Introducing 

Prezi AI.

Your new presentation assistant.

Refine, enhance, and tailor your content, source relevant images, and edit visuals quicker than ever before.

Loading content…
Loading…
Transcript

The Johnathon Case

Kevin Madden is convicted of first degree murder and receives a life sentence

Aftermath

September 29, 2006

October 2007, Tim's appeal comes before a tribunal, arguing that Tim has turned his life around at Syl Apps and he received a harsher sentence than many others his age for manslaughter. Appeal failed.

In September of 2011, Kevin appealed the previous verdict, moving for a third trial. He claimed that killing Johnathon was neither planned or deliberate so he shouldn't have been charged with first degree murder. He admits to killing Johnathon, but says that he was in a rage when he killed him because Johnathon taunted him, and so should be charged with manslaughter instead.

AKA The Kevin Madden Trial

Timothy Ferriman is convicted of manslaughter related to the death of Johnathon Madden.

The Players

What do you think their sentences should be?

  • Johnathon Madden: 12 years old.
  • Kevin Madden: 16 years old. Large for his age. Intimidated almost everyone he met. Passed around from school to school due to behavioural problems. Felt disconnect and anger towards his family.
  • 'Pierre' (not his real name): 15 years old. Went to one of the better schools in the area. Unassuming. Friends with Kevin.
  • Timothy Ferriman: 15 years old. Hadn't seen his mother since he was 2. Doing poor in school because of how much he skipped. Petty thief, habitual vandal. Liked to drink blood. Self proclaimed vampire. Media gave him the name Vampire Boy.
  • 'Ashley' (not her real name): 14 years old. Described as original trial's 'star witness'. Went to same, higher class school as Pierre. Everyone's darling. At the time, described herself as Goth.
  • Ralston Champagnie (the stepfather)
  • Joanne Champagnie (the boys' mother)

Took 5 days for jury to deliberate.

Verdicts read on February 28, 2006.

Kevin was found guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Johnathon and guilty of attempted murder in the attack against Ralston.

Tim was found guilty of manslaughter in the death of Johnathon.

Pierre was found not guilty in the death of Johnathon, and not guilty of the charge of attempted murder of Ralston.

Both Kevin and Tim were charged as adults, thereby lifting the publication ban that limited the press' ability to mention their names.

Pierre's real name is still protected by the YCJA.

December 25, 2003 Cont.

  • Kevin and Pierre want to beat Kevin up, Tim says they should just threaten him.
  • Kevin pushes Jonathan down the stairs to the basement, and orders Tim to get a knife from the kitchen.
  • Tim does.
  • Kevin stabs his little brother 71 times, several cuts deep enough to chip the bone.
  • Kevin goes back upstairs (to his shocked friends) and waits for the rest of the family.
  • Ralston gets home. Tim, saying "I'm sorry, I'm sorry," runs out of the house.
  • Kevin tries to stab Ralston, but Ralston's winter coat protects him.
  • Struggle ensues, Pierre tries to help Kevin subdue Ralston by hitting him over the head with a baseball bat multiple times.
  • Ralston escapes, manages to get help. Two 911 calls are placed.
  • More police are dispatched to 90 Dawes Road.
  • Tim is arrested at his apartment.
  • Kevin and Pierre are arrested the next day not far from Kevin's home.

(National Post, 2006)

Principles of YCJA

  • Publication ban played a big role.
  • Encouragement of parental involvement.
  • Focus on rehabilitation and reintegration. Judge McCombs, in Langton's book is quoted as having this to say about Kevin: "(Kevin is an) unremorseful, diagnosed psychopath...(he) has repeatedly stated that he does not love anyone, nor ever felt love from anyone...(there is) credible evidence that he suffers from a deeply entrenched psychological disorder and psychopathy--and that remains a danger to the public...This is not to say that I regard Kevin Madden as unsalvageable" (2008, pg. 150).

A Summary of the Events of November 25, 2003

Youth Criminal Justice Act, S.C. 2002. c. 1.

  • Kevin Madden decides to skip school, along with his friend, Pierre.
  • Timothy Ferriman also skips school, but to see Ashley (who said she was home sick), in the hopes of making her like him again.
  • Tim can't see Ashley, so he calls up Kevin, who invites him over.
  • Kevin, Tim, and Pierre hang out at 90 Dawes Road, smoking, playing video games, and eventually trashing the house. Tim convinces the others to call Ashley. During the conversation, Tim tells Ashley that he and the other boys are planning on killing Kevin's entire family. He manages to convince Ashley he might actually be serious.
  • Ashley goes to school to see what her friend thinks she should do.
  • Girls go to friend's house, call back the boys, and tape record another, more detailed conversation.
  • Girls play the recording for friend's mom, who calls the police.
  • Officers listen to the tape, take it back to the station to find out the address of the boys, and then make their way to the house.
  • Meanwhile, Johnathon has gotten home from school. House is a mess.
  • He says he's going to tell.

November 25, 2003

Johnathon Madden dies.

Hirschi's Social Control Theory

February 15, 2005

Mistrial

Reporter Joseph Brean uncovered Ashley's blog.

This blog was the reason that the trial was declared a mistrial because it brought into question the truth of Ashley's testimony and the motives the boys (Tim and Pierre) might have had in making the phone call to her in the first place.

Significant because the phone call implied motive and pre-planning. However, if it could be proven that Ashley would have been impressed by the story that the boys were going to kill Kevin's family, the phone call and what happened later that day could potentially be taken as a horrible coincidence.

Judge David Watt only had this to say about Ashley's actions:"If this young woman did not commit perjury, she came close enough for government work to it" (Langton, 2008, pg. 134)

People's relationships (with family, friends, etc), commitments, values, norms, and beliefs keep them from breaking the law.

If individuals are involved in the community, have something to lose, they will follow the rules in order to keep what they have.

Weak social bonds with parents, school, other institutions leads to weak transmission of values, weak social constraint against delinquency.

People are controlled by assinging values, costs, and consequences and defining certain actions as evil, immoral, and/or illegal.

Hirschi said that the bonds come in four different, but related forms: Attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. The first three are obvious, but belief in regards to this theory refers to the degree to which one adheres to the values associated withbehaviours that conform to the law and the belief that the society can meet their needs (Key Idea: Hirschi's Social Bond/Social Control Theory)

New trial began November 15, 2005

Sutherland's Differential Association Theory

Neutralization Theory

Theorists: David Matza and Gresham Sykes

This theory focuses on how people get into criminal activity rather than why. It says that criminal behaviour is learned. Skills are taught by peers, and it is through these peers that individuals learn and begin to think about criminal activity for themselves.

(Hamlin, 2006).

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Antisocial Personality Disorder cont.

Intermittent Explosive Disorder

The Neutralization Theory states that those who commit crime do so because of the reduced constraints on their behaviour. They rationalize the deviance from conventional values and their subsequent criminal activity.

O'Connor manages to simply explain the five techniques of neutralization as follows:

1. Denial of responsibility -- It's not my fault; I didn't have a choice

2. Denial of injury -- It's no big deal; They have too much money; I didn't hurt them.

3. Denial of victim -- They had it coming; They had a bad attitude; They deserve it.

4. Condemnation of the condemners -- Everybody does it; Why me?; You're a hypocrite for condemning me

5. Appeal to higher loyalties -- Only cowards back down; protecting a group or family.

(2006, para. 17).

Psychopath

vs

Sociopath

A patient (over 18 years old) can be diagnosed with APD if they at least three of the following seven symptoms:

1. Failure to conform to social norms with respect to lawful behaviours as indicated by repeatedly performing acts that are grounds for arrest.

2. Deceitfulness, as indicated by repeated lying, use of aliases, or conning others for personal profit or pleasure.

3. Impulsivity or failure to plan ahead.

4. Irritability and aggressiveness, as indicated by repeated physical fights or assaults.

5. Reckless disregard for safety of self or others.

6. Consistent irresponsibility, as indicated by repeated failure to sustain steady work or honor financial obligations.

7. Lack of remorse, as indicated by being indifferent to or rationalizing having hurt, mistreated, or stolen from another

(Langton, 2008, pg. 80).

APD patients also usually share three childhood traits: wetting the bed, setting fires, and exhibiting cruelty to animals.

They are described as people "without conscience, empathy and remorse" (Langton, 2008, pg. 145).

A psychopath is someone who doesn't understand what's going on emotionally, but understands that something important has happened. Psychopaths have the ability to hide their differences and to mimic people's emotions.

Psychopaths lure people in with a veil of normalcy, even exceptionality.

According to Kiehl and Hoffman (2011) "The symptoms of psychopathy include shallow affect, lack of empathy, guilt and remorse, irresponsibility, and impulsivity. The best current estimate is that just less than 1% of all noninstitutionalized males age 18 and over are psychopaths" (pg. 3).

Used as a defense by trial witness, Dr. Dominique Bourget of the Royal Ottawa Hospital.

Said Kevin told her that he had almost no contact with his biological father, that Ralston physically and emotionally abused him, was resentful of his mother because of her inability or lack of desire to protect him from Ralston. Also said that he wasn't successful in school, sports, or anything really other than video games, but, Bourget said that he had a feeling of grandiosity, that he demonstrated hostility, attitudes of bitterness, social alienation and distrust of others, that he felt his life was going nowehere and that he frequently minimized reporting of his own mental condition (Langton, 2008, pg. 116).

His bouts of depression, anger, and violence (followed by an adrenalin rush) led to anything being in his way--objects or people--becoming a target. This she diagnosed as Intermittent Explosive Disorder, but clarified that it was only a temporary diagnosis.

Literature states that those with Intermittent Explosive Disorder have a

“persistent reaction to frustration with irritability, temper tantrums, and destructive behavior” and were “generally excitable, aggressive, and overresponsive to environmental pressures” with “gross outbursts of rage or of verbal or physical aggressiveness different from their usual behavior” (Coccaro, 2012 pg. 577)

In his book Langton talks about the research he did on the differences between psychopaths and sociopaths. Sociopaths usually make it clear that they have APD; they don't try to hide it:

They are not interested in others' opinions.

They often sport obvious outward signs of rebellion such as piercings, tattoos or unusual mode of dress.

Sociopaths make their illnesses obvious and scare away the people they most want to be in contact with (Langton, 2008).

Many researchers believe, however that there is little difference between psychopaths and sociopaths.

Routine Activity Theory

Developed by Marcus Felson and Lawrence E. Cohen.

Says that in order for crime to be committed, three motivational factors are needed:

1) Motivated offender

2) A Suitable Victim

3) Lack of a Capable Guardian

Essentially: "Crime is likely to occur when a motivated offender and suitable victim come together in an environment that does not provide protection to the potential victim" (O'Grady, 2011, pg. 130).

Which of these theories apply?

To Who?

Why?

Learn more about creating dynamic, engaging presentations with Prezi