirit" (ABC). In fact, before ending her statement, Mavy told Loughner that she forgave him.

Rep. Ron Barber called for increased awareness and knowledge about mental illness, but he also condemned the shooter's actions in his statement. "You must pay the price for the terror, injuries and deaths you caused".(Barber.House.Gov)

Although Gabby Giffords did not make a statement, she looked Loughner in the eye while her husband, Mark Kelly, made a lengthy statement about pain, lost dreams, and gun control. Standing by his wife, Kelly added, "You may have put a bullet through her head, but you haven't put a dent in her spirit and her commitment to make the world a better place"(ABC).

After all the statements, Judge Larry A. Burns of the U.S. District Court in Tucson sentenced the killer to seven consecutive life sentences plus 140 years in federal prison. "Mr. Loughner will never step outside a prison," the judge said (WSJ). A sentence being handed down 22 months after a mass murder is incredibly quick.

A plea saved Loughner from facing a jury trial and possible federal death penalty. State prosecutors decided not to seek additional charges to spare victims a longer judicial process. Also, the methodical nature of the crime, made it impossible for defence lawyers to seek a complicated insanity plea.  Rep. Barber said, "I am grateful that all of us will be spared the painful ordeal of a lengthy legal process followed by unending appeals" (Barber.House.Gov).

In this case, victims had their say and justice was swift.

Resources:

Giffords Faces Ariz. Shooter for 1st Time in Court, ABCNews, 11-10-12
Loughner Sentenced to 7 consecutive life terms, AZCentral, 11-9-12
Victim Impact Statents, The National Center for Victims of Crime, accessed 11-11-12
Loughner Sentenced to Life, The Wall Street Journal, 11-8-12
U.S. Rep. Ron Barber's Statement at the Sentencing of Jared Lee Loughner, Barber.House.Gov, 11-8-12
Mass Killers Aren't Necessarily Psychopaths, Psychiatrists Explain, The Huffington Post, 8-14-12
Updated: List of Injured Victims in Arizona Shooting Released by Pima County Sheriff, The Washington Post Blog, 1-14-11

Let's hope that in the post-election U.S., our Congress will find a way to do the work of the people, rather than the work of the parties or big-money donors. There is something wrong when politicians entrench themselves and essentially refuse to do the messy job of negotiating...that thing that legislators used to do for us. They need to respect their fellow members of Congress and the voters who sent them there.

"Words like freedom, justice and democracy are not common concepts; on the contrary, they are rare. People are not born knowing what these are. It takes enormous, and above all, individual effort to arrive at the respect for other people that these words imply."

--James Baldwin
Author & Civil Rights Activist

Muster any patriotic energy you have left after the elections and devote some to honoring our service members this Veterans Day. The Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) suggests five ways to show our support:

1. Fly the United States Flag
2. Make Your Voice Heard Regarding Military Benefits
3. Find Your Local VFW and Participate in Events
   
4. Visit a VA Hospital
5. Make a Donation

There are numerous charities sponsored by organizations such as the VFW and the American Legion. Examples include Help Heroes Call Home (VFW) and Operation Comfort Warriors (Legion).

Low on money? You could work with your family, school, or organization to generate cards for the Holiday Mail for Heroes program operated by the American Red Cross.

Holiday Mail for Heroes is a simple project that spreads cheer to service members at hospitals and installations around the world. Hurry and get them sent off by the first of December. Follow this link for the guidelines.

Please add your favorite charities or events in the comments. Find your own way to celebrate Veterans Day.

Thank you to all who serve or have served and their families!

• Ways to Give Back to Veterans, Military.com
  
• 2011 Veterans Day Ceremony - Arlington National Cemetery, Video, November 11, 2011
• History of Veterans Day, U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, November 10, 2009

Heartfelt thoughts go to those directly affected by Superstorm Sandy. May you find courage and hope!

I want to discuss something most of us would have once considered to be as unlikely as the confluence of weather systems that caused this tragic storm...a latent fingerprint matched to two different men.

On March 11, 2004, a series of 10 bombs exploded on commuter trains in Madrid, Spain, resulting in nearly 200 deaths. A fingerprint found on a bag of bomb-making equipment in a vehicle became a crucial piece of evidence.

The FBI entered the print into its database and 20 possible matches were generated. Each shared a minimum of seven unique traits with the print in evidence. To make a "positive ID," there would have to be 12 matching traits. One set of fingerprints on file for a lawyer in Portland, Oregon, shared 15 traits with the print in evidence. He must be the bomber, right?

At the time, a U.S. counter-terrorism official told Newsweek it was an "absolute incontrovertible match."

Later, Spanish authorities found the prints of a second man, a known terrorist, that also "matched" the sample in evidence. Parts of those fingerprints were so similar that both men were POSITIVELY IDENTIFIED as the bomb maker. It turns out that processing and interpreting fingerprint evidence is not an exact science, yet. It is valuable, but it is not absolute.
   
The National Academy of Sciences studied the discipline. In July 2009, they found there is inadequate "scientific rigor" in the methods and procedures.

This case and others are highlighted in the NOVA program "Forensics on Trial" which aired this month. (It can be viewed online here). It points out human errors in this case. It also introduces CTF impressions, a new technology that replicates the topographic features of fingerprints without altering them. Its possible field use is under review.

More sophisticated methods would be welcome, but we must deal with examiner bias and set reasonable standards to further improve our justice system.

See these sources for more details:

NOVA: Forensics on Trial, Aired on PBS, October 17, 2012
FBI is Cleared of Misconduct in Jailing of Oregon Man, NY Times, January 6, 2006
U.S. Settles Suit Filed by Ore. Lawyer, Washington Post, November 30, 2006
Badly Fragmented Forensic Science System Needs Overhaul, National Academy of Sciences, 2009

Purple was 10-year-old Jessica Ridgeway's favorite color. Purple balloons and flowers now decorate memorials for the recent murder victim. Although hundreds searched for her, they were unable to rescue her from the hands of a monster. Now all efforts must be directed toward capturing and prosecuting her killer.

Jessica left for school on the morning of October 5, 2012. She never arrived. Hundreds of private citizens in her Westminster, Colorado, community joined authorities to search for her. Sadly, they did not find her alive. This is a time line of some of the steps taken to find Jessica and now to find her killer:

• Jessica left for school in Westminster, CO, 8:30 AM 10-5-2012
• Jessica's mother, who works nights, slept through calls from the school, 10-5-2012
• Jessica's mother reported her daughter missing, 4:30 PM 10-5-2012
• Amber Alert issued, evening 10-5-2012
• Family involvement was ruled out, 10-6-2012
  
• Fliers distributed and 100s of volunteers assisted authorities in search, 10-6-2012
• Dive team went on Ketner Lake, 10-6-2012
• Jessica's backpack found in Superior, CO, 6.4 miles NW of her home, 10-7-2012
• Neighbors held a vigil for missing girl. Family talked to media, 10-9-2012
• An unidentified body was found in Arvada, CO, SW of Jessica's home, 10-10-2012
• Crisis Center opened in Westminster, CO, 10-11-2012
• Officials verify that the murdered body was Jessica Ridgeway, 10-12-2012
• A celebration of Jessica Ridgeway's life, 2 PM 10-13-2012
• Memorial service held, 10-16-2012
• Autopsy performed, 10-16-2012

Next, society needs to continue to pursue the murderer and bring that person to justice. When Jessica's body was found, police described it as being "not intact." It took two days to positively identify the young girl who had just wanted to go to school. As Westminster Police Chief Lee Birk announced at an October 12 press conference, "Our focus has changed from a search for Jessica to a mission of justice for Jessica." (Denver Post 10-12-2012)

If you traveled through the Denver area, especially along the Denver Boulder Turnpike, between October 5 and October 10, 2012, try to recall anything suspicious and report it to the Westminster Police tip line: 303-658-4336.

What to Do if Your Child is Missing (National Center for Missing & Exploited Children)
On the trail of a killer (Denver Post, 10-13-2012)
Jessica Ridgeway killing: Police look for suspect in two near-abductions (ABC News, 10-15-2012)
A girl's neighbors are left to grieve and fear a predator in their midst (New York Times, 10-16-2012)
3,000 embrace memories, smiles of slain 10-year-old Jessica Ridgeway (Denver Post, 10-17-2012)

My husband and I have ordered seed from the Stock Seed Farms in Murdock, Nebraska, many times over the years. We even drove there once to pick up seed and admire fields of prairie grasses such as Big Bluestem and Little Bluestem. Like most Nebraskans, we were shocked to hear that owners Wayne and Sharmon Stock had been murdered in their home in 2006.  There were more surprises during the investigation of those murders that shook law enforcement and citizens in Nebraska.

Nebraska Educational Telecommunications (NET) has produced a one-hour documentary on the case investigation and the evidence initially used to hold two innocent men in jail. It shows the involvement of ex-CSI chief David Kofoed, who has since been sentenced to prison. Kofoed maintains his innocence.

I have to agree with Judge Rehmeier's statement in the Lincoln Journal Star: "Nothing should undermine the confidence in the system." The evidence tampering for which Kofoed was found guilty threatened the lives of innocent men and jeopardized the hunt for the real killers. It also made it harder for other law enforcement investigators to prove their credibility.

The good news is that the innocent men are now free, the guilty are in prison, and Kofoed is no longer working CSI. If you are interested in crime, justice, or murder mysteries, watch NET's CSI on Trial online or on your television.

• CSI on Trial (schedule and links), Nebraska Educational Telecommunications, 2012
• Extended video excerpts and documents from the investigation (Available mid-November 2012)
• "Ex-CSI chief Kofoed sentenced to prison," Lincoln Journal Star, June 01, 2010
• "Was Nebrask Couple's Murder Revenge or Random?" ABC 20/20, September 3, 2010
  

If you haven't heard about Half the Sky, the book, the documentary, or the the movement, it's time to check it out. Named for the Chinese proverb that says "women hold up half the sky," the book explores the global injustices against women. Pulitzer Prize-winning authors Nicholas D. Kristof and Sheryl WuDunn suggest that the world suffers morally and economically by preventing women from holding up their half of the sky.

Girls and women, especially in developing countries, face extreme poverty, oppression, and violence. The authors take you beyond the words to introduce you to the harsh stories of individuals. As difficult as their situations are, these women are working hard to survive and to thrive.

This week, a PBS documentary based on Half the Sky aired October 1 and 2. If you missed it, it will be shown online at the PBS website through October 9 and 10, and it will be available on video. Take a few minutes to view the trailer. You will meet women in 10 countries who are fighting back against brutal situations. It also shows that all of us can have a positive impact on problems around the world.

In addition to the questions asked of the two presidential candidates in their first debates, we may need to ask ourselves what we should demand of these male leaders in terms of fighting injustices against women. We can't suppress half the world's population and begin to achieve our best social, political or financial goals.

• Half the Sky Movement: http://www.halftheskymovement.org/
• PBS: http://www.pbs.org/
  

I can only hope that you are not one of the many people who have lost a family member or friend to murder. Yet, many were hit by the loss of one of the nearly 14,000 U.S. murder victims in 2011. We need to honor their memories on National Day of Remembrance for Murder Victims.

Little makes people more angry at the criminal justice system than the notion that accused criminals seem to have more rights than crime victims. "If the criminal justice systems of the world were private companies, they would all go out of business, because half of their main customers--that is, the victims of crime--are dissatisfied with their services," said Jan Van Dijk, Principal Officer of the United Nations Centre for International Crime Prevention.

According to the National Organization for Victim Assistance, most states in the U.S. do indicate the need and intent to protect Crime Victims' Rights in their statutes or constitutions. Common victims' rights include:

• The right to protection from intimidation and harm.
• The right to be informed concerning the criminal justice process.
• The right to reparations.
• The right to preservation of property and employment.
• The right to due process in criminal court proceedings.
• The right to be treated with dignity and compassion.
• The right to counsel.

If you or someone you know has been the victim of a crime, seek groups and agencies to provide assistance and to protect your rights. In the U.S., the National Crime Victim Law Institute provides a Victim Resource Map to get started.

Remember that crime statistics aren't just numbers. They represent people.

• The National Center for Victims of Crime: http://www.victimsofcrime.org
• Directory of Crime Victim Services: http://ovc.ncjrs.gov/findvictimservices/
• Parents of Murdered Children (1-888-818-7662): http://www.pomc.com/