NO DEATH Penalty for Child Rape if death did not occur

Here is the latest Supreme Court decision regarding death penalty. I normally don't cover death penalty in class as it is a very sensitive issue for most students, but this decision applies to all the states.---Hector

June 26, 2008

Supreme Court Rejects Death Penalty for Child Rape
By LINDA GREENHOUSE

WASHINGTON — The death penalty is unconstitutional as a punishment for the rape of a child, a sharply divided Supreme Court ruled Wednesday.

The 5-to-4 decision overturned death penalty laws in Louisiana and five other states. The only two men in the country who have been sentenced to death for the crime of child rape, both in Louisiana, will receive new sentences of life without parole.

The court went beyond the question in the case to rule out the death penalty for any individual crime — as opposed to “offenses against the state,” such as treason or espionage — “where the victim’s life was not taken.”

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said there was “a distinction between intentional first-degree murder on the one hand and non-homicide crimes against individual persons,” even such “devastating” crimes as the rape of a child, on the other.

The decision was the third in the last six years to place a categorical limitation on capital punishment. In 2002, the court barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants. In 2005, it ruled that the Constitution bars the death penalty for crimes committed before the age of 18.
Nonetheless, despite this trend toward narrowing the application of the death penalty, there was no suggestion from the majority that the court was moving toward the abolition of capital punishment, which Justice John Paul Stevens called for in an opinion two months ago that no other justice joined.

Justice Kennedy said Wednesday that while the court’s death penalty jurisprudence “remains sound,” it should not be expanded to cover a crime for which no one has been executed in the United States for the past 44 years.

The case, Kennedy v. Louisiana, No. 07-343, was an appeal by one of the two Louisiana inmates, Patrick Kennedy. He was convicted and sentenced to death in 2003 for raping his 8-year-old stepdaughter, whose injuries were severe enough to require emergency surgery. The Louisiana Supreme Court upheld Mr. Kennedy’s conviction and rejected his challenge to the constitutionality of his sentence.

The United States Supreme Court prohibited capital punishment for rape in a 1977 case, Coker v. Georgia, in which the victim, while only 16 years old, was married and had the legal status of an adult. It was not clear at the time whether that decision was limited to the rape of an adult woman, or whether it barred the death penalty for any rape. The court on Wednesday treated the issue of capital punishment for child rape as a fresh question, not governed by any existing precedent. As a matter of constitutional analysis, the question in the case was whether the death penalty was so disproportionate to the offense as to amount to cruel and unusual punishment, in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court’s modern precedents interpret the Eighth Amendment according to “the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.”

Using that benchmark, Justice Kennedy said the majority had reached its conclusion based on “our own independent judgment” about the implications of extending the death penalty to child rape as well as on the fact that the great majority of states have declined to do so.

The Louisiana law extending the death penalty to the rape of children under the age of 12 dates to 1995. The states that followed were Georgia, Montana, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. Unlike Louisiana, those states all require that a defendant have a previous rape conviction or some other aggravating factor in order to be subject to the death penalty, and no one has yet been sentenced to death under any of the laws.

Justice Kennedy said there was thus a national consensus against applying capital punishment for the crime.

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. sharply disputed this conclusion. He said that because many judges and lawyers had interpreted the 1977 Coker decision as barring capital punishment for any rape, state legislatures “have operated under the ominous shadow” of that decision “and thus have not been free to express their own understanding of our society’s standards of decency.”

The fact that six states in modern times have nonetheless enacted such laws, Justice Alito said, “might represent the beginning of a new evolutionary line” that “would not be out of step with changes in our society’s thinking since Coker was decided.” He said there were abundant indications that society had become more aware of and concerned about sex crimes against children.

Those who voted with Justice Kennedy in the majority were Justice Stevens and Justices David H. Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen G. Breyer. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined the dissent, along with Justices Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

Addressing the separate question of the court’s “own judgment,” Justice Kennedy suggested that the flow of death penalty cases for child rape could overwhelm the country’s criminal justice system. He noted that in 2005 there were 5,702 reported rapes of children under the age of 12.
“In this context, which involves a crime that in many cases will overwhelm a decent person’s judgment,” Justice Kennedy said, “we have no confidence that the imposition of the death penalty would not be so arbitrary as to be freakish.”

He continued: “We cannot sanction this result when the harm to the victim, though grave, cannot be quantified in the same way as death of the victim.”

Justice Kennedy also said capital punishment for child rape presented specific problems, including the “special risks of unreliable testimony” by children and the fact that the crime often occurs within families. Families might be inclined to “shield the perpetrator from discovery” when the penalty is death, he said, leading to an increase in the problem of under-reporting of these crimes.

Justice Alito, in his dissenting opinion, said these concerns were “policy arguments” that were “simply not pertinent to the question whether the death penalty is ‘cruel and unusual’ punishment.” He said the Eighth Amendment “does not authorize this court to strike down federal or state criminal laws on the ground that they are not in the best interests of crime victims or the broader society.”

Both presidential candidates criticized the death penalty decision. Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, said: “That there is a judge anywhere in America who does not believe that the rape of a child represents the most heinous of crimes, which is deserving of the most serious of punishments, is profoundly disturbing” He called the decision “an assault on law enforcement’s efforts to punish these heinous felons for the most despicable crime.”

Senator Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said, “I think that the rape of a small child, 6 or 8 years old, is a heinous crime, and if a state makes a decision under narrow, limited, well-defined circumstances, that the death penalty is at least potentially applicable, that does not violate our Constitution.” He added that the Supreme Court should have set conditions for imposing the death penalty for the crime, “but it basically had a blanket prohibition, and I disagree with the decision.”

In a second decision on Wednesday, the court ruled that the introduction at trial of statements that a murder victim had made to the police violated the constitutional rights of the man who was on trial for killing her.

Before her death, the victim had summoned the police to complain that Dwayne Giles, later charged with her murder, had threatened to kill her. Writing for the court, Justice Scalia said that use of the statement violated Mr. Giles’s Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine the witnesses against him, unless the prosecution could first prove that he deliberately killed a witness was to make her unavailable to testify. Mr. Giles claimed self-defense in the killing.
The vote in the case, Giles v. California, No. 07-6053, was 6 to 3. Justices Breyer, Stevens, and Kennedy dissented. The decision overturned a ruling by the California Supreme Court, which had affirmed Mr. Giles’s murder conviction, but left the state free to try and prove the necessary intent.

Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/26/washington/26scotuscnd.html?_r=1&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1214543449-EdXFCQ9ZYPYbnRycuI9+cw

Example of Intermediate sanction-mental drug court

Here is an article dealing with "Intermediate sanction". Intermediate sanction is used by the court as an alternative instead of just probation or incarceration. This gives discrestion to the court.

3 finish mental health court

By Nelson Daranciangndaranciang@starbulletin.com

Circuit Judge Michael Wilson called it a "celebration of therapeutic justice." Oahu's mental health court discharged its first three graduates during ceremonies yesterday in the state Supreme Court's courtroom. Wilson, who presided over the ceremony, is the mental health court's presiding judge.

Mental health court is a pilot program of the state Judiciary similar to its drug court. Nonviolent offenders are given the opportunity to avoid jail, and in some cases prosecution, by participating in treatment with court oversight. Anthony Merriweather was the first person to enter mental health court on May 11, 2005.

Merriweather, 49, was facing jail time for violating his probation for theft and credit-card fraud. He said he was homeless and committed the crimes to survive. Merriweather said he got into trouble because he didn't like taking medication to treat his schizophrenia because of its side effects. "Now I just take my medicine and don't worry about it," Merriweather said.

Ronald Labasan was also facing possible jail time for violating his probation for burglary and theft when the court granted his petition to enroll in mental health court Sept. 7, 2005.

Labasan, 43, said he started committing crimes to survive when he was a homeless 16-year-old on Maui and continued into adulthood without break until he entered mental health court. He said his mental illness was brought on by drug use and worsened by his refusal to take his prescribed medication. He also said he continued to abuse methamphetamine and would sometimes combine it with the medication for his mental illness.

"I went berserk," he said. Over the years, Labasan said, he went through two marriages and lost two children to adoption because of his drug use. Graduation releases Merriweather and Labasan from their probation.

Under doctor supervision, Labasan stopped taking medication and no longer abuses ice. He's also a supervisor for an Oahu roofing company. "I'm so glad that they (the court) took a chance on me," Labasan said.

Source: http://starbulletin.com/2008/02/20/news/story11.html

Should a person remains in an abusive relationship?

In the past, the criminal justice system focused on the defendant. Today, criminology is branching out to include victimology (study of victimization, including the relationships between victims and offenders).

It is interesting to note that there are experts who suggest the best solution when a person is in an abusive relationship is to leave. However, there are those who say that leaving can be very lethal.

Leaving abuser can be lethal, experts say
By Rosemarie Bernardorbernardo@starbulletin.com

Both women killed by their partners on Oahu in the past week attempted to escape their abusive relationships, according to family members and friends.
Advocates say battered women should have an exit plan to protect themselves when trying to leave abusive partners.

"Leaving may be the most dangerous time in the relationship," said Carol Lee, executive director of the Hawaii State Coalition Against Domestic Violence. "They need to work with service providers to get safety plans in place and to get assistance in leaving the relationship so that she can do that safely." Seventy-five percent of domestic violence-related homicides occur shortly after the battered woman leaves the relationship, she added.

Janel Tupuola, 29, recently found an apartment and considered filing a restraining order after enduring months of abuse before her ex-boyfriend allegedly brutally beat her to death with a shotgun Wednesday night. They had dated for about two years.
An autopsy performed yesterday on Tupuola determined that she died of "cranial cerebral injuries due to assaultive blunt force trauma to the head," according to the Department of Medical Examiner. The manner of death was classified as a homicide.
Tupuola was a mother of five children between the ages of 1 and 13.

The accused, Alapeti Siuanu Tunoa Jr., 30, is the father of her two youngest children. "There's no way to give words that would adequately capture what it must feel like for a child to lose their mom," said Nanci Kriedman, executive director of the Domestic Violence Action Center. "They will always be living with that hole in their hearts and in their lives."

On Wednesday one man intervened while Tupuola was being beaten, and was hurt when the attacker turned on him. The good Samaritan, in his 60s, was taken by ambulance to Castle Medical Center in stable condition. Other witnesses said they felt frustrated because they could not do anything to stop the attack. City Prosecutor Peter Carlisle said there is a provision in Hawaii law that allows for the protection of others who are at physical risk.

"Let's say the person who is down on the ground has a right of self-defense. And that right of self-defense could extend all the way up to lethal force. The person who is the bystander can use that same level of force if it's reasonable for that victim to use that level of force," Carlisle said. In the second case, the abuse victim told co-workers that she was trying to leave her husband of six months, according to her co-worker Fran Kami.

Two days before Jenny Hartsock, 39, was allegedly stabbed to death Jan. 9 by her husband, Roy William Hartsock, she came to work with a black eye. Kami said she and others offered to open their homes and to take her to a shelter to help her escape her husband. "We tried to intervene," she said. It was not the first time co-workers noticed signs of abuse.

Last year, Hartsock, a data entry office clerk at Mercantile Freight Service, had a scar on the lower part of her leg. Her explanation to co-workers: Her husband fell and accidentally tripped and cut her leg with a knife. "I didn't believe her story," Kami said.

Source: http://starbulletin.com/2008/01/18/news/story03.html

Juror decides extended sentence not judge-Hawaii

Here is the first case in Hawaii where a jury instead of a judge will decide whether an extended sentence will be given.

Killer’s sentence will come from his peers

For the first time in Hawaii, a state jury, not a judge, will decide whether to send a convicted murderer to prison for life without parole.

The same set of jurors who convicted Patrick Lorenzo, 33, of reckless manslaughter last month for killing off-duty deputy sheriff Daniel Browne-Sanchez, will convene tomorrow to decide the penalty phase in the first extended sentencing trial since the new law was passed last month.

Lorenzo faces life imprisonment with parole for Browne-Sanchez's murder, but prosecutors are asking that he receive an extended term of life without parole, the harshest penalty available under Hawaii law.
________________________________________

By Debra Barayuga
dbarayuga@starbulletin.com

Under a new law passed during the Legislature's special Superferry session, jurors -- not judges -- will decide whether to impose an extended prison sentence on a convicted defendant who poses a threat to the public.

The first case under the new law will be heard tomorrow when a jury will hear whether Patrick Lorenzo, 33, should receive an extended sentence of life without parole.

Lorenzo was convicted of reckless manslaughter last month for shooting and killing off-duty sheriff's deputy Daniel Browne-Sanchez on Feb. 10 at the Osake Sushi Bar and Lounge.

Because of the pending penalty phase hearing, prosecutors declined to comment.
To get an extended sentence under the new law, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it is necessary for the protection of the public.

Under the law, persistent lawbreakers, professional criminals or individuals deemed by the court to be dangerous, multiple offenders, offenders against the elderly, handicapped or minors; or hate crime offenders are subject to extended sentences. The new law was passed in response to a ruling by U.S. Supreme Court in March that Hawaii's practice of extending sentences was unconstitutional because it left it up to the judge's discretion.

The high court overturned the extended sentence imposed on Miti Maugaotega, who was ordered to serve 11 life terms. One of those life terms was without parole for shooting Punchbowl resident Eric Kawamoto when the homeowner surprised Maugaotega as he was burglarizing his home. Kawamoto was critically wounded but survived.
The 10 other life terms stemmed from three other violent burglaries, including one in which Maugaotega raped a 55-year-old woman.

Defense attorney Walter Rodby is expected to argue in the Lorenzo case that life with parole is sufficient. Lorenzo was found guilty a week after the new law, which applies retroactively, was passed.

Defense lawyers say there might be potential problems. "Starting a new policy in the middle of any legal proceeding is always problematic," said prominent Honolulu defense lawyer Brook Hart. "But I think the jury will perform its function without difficulty."

The fact that this jury convicted Lorenzo doesn't mean they will automatically find that an extended sentence is necessary, he noted. The Office of the Public Defender had objected to the retroactive provision. "We felt it was questionable ... it will have to be litigated," said Public Defender John Tonaki.

At trial, the jury rejected a first-degree attempted murder charge stemming from Lorenzo's attempts to shoot at more than one individual. Had Lorenzo been convicted of first-degree murder, he would have automatically faced the statutory life term without parole.

First-degree murder is reserved for individuals who knowingly and intentionally cause the deaths of more than one person, a law enforcement officer, judge or a witness in a criminal prosecution or while incarcerated.

Lorenzo is serving a 30-year term for felony drug and DUI convictions. Prosecutors successfully argued for an extended sentence in that case, citing Lorenzo's history, including 27 arrests and five felony convictions.

Lorenzo was awaiting sentencing in that case when he entered the Osake Sushi Bar & Lounge after closing on Feb. 10 wearing a bullet-resistant vest and a ski mask. He threatened the remaining employees with a semiautomatic pistol equipped with a silencer.

He fired several shots, including one that missed the bar manager, then fired at Browne-Sanchez when the off-duty deputy sheriff approached him. Lorenzo claimed he t did not mean to shoot anyone that night. He said he was forced to hold up the bar and send a message to the owners by two men to whom he owed drug money. He said the men threatened to harm him and his family if he didn't comply.

Source: http://starbulletin.com/print/2005.php?fr=/2007/12/09/news/story03.html

The "New Twikie Defense"

Here is a great article for criminology. Criminoloy is basically the study of why people commit crime. It is different from other criminal justice classes in that it is most "theory based". This article is excellent because it takes "Day-to-day addiction and uses theory to explain the behavior.

Addiction ---The New “Twinkie Defense”by Lis Wiehl

Why should a 29-year-old former school teacher from Tennessee, already on probation for having sex with a 14-year-old boy, avoid jail time for sending him sexually explicit photos of herself? Simple — because she couldn’t help herself — she’s addicted to sex.

Pamela Rogers, who was under orders not to contact the boy, reportedly continued to send him text messages as well as explicit photos and video of herself. “What I did was wrong,” Rogers tearfully admitted. “I am willing to do anything to rehabilitate myself.”

Meanwhile, a preacher’s son and former university class president from Pennsylvania is hoping to avoid a jail sentence for bank robbery because, his lawyer argues, the “incident was a cry for help” with his internet gambling addiction. Not to be outdone, a Wisconsin attorney argued that his client should receive a lesser sentence because an addiction to crack cocaine had turned “a hard worker” of 13 years into a bank robber.

And when another Pennsylvania man was sent to prison for conspiring with his wife in her sexual assault of a teenage boy, addiction to alcohol was blamed. So why are so many defendants playing the addiction card? Perhaps because, like the infamous “Twinkie Defense” before it, it just may be crazy enough to work. In legal terms, "Twinkie Defense" refers to a criminal defendant’s argument that some extraordinary factor caused him or her to commit an alleged crime and therefore, criminal liability should be lessened or waived.

The expression comes from the 1979 murder trial of Dan White, a former San Francisco city supervisor who fatally shot Mayor George Moscone and City Supervisor Harvey Milk on November 27, 1978. During the trial, noted psychiatrist Martin Blinder testified that White had been depressed and was thus incapable of the premeditation required for a murder conviction. As evidence of White’s depression, Dr. Blinder stated that White (who was well known to be a fitness buff) had been uncharacteristically eating Twinkies and drinking Coca-Cola. Ultimately, White was convicted of the lesser charge of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to a mere seven years and eight months in prison.

Another “success” story involves a Chicago woman who stole $250,000 from an employer to finance her “shopping addiction” and was spared from prison by a federal judge who found that she bought expensive jewelry and clothing to “self-medicate” her depression. A bodybuilder who broke into six Maryland homes, set fire to three of them, and stole cash and jewelry, avoided jail time because, it was reported, his “frenzied” use of anabolic steroids had left him suffering from “organic personality syndrome.” A Florida woman was able to avoid jail time for prostitution after she explained that her reliance on Prozac had resulted in her becoming a “nymphomaniac” (the early 90’s version of today’s “sex addict”) which, in turn, caused her to prostitute herself.

But playing the addiction card to mitigate consequences is not only useful in the criminal context; it can be a nifty public relations tactic as well.
Brandon Davis, the wealthy oil heir and Paris Hilton pal (perhaps best known for being caught on video making crude remarks about Lindsay Lohan) was reported to have entered rehab for substance addiction not because he felt he needed it, but for “public relations” reasons. Apparently, his family encouraged the move to offset the considerable damage his antics had caused to his mother’s personal charity.

And who can forget the December 2003 Patriots vs. Jets game when “Broadway Joe” Namath humiliated himself during a side-line interview with ESPN’s Suzy Kolber? In response to Kolber’s question about his former team’s recent struggles, Namath turned to her and slurred, “I wanna kiss you. I couldn’t care less about the team struggling… I wanna kiss you!” Within weeks, Namath was in rehab for alcohol addiction; a month later he was back on ESPN expressing regret for having done the “wrong thing”; by October 2004, Namath was the subject of a flattering USA Today profile entitled, “’Broadway Joe’ Puts Life Back on Track.” With respect to the “I wanna kiss you” moment, Namath’s agent proclaimed “That probably turned out to be one of the best things that ever happened to Joe.”

Pat O'Brien, co-host of "The Insider," announced he was entering rehab for substance addiction just a day after a series of embarrassing phone messages featuring his distinctive voice surfaced on the Internet. One such message stated, "I want to (expletive) go crazy with you. I want to talk dirty to you...get another woman up...Let's get crazy, get some coke." Several days after getting out of rehab, O'Brien appeared in a prime-time special with talk show therapist Dr. Phil McGraw where he expressed remorse for the voice-mail incident and apologized for what his substance abuse had done to his family. O'Brien returned to work on "The Insider" the next day — just in time for sweeps.

Of course, none of this is to say that addictions should not be taken seriously and that those who seek treatment for them should not be applauded for doing so. But for those who invent or exploit addictions or abstract “syndromes” in an effort to avoid real accountability, a Twinkie by any other name is still a Twinkie.

So what’s the moral of this story? The next time you get caught doing something stupid — whether it’s speeding, faking an illness to avoid work, or literally getting caught with your hand in a cookie jar — don’t just stand there foolishly accepting responsibility for what you’ve done. Simply explain that some addiction and/or Twinkies made you do it. It couldn’t hurt — and who knows, it might even get you off the hook!

Source: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,210321,00.html

Concurrent jurisdiction-murder suspects face 2 trials, state and federal

Here is an example of the same incident where a person could be charged in both state and federal court.

Hawaii murder suspects face two trials

By Jim Dooley
Advertiser Staff Writer

The first trial of Rodney Joseph Jr., one of three men charged with murder in the January 2004 Pali golf course shooting case, is scheduled to begin Dec. 3 in state court.

Joseph's second trial, involving different charges but based on many of the same facts, is supposed to begin in February in federal court.

Joseph has pleaded not guilty to both sets of charges, although negotiations leading to a possible plea bargain are under way, according to recently filed court documents.

Two other defendants, Ethan "Malu" Motta and Kevin "Pancho" Gonsalves, are also charged in both cases and have also pleaded not guilty. Motta and Gonsalves will be tried separately from Joseph in state court but lost requests to be tried separately in federal court.

Parallel or overlapping criminal prosecutions in state and federal court here are rare, according to criminal defense lawyers and a former federal prosecutor.

Defense attorneys involved in the Pali golf course cases declined to discuss the issue, saying they could not comment on pending cases.

Jim Fulton, executive assistant to City Prosecuting Attorney Peter Carlisle, said his office couldn't comment on the substance of the case, but said, "Rodney Joseph requested to go to trial first in state court. It was his choice."

Jury selection in the state trial is scheduled to begin Dec. 3. The federal case is set for trial Feb. 12.

Assistant U.S. Attorney Thomas Brady, who is prosecuting the federal case, couldn't be reached for comment Wednesday.

Defense lawyer Brook Hart said he could not recall any recent criminal cases that were tried both federally and locally. He remembered a gun possession case in the mid-1970s that was prosecuted in both federal and state courts, "but it certainly doesn't happen very often."

Usually one jurisdiction or the other will agree to handle prosecution duties, Hart said.

"You'd expect there would be some coordination and cooperation between law enforcement agencies to avoid what would seem to be wasteful, time-consuming and unduly expensive duplications of efforts," Hart said.

Joseph, Motta and Gonsalves face terms of life without parole if convicted of the state charges.

At one point, federal authorities considered seeking the death penalty against the men, but the Justice Department notified parties in the case in late June that it would not.

If the federal government had decided to make the trial a death penalty case, Carlisle's office was expected to drop its prosecution. But now both cases are on track for trial.

The Pali shooting was the result of rivalries among groups providing security for illegal casino gambling games in Honolulu, according to law enforcement.

Joseph, Motta and Gonsalves are charged with the shooting deaths of Lepo Utu Taliese and Romelius Corpuz and the attempted murder of Tinoimalu Sao, who was critically wounded with a shot to the head. Sao recovered but still carries the metal slug inside his head, according to court files.

The federal case includes charges of racketeering and using violence in aid of racketeering.

Other defendants in the federal case include Kai Ming Wang, also known as "A Fook," alleged to be the operator of illegal gaming casinos here who hired Joseph and other defendants to provide security at the games.

Wang, a restaurant owner, has pleaded not guilty and denied involvement in the gambling operations.

Raymond Gomes Jr., charged with racketeering and a gun charge by federal authorities, is scheduled to stand trial with Wang, Joseph, Motta and Gonsalves in February.

Several other defendants charged with gambling and other offenses in the federal case have since pleaded guilty in the case. They are Siaosi Alapati, Peter Matautia, Matthew Taufetee and Joe White.

Joseph gave a lengthy statement to police when he turned himself in after the shooting, but that statement was later suppressed in state court after Joseph's lawyers argued that the defendant's original lawyer should not have allowed some admissions to be made.

Federal authorities plan to use some of the the contents of that statement against Joseph and other defendants, although arguments about its admissibility under federal rules are still going on.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/23/ln/hawaii711230364.html

Freeze "Credit Reports" to protect from identity theft

Here is a "MUST READ" article for those who are concerned about phishing or identity theft.

Consumers can now 'freeze' their credit reports

By Michelle Singletary


WASHINGTON — Just as the holiday shopping rush begins, all three of the major credit bureaus have decided they will provide consumers with a powerful tool to protect themselves from identity theft.

Within the last month, Equifax, Experian and TransUnion began offering consumers nationwide the option of freezing their credit reports. A security freeze is so much better than a "fraud alert," which is what consumers are typically advised to do when they are either victims of identity theft or think their information has been compromised.

A fraud alert simply tells potential lenders that they need to take extra care and certain steps before granting credit. The alert doesn't block access to your files, so it's not foolproof.

With a security freeze, lenders and businesses cannot get access to your credit files or your credit scores without your authorization. This means they aren't likely to issue new credit. That in turn greatly reduces the chance that a thief will be able to get credit in your name and damage your credit profile.

Until now, if you wanted to freeze your credit reports, you had to live in a state where the practice was allowed. Laws in 39 states (including Hawai'i) and the District of Columbia give consumers that option.

For details on security freeze laws, use Consumers Union's "Guide to Security Freeze Protection" at www.FinancialPrivacyNow.org. Consumers Union has compiled a detailed list of each state's law, including when and how you can lift the freeze. The site also provides direct links to the three credit bureaus' security freeze information. Just be sure to double check with each bureau when placing a security freeze to make sure you are sending the right information.

To implement a freeze, you will have to send a certified letter to each of the three major credit bureaus. When applying for a security freeze, you get a PIN (personal identification number) or password, which you will need to use to lift the freeze from your file. The security freeze will remain in place until you request that it be permanently removed or temporarily lifted for a specific time or for a particular creditor or company (for example, an employer or landlord wanting to check your credit history).

Experian enables consumers to lift the freeze within 15 minutes by making a request online or by phone. Equifax and TransUnion allow consumers to lift the freeze by phone or by mail, but the request can take up to three days from the date of receipt.

Source: http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Nov/24/bz/hawaii711240320.html