This is with reference to the TELEVISED PROGRAM of SAMAA TV shown on TUESDAY JUNE 08, 2010 and conducted by MS. MEHER BOKHARI that described the unfortunate incident of ELECTROCUTION that happened to the lovely girl SARAH at PEARL CONTINENTAL HOTEL (P.C) LAHORE almost Eleven Days ago after which she is CURRENTLY under COMA at NATIONAL HOSPITAL DEFENCE LAHORE.

SAMAA T.V & MS. MEHER BOKHARI ARE HIGHLY APPRECIATED FOR SUCH COMMENDABLE EFFORTS TO BRING SUCH CASES TO PUBLIC AWARENESS.

First of all, it is hard to imagine a person not sobbing after knowing about this incident. WITHOUT ANY DOUBT, ALL OUR PRAYERS ARE WITH SARA THAT MAY ALLAH RESTORE HER LIFE WITH COMPLETE HEALTH & HAPPINESS FOR HERSELF & HER FAMILY. AMEN!

CONSIDERING EVEN FOR A SECOND THAT ANY OF SUCH AN INCIDENT CAN HAPPEN TO ANYBODY ANYWHERE & ANYTIME AND SO IN THAT CASE WHAT WOULD BE THE REACTION OF THE AFFECTED PERSONS!. UNDOUBEDTLY, TO SAVE ONE’S LIFE AND ALSO TO PUNISH THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT NEGLIGENCE.

NOW ALL THOSE WHO HAVE SEEN THIS PROGRAM AND ESPECIALLY WHO HAVE BEEN THE WITNESS TO THIS INCIDENT AT THE HOTEL AT THAT TIME, CONSIDER THEMSELVES & THEIR FAMILIES REPLACED WITH THE EXISTING AFFECTED VICTIM & HER FAMILY & THINK THAT THIS COULD HAVE HAPPENED TO THEM ANYWHERE & ANYTIME OR ATLEAST COULD HAPPEN IN FUTURE.

MOREOVER, IT IS THE HUMANITY & SENSE OF FEELING THAT STILL LIES IN THEM THAT STRONGLY DEMANDS THEM TO COME FORWARD AND BE THE WITNESS TO THE INCIDENT TO BRING JUSTICE TO THE AFFECTED, OR THE SAME INJUSTICE COULD HAPPEN TO THEM IN FUTURE, AS “WHAT YOU SOW, SO SHALL YOU REAP”. NOT SUPPORTING TRUTH & JUSTICE IS TO SUPPORT THE CRIME COMMITTED AND SO BE THE PART OF THAT CRIME.

IT IS THE MOST SINCERE REQUEST TO ALL THOSE WITNESSES TO COME FORWARD AND CONTACT THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM AT THE HOSPITAL TO PROVIDE JUSTICE TO THE AFFECTED, THEMSELVES & THE REST OF THE SOCIETY OF THIS COUNTRY.

ALSO IT IS REQUESTED TO ALL THE RELEVANT SPECIALIST DOCTORS WHO COME TO KNOW OF THIS INCIDENT TO IMMEDIATELY CONTACT THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM TO GIVE THE LOVELY GIRL HER HAPPY LIFE BACK. ALL OF THE PEOPLE KNOWING SUCH COMPETENT DOCTORS WHO COULD HELP THIS CHILD ARE REQUESTED TO CONTACT SUCH DOCTORS FOR HER IMMEDIATE HELP.

THE FAMILY OF THE VICTIM OR THEIR RELATIVES ARE REQUESTED TO APPEAL TO SUCH DOCTORS & WITNESSES THROUGH PRINT & ELECTRONIC MEDIA & ALL OTHERS ARE ALSO REQUESTED TO HELP THE FAMILY BY ALL MEANS NECESSARY THROUGH PRAYERS, SOURCES & RESOURCES, ETC.

SAMAA TV IS REQUESTED TO HAVE SMS & EMAIL SERVICES DURING & AFTER LIVE PROGRAM FOR INPUT OF VIEWERS AS TELEPHONE LINES WERE & ARE USUALLY HARD TO CONNECT.

REMAINING IN ALL SINCERE PRAYERS FOR SARAH’S LIFE & HEALTH.

MOST SINCERELY,
SAJJAD HUSAIN (saj_husn@yahoo.com).

Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi
Advocate High Court & Fsc of pak

Office no,42 Tanoli Plaza Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan

Tel.03009113675
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com

Blue-collar crime

The opportunity to commit crime
Every potential criminal is limited in the opportunity to commit crime by the “situation” in which he or she occupies in society. If the individual is employed in a low or unskilled job and lives in an inner-city environment, stealing inventory from the workplace may not produce value and not many neighbours may have valuable property to steal. This has significance both for the type of crimes likely to be committed and for law enforcement. Because there are fewer opportunities to use skill, more blue-collar crime may involve the use of force and, because more people are injured, there is a greater chance that the victim will report the crime (contrast white-collar crime where it shades into corporate crime and there is less chance that any crime will be reported).

Situational analysis
Situational crime prevention, as proposed by Clarke (1995, 1997), focuses on reducing crime opportunities rather than on the characteristics of criminals or potential criminals. The strategy is to increase the associated risks and difficulties, and reduce the rewards. It asserts that crime is often committed through the accident of a practical or attractive opportunity, e.g. that a car is found unlocked or a window left open (see also Fixing Broken Windows). Patterns in criminal activity are not simply based on where criminals live, but also reflect a concentration of opportunities for crime constituting “hot spots”. For example, theft may concentrate on particular “hot products” and some repeat victims are more likely to experience crime than other people. Shoplifting and mugging may be endemic to identifiable locations. Hence, by using statistical crime mapping data, enforcement resources can target areas, and education can reduce the number of opportunities. This approach is characteristic of Right Realism and matches the analytical approach of Environmental criminology which, inter alia, proposes crime prevention through environmental design.

Policing strategies
The statistical data is likely to show that there is more crime in high-density, inner-city areas and such data is used to justify targeting such areas with more police officers. More recently, zero tolerance policies have been adopted which are not uniformly successful and usually simply displace crime into less intensively policed areas. But, most of the areas targeted will be “blue-collar” areas and, with higher arrest rates, the “hot spot” label becomes a self-fulfilling prophesy. An additional factor is identified by Kicenski (2002) who argues that, because states privatise the prison system, corporate profitability depends on building more prison facilities, managing their operations, and selling inmate labour. Hence, large corporations have a direct interest in ensuring a steady supply of inmates with useful skills (see Dyer: 2000 who demonstrates that while the statistics for violent crime have remained steady, the prison population has grown significantly as the “prison-industrial complex” preys on largely minority and underclass segments of society). Michel Foucault (1977) argued that the “failure” of the prison institution to deter criminals or to prevent recidivism is not a failure at all, but serves the interests of society in the same way that the Poor Laws benefited English society through the operation of workhouses.

Crime and unemployment

The International Conference of Labour Statisticians (ILO) defines the unemployed as persons above a specified age who, during the reference period, were without work, were currently available for work, and were seeking work. The process of industrialisation encouraged working-class incorporation into society with greater social mobility being achieved during the twentieth century. But the routine of policing tends to focus on the public places where the economically marginal live out more of their lives, so regulation falls on those who are not integrated into the mainstream institutions of economic and political life. A perennial source of conflict has therefore involved working-class youth but, as long-term structural unemployment emerged, an underclass was created. Ralf Dahrendorf argues that the majority class did not need the unemployed to maintain and even increase its standard of living, and so the condition of the underclass became hopeless. Box (1987) sums up the research into crime and unemployment at pp96–7:

The relationship between overall unemployment and crime is inconsistent. On balance the weight of existing research supports there being a weak but none-the-less significant causal relationship. However, properly targeted research on young males, particularly those from disadvantaged ethnic groups, which considers both the meaning and duration of unemployment, has yet to be done. The significance of unemployment will vary depending on its duration, social assessments of blame, previous experience of steady employment, perception of future prospects, comparison with other groups, etc. Hence, there is likely to be a causal relationship between relative deprivation and crime, particularly where unemployment is perceived as unjust and hopeless by comparison with the lot of other groups. Thornberry and Christenson (1984) analysed data from a longitudinal cohort study of delinquency in Philadelphia and found (at p405):
Unemployment exerts a rather immediate effect on criminal involvement, while criminal involvement exerts a more long-range effect on unemployment. What this and other empirical research demonstrates is that crime-rates, especially for property offences, were higher during periods of unemployment than of employment. This suggests that holding constant other variables, the same youths commit more crimes while unemployed. This is not surprising since unemployment provides an incentive to commit offences and erodes the social controls which would otherwise encourage conformity. But crime also rose during the so-called period of affluence, prompting the Right Realism of James Q. Wilson and his associates in the United States who argued that the criminal justice system was failing, and the Left Realism attributed to Jock Young, which argued for situational changes to reduce the availability of criminal opportunities in the environment. More generally, the growth of anomie (see Durkheim and, more recently, the Strain Theory proposed by Merton), predicted a strong correlation between unemployment and property crime. But Cantor and Land (1985) found a negative association for unemployment and property crime in the United States. They argued that unemployment decreases the opportunity for property crime since it reflects a general slowdown in production and consumption activities and it increases the ability to guard property due to a greater concentration of time at home.
Conservatism alleges the failure of state agencies charged with the task of socialisation to instil self-discipline and moral values resulting in permissiveness, a lack of conformity, and liberalisation. The “evidence” that there are new affluent criminals allows populist politicians to deny any link between inner-city deprivation and crime. The Left avoids the issue of morality and crime which denies earlier work in Marxist criminology linking crime and the culture of egoism stimulated by economic advance under capitalism as a more amorally materialistic culture emerges. As Durkheim asserted, moral education cannot be effective in an economically unjust society. Thus, additional research is required, using a more complex model of crime and control to include variables such as opportunities or incentives relative to a country’s standard of living, potential punishment, chance of being caught, law enforcement efforts and expenditures on theft and property crime relative to other crimes, size of the country’s criminal population, education levels, and other socio-economic factors. A further factor currently being researched is the role of the media in the social construction of “hot spots” or dangerous places within a city. Crime is a substantial element in media news reporting. Media research is now determining whether the coverage.

Genetic and Environmental Influences on Criminal Behavior
By;-

Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi
Advocate High Court & Fsc of pak

Office no,42 Tanoli Plaza Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan

Tel.03009113675
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com

Criminal behavior has always been a focus for psychologists due to the age old debate between nature and nurture. Is it the responsibility of an individual’s genetic makeup that makes them a criminal or is it the environment in which they are raised that determines their outcome? Research has been conducted regarding this debate which has resulted in a conclusion that both genes and environment do play a role in the criminality of an individual. This evidence has been generated from a number of twin, family, and adoption studies as well as laboratory experiments. Furthermore, the research has stated that it is more often an interaction between genes and the environment that predicts criminal behavior. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior does not determine the actions of an individual, but if they are exposed to the right environment, then their chances are greater for engaging in criminal or anti-social behavior. Therefore, this paper will examine the different functions that genetics and the environment play in the criminal behavior of individuals.

There is a vast amount of evidence that shows our criminal justice system is the new home for individuals with psychological problems. Although this may seem like a solution to some, it is creating a dilemma for our society. Once we label these individuals as criminals it creates a stigma for those who may suffer from psychological problems. Certain psychological problems have been shown to be heritable and if given the right circumstances, individuals with those genes could find themselves engaging in criminal activity. Therefore, should society look towards limiting the reproductive capabilities of individuals who suffer from certain psychological problems to better society?
That same question was asked back in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries when the role of genetics in crime was widely accepted (Joseph, 2001). Prominent researchers believed that genes were fully responsible for criminal activity and that criminals could be identified by their physiological features. Along with this information and the idea of a eugenics movement during the same time period, it was not surprising to learn that acts of sterilization took place to rid society of “criminals, idiots, imbeciles, and rapists” (Joseph, 2001, p. 182). This period was therefore marked with inhumane treatment and the belief that genes were the sole reason behind criminal behavior.

Not long after the practices of controlled breeding, there was evidence to support the idea that the environment also played an important role in crime. Early family studies were conducted that showed a predisposition for criminal behavior as a result of inherited characteristics, but that an individual’s characteristics and personality could still be modified by the environment (Joseph, 2001). Although these studies were void of high validity and reliability, it still raised the question of whether the environment can also influence individuals to act in a criminal manner. The debate between genetics and environment continues today with much more reliable research and data. Consequently, this paper will examine the various roles in which both genes and environmental factors influence criminal behavior.

Definition and Measurement of Criminal Behavior
To fully understand the nature of how genes and the environment influence criminal behavior, one must first know how criminal behavior is defined. Law in our society is defined by social and legal institutions, not in biology (Morley & Hall, 2003). Therefore determining what constitutes criminal behavior can envelope a wide variety of activities and for that reason, researchers tend to focus on the wider context of antisocial behavior. Authors Morley and Hall (2003), who have investigated the genetic influences on criminal behavior, point out three different ways to define antisocial behavior. First is equating it with criminality and delinquency, which both involve engaging in criminal acts. Criminality can lead to arrest, conviction, or incarceration for adults, while delinquency is related to juveniles committing unlawful acts (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). Information can be collected using court and criminal records, as well as self report surveys to analyze the influences that were present. Secondly, they advise individuals to define antisocial behavior is through criteria used to diagnose certain personality disorders. More specifically, they mean those personality disorders, such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, which is associated with an increased risk in criminal activity. A final measure suggested for defining antisocial behavior is by examining personality traits that may be influential in the criminal behavior of individuals. Traits such as aggressiveness and impulsivity are two traits that have been investigated the most (Morley & Hall, 2003). Further details of disorders and personality traits associated with criminal behavior will be discussed later in the paper.
With regards to determining the effects the environment plays in criminal behavior there are fewer resources available. Observational studies and reports submitted by parents are two sources, but not everyone agrees on the validity of information collected from these sources. Three additional sources that most researchers cite when gathering information about both genetic and environmental influences are twin, family, and adoption studies (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000).

Twin, Adoption, and Family Studies
There has been great debate between researchers regarding the outcomes of twin, adoption, and family studies. Some claim that these studies support the notion of a genetic basis to criminal behavior (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). On the other hand, some have concluded that there is not enough evidence from these twin, family, and adoption studies to profess that genetics do play a role in antisocial or criminal behavior (Lowenstein, 2003). To understand why there are such conflicting opinions, one must first look at the available studies that have been conducted.
Twin studies are conducted on the basis of comparing monozygotic (MZ) or identical twins and their rates of criminal behavior with the rates of criminal behavior of dizygotic (DZ) or fraternal twins. Ordinarily these studies are used to assess the roles of genetic and environmental influences. If the outcomes of these twin studies show that there is a higher concordance rate for MZ twins than for DZ twins in criminal behavior, then it can be assumed that there is a genetic influence (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). A study conducted looked at thirty two MZ twins reared apart, who had been adopted by a non-relative a short time after birth. The results showed that for both childhood and adult antisocial behavior, there was a high degree of heritability involved (Joseph, 2001). This study was of particular importance because it examined the factor of separate environments. Another researcher studied eighty-five MZ and one hundred and forty-seven DZ pairs and found that there was a higher concordance rate for the MZ pairs. Ten years later after checking police records of these same twins, two other researchers concluded that there was a fifty-four percent heritability of liability to crime (Joseph, 2001). Around the same time of the study just mentioned, two researchers studied forty-nine MZ and eighty-nine DZ pairs, but found no difference in the concordance rates. They concluded therefore that in respect to common crime, hereditary factors are of little significance (Joseph, 2001). Many other twin studies have been conducted, but there is concern over the validity of those studies and their ability to separate out the nature and nurture aspects; therefore other sources of information should be examined.

Adoption studies are critical in examining the relationship that exists between adopted children and both their biological and adoptive parents because they assume to separate nature and nurture. Studies have been conducted that test for the criminal behavior of the adopted-away children, if their biological parents had also been involved with criminal activity. In Iowa, the first adoption study was conducted that looked at the genetics of criminal behavior. The researchers found that as compared to the control group, the adopted individuals, which were born to incarcerated female offenders, had a higher rate of criminal convictions as adults. Therefore this evidence supports the existence of a heritable component to antisocial or criminal behavior (Tehrani & Mednick, 2000). Another study in Sweden also showed that if a biological background existed for criminality, then there was an increased risk of criminal behavior in the adopted children. In Denmark, one of the largest studies of adopted children was conducted and found similar results to the previous studies. The defining feature of the Denmark study was that the researchers found a biological component for criminal acts against property, but not for violent crimes (Joseph, 2001). Children whose biological fathers had been convicted of property crimes were more likely to engage in similar behavior, when compared to those biological fathers who had been convicted of violent crimes. According to an article by Jay Joseph (2001), who studied all of the minor and major adoption studies, the majority of researchers have found and agreed upon the non-significance of genes in violent crime. This reestablishes the findings from the studies mentioned already in that there may be a genetic component to antisocial behavior or that genes influence criminal behavior, but specifically for property offenses.

Family studies are the third type of instrument used to assess the relationship between genetics and environmental influences on criminal or antisocial behavior. Research in this field has probably been the least accepted by psychologists and other scholars because of the degree of difficulty in separating out nature and nurture in the family environment. Children experience both the influence of their parents’ genes and also the environment in which they are raised, so it is difficult to assign which behaviors were influenced by the two factors. Twin studies have this flaw, as stated earlier, but it is more prevalent in family studies. An additional concern with family studies is the inability to replicate the results, therefore leading to a small number of studies. Regardless of these drawbacks, one family study in particular should be acknowledged for its findings.

Brunner, Nelen, Breakefield, Ropers, and van Oost (1993) conducted a study utilizing a large Dutch family. In their study they found a point mutation in the structural gene for monoamine oxidase A (MAOA), a neurochemical in the brain, which they associated with aggressive criminal behavior among a number of males in that family (Alper, 1995). These males were reported to have selective MAOA deficiency, which can lead to decreased concentrations of 5-hydroxyindole-3-acetic acid (5-HIAA) in cerebrospinal fluid. Evidence suggests that low concentrations of 5-HIAA can be associated with impulsive aggression. These results have not been confirmed in any additional family studies, which lead to a need for more studies to determine if other families share similar results (Brunner et al., 1993). However, this one family study does seem to suggest that genetics play an important role in antisocial or criminal behavior.

Neurochemicals in Criminal and Anti-Social Behavior
Neurochemicals are responsible for the activation of behavioral patterns and tendencies in specific areas of the brain (Elliot, 2000). As seen in the Brunner et al. study, there have been attempts to determine the role of neurochemicals in influencing criminal or antisocial behavior. Included in the list of neurochemicals already cited by researchers are monoamine oxidase (MOA), epinephrine, norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine.
Monoamine oxidase (MAO) is an enzyme that has been shown to be related to antisocial behavior. Specifically, low MAO activity results in disinhibition which can lead to impulsivity and aggression (Elliot, 2000). The Brunner et al. study is the only one to report findings of a relationship between a point mutation in the structural gene for MAOA and aggression, which makes the findings rare. However, there has been other evidence that points to the conclusion that deficiencies in MAOA activity may be more common and as a result may predispose individuals to antisocial or aggressive behavior (Brunner et al., 1993). MAO is associated with many of the neurochemicals that already have a link to antisocial or criminal behavior. Norepinephrine, serotonin, and dopamine are metabolized by both MAOA and MAOB (Elliot, 2000). While, according to Eysenck (1996), MAO is related to norepinephrine, epinephrine, and dopamine, which are all related to the personality factor of psychosis.

Serotonin is a neurochemical that plays an important role in the personality traits of depression, anxiety, and bipolar disorder (Larsen & Buss, 2005). It is also involved with brain development and a disorder in this system could lead to an increase in aggressiveness and impulsivity (Morley & Hall, 2003). As Lowenstein (2003) states, “studies point to serotonin as one of the most important central neuro-transmitters underlying the modulation of impulsive aggression” (p.72). Low levels of serotonin have been found to be associated with impulsive behavior and emotional aggression. In addition, children who suffer from conduct disorder (which will be discussed later), have also been shown to have low blood serotonin (Elliot, 2000). Needless to say, there is a great deal of evidence that shows serotonin is related to aggression, which can be further associated with antisocial or criminal behavior.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter in the brain that is associated with pleasure and is also one of the neurotransmitters that is chiefly associated with aggression. Activation of both affective (emotionally driven) and predatory aggression is accomplished by dopamine (Elliot, 2000). Genes in the dopaminergic pathway have also been found to be involved with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) (Morley & Hall, 2003). In one study cited by Morley and Hall (2003), a relationship was found between the genes in the dopaminergic pathway, impulsivity, ADHD, and violent offenders. Obviously, from this list of neurochemicals it seems plausible that there is a genetic component to antisocial or criminal behavior.

Personality Disorders and Traits
Personality traits and disorders have recently become essential in the diagnosis of individuals with antisocial or criminal behavior. These traits and disorders do not first become evident when an individual is an adult, rather these can be seen in children. For that reason it seems logical to discuss those personality disorders that first appear in childhood. Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), Conduct Disorder (CD), and Oppositional Defiance Disorder (ODD) are three of the more prominent disorders that have been shown to have a relationship with later adult behavior (Holmes, Slaughter, & Kashani, 2001).
ODD is characterized by argumentativeness, noncompliance, and irritability, which can be found in early childhood (Holmes et al., 2001). When a child with ODD grows older, the characteristics of their behavior also change and more often for the worse. They start to lie and steal, engage in vandalism, substance abuse, and show aggression towards peers (Holmes et al., 2001). Frequently ODD is the first disorder that is identified in children and if sustained can lead to the diagnosis of CD (Morley & Hall, 2003). It is important to note however that not all children who are diagnosed with ODD will develop CD.

ADHD is associated with hyperactivity-impulsivity and the inability to keep attention focused on one thing (Morley & Hall, 2003). Holmes et al. (2001) state that, “impulse control dysfunction and the presence of hyperactivity and inattention are the most highly related predisposing factors for presentation of antisocial behavior” (p.184). They also point to the fact that children diagnosed with ADHD have the inability to analyze and anticipate consequences or learn from their past behavior. Children with this disorder are at risk of developing ODD and CD, unless the child is only diagnosed with Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD), in which case their chances of developing ODD or CD are limited. The future for some children is made worse when ADHD and CD are co-occurring because they will be more likely to continue their antisocial tendencies into adulthood (Holmes et al., 2001).

Conduct Disorder is characterized with an individual’s violation of societal rules and norms (Morley & Hall, 2003). As the tendencies or behaviors of those children who are diagnosed with ODD or ADHD worsen and become more prevalent, the next logical diagnosis is CD. What is even more significant is the fact that ODD, ADHD, and CD are risk factors for developing Antisocial Personality Disorder (ASPD). This disorder can only be diagnosed when an individual is over the age of eighteen and at which point an individual shows persistent disregard for the rights of others (Morley & Hall, 2003). ASPD has been shown to be associated with an increased risk of criminal activity. Therefore, it is of great importance that these early childhood disorders are correctly diagnosed and effectively treated to prevent future problems.

Another critical aspect that must be examined regarding antisocial or criminal behavior is the personality characteristics of individuals. Two of the most cited personality traits that can be shown to have an association with antisocial or criminal behavior are impulsivity and aggression (Morley & Hall, 2003). According to the article written by Holmes et al. (2001), antisocial behavior between the ages of nine and fifteen can be correlated strongly with impulsivity and that aggression in early childhood can predict antisocial acts and delinquency. One statistic shows that between seventy and ninety percent of violent offenders had been highly aggressive as young children (Holmes et al., 2001). These personality traits have, in some research, been shown to be heritable.

Environmental Influences
Thus far it has been established through research and various studies that genetics do influence criminal or antisocial behavior. Researchers agree on the point that genes influence personality traits and disorders, such as the ones just mentioned. However, researchers also agree that there is an environmental component that needs to be examined. Environmental influences such as family and peers will be discussed, as well as a look into the social learning theory.
The family environment is critical to the upbringing of a child and if problems exist then the child is most likely to suffer the consequences. We have seen the problems associated with a child who is diagnosed with ADHD and how that can influence antisocial or criminal behavior. In relation to that, some researchers have claimed that it is the family environment that influences the hyperactivity of children (Schmitz, 2003). The researchers in this article specifically identify family risk factors as poverty, education, parenting practices, and family structure. Prior research on the relationship between family environment and child behavior characterizes a child’s well being with a positive and caring parent-child relationship, a stimulating home environment, and consistent disciplinary techniques (Schmitz, 2003). Families with poor communication and weak family bonds have been shown to have a correlation with children’s development of aggressive/criminal behavior (Garnefski & Okma, 1996). Therefore it seems obvious to conclude that those families who are less financially sound, perhaps have more children, and who are unable to consistently punish their children will have a greater likelihood of promoting an environment that will influence antisocial or delinquent behavior. Another indicator of future antisocial or criminal behavior is that of abuse or neglect in childhood. A statistic shows that children are at a fifty percent greater risk of engaging in criminal acts, if they were neglected or abused (Holmes et al., 2001). This has been one of the most popular arguments as to why children develop antisocial or delinquent behaviors.

One additional research finding in the debate between genetic and environmental influences on antisocial or criminal behavior has to deal with the age of the individual. Research seems consistent in recognizing that heritability influences adult behavior more than environmental influences, but that for children and adolescents the environment is the most significant factor influencing their behavior (Rhee & Waldman, 2002). As an adult, we have the ability to choose the environment in which to live and this will either positively or negatively reinforce our personality traits, such as aggressiveness. However, children and adolescents are limited to the extent of choosing an environment, which accounts for the greater influence of environmental factors in childhood behaviors.

Another significant factor in the development of antisocial or delinquent behavior in adolescence is peer groups. Garnefski and Okma (1996) state that there is a correlation between the involvement in an antisocial or delinquent peer group and problem behavior. One of the primary causes as to why this occurs can be traced back to aggressive behavior in young children. When children are in preschool and show aggressive tendencies towards their peers, they will likely be deemed as an outcast. This creates poor peer relationships and relegates those children to be with others who share similar behaviors. A relationship like this would most likely continue into adolescence and maybe even further into adulthood. The similar tendencies of these individuals create an environment in which they influence one another and push the problem towards criminal or violent behavior (Holmes et al., 2001).

Social learning theory has been cited as way to explain how the environment can influence a child’s behavior. Using this theory to explain the aggressive or antisocial behavior of a child means that a child observes aggressive behavior between parents, siblings, or both. As a result, the children believes that this aggressive behavior is normal and can therefore use it themselves because they do not see the harm in acting similar to their parents (Miles & Carey, 1997). As stated earlier, interaction between family members and disciplinary techniques are influential in creating antisocial behavior. Using the social learning theory these two factors are also critical in the development of aggression. Children who are raised in an aggressive family environment would most likely be susceptible to experiencing a lack of parental monitoring, permissiveness or inconsistency in punishment, parental rejection and aggression. The exposure to such high levels of aggression and other environmental factors greatly influences and reinforces a child’s behavior. A significant point that should be known however is the fact that other research has supported the notion that genetics do influence levels of aggression, which stands in opposition to the social learning theory (Miles & Carey, 1997).

Gene-Environment Interactions
There are theories, however, concerning genetic and environmental influences, which seem to suggest an interaction between the two and one such theory is the general arousal theory of criminality. Personality psychologist Eysenck created a model based on three factors known as psychoticism, extraversion, and neuroticism, or what is referred to as the PEN model (Eysenck, 1996). Psychoticism was associated with the traits of aggressive, impersonal, impulsive, cold, antisocial, and un-empathetic. Extraversion was correlated with the traits of sociable, lively, active, sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant, and assertive. Finally, neuroticism was associated with anxious, depressed, low self-esteem, irrational, moody, emotional, and tense (Eysenck, 1996). Through research and surveys, Eysenck found that these three factors could be used as predictors of criminal behavior. He believed this to be especially true of the psychoticism factor and that measuring it could predict the difference between criminals and non-criminals. Extraversion was a better predictor for young individuals, while neuroticism was a better predictor for older individuals (Eysenck, 1996). An important point about these factors and the personality traits associated with them is that most of them have already been found to be heritable (Miles & Carey, 1997).
Understanding Eysenck’s original model is critical to assessing the general arousal theory of criminality, which suggests an interaction between factors. Research has shown that criminality is strongly correlated with low arousal levels in the brain. Characteristics related to low arousal levels include lack of interest, sleepiness, lack of attention, and loss of vigilance. Eysenck (1996) believed that these characteristics were similar to the personality factor of extraversion. Individuals with low arousal levels and those who are extraverts need to seek out stimulation because they do not have enough already in their brains. Therefore, the premise of the general arousal theory of criminality is that individuals inherit a nervous system that is unresponsive to low levels of stimulation and as a consequence, these individuals have to seek out the proper stimulation to increase their arousal. Under this theory, the proper stimulation includes high-risk activities associated with antisocial behavior, which consists of sexual promiscuity, substance abuse, and crime (Miles & Carey, 1997). A significant fact that must be pointed out though is that not every individual with low arousal levels or those who are extraverts will seek those high risk activities just mentioned. It takes the right environment and personality to create an individual with antisocial or criminal tendencies and that is why this theory can be considered to take into account both factors of genetic and environmental influences.

Conclusion
There cannot be enough possible evidence to conclude the point that genetics play the most important role in the outcome or behavior of an individual. The opposing viewpoint of environmental factors is not without its doubts either as to being the prominent factor influencing antisocial or criminal behavior of an individual. In this paper, there is more evidence supporting the genetics viewpoint, but that does not mean it is more important. With the research and studies having numerous flaws and the inability to adequately separate nature and nurture, there is still a great debate between genetic and environmental factors.
Researchers, however, have certainly come far in their progression, to the point where there is a large consensus of the fact that genes do influence behavior to a certain extent. Although not as widely publicized, it is the belief of the author that these same researchers also believe that environmental factors account for what cannot be explained by genes. Therefore it seems obvious to reach the conclusion that an individual’s antisocial or criminal behavior can be the result of both their genetic background and the environment in which they were raised.

One researcher has proposed a theory relating to sociopaths and their antisocial behavior. According to the theory, a primary sociopath is lacking in moral development and does not feel socially responsible for their actions. This type of sociopath is a product of the individual’s personality, physiotype, and genotype. A secondary sociopath develops in response to his or her environment because of the disadvantages of social competition. Living in an urban residence, having a low socioeconomic status, or poor social skills can lead an individual to being unsuccessful in reaching their needs in a socially desirable way, which can turn into antisocial or criminal behavior. The first type of sociopath is dependent on their genetic makeup and personality, while certain factors of the second type can also be heritable. Notwithstanding, the second type has a greater dependence on environmental factors (Miles & Carey, 1997). Perhaps from this review of both genetic and environmental factors, it seems clear to support the idea of the secondary sociopath type. An individual can inherit certain genes and when combined with the right environmental factors can lead them to engage in antisocial or criminal behavior.

Although not mentioned extensively in the text of the paper, there is a great need to try and identify those individuals, especially children, who may become susceptible to certain disorders or personality traits that can lead into antisocial, delinquent, or criminal behavior. Society should not try to imitate the era of controlled breeding, but rather focus on the treatment and rehabilitation of those individuals in need. Certain educational, environment enrichment programs have been shown to have a lasting effect on children if given by a certain age (Raine, Mellingen, Liu, Venables, & Mednick, 2003). If more of these programs could be developed, society could help prevent the future antisocial or criminal behavior of children.

Men Are Not the Only Criminals: Insights Into Criminal Behavior in Women
By;-

Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi
Advocate High Court & Fsc of pak

Office no,42 Tanoli Plaza Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan

Tel.03009113675
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com

Jones addressed how both genes and environment affect the outcomes and predispositions of criminals. This paper goes into great detail on whether criminal behavior is in a person’s genes or environment. Having a genetic predisposition for criminal behavior and the right environment can definitely increase the likelihood of criminal activity. Jones took criminal behavior further to describe actions relating to antisocial behavior. This identification of an antisocial personality with criminal behavior leads to the idea that criminal mischief is more prevalent in males. Although our justice system is heavily loaded with male criminals, women are still part of the criminal “world.”

It has been determined that men are much more physically violent than women. A few points are essential when discussing women and violence. First, women should not be entirely eliminated from the spectrum of criminality just because of their smaller predisposition toward aggression. Second, women are just as capable as men of committing a violent act. Jones discussed how certain neurochemicals are associated with criminal behavior. These neurochemicals might be more active in men, but women can still grow up in environments in which certain tendencies are brought on.

Family environment is crucial in the development of a child’s brain and personality. Genetics can only go so far, and environment works to shape a child’s mind after the child has left a mother’s womb. Jones discussed how poor communication and weak family bonds are correlated with the development of aggressive and criminal tendencies. She also mentioned how a financially unstable family and child abuse or neglect are associated with criminal behavior. Environment is important for a child to grow and develop into a normal, prospering adult. Without proper nurturance, guidance, and support, no child, male or female, will learn coping strategies, learn life skills, or grow up with a strong sense of right and wrong and respect other people. Whether one is male or female, growing up in an environment in which one is beaten or neglected is going to cause serious traumatic repercussions. The aggressive tendencies in males lead them to become more aggressive in adulthood, which in turn is why they are more apt to commit violent crimes. Yet women have been known to commit those same violent crimes, regardless of the prevalence relative to males–women are capable of criminal behavior. Men have committed more crimes and are known to be more violent, yet women should not be eliminated from the discussion. It has not been shown that genes or environment alone determine criminal behavior, as Jones mentioned in her paper, so there should be no reason why only men are mentioned, whether directly or by implication.

Criminal Behavior and Personality Disorders

Criminal Behavior and Personality Disorders
By;-

Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi
Advocate High Court & Fsc of pak

Office no,42 Tanoli Plaza Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan

Tel.03009113675
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com

In addition to the research showing that the gene responsible for production of monoamine oxidase has a possible link to criminality, some evidence has also shown a possible link between other genes. One area of personality research in molecular genetics that has received a lot of attention is the trait of novelty-seeking, and novelty seeking is a personality trait often associated with criminality. Research has indicated that the single DRD4 gene may account for 10% of the genetic variance in relation to novelty-seeking (Sloan, 2000). This conclusion is highly controversial because in subsequent studies there has been both replication of the original findings, and failure to replicate in other studies. It seems most molecular genetic approaches in relating heritability of personality characteristics such as criminality to a single gene frequently suffer from failures in replication.

The author also proposed that some studies have demonstrated a genetic link between ADHD, CD, and ODD and criminality. However, there are possible alternate explanations for a greater rate of criminality for those who have suffered from these disorders that the paper failed to mention. It has been shown that people evoke certain responses from their environment. It is plausible that children suffering from these disorders are treated in a different manner than normal children due to the responses that they evoke, and it is because of these environmental differences that they are more prone to criminal behavior. Say a child suffering from ADHD is having problems in school, they may be placed in a remedial class in which there is a greater rate of delinquency. This would be a very important environment difference that could contribute greatly to future criminality. Other children may also socialize less with children with these disorders, which could plausible lead to anti-social behavior.

While it is possible that in some cases the relationship between these disorders and criminality is not direct byproduct of genes, but rather as a byproduct of the same environment. There have been studies on ADHD in relation to a multitude of environmental factors, including everything from nutrition to environmental toxins. For example, a studies have been done that indicate an increased time spent viewing television in children was related to a decreased attention span and ADHD. There have also been studies showing a relationship between television viewing and desensitization to violence, which could influence criminal behavior. I am not proposing that it is watching TV that is the major factor in these disorders, or in criminality, I am just trying to illustrate that perhaps there is some environmental factor that could influence criminality as well as disorders such as ADHD.

In addition to ADHD, CD, and ODD, other disorders have shown to influence criminality as well. Studies have shown that there is a higher occurrence of disorders such as schizophrenia, major depressive disorder, bipolar disorder, just to name a few. It is possible that having these personality disorders gives one a greater predisposition toward criminal behavior. A Swedish study found that the occurrence of major mental disorders in prisoners to be 5%, as well as a 20% occurrence of personality disorders (Rasmussen, 1999). Other studies have given different values for the occurrence, but in most cases the research agrees that there is a much higher incidence of these mental disorders in those who commit crimes.

Genetics has shown to be a major factor in the occurrence of many of these disorders. There have been studies that examine the rate of personality disorders such a schizophrenia, psychosis, and manic?depressive illness in adopted children. We can hypothesize that if adopted children are more likely to suffer from such disorders if their biological parents are or were afflicted, it would be indicative of a genetic basis for the disorder. Research done by Leonard Heston in 1960 examined children of schizophrenic mothers that were removed after birth and raised by foster parents. Out of a total of 47 children examined, Heston found that nine of them were diagnosed with sociopathic personalities and antisocial behavior, and four of the 47 children developed schizophrenia. Heston also found behavioral abnormalities in many of the other children (Eysenk, 1982). This study shows a significant increase in the rate of personality disorders in the progeny of an affected parent, in comparison to population statistics on these mood disorders. In fact, when both parents are affected by a personality disorder the rate of occurrence in their offspring is even higher.

Not only do adoption studies support a genetic basis for personality disorders that are shown to have a relation to criminality, but twin studies as well. Statistics show a high concordance between identical and non-identical twins for schizophrenia and manic depression. Analysis of the statistics clearly show the genetic basis for these disorders: For schizophrenia the concordance in identical twins was 60%, compared to only 10% in non-identical twins, and the normal frequency being 1% in northern European populations. Similarly, manic depression showed a 70% concordance between identical twins, a 15% concordance between non-identical twins, and again only a 1% frequency in the normal population (Russo & Cove, 1995). This research supports the theory that genetics play a crucial role in these personality disorders.

Criminality Is a Product of Genes and Environment
By;-

Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi
Advocate High Court & Fsc of pak

Office no,42 Tanoli Plaza Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan

Tel.03009113675
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com

In considering the roles of genetics and environment on criminal behavior, or any behavior for that matter, I think the best explanation is that there is a complex interaction between one’s inherited traits and the environment in which he or she lives. Although the idea of environmental influences seems rather intuitive, regardless of knowledge regarding heredity and biological factors, it is surprising that some may have considered criminal behavior to be solely a result of genetics. I propose that the debate of nature versus nurture now is not whether genetics or environment influence behavior, but how complex the interaction between these factors is.

Despite the relative lack of reliability and validity in twin, adoption, and family studies, they still provide valuable insight into the roles of heredity and environment in criminal behavior. However, it seems that most studies of this kind focus on the role of heredity in influencing behavior. It would be interesting to see whether any studies with adopted children have examined the role of environment in criminal behavior. Most adoption studies examine the correlation between criminality in the biological parents of adopted children, but what about the correlation between the children and their adopted parents who are crucial to their environment?

I agree with Jones that the influence of neurochemicals on criminal and antisocial behavior are indicative of a genetic component to such behaviors. However, I think a more complete explanation of neurochemical influences is that they reflect the complex interactions between genetics and environment. There is evidence that the expression of genes is influenced by a wide variety of environmental factors. Therefore, it is very possible that disorders relating to such chemicals as serotonin and dopamine could be caused by stressful environmental situations. If environment affects the regulation of gene expression and, in turn, the activity of neurotransmitters that modulate behavior, this kind of interaction may be a significant factor in the development of criminal and antisocial behavior.

Jones’s argument regarding the extent to which environmental and genetic factors influence antisocial and criminal behavior in childhood versus adulthood seems somewhat incomplete. While it is true that adults have more control of their environment than children, I do not think that children are necessarily affected more by environment and adults are influenced more by heredity. Inherited traits provide the foundation by which people are able to learn and respond to their environment. An adult’s personality is the combination of traits and learned behavior patterns that have been established throughout childhood. Thus, although it is true that adults have more control over their current environment, I believe that they are still heavily influenced by both their current environment and by past exposure to environmental factors.

The social learning theory is a good way to explain the influence of environment on antisocial behavior in children, and does not necessarily have to oppose the notion of genetic influence on behavior as well. Rather, it should be considered part of a larger theory or model that could describe how environment and genetics interact. Eysenck’s general arousal theory, which suggests such an interaction, could be modified to encompass the social learning theory, providing a more complete model to explain how upbringing and inherited traits interact to influence criminal behavior.

Overall, I agree with Jones’s support of the idea of the secondary sociopath type. Genetics and environmental factors are so intertwined, that it seems impossible to separate them in explaining how people are caused to engage in criminal acts. Also I agree that it is important for society as a whole to take responsibility in preventing the advent of criminal and antisocial behavior in children via programs to provide children with healthy, enriching environments. A eugenic approach to preventing antisocial behavior is immoral and impinges on human rights, but taking an active approach to ensure positive environmental influences would be appropriate.

Criminal Behavior: Those Affected, Other Causes, and Beyond
By;-

Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi
Advocate High Court & Fsc of pak

Office no,42 Tanoli Plaza Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan

Tel.03009113675
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com

I would like to thank those who wrote peer commentaries because there is obviously a lot of information that was not covered in my paper but that should not be neglected. Overall, I think it is safe to say that the majority believe that there are both environmental and genetic influences for criminal or antisocial behavior. The information from the peer commentaries adds to this notion.

Burt discussed the inference that my paper was specifically addressing the male population as more aggressive and consequently leading to criminal or antisocial behavior. I cannot disagree with this point, because some of the studies referred to in the paper were conducted on males only, and most research points to the male sex as more aggressive. It is important to know that women can be just as criminal in their behavior, as Burt pointed out. An integral piece of information, however, is that although women commit a large part of crimes, it is usually in the form of non-violent crimes.

Tatar first addressed the fact that there are other genes that may be associated with criminality, such as the gene DRD4, which is associated with the personality trait of novelty seeking. As mentioned in my paper, there is no single gene that is responsible for criminal or antisocial behavior, so I applaud the mention of other genes. I also agree with Tatar that there are other environmental influences, such as how a child’s behavior or disorder can evoke certain responses from the child’s environments. I believe this to be true, and more research needs to be focused on how to treat or approach these children so that their behaviors do not develop further into antisocial or criminal behavior. A topic that was omitted from my paper, which Tatar also mentioned, was the heritability of personality disorders. This is an important topic, because some personality disorders have been associated to a higher degree with criminal or antisocial behavior.

Wood believed that there is an interaction between environmental and genetic influences on criminal or antisocial behavior. The point she brought up, with which I also agree, is how complex that interaction is. With regard to the adoption studies, my research did not go far enough to report on the findings of adoptive parents and their adopted children. I am positive that those adoption studies looked at that relation, and one of the findings that might have resulted is that the environment in which the adoptive parents raise their child has a significant influence, regardless of the genes inherited. Another point that Wood discussed was the impact that environmental influences has on children and adults. I realize that the environment in which one lives will always influence one, but the point I was making regarding children being more affected was focused on peer influences as well as parents. Children are more susceptible to peer pressure and being controlled by their parents, whereas adults have the ability to shape their own environments.

Why we Need Hate-Crime Legislation in Arkansas:
Stopping Bias-Motivated Violence

By;-

Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi
Advocate High Court & Fsc of pak

Office no,42 Tanoli Plaza Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan

Tel.03009113675
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com

What is a “hate crime”? Why do we need a hate-crime law? Wouldn’t this lead to a form of “thought police”? Wouldn’t such a law give “special rights” to “special groups”? Don’t existing laws already punish hate crimes? Are hate-crime laws constitutional?
These are the questions I asked myself when I first began thinking about whether or not Arkansas needed a law addressing crimes that are motivated by hatred. I’ve never been a victim of a hate crime, which may have led to some initial skepticism on my part, causing me to doubt that a hate-crime law was necessary in Arkansas. However, the more I studied the subject and learned about numerous incidents around our state, even in the past few years, I changed my mind, and I hope this article will change yours, too. What is a “hate crime”? “Hate crime” is a media-invented phrase, which is largely left undefined. Nonetheless, the term is generally understood to mean any crime that is motivated by a hatred for a specific segment of society. The victim is often chosen simply because he or she is a member or a perceived member of that societal group. So, in a real sense, the crime is committed against an entire group, and not simply against an individual. Some call hate crime “bias-motivated crime” because the term focuses on the perpetrator’s motivation rather than on an emotional reaction or feelings of enmity. A hate crime is not just about hatred; it is about motive.
These crimes are different from crimes of passion or crimes of revenge where victims
are specific individuals chosen because of a relationship to the perpetrator. They are also different from random crimes, like armed robbery or home burglaries, where the victims are basically interchangeable. Put another way, most crime victims are selected because of who they are or because of what they do. Victims of hate crimes are selected because of what they are. This distinction is important. They are selected because of the color of their skin or because they hold certain religious beliefs or because of their gender. In addition, bias-motivated crimes are committed with the purpose of sending a message to the victim and also to the segment of society associated with the victim. The message is simple ­ because of your race or your religion or your sexual orientation, you are not welcome here.

Why do we need a “hate-crime” law? Because hate crime exists. It is that simple. It is impossible to know exactly how many hate crimes are committed nationally each year. The FBI relies on the voluntary reporting of hate crimes by local law enforcement. That, coupled with the fact that many hate-motivated crimes are not reported to local law enforcement, makes it very likely that hate crimes in this country are vastly under-reported. Still,in 1999, the FBI received reports that 7,876 hate crimes had occurred. Even though almost every category of crime has trended downward for the last eight years, hate crime is actually trending upward. Still, the national statistics are very difficult to interpret. The same is true for hate crime in Arkansas. Since this state does not have a crime to report, virtually none are reported. So, the statistics are not much help.
We need to face the fact that mankind has a history of attacking people who seem different. There are certain communities of people traditionally targeted for hate violence. During much of the 20th century, African Americans were often targets of lynching when they attempted to vote. Non-majority churches and houses of worship are still frequently the targets of hate-motivated vandalism. Gays and lesbians are often attacked for showing affection to one another or for “looking too gay”. Forty-four states already have some type of bias-motivated-crime legislation; Arkansas does not. These states have sent a clear, unequivocal message that crimes motivated by bigotry will not be tolerated; Arkansas has not. I realize that prejudice, like violence, cannot be legislated out of existence. We can, however, take a step toward making this state a better place in which to live and to raise a family by standing firm against bigotry. Otherwise, we risk having the dubious distinction of becoming the only state in the nation not to enact this type of legislation.

Wouldn’t this lead to a form of “thought police”? No. A properly drafted hate-crime law does not punish thought any differently than is currently done in our criminal justice system. Arguably, the culpable mental state is punishing thought. Triers of fact already determine issues of mens rea and motivation. So doing this with hate crime is nothing new. The best hate crime law punishes people not for what they think, but for what they do. It is important that our law not abandon recognized criminal justice standards.
In presenting this evidence to a jury, the rules of evidence should applyand the bias-motivation should be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Simply because a crime occurs between a perpetrator and a victim of different races, the penalty enhancement should not be automatically triggered. If that were the standard, then I would say that the criminal justice system would be harmed. There must be evidence of bias-motivation that can be presented to the jury in the sentencing phase of a trial. All of this depends on the circumstances, but a prosecutor might look to a history of prejudicial statements the perpetrator made or wrote before committing the crime. The prosecutor might also look at the crime scene to determine any evidence of bigotry or bias. In fact, evidence that the perpetrator knew the victim would, in many cases, cut against the use of the penalty enhancement because it would make it less likely that the victim had been selected because of race, religion, ethnicity, or other factors.

Wouldn’t such a law give “special rights” to “special groups”? No. Hate crime laws set out certain criteria as the motivating factor for committing the crime.
These should include qualities we all possess ­ race, color, nationalorigin, ethnicity, gender, religion, and sexual orientation. I want to reiterate that these are characteristic attributes of all individuals. Unfortunately, many people perceive hate-crime laws as only benefiting minorities. This is not true but is a persistent misunderstanding.
Any person in this state could become the victim of a hate crime ­ because of race, because of gender, because of a belief system. A hatecrime law should be neutral or generic in its definition and application. The law should not divide us, but unite us. It must protect all citizens equally and it must punish without discrimination.
Aren’t hate crimes already being punished by existing laws? No. It is true that the underlying crimes are already being punished, but the biasmotivation is not. Let me give two examples of this. If a perpetrator vandalizes a car by scratching three X’s in the paint, then he has committed a crime and should be punished. However, if the perpetrator scratches three K’s in the paint of the car and the owner of the vehicle is black or Jewish or Catholic, then most people would agree that the crime is more than just vandalism. Its intent is to send a message of fear and intimidation. Likewise, if a group of high school seniors goes to a commercial building in the wee hours of the night and paints the phrase, “Class of 2001″, on the exterior of the building, they have committed a crime and should be punished. However, if these same seniors go to a synagogue and paint swastikas on the exterior of the building, that is a different matter. They are sending a message of fear and intimidation that will ripple throughout the Jewish community.
I think the best and most constitutionally sound hate-crime laws are those that provide for penalty enhancements. Most of the forty-four states that have taken action against crimes of bigotry have taken this approach. The exact amount of enhancement varies widely from state to state.
As lawyers, we understand that criminal penalties are enhanced in dozens of other circumstances. These include crimes committed on or near school property, committing a felony with a firearm, belonging to a criminal gang, being an habitual offender, or killing a police officer. The reason we enhance penalties in this state is for public policy.
Certainly, we are punishing the perpetrator for the underlying crime, but we feel it necessary as a society to add to the penalty due to the circumstances of the crime. Many penalty enhancements go back to the motivation for committing the crime in the first place. Penalty enhancements are designed to act as an additional deterrent to committing these types of crimes.
Arguably, criminal penalty enhancements differentiate among victims. By way of example, if one person is selling drugs on the street corner and another person is selling drugs at the local junior high school, why should we have a harsher penalty in the second case than we do in the first? It’s amatter of public policy. In both cases, a fifteen-year-old could be purchasing marijuana and so, from that standpoint, the victims look identical. But our public policy is to have drug-free school campuses and to create safe,positive learning environments. It is not that the fifteen-year old purchasing drugs on the street corner is any less a victim or any less important, but public policy dictat

Identity crisis, Protests against the name pakhtoonkhow 12,13,14,April 2010 in Abboattabad. 11 killed, more then 200 injured. Strike called from 18 april 2010 ,We Want Hazara Provence HQM.

By:-
Dr Rashid KAZMI.

Abbottabad 12,13;114/4/2008 innocent people protested peacefuly for their identity which turned deadly due to the Show of power by the goverment by imposing Section 144, and through the help of agencies and police they voilated the fundamental rights by opening fire and shelling due to which 11 people were killed and 200 injured . This was a totally wrong step by goverment and it showed the lack of intrest towords the voice of people and there rights.

Goverment must give compensation to people who were martyred and injured in this incident, 50 lacks for the dead/person and 5 lacks/person for the injured And a Grand Jirga should be called in Jinnah Bagh Abbottabad to resolve this identity crisis that the goverment have created and to announce the provence HAZARA.

15 april 2010, Eighteenth Amendment approved by senate in majority harming the dignity on Hazarawal people .
we strongly condempt this voilent goverment action and

for all the effective people i offer free legal aid,
a bench of members of High Court and Federal shariat Court Pakistan have been created specialy for this purpose including

Rashid Kazmi, Sardar Shokat, Azeez Tanoli, Majid Irshad, Ayaz Khan, Pervaz Abbasi, Zulfikar Kazmi, Hajjaj Shah, Malik Sajjad, Sajjad Tonali, Sirfaraz Gujar,Malik Walisultan, Tariq Khan, and Qazi Shazad Advocates High Court

Office 42, Tonali Plaza, katchari, Abbottabad.
Contact Us: 0300-9113675

By;-
Allhaj Doctor
Syed Rashid Ahmed Shah Kazmi

Advocate High Court
Office 42 Tanoli Plaza
Katchri Abbottabad

KAZMI HOUSE
Toheed Colony Near PC Hotal
Po,Jhangi Abbottabad Pakistan.
doctorkazmi@hotmail.com
Tel,03009113675

احادیث کےمطابق دعاؤں کی قبولیت کےاوقات

1: فرض نمازکےبعد

2: اذان اوراقامت کےدرمیان

3: تحجد کے وقت

4: بارش برستےوقت

5: سفرمیں

اس حدیث کو آگے بھیجو کیونکہ آپ صلی الللہ علیہ وسلم نے ایک اور جگہ فرمایا

سرسبزوشاداب رہے وه شخص جو میری حدیث کو سن کر دوسروں تک پہنچاۓ