A woman is found hanging from her wealthy boyfriend’s balcony naked, bound and gagged and the San Diego Sheriff and medical examiner call it “suicide”. Would any woman let alone a missionary’s daughter kill herself and display her naked body in public? While a second independent autopsy indicated that she had four unexplained bumps on her head and her neck wasn’t broken or even fractured, the law enforcement’s response, case closed. Rebecca Zahau, rest in peace.

After being kidnapped, raped and strangled over a 3 day period, a woman reports the incident to the San Diego Police Department and her husband is arrested and booked into jail but, the District Attorney declines to prosecute and her husband is set free. Two weeks later the woman is found dead in the men’s bathroom at SD City College, where she was attending classes, after having been fatally and brutally stabbed by her husband. Apparently, the husband was just found this week in Tijuana, 16 months after the killing, and now the husband is charged with murder by the DA. Yet, could her death have been prevented? The arrest report in the kidnapping incident indicated physical injuries including the tell-tale signs of strangulation, “tiny red spots” (broken capillaries) on her face, as well as 20 prior incidents of abuse, and one prior domestic violence incident reported to the police. And, the husband’s arrest record would have also indicated that he had been arrested for choking his prior wife, all cases the DA declined to prosecute.

Yet, a local judge and the California Legislature saw it differently. The judge attempted to protect the woman when she granted the woman’s request for a restraining order after the kidnapping. And, in response to the woman’s death, it was the California Legislature that stepped up to provide more protection for women by passing the Diana Gonzalez Strangulation Act in 2011, which now allows juries to be told that the risk of death goes up 7 fold after the first choking incident and a conviction carries additional jail time. But, what good is the law when a DA declines to prosecute? The DA made a tragic mistake, but, when it comes to domestic violence, mistakes are deadly. The DA is currently running for mayor, you’d think someone would ask her how this happened, what changes have been made and how can she assure other victims who come forward that they will be believed and protected. Let’s hope this tragedy doesn’t discourage other victims from coming forward, obtaining restraining orders, and whatever help they need so that they can leave a violent relationship and stop the cycle of violence. Diana Gonzalez, rest in peace.

And, recently an 18-year veteran of the SDPD was just sentenced to 8.8 years in prison for multiple counts of sexual battery by restraint, soliciting sexual bribes and sexual assault and battery by a police officer involving 5 women whom he stopped for traffic violations. According to his sergeant who testified at his trial, the officer was “known to target women”, “display their beauty” and had a nickname the “Las Colinas (women’s jail) transport unit “. Yet, to this day, it doesn’t appear that there has been any investigation or discipline of any officer, including the sergeant, by the SDPD to determine who was aware that the officer targeted woman or knew of his nickname and did nothing. Instead, the City (taxpayers) are left with the bill for the damages and so far, one victim has filed a lawsuit alleging a “code of silence” in the police department while 10 other women are contemplating a lawsuit. Just last Friday, the sergeant retired after 26 years and only after an internal police investigation involving allegations that he got rid of 2 traffic tickets for 2 deputy district attorneys. Seriously, I’m not making this up. But, maybe, the Police Chief has his hands full given that 11 other officers have been charged with various criminal allegations including some involving women (rape, stalking, domestic violence) and some not (DUI, excessive force). Ladies, my apologies.

And, San Diego can also be “proud” of a certain judge in family court who has the national and first-ever distinction of ordering an ex-wife to pay alimony and attorney fees to ex-husband who was convicted and sentenced to 6 years in prison for sexually assaulting her. But, hey, the judge did stay the alimony while the ex-husband is in jail. Wow, nothing like having a financial obligation to your rapist hanging over your head for 6 years. I guess re-traumatizing the victim or having a basic understanding of the domestic violence dynamics of power and control, is not his judicial concern. And, the judge also has the distinction of being the only family court judge in San Diego to have a defendant transported from jail to attend each court hearing and undoubtedly, at the taxpayers expense. Wow, you’d think he’d get disciplined or recalled for such conduct. Crystal Harris, my apologies.

And, lastly, there are over 1200 untested rape kits at the San Diego Police Department. A rape kit is done on a rape victim to collect the rapist’s DNA (hair, blood, semen, etc.) which is used to identify and convict the rapist. And, in many instances, the San Diego Police Department doesn’t even test rape kits in cases of date-rape. What? Date-rapists don’t rape just once. They are predators and many times are involved in other crimes as well. They can’t afford to test every rape kit, the police claim. But, a rape victim is expected to submit to a 4-6 hour intrusive and humiliating exam to collect the DNA, which may or may not be tested and sit on a shelf somewhere. It reportedly costs $1000 to process a rape kit. San Diego Sheriff tests every rape kit. Recently, Los Angeles started testing their backlog of untested rape kits and has made over 400 positive hits to other cases. And, San Francisco passed an ordinance in 2010 requiring all rape kits to be tested. Even, fiscally ravaged Detroit is testing their backlog of 11,000 untested rape kits. Can San Diego afford not to gather critical evidence that may solve other crimes, monitor convicted rapists and add the collected DNA to the department of justice database to convict or connect perpetrators to other crimes? Besides, what message does it send to rapists? And, to the women you are hired to protect? Ladies, maybe, you don’t want to date in the city limits.

For many years, I was a domestic violence prosecutor in San Diego and maybe, that’s why I am sensing that San Diego may have a problem. Maybe not, but, I’m still asking the question. Are these incidents just an awful coincidence or is there a much larger problem in San Diego? Is it a good time to be a woman in San Diego? You tell me.

Simply my opinion, what say you?

Huguely convicted of second degree murder. Jury recommends 26 years in prison. Maximum sentence is 40 years. Sentencing in April 2012. Jury deliberated 9 hours.

In response to this tragedy, Virginia now has a new law allowing protective orders in dating relationships. And, according to Kristi VanAudenhove of the Virginia Sexual and Domestic Violence Action Alliance, “Yeardley Love’s death resulted in a great awakening for many individuals in Virginia and across the country about the dangers that exists in violent dating relationships. It has also sparked conversations at colleges and universities about how to improve policies and services for students experiencing sexual and domestic violence.”

==================================================================================================

Get drunk, kick down your ex-girlfriend’s locked bedroom door, and violently shake her as her head repeatedly hits the wall and leave her in a pool of blood to die a painful death. That’s exactly what George Huguely, a 24-year-old UVA lacrosse player, allegedly admitted to, yet, the defense claims he had no intent to kill his ex-girlfriend, Yeardley Love, and his actions weren’t the cause of her death. Complete acquittal? No murder. No manslaughter. Just an accident.

The defense claims she “suffocated” in her pillow. She had a blood alcohol level of .14. She had an “abnormal brain”. And, the head injuries weren’t the cause of her death.

What?

The coroner found “blunt force trauma” to her head to be the cause of death. What explains the facial abrasions, the swollen shut right eye and the pool of blood?

Does it matter that she ended the relationship after he had her in a choke-hold witnessed by several Chapel Hill lacrosse players and that had hit her before? Does it matter that he sent her an email, “I should have killed you”, when he found out she was dating someone new?

Does the “I was drunk” defense negate intent to kill or premeditation ( first degree murder)? Isn’t ingesting alcohol a premeditated, deliberate and intentional act? And, waiting until she was home asleep in the early morning hours to kick down her door, isn’t that further evidence of premeditation and deliberation?

Or, do we give him a break because he was a jilted drunk college jock. Why? Drunk drivers are held accountable.

But, maybe, when it comes to dating relationships, murder just isn’t murder, it’s an accident. After all, I’m sure the defense will next claim, he loved her.

Domestic violence isn’t about love, it’s about power and control. And, Yeardley Love’s death is another tragic example of what happens when women leave.

Simply my opinion, what say you?

Jerry Sandusky, an alleged child molester, now gets visitation with children, his 11 grandkids, ages 2 to 11, with parental supervision at his home.

Really, isn’t that like giving crack to a crack addict?

Isn’t his home where he allegedly molested some of the victims? Wasn’t there a bedroom in the basement that Sandusky’s wife didn’t even know about where some of the alleged victims were molested?

Isn’t it odd that a judge would allow him access to children when he is facing allegations of child molest? As a former prosecutor of child molest,  the fact that he is asking for visits with children says something. Wouldn’t it be safer to keep the restrictions in place limiting access to children by phone call or letter? Even defendants facing alcohol or drug charges are restricted from access to drugs or alcohol, but, when the crime involves children it’s different. Why?

To convince the judge to lift the restriction, Sandusky submitted letters and drawings from his grandkids. Are the letters and drawings evidence of a healthy relationship? Or, could they be in response to the controlling and manipulative requests of a pedophile? After all, if the allegations are true, Sandusky knows how to get what he wants from children.

Think about it. Sandusky created a charity, Second Mile, which gave him unlimited access to children and his employment in the Penn State football program and games would bait any child. And, he lives next to an elementary school. Coincidence?

Pedophiles are age-specific, could his own grandkids be at risk as they are around the ages of his alleged victims?

Will the parental supervision condition ensure the safety of the grandkids? If the charges are true and Sandusky has been molesting kids for over 15 years, did his own children miss the signs or were they victimized, too? Would they even notice or recognize inappropriate behavior?

After all, it is not uncommon for victims of child molest to block out or not recognize their trauma for various reasons. And, it is also not uncommon for some victims to become pedophiles, marry a pedophile or to give a pedophile access to their own children. It’s an insidious cycle.

Surely, the judge could have denied access to grandkids. Shouldn’t we err on the side of keeping our children safe?

Simply my opinion, what say you?

Yet, the defense has claimed no murder has occurred as Love’s death “was not intended, but an accident with a tragic outcome”.

What? An accident? He got drunk, kicked down her door and attacked her as she slept, just before 2:15 am on May 3, 2010.

Also, the defense has claimed that Love’s death was due to her “irregular heartbeat” caused by her taking prescription drugs and alcohol.

What? Here we go again, blame the victim.

What next? She provoked him because she dumped him? She invited him over? She led him on? He was just trying to get her attention by shaking her? Utter nonsense.

As a former domestic violence prosecutor, I’ve heard many excuses, but, there is never an excuse for violence in a relationship.If the defendant had been a stranger rather than Love’s ex-boyfriend, would we even be asking these questions? But, for some reason, when it comes to domestic violence relationships, the victim is on trial and, in this case, for her alleged drinking, taking medications and an irregular heartbeat.

But, the prosecution calls it first degree murder. Drunken rage, locked door, ex-boyfriend, broken off relationship, threatening emails and texts to Love, and allegedly, 2 prior domestic violence assaults on Love. One, broken up by Chapel Hill lacrosse players and the other, when the defendant hit Love while drunk, the incident which reportedly ended their relationship. Her death was no accident, the prosecution will claim.

Consider Love’s injuries: blunt force trauma to the head, large contusion to the right side of her face, right eye swollen shut, facial bruising, abrasion to her chin and face and, the large pool of blood she was found in. Signs of an irregular heart beat? Or, even, injuries caused by just hitting her head against the wall?

An accident, really, is that the defense? What about the felony-murder rule? If a death occurs in the commission of a felony (unlawful entry into a residence, for instance), than the defendant can be found guilty of murder (life in prison). No intent to kill (malice) is required.

But maybe, a jury that will be swayed by his mental state (“drunken rage” and rejected), possibly suggesting a lesser charge of a “heat of passion” manslaughter (10 years prison)? Or, will that divide a jury between murder and manslaughter or even not guilty? Yet, if drunk drivers are convicted everyday of murder when they drink and kill, is there a different standard when you’re in an intimate relationship?

Domestic violence is not just a crime that occurs in troubled marriages, or even in relationships occurring after college nor is it limited to certain races, genders, ages, or even economic levels. Whether the crime is called “dating violence” or “intimate partner violence”, it is still domestic violence, a potentially deadly crime. According to the US Department of Justice,  “every day in the U.S., three women are murdered by their intimate partners. Eighty-five percent of intimate partner violence (IPV) is perpetrated against women — overwhelmingly against women who are between the ages of 20 and 24″, the ages of many women in college. (aolnews.com, 5/10/2010)

Yet, domestic violence is a reality and denial of domestic violence is also a reality on many college campuses and among college students, administrators, and apparently, even, the UVA police chief, too. In the days after Love’s killing, the police chief demonstrated a lack of understanding of domestic violence when he reportedly released a letter advising students to “lock their doors” and to “walk home with a friend”. What? Love wasn’t killed by a stranger. Domestic violence isn’t a crime perpetrated by a stranger. How would these warnings have helped Love or help anyone subjected to violence in their relationship?

Maybe, there were warning signs? The defendant reportedly has a 2007 alcohol possession charge and a 2009 public drunkenness with resisting arrest requiring a taser to subdue him. He received a 60 day suspended sentence and was placed on six months probation? Yet, the defendant failed to disclose either incident to UVA.

Domestic violence isn’t about love, it’s about power and control. And, hopefully, Ms. Love’s death is a wake up call for all universities to step up and ensure that campuses and students are safe and that domestic violence is not allowed and will not be tolerated.

Simply my opinion, what say you?

It’s Day 3 of jury deliberation in the Jennifer Trayers trial in San Diego. Is today the day the jury decides? Or, maybe, it’s early for a verdict? Or, maybe, the jury is stuck on a verdict?

This is no easy case for any jury. And, deciding between murder and manslaughter is no easy task for any jury especially when a wife is accused of stabbing her Navy doctor husband to death after learning of an affair.

Typically, the decision turns on whether the jury finds the defendant acted with “malice forethought.” Did she have the “intent to kill” her husband? Was the killing a “planned attack” according to the prosecution to justify a verdict of murder? Or, was it a “heat of passion” jealous rage-induced killing after learning of an affair to justify a verdict of manslaughter?

The defendant faces life in prison if convicted of murder and up to 11 years if convicted of manslaughter.

Or, will the jury find her not guilty (acquittal) or will the jury be divided (hung jury)?

It’s up to the jury to decide what happened based on the testimony and evidence presented. Yet, to convict on any charge, all 12 will have to vote guilty. Anything less is a hung jury and a retrial is possible. Remember Betty Broderick, another San Diego case, the jury was hung in the first trial before she was convicted of murder in the second trial for the shooting death of her husband and his new wife while they slept.

And even today, another jury will be impaneled to face the same decision, murder or manslaughter in the killing of University of Virginia Lacrosse student Yeardley Love by her ex-boyfriend, Lacrosse player George Huguely after he allegedly broke into her apartment during a drunken rage and repeatedly banged her head against the wall resulting in her death.

Another terrible tragedy.

Simply my opinion, what say you?

In San Diego, a Navy doctor’s wife of 19 years, Jennifer Trayers, is accused of stabbing her Navy doctor husband to death. After weeks of testimony, the jury is out deliberating. Was the killing murder or manslaughter? Planned attack or rage killing after learning of an affair? The evidence seems to point to murder rather than manslaughter.

Tough case for manslaughter. Husband was stabbed while sleeping after taking sleeping medication. Evidence of  lying in wait? 8 stab wounds in the back and 2 in the chest. No self-defense? Wife learned of affair several months earlier before the stabbing occurred which may defeat any claim of rage-induced manslaughter at time of stabbing. Husband had previous affairs according to the defendant.

However, maybe, not murder. The medical expert testified 6 stab wounds occurred after his death suggests she possibly “lost it” and was acting in uncontrollable rage. Or, maybe, the jury will find other reasons to support a manslaughter verdict. The defendant did testify she had no intent to kill her husband and that may sway one or more jurors.

Clearly, there is evidence of the defendant’s controlling and manipulative behavior. Months prior, the defendant installed spyware to intercept emails between her husband and his mistress, and, discovered they were planning on getting married and having children. The defendant testified repeatedly that she felt ignored by her husband and claims she meant to kill herself not her husband.

Yet, after the killing, she sent an 8 page email to his mistress, stating “My husband is NOT going to be yours…I was the last person he was with” which suggests another, “if you leave me, I will kill you”, violent killing, a terrible tragedy.

Does jealousy ever justify killing another?

Simply my opinion, what say you?

Next Monday, at the school districts board meeting, the Board will consider whether or not to pay the $1.3 million dollar request for legal fees by  several current board members and a past board member for the school district. Basically, the board members are asking the board to pick up the tab for their legal defense in a public corruption case.

The board members are accused by the local district attorney of awarding a $644 million dollar construction contract to a construction company after the board members allegedly received numerous free items including dinners, football and threatre tickets, trips, donations to a child’s scholarship and campaign contributions. Turns out, the DA claims, that the board members failed to report the gifts, which amount to perjury and filing false documents, felonies each carrying a 16 months to 3 years prison terms. And, the DA claims, the board members also used their office for financial gain, “wrongful influence”, a misdemeanor (shouldn’t that be a felony?) carrying a 6 month maximum sentence.

Does the board have to pick up the tab? No. It’s at the Board discretion to deny, approve, pay some, or pay and then deny future requests.

But, if they do agree to pay, the board is required to make the specific findings listed below as cited in California Government Code section 995.8:

A public entity is not required to provide for the defense of a criminal action or proceeding (including a proceeding to remove an officer under Sections 3060 to 3073, inclusive, of the Government Code) brought against an employee or former employee, but a public entity may provide for the defense of a criminal action or proceeding (including a proceeding to remove an officer under Sections 3060 to 3073, inclusive, of the Government Code) brought against an employee or former employee if:

(a)     The criminal action or proceeding is brought on account of an act or omission in the scope of his employment as an employee of the public entity; and

(b)      The public entity determines that such defense would be in the best interests of the public entity and that the employee or former employee acted, or failed to act, in good faith, without actual malice and in the apparent interests of the public entity.

Aside from the potential conflict of the three current board members possibly voting to approve their own request for legal fees, the board also has to consider whats in the “best interest” of the district. So, I expect the board will get an ear full when the public shows up at the 630pm Monday night board meeting.  It is the people’s business after all how their dollars are spent.

Who knows, maybe, “pay for play” is within the board members scope of employment. Clearly, the DA doesn’t think so.

Simply my opinion, what say you?

An ex-wife, Crystal Harris, was ordered last November by Judge Gregory Pollack, a San Diego County Family Court Judge, to pay alimony to her abusive ex-husband who was convicted of sexually assaulting her (forcible oral copulation). Her ex-husband was sentenced to 6 years in prison. According to an alimony order by the judge, Ms. Harris had to pay her ex-husband alimony in the amount of $4000 a month than reduced to $1000 a month for approximately four months while he was awaiting sentencing on the conviction.

What?

As a former prosecutor of domestic violence and a civil law attorney, I have never heard of a judge awarding alimony to an abusive ex-husband anywhere in the country. Doesn’t the order further traumatize and victimize the victim? Offend common decency? Amount to a judicial abuse of discretion? What an “outrage”, replied a New York judge. Aren’t judges supposed to stop the violence, not continue it? San Diego is surely setting a precedent, an embarrassing one. And, now, we need a new law to tell a judge not to issue an alimony order in cases where a spouse has been convicted of a violent sex crime. (AB 1522)  Really, we have to spend taxpayer money and legislators time to tell a judge not to do this? Wow.

Does the judge have an utter lack of understanding or care for the emotional distress and trauma victims of sexually violent crimes endure? And, the judge didn’t terminate alimony in the future. Imagine knowing that some day down the road, say 6 years, you may have to face your abuser again upon his request for alimony. How does that not re-trigger the trauma or cause a victim to re-live the violence, each and every month she writes a check. Wow, that’s justice. Who is the victim here? And, this is at the hands of a judge not the abusive ex-husband.

Furthermore, the judge also bussed-in the convicted ex-husband to be physically present at every court hearing, which is not done by any other family court judge in San Diego County. How does that not traumatize the victim, not to mention the extraordinary expense to taxpayers? Does the judge just not get it or doesn’t care, either way, should he be serving as a judge, especially as a family court judge?

Did the judge even listen to the tape recording the jury heard of the horrific and violent attack?

The judge defends his order as lawful as there is no law prohibiting alimony for sex crimes, only a prohibition for attempted or solicitation of murder. Really, we had to legislate that, too?

However, a history of domestic violence and a criminal conviction of an abusive spouse (which occurred in this case) are factors a judge “shall” (not “may”) consider in awarding or eliminating alimony. (California Family Code Section 4320 et seq.) And, more importantly, there is no law that makes alimony mandatory, it is awarded at the judges discretion applying the factors above and other financial need factors with fairness and equity considerations. Therefore, the judge doesn’t need a law to support his decision not to award alimony. Yet, he hangs his hat on the lack of law to award it.

Why?

The ex-husband’s need for financial support. Really, how does the $1000 a month alimony meet the financial needs of the ex-husband or even meet the standard of living test? So if the award doesn’t meet the financial need, than why the order? And for that matter, why the additional order requiring immediate reunification with the 2 children upon his prison release? What no evaluation or counseling first? The ex-husband is a convicted sex offender who violently assaulted their mother while they were home and their mother fears for her safety to this day. Some discretion.

What about the intent of the law to protect victims from further trauma? If the law allows judges to deny alimony in cases of a domestic violence conviction (say a punch to the head, for instance) because it further traumatizes the victim, than why would awarding alimony in a far more egregious case, like a conviction for a violent sex crime, be permissible and not violate the intent of the law. Maybe, the judge simply got confused.

We hold judges to a higher standard, one of integrity, impartiality, fairness, equity and common sense.  Yet, this alimony order simply offends the intent of the law to protect victims from further abuse, and offends human dignity and common decency. We look to judges to stop the violence not hand out orders that continue to harm the victim.

The judge’s order is appalling, offensive and wrong, morally and otherwise.

Simply my opinion, what say you?

What? That’s exactly what the San Diego City Council may just do. No consequences. No investigation. No accountability. Just ratify the unlawful agreement. Dangerous precedent, especially with the San Diego’s recent change to a strong mayor form of government.

Last December, the San Diego Mayor’s designee (Stadium Manager) apparently signed an agreement with Qualcomm, a prominent corporation in San Diego and holder of the naming rights to the City’s Stadium, to allow Qualcomm to temporarily change the name of the stadium from “Qualcomm Stadium” to “Snapdragon Stadium” during 3 nationally televised football games (NFL’s Charger v. Ravens and ESPN’s Holiday and Poinsettia Bowls), thus, exposing their new Snapdragon product to an audience of over 30 Million viewers. And, San Diego received $1000 as compensation for allowing the name change.

Not only did the City Attorney’s Office advise against the name change, before the agreement was signed, as it violated the original 1997 naming rights agreement that only allowed the name “Qualcomm Stadium” but that any name change required City Council’s prior written approval and additional compensation to the City. (http://docs.sandiego.gov/memooflaw/MS-2011-18.pdf)

No City Council approval was sought. The agreement was signed none the less by representatives from the City (Mayor’s Office) and Qualcomm without printed names or titles and signed days after the signage change. And, the agreement was signed without the City Attorneys signature which is required on all city contracts. (San Diego Charter Section 40)

According to the San Diego City Attorney January 17th memo, in pertinent part,

“The Agreement required the approval of the City Council as a matter of contract, and the approval of the City Attorney as a matter of law. While a failure to obtain the approval of the City Council is a breach of the terms of the contract, the failure to obtain the approval of the City Attorney renders the contract void and unenforcebale against the City….”

“The City is not bound by an officer’s act in excess of his authority”….

“The Agreement at issue here was not prepared, reviewed, approved or signed by the City Attorney or his designee”…

“The Agreement is void for lack of proper authority. The City Council may choose to adopt a resolution authorizing and thereby ratifying the Agreement, after which the City Attorney will approve the Agreement, making it a valid and binding Agreement that temporarily changed the name of Qualcomm Stadium to Snapdragon Stadium. Alternatively, the City Council may choose to not ratify the Agreement. This would mean that the purported name change and installation of signs was unauthorized and in violation of the Naming Rights Agreement between the parties, the City’s Charter, and Resolution R-288449 of the City Council.” (http://docs.sandiego.gov/memooflaw/MS-2012-1.pdf)

Ouch.

While I appreciate the City Attorney trying to clean up the mess by obtaining a proper contract with the requisite approval from the City Council, does City Council and the citizens of San Diego just look the other way when a public official ignores the City Attorney’s advice, acts without authority, misuses their office and when a party violates a city contract? Not to mention, a possible violation of the City’s sign ordinance and  failure to obtain just compensation for use of city property.

Ratifying by resolution is a dangerous precedent, indeed.

Investigation anyone? Accountability anyone?

Simply my opinion, what say you?

Should the child be charged as an adult or a juvenile?

Does the child have the capacity to form the intent to kill? to form the premeditation required for murder? Big questions, serious questions. And, questions now facing San Diego County California.

Just this past weekend, a 10-year-old boy in Lakeside, California was arrested for allegedly stabbing, repeatedly, another child, a 12-year-old boy. The 12-year-old boy is dead. Apparently, the 10-year-old boy had anger issues, verbal but not physical, according to a neighbor. The boy’s biological mother was a drug addict and the boy was living with his adoptive family. Some, even believe, that the boy may have a chemical imbalance possibly due to his mothers’ drug use during pregnancy.

If the boy is charged with a crime in California, it would be as a juvenile not an adult. And, since the boy is under the age of 13, California requires a hearing to determine his competency before any trial.

Certainly, if the child has a mental illness, the requisite intent to kill for conviction may not be present. And, further, he may not be competent to stand trial, assist in his defense or understand the charges against him. And, if so, a prosecution for the killing or murder is unlikely. Rather, placement in a psychiatric juvenile facility may be a more likely outcome.

Yet, how do we get to a society where a 10-year-old boy fatally stabs another boy? Were there warning signs? Could the killing have been prevented? Was it the uncontrolled rage and/or the negative developmental effects of in utero drug use that caused the act? Or, was it the exposure to video games many feel create violence in children? Or, was the boy born with a lack of empathy? Stabbing another is a very physical, personal and brutal act.

There are many reasons and causes for why children kill, and, the criminal justice system isn’t always the answer. It’s a horrible tragedy when a child kills. Somehow, as a society, maybe, we have failed these children and the families who are devastated.

Simply my opinion, what say you?