Government's responsibility

Is it the government's responsibility to watch out for me as an individual? I don't think it is. Why can I go sky diving, bungee jumping, skiing, swimming in the ocean, snowmobile, jet ski, and so many other activities that average people do every day. All of these activities have the potential to hurt or kill me. So why are drugs any different? How did alcohol get legalized when you can drink so much that you stumble down a one way street backwards with your pants off and your underwear on your head. The fact that the government tries to protect us, ends up hurting everybody's pockets. Money goes towards these offenders who are looking for a thrill by shooting up and smoking out of light bulbs. So, philisophically speaking, is the government right for looking out for my welfare? Is it moral? Why do they get to chose what is bad for me? And isn't eating fast food pretty crappy for my health? We also have to pay publicly to be scared of drug dealers who aren't qualified. We have to pay the legislators to make laws. We then have to pay police to enforce these laws. Why doesn't the government just take control of the drug business, make it legal, and make a little money instead of us coughing it up in taxes.

Women's Education: Feminism?

women historically have been held to very different standards than men in the education system. In the earliest stages, education was offered to those with the proper status. This often meant white males, who could not only afford such education, but were of the most universally accepted and promoted gender and race. This automatically negated minorities and women. In part, this denial of education to women had to do with negative attitudes in society to women’s demeanor; as stated in the lecture, “it was believed that women should not learn to read or write (let alone more complicated subjects like math and philosophy) because such knowledge distracted women from their reproductive capacities”. This is particularly interesting to me; obviously, the attitudes of society can shape the actions of a nation, via legislation in government, and in turn, can devastate generations of people unfairly, in this case, women. However, much like the racial injustice of denying an equal education to whites and blacks was remedied via a judicial decision, the blatant denial of education to women was attempted to be set straight by legislation, specifically, discrimination to women in any federally funded education program. Strongly influenced by pro-feminist organizations, this legislation would expand, much like the in depth world of education did, and branch into the realm of collegiate athletics, extra-curricular activities, clubs and other organizations. The widely known Title IX, a non-discrimination statute that makes it illegal for universities to discriminate membership to certain activities on the basis of gender, serves as a testament to the evolution of these laws.

To Check or Not to Check?

So I have been reading a few posts regarding Affirmative Action and how race is used as a determining factor sometimes. This makes me wonder why we even have to check that damn box on everything about what race we are? I mean, I understand schools like to know the percentages of the races represented at the school. But I feel like it gets to the point where they just see a certain box checked and their automatically accepted; the rest of their application or whatever it may be, is not even looked over. Wesley discussed the Michigan Law school case in his comment in which Michigan Law used race as a determining factor and Michigan undergraduate didn’t. I like that Michigan Law promoted diversity and all but why should someone who is of a certain race be automatically picked? I feel like that in a way is racism. I want to be picked because I worked hard and I am qualified, not because I am of a certain race. So in the end, some of us work our asses of for nothing because someone else is picked over us, and not even because they are more qualified; it’s because of a stupid checked box.

Laws laws laws.

A large portion of this class has been defining Natural Law versus Positive Law. For the last day of class I want to go back to the definitions of these things to really think about opinions that have changed. Positive law is the "rule of the land" It is the law that is physically written down for us to adhere to. Natural law comes from a different place, from a "higher" place. Going into this course I was in the firm belief that these two were very connected. I now see that they are very connected for me because of my moral umbrella. I realize that not everybody lives under the same moral umbrella, and this is why we need positive laws. Yes, these laws sometimes seem ridiculous, or unfair, or biased, but without them I don't think that we would be able to function as a society. Natural law is different for every single individual, where positive law remains the same. It is funny that people can see the differences in moral umbrellas, but that there is so much debate over so much of positive law. What about juveniles in the death penalty? What about sexting?

Legalize it

Why is pot illegal? There are many reasons and theories that are out there but there are two that seem most logical. First, back in the mid 1900s hemp was going to make too much money compared to cutting down trees to make the same thing. The tree companies studied and campaigned against marijuana because their interest was money. Money seems to persuade many laws throughout the United States' history. The other reason it is illegal which probably ties in with the first reason is that it is immoral to smoke pot. It changes the mind and makes you crazy. It will undoubtedly make you eventually take harder drugs, ruin your life, and it WILL kill you. There are many things downgrading marijuana because of all of the initial claims the paper and tree companies created to get rid of competition. Now lets look at today. Prisons are overcrowded. Too much money is being spent on those prisoners by the public. I believe the amount of people who die from smoking pot is far less than drinking alcohol. It could help get rid of assaults, murder, and other crimes associated with the black market. Is it immoral to smoke pot? As always, morality is subjective. Isn't it my own responsibility for myself? Why should the government have to watch out for me? It would also help create jobs and more opportunities for people throughout the world. Which is more ethical, keeping it illegal, or legalizing it?

One Last Sexting Post

Over the past couple of months, sexting has been an issue that has been brought up several times. I want to take another stab at it. Sexting is an act that happens between two people and should remain between those two people. The law criminalizes anyone who is prosecuted for distributing or viewing these pictures when the person in the photographs is under the age of 18. Let's be real, society is changing drastically when it comes to sex and image. About 50 years ago, no one could even imagine sending nude pictures to a boyfriend or girlfriend, and the thought of being caught with such material would be detrimental to one's life. The times have changed. Playboy is an integral part of the media. The adult film industry grosses billions every year. The United States has allowed Nevada to make prostitution legal. And, Abercrombie sells thongs to girls as little as 6 years old. Times are changing. Whether it is for the better or worst (and in my opinion things have sometimes gone too far), the things that little girls and boys know is far more advanced than is was just a couple years ago. Little kids are losing their virginity as early as 10 or 11 years old and images of sex and sexiness are anywhere and everywhere. It's not hard to understand why teenagers have become engrossed in this portion of society and the "sexting" phenomenon (or crisis, or whatever you want to call it) has occured. But, we cannot penalize people for being immature and getting caught up in technology and sex. Just because this is a form of media that is now made readily available to teens is not their fault. We cannot penalize them for doing something that most would have done in a society such as ours with technology such as this if we were at their age. It's hard to draw the line and put a number on where this becomes more than flirtation and becomes an actual crime but I believe that all these factors need to be taken into account and each case needs to be handled individually to ensure that a precedent won't be set.

More affirmative action

A very hot topic in today's society is affirmative action. Many people, mostly white men, disagree with affirmative action for perfectly acceptable reasons. Why should a person get a job over another just because of the color of their skin? Or why should a woman get a job over a man just because she doesn't have a penis? I don't feel that this is what affirmative action is and why it was created. In the past decades, many minorities and women were not hired for positions solely because of their race or gender. This is quite obvious when looking back at what races and genders dominated what jobs and occupations. However, i do not think that affirmative action wanted to create a reverse discrimination policy in our time. This would prove to be counterproductive. I feel the creators of this plan wanted employers to stop hiring or not hiring on a gender or race basis. They wanted every person to get a fair opportunity to get a job. However, many businesses took this plan too far. They simply started hiring more women and people of different races just to make their company more diverse. This is why so many people are complaining when someone else gets the job over them who is of a different race or gender. They automatically assume that it was just because they were a girl or black man. This whole concept is ridiculous and if companies and businesses are still doing this, there need to be laws restricting it. Overall, i guess i take a feminist perspective in that if all men and women are created equal, then they should each have an equal chance at every opportunity.

Another marijuana post

I know people have been doing a lot legalization of marijuana rants but i want to look at it from a philosophical perspective. In a traditional natural law theorist's point of view, if you believe marijuana to be immoral than it should be illegal. However, natural law also says to do what makes your life better and more enjoyable to you. If you find nothing wrong with marijuana use, then it should be perfectly legal. In a positivist approach, if the law says its illegal, then in no way, shape, or form should be allowed. Both medical and recreational use should be made illegal. A realist approach, which i agree with, says the courts and judges should take a look at each case individually. State laws on medical use of marijuana are very strict. Dispensaries have to jump through many hoops to stay in business. How can a judge or jury look at an individual suffering from MS and sentence them to prison for taking medication that relieves their everyday pain? Now, if a nationwide drug dealer who is responsible for bringing in hundreds of pounds into residential neighbors is standing trial, then yes they should be sentenced accordingly. I'm not exactly sure how feminism fits into this scheme of things but as long as males and females are being treated the same by the law, i do not see them having a problem. Law and economics theorists would be all for the legalization of medical marijuana because, after the state applies very taxes to its sale, the governments will make a very large profit.

Minority Privelage

As a white woman of a middle class background I think that I have had more opportunities than some others who have grown up as minorities and may not have always been affored the same privelages as myself. Having said that, I do not believe that these facts allow for others to be awarded more privelages simply due to their minority status and any discrimination they or their ancestors might have faced in the past. When looking into college and law school admissions, most schools have quotas that need to be met. These quotas are not publicized, but are still well known and known to affect the admissions of all applicants. The same is true for scholarship opportunities. My roommate is 1/4 Jewish and for the past four years she has gotten a scholarship for $8,000 annually because she is a good student of Jewish descent. Looking over the terms of her scholarship a few days ago, we found that in order for her to be qualified for the scholarship she only needed to be 1/8 Jewish and maintain a 3.0 GPA in college. Are you kidding me? When applying for scholarships and to universities in the past, I always knew this type of reverse discimination existed, but I did not know to the extent that it does. As a white middle-class female, I risk not being admitted over a student with the same criteria as me simply because I am not of minority descent. Why should someone who is 1/8 Jewish be able to get such a wonderful gift that has nothing to do with their intelligence level? Yes, I'm sure that her GPA played a role in achieving this scholarship, but I still find the whole thing appaling. Just because I haven't lived life as a minority, don't have enough of a certain ethnicity in myself, am not gay or lesbian, or suffered in some other way, does not mean that I have not worked just as hard if not harder to attain the goals I strive to reach. I do not believe that anything other than one's qualifications and hard work should ever put them ahead of another.

Rape and Victims

While we think of rape as a male attacking a female and forcing sexual intercourse on them, this is not totally true. Men also rape people. This is not unheard of in the United States today. The problem is that men just do not report it when they are raped nearly as much as females. Maybe men just do not realize they are being raped when it happens or maybe they are afraid of what people with think of them, but whatever the case may be they should report this. Males raping females seems to happen a lot, and many females, especially on a college campus, do not like to walk alone in the dark. They fear that someone is out there to just come along and rape them, which I can totally understand their argument. But how likely is it that this will happen? We look and every 2 minutes in the United States someone is sexually assaulted. Now we can clearly see why people are afraid to walk alone down that dark alley. We constantly worry about this problem and the minute we let our guard down it will happen. Rape is an equal opportunity employer just like most other crimes, so should men fell scared as they walk alone down that dark alley. Maybe, but we usually do not feel like anyone can overpower us.

Decriminalization of Marijuana

On April 30, 2009, the General Assembly of Pennsylvania introduced House Bill #1393 to "provide for the medical use of marijuana, and repeal provisions of the law that prohibit and penalize marijuana use. It is called the Compassionate Use Medical Marijuana Act. This is not legalization of marijuana, but decriminalization of marijuana for medical users. Alaska, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington have similar legislation already enacted. On a federal level, Obama announced in March that his administration would end the Bush Era's federal raids on medical marijuana dispensaries. This is a crucial step in decriminalization. Under Bush, medical marijuana dispensaries, even when completely complying with state law, were raided under federal law. Obama's administration will not raid medical dispensaries, only drug traffickers that falsely masquerade as medical dispensaries. This is a devolution of power from the federal government to the state governments. While decriminalization is gaining momentum, legalization looms closer and closer on the horizon. There are benefits to legalization. The economy would benefit. Currently 19 billion dollars is spent annually on the war on drugs, while legalization would cut these costs in half. Also, marijuana could be taxed for revenue. Alcohol and tobacco excise taxes alone generate over 4 billion dollars per year. It is estimated that California alone could raise 1 billion in revenue generated from marijuana taxation. Also, law enforcement, federal agents, courts, and prisons would be freed of the burden of marijuana prosecution. 99 out of 100 marijuana arrests are made under the laws of states. If state laws were changed, there would be no arrests for marijuana. Also, the black market would be eliminated, robbing drug syndicates of valuable revenue and ultimately power. I'm not advocating legalization, I'm just framing the issue in a different light. I'm including the link to the house bill, its pretty interesting.

http://www.legis.state.pa.us/cfdocs/legis/PN/Public/btCheck.cfm?txtType=HTM&sessYr=2009&sessInd=0&billBody=H&billTyp=B&billNbr=1393&pn=1714

female rapers

While much attention has been given to the fact that men rape women, I was wondering if it is possible for a female to rape a man, or a female to rape a female. I would like to avoid the specific physical terminology and actions taken if either of these is possible, but, in general, I think a female can rape a man or another female. I mean it sounds tricky, sure, but what if a female drug induced a man or another female then "had their way with them," as funny as that sounds. Also, does rape have to be full blown sexual intercourse? What happens if someone forces you someone to do something other than sexual intercourse but is still sexual in nature. Does this count as rape? Lastly, whether a female can rape another individual or not, how ought a big college like Penn State protect against rape so that men are not always the one accused?

Simone de Beauvoir The Second Sex

The french female existentialist Simone de Beauvoir posited a pretty interesting theory about individualty, specifically female individuality. To put it as simply as possible she posits that one is not born a female (while yes they may be genetically) but rather they must become a female. This is a theme throughout all of existentialism, basically "existence proceeds essence," that is you are really nothing at your core and you choose through your actions/projects what you want to become, what you stand for. I know it is complicated, but it makes sense when you think about it. Personally, I hope to become a lawyer (assuming I didn't blow the LSAT) and I cannot say I was born a lawyer, but rather I am choosing through my actions and mindset what I hope to become. Regarding feminism, then, is one born an independent female thinker or do they have to evolve into this when they chose to do so? Is this applicable to men as well?

Affirmative?

I want to know if we think that the government was truly aiming to aid minorities when they began Affirmative Action. If we look at the facts presented before us, we know that in our nation there are a lot of underprivileged communities. These underprivileged communities have schools with far inferior funding to a lot of institutions in our Nation. These conditions are a large contributor to the disadvantages faced by minorities. If the government really wanted to solve these problems, wouldn't a better solution be to put money toward these schools that are struggling? Each year schools take tests to rank the proficiency of their students. Schools must meet certain criteria in order to gain their allotted funding. To me this seems to be the opposite of what should happen. If a school or area is struggling, they should receive more funding in order to increase the chances the students have at a better education. It seems to me that it could be argued that the government started affirmative action because it was the easiest solution: It is cheap, it looks like devotion to aiding minorities, but it doesn't help as many people as any number of programs could.

Weekly Topic 9/11/09

Judicial discretion is widely disputed among the schools of thought. Under the doctrine of the separation of powers, the ability of judges to exercise discretion is an aspect of judicial independence. However, when the exercise of discretion goes beyond constraints set by legislation, binding precedent, or constitution, the court may be abusing discretion in undermining the law. While certain schools frown upon judicial discretion, legal and critical legal realists see discretion as the norm. I agree with the realists. I believe that judicial discretion is a necessary component of the legal system. No case is identical to another; thus the outcome of every case that is tried should not be pre-determined in its entirety with regard to precedent. I feel that because the legal system does continually and effectively remove inefficient, insignificant, or outdated legislation that judicial discretion is required to offset the imbalance. Judicial discretion is important because the law does not account for every variable or externality that surrounds a case. Thus, judicial discretion's role is to account for the specifics of each case. Judges are popularly elected for their qualifications, thus I feel that judges are permitted to exercise their discretion. Discretion can positively affect the outcomes of cases, saving citizens from unnecessary and excessive sanctions. There are many situations that require judicial discretion in order to prevent substantial harm to an individual/individuals. For example, perhaps a repeat offender is brought in front of a judge for stealing food for his family. While the criminal record of the individual as well as the act committed may elicit imprisonment, imprisoning the individual may result in the loss of a source of food income for the family. Because judicial decisions affect not only the individual involved but also third parties, judicial discretion is necessary to correct the disparity between sanction and appropriate punishment. Some sanctions required by law may be excessive, thus judicial discretion can act as a vessel by which a compromise is made. There are factors that should elicit judicial discretion, such as social background, age, number of dependents, underlying motivations, and even context in which crime is committed.

Underprivildged Children

Many children today are raised in underprivileged neighborhoods. They see things that most other children will never see growing up. Some see this from a young age. Gangs are seen as an easy way to stay protected in low income ghettos. The gangs are looked up to by young children because of the feeling of being safe, or perhaps that child has seen a family member get killed by another person or someone in a rival gang. So these kids try to seek asylum within the gang to get revenge for what they have seen and been through. These children still have a chance at life, and becoming a well rounded citizen. If one of these children is guilty of a crime, I do believe that lawyers should do their best in representing that child, and hopefully we can get that child rehab to get out of the gang to try to make something of his or herself. Andrew had a good point, he stated, “humanitarians often say “even if I can help only one person it will have been worth it,” and I don’t find this possibility that far-fetched. “ He is absolutely right, if we can help this one child, maybe their story can be passed down to other underprivileged children, and they can make something of themselves too! After all though, we can give that child the tools of success and they can ultimately deny them. If that child wants to make something out of what they have, they will make it happen.
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/lockup-and-first-48-great-shows-and.html

WallyWorld

In the Law, Economics, and Law post by Keith Donnelly he asks a very great question. He states: “Now say Walmart becomes so large that at some point they actually do form a " business monopoly," if even possible. When and where should the government step in with laws? Do they need to or is it the people's responsibility to not shop at Walmart if they do not like the company?” I personally think that the government should say as far and out of a situation as possible. However, if walmart did in fact become a monopoly I think they should step in and start some sort of ruckus. But I also believe that people should take some responsibility if walmart is really ruining mom and pop stores. If you truly are missing out on something, or society as a whole really needs to have something around, then yes, as a responsible United States citizen one needs to stand up and take a stand. It may be true that they are ruining mom and pop stores, however today and with the shape our economy is in, it is obvious that people are going to go where the prices are lower. However, some people on the other hand do not like walmart for their ascetics, or the dirtiness of the store, so they would rather shop somewhere smaller or a place that they feel comfortable. I do not think that walmart will ever become a business monopoly. If things are in fact ruining our economy, yes, I think that responsible citizen will stand up and fight for the cause.

http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/economics-law-and-walmart.html

Weekly Topic 10/13/09

I feel that positivism views law and morality as two separate entities. There is no inherent or necessary connections between law and morality. Law is seen as conceptually separate from moral and ethical values. The positivist argument is solely about the nature of law as a human institution. Hart's formulation of the positivist distinction does reiterate Aquinas's distinction between natural and human law. By distinguishing legal norms from moral norms, Hart is unintentionally reinforcing Aquinas's point. However, positivism and natural law are not similar in their approach to law. Each school of thought has a different end result in mind with regards to the law. Because of natural law's conflation of law and morality into one indistinguishable set of norms, positivism and natural law are fundamentally different. Positivism alters the natural law approach by acknowledging that law and morality are not indistinguishable. This distinction between law and morality seems to be more valid regarding our legal system. While natural law would say that morality is inherent in the law, positivism would say that they are two separate things that happen to randomly coincide. Natural law would assert that morality plays a part in every law, whereas positivism acknowledges that all laws are not morally infused. I would say that positivism does improve the methods of natural law by distinguishing between law and morality. It provides a more modern and accurate approach to law than natural law.

Construction work- Sweatshop?

Everything we wear today is sweatshops or supposedly made at sweatshop in some poverty ridden country. The sweatshop workers, work with dangerous equipment and get paid three cents an hour. This is the argument of people who believe sweatshops are terrible and are an outrage to society. Sweatshops are set in place so that people can make money, and produce products to send all over the world. Just like a 9 to 5 job the workers are earning a form of currency that they can spend. I do not believe sweatshops are bad. In response to Keith Donnelly’s post, and to many other people who argue against sweatshops, if you do not agree with what these people are being put through then you probably shouldn’t be wearing the Nike shoes on your feet, the Polo jeans on your legs, the north face jacket that keeps you warm, or the new era baseball cap on your head. People like to argue about the dangerous conditions that the laborers in sweatshops work in. Have you ever walked past or stood outside of Pollock to see the men who are building the new building by the student health center? That is a pretty dangerous job. Also, I would argue that those men aren’t making a very pretty salary. Those construction workers are busting their backside to build a building they probably will never be in more than once in their lives. Their job is also dangerous and underpaid, why is no one crying out to help them?
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/12/sweatshops-and-natural-law.html

Minorities in Law

Quotas are illegal. In Keith Donnley’s post, he states “I do believe different minorities, genders, and races need to be represented in a law school to have some type of diversity in outlook and disposition, I think is more important to have quality candidates, individuals who are "the cream of the crop" so to say.” I agree that highly qualified candidates are the ones who should get into school and be representing in jobs. Don’t get me wrong it’s great to have others to be represented in our law and in law schools. However, I know that if I don’t get into law school and some minority does who is not as highly qualified as I am, I will be very upset. I do not understand why some people think this is fair to do. The argument I hear most often is “oh, well this minority did not get as good of an education as you because you have the benefit of going to a better school.” In Orlando, Florida, Jones High school is predominately black. Jones high school failed the Florida assessment exam three years in a row. After this Jones got a full renovation inside and out, they were given new desks, paper, pencils, top of the line technological equipment in the hopes that the students would pass. Also teachers from all over the state of Florida were handpicked to come and teach the students. The students were even given the chance to go to any other high school in Orlando to get a so called “better education”. Guess what happened the year after all of the renovations. Jones high school continued to fail the Florida assessment exam. Did those kids have less of an advantage over my education?
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/quotas.html

2nd chances

Life without parole for juveniles is very sad and disheartening. Just think that that child will grow up his or her whole life in a prison cell is very upsetting. Though they did commit some sort of crime, I believe that juveniles still have a chance to prosper and maybe even change their communities and many lives. With this being said, I agree with Jessica Eubanks post. There needs to be categories of juveniles. Obviously children who are anywhere from 15 to 17 know exactly what they are doing, and if they commit a crime we need to press and hold them to the highest standard. Children from 10 to 14, obviously know what is going on in their surroundings. However, I do not think they have fully developed mentally. This age group should be given sentences where they have to go to counseling and have to participate in activities that relate to their specific type of crime. This will give these kids the chance to learn from their mistakes and fix them so they do not commit the same crime. Children under the age of 9 should also be held to a different standard. I believe children who are in this age group are very easy to manipulate. In their situation they need to be scared to the fullest extent. For example, this may sound cruel, but we should put these kids in a jail cell for a hour (alone of course), and have them think about what they did, so it scares the shit out of them that they never want to come back.
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/life-without-parole-for-juveniles.html

Unfair to Nestle

Laws are set in place so that they can be followed by the citizens. As citizens we have a legal responsibility to follow these laws so we stay safe and others around us are also safe. One would think that legal officials would follow these rules too, and would do so not because they are citizen but also because they uphold the standard for the laws in which are set in place. The case where Nestle tried to buy out Hershey’s from Hershey, Pa is simply wrong. Some law that technically did not apply to the case ended the whole suit from Nestle buying out Hershey. How is this fair to Hershey’s? How is it fair to Nesle? It is not fair to either of the companies. I understand that it would have been terrible for the Hershey area and many bad things could have come out of it. That is not my argument. Law makers and judges are in the position they are in to be fair and set the standard. By the judge making a terrible ruling because the town of Hershey would have went under is not fair or legal in my mind to Hershey or Nestle. Perhaps instead of ruling the way the judge did. He could have put an injunction on the deal between the two companies, and tell them that they need to come up with something that would benefit the town of Hershey so that the people who live there would not be out of jobs and that the town would continue to prosper.
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/hershey-pa.html

Don’t cry for me Argentina

This post is a response in damsel don’t distress. Men and women are biologically different, except for a few exceptions. For the most part, men are usually much bigger, stronger, and have to play a role that society expects them to live up to. Women on the other hand are seen as smaller, loving, and nurturing. I don’t necessarily think this makes them more vulnerable, but it definitely can work in their favor. Women can use their sexuality and what the “are supposed to be” by societies standards to get what they want in today’s society. Girls use their looks and their behavior all the time to get plenty of things. Look at Tiger Woods recent affair. Tiger’s wife is gorgeous, and some women obviously swooped him up and untimely he cheated on his wife. Perhaps a better example is Eva Peron, wife of Argentina’s president. She obviously worked her way to the top of Argentina and became a huge political figure in which everyone loved her. They loved her for her charity work, and feminist involvement. Eva Peron obviously used her sexuality to work her way to the top and make something really good out of her while benefiting a whole country. Women need to embrace what they have. There are differences among every person in this world, black, white, brown, yellow, tall, shot, fat, skinny, and most importantly male and female. Just because women are looked at in a different way make something of yourself and make yourself better. Just look at Eva Peron.

Legal Reprocussions??

Though child pornography is a big deal and is harmful to children of all ages, is sexting really a big deal? Now honestly if it was my kid who was sexting, of course I would be very upset, and would punish them. However, sexting should not be a criminal punishment for kids who do this under the age of 18. I agree with Brandon’s post that if a boy and a girl under the age of 18 send naked pictures to each other via the computer or their phone, it is definitely consensual. Both are under age, and both knew what was going on. The pictures were not meant for a 42 year old man from a 16 year old girl or vice versa (which is even more disturbing). Both underage kids knew what they were doing, and should not be charged criminally. No one was harmed and nothing bad happened. It is simply wrong to charge these kids with a crime when technically nothing bad happened. However, if the 42 year old man was sexting the 16 year old girl, then we have a huge problem. In this case the law needs to be laid down. Even though the 16 year old girl knows what she is doing, there is no reason that a man above the age of 18 needs to be receiving nude photos of someone who is not of age. Not only is it sick, it is downright wrong. This man should be prosecuted to the fullest extent.
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/yet-another-sexting-blog.html

Fair Play

Just like the next guy I am very enthusiastic about sports. We all know there are makeup calls in sports. Referees and officials are human and make mistakes. Sometimes the mistakes are in our favors, in which you kind of just brush off and accept because it helps out your team. However, if the call is not in your favor, at least with me, I usually get pretty pissed off and want to kill the official. I think the calls usually happen on accident, or at least I would like to think this way. I do not think that referees or officials give extra leeway to athletes such as Michael Jordan, Alex Rodriguez, the Manning brothers, etc… These athletes are professionals and are treated as such. I have seen Lebron James get many fouls called against him, as well as balls called strikes on A. Rod. It’s simple human error. Professional athletes want the challenge of good competition. It is not fair to say that Michael Jordan got so many calls in his favor because he was a big name icon. There is no doubt that there were calls in Michael Jordan’s favor, however this was because of the fast paced motion of the game. Basketball is very tricky to officiate. There are many rules and so many things happening at once that the officials are going to make the correct calls all of the time. This is why television reviews have come in for extra help, so the call is right.
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/11/officials-in-sports-and-legal-realism.html

Already Equal

Will we ever be equal? Of course we will all be equal. We are all equals today. Women and men serve different purposes every day; this does not mean that one is better than the other. For some reason I feel like the some women think they still aren’t equal. I do not understand the mindset of some of these people. The recent election had two very powerful women fight for very high profile jobs in the United States. Granted both of the ladies lost in their elections, one did not even make it to the primaries, however, a person who makes the argument that they are still oppressed is completely insane. Both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, have been taken very seriously, and both are very smart ladies. They have broken the barrier. This same argument goes to racial inequality. The current president of the United States of America is Barak Obama. That name does not sound like traditional name like, Ronald, George, Bill. Barack Obama, has broken the same barriers as Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton. I believe that as long as someone wants to succeed and make something of themselves they will do it. We just have lazy people in the United States who want to point the finger at each others differences and blame their differences on why they cannot get a job, or the ridiculous claim on how we are all different. Let’s grow up and start taking responsibility. WOMEN ARE NO LONGER SEEN AS STAY AT HOME MOMS!
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/09/will-we-ever-be-equal-feminist.html

18 to shoot 21 to drink

There is much injustice in our legal system. One would argue that some laws are set in place to stop a certain group from achieving something. For the most part I do not agree with this, however, having to be 18 to purchase tobacco products / pornography, 21 to purchase alcohol and gamble holds down those who are under theses ages. These ages are emplaced so that it does not hurt or effect minors. The first time I ever dipped I was 15, and the first time I ever drank on a consistent basis I was 16. Minors will still find their way around the law to get what they want. This is not my problem however. My problem comes with the government setting the age of 21 to purchase alcohol. It is outrageous that no one has stepped up and said lower the drinking age down to 18, or the age where you can serve in the military up to 21. It’s complete bullshit that we have soldiers over in Iraq and Afghanistan shooting enemies at close range, and they can’t even enjoy a cold beer LEGALLY! In my opinion if you want to keep the drinking age where it is at, we should move the age to serve to 21. Maybe this would solve the problem with all of the dumbasses in the United States, just maybe they would like to attend school and get a higher education. Also, how is it fair that someone who is 18 can handle alcohol and serve it but not drink it. Give me a break. Do you actually think your bartender who is under 21 isn’t taking shots on the job?
http://afterthelaw.blogspot.com/2009/08/weekly-topic-injustice-and-law.html

Weekly Topic 10/20/09

I feel that Fuller's assertion of the ameliorating effects of internal morality is fundamentally unprovable. Regardless of explanation or justification of a decision, the underlying motivations may not be noble ones. I would also argue that coherence and order are not good indicators of the state of a legal system. There are plenty of legal systems that I would consider bad but still promote overall coherence and order. For example, I would view communist states as bad legal systems that limit individual liberties and freedoms, yet they still promote overall order. Authoritarian governments also promote order and coherence, yet I would view them as fundamentally corrupt. The entire system is under the direction of one authoritative figure who usually does not have the best interests of society in mind. There are social consequences associated with Fuller's view. Simply requiring explanation and justification of decisions does not elicit good intentions. As Fuller admits, it is naive to say that coherence and goodness have more affinity that coherence and evil. Therefore, it may be impossible to distinguish between internal morality toward fundamentally good or bad systems. Coherence can result from agreement with legal principles and trust in the legal system. However, coherence can also be enforced through a Machiavellian approach. Fear of the sovereign, sanction, or even non-conformity can produce coherence and order.

Rape Shield Laws

Rape Shield Laws are implemented to limit a defendant's ability to cross examine rape complainants about their past sexual behavior. The term also refers to a law that prohibits the publication of the identity of an alleged rape victim. This phenomenon has brought about "rape shield laws," by which special rights appear to be granted to women. This might not be so bad if we know for certain that 100 per cent of women are honest. Is this, however, a realistic expectation? Although the originators of rape shield laws may have had the best of intentions, women are often predetermined to not have the criminal or dishonesty gene under this system. Is this a realistic, reasonable and just assumption? Is it fair to women who are true victims of rape and is it in accordance with our American way of justice? Under rape shield laws, men are usually considered guilty by reason of gender, and evidence pointing to their innocence is often not even allowed into the courtroom. Men's rights are subsequently removed and rendered null and void. According to local statistics, approximately 45% of rape cases are false rape cases. Therefore, women are falsely accusing men of rape in the court of law. Although humans are flawed beings, is this action justified? Shouldn't this statistic imply that in the case of rape, we need to implement more concrete legislation ?

Weekly Topic 10/30/09

Realism's concern with the social effects of legal decisions is an interesting topic. There are many laws that are inconsistent with social reality. For example, the drinking age of 21 years old is a law that is widely ignored. It is inevitable that underage kids will drink alcohol. The judicial dockets are flooded with unnecessary cases regarding underage drinking. I would argue that if America were a truly free country, I could do whatever I want to my own body. I feel that drinking should be a personal choice, not a right earned at the age of 21. Similarly, I feel that drug laws concerning marijuana are inconsistent with social reality. Marijuana is widely used, yet propaganda and politics still continue to wage the war on marijuana. By keeping marijuana illegal, the black market thrives with artificially high marijuana prices. This money ultimately goes to gangs, drug dealers, cartels, and terrorists. If legalized, this revenue could be going to the government. It is estimated that the legalization and regulation of marijuana could bring the state of California 1 billion dollars annually. Also, prisons and courts are flooded with those convicted of marijuana offenses. Prison overpopulation is becoming a huge problem in the United States. They cannot build jails fast enough to keep up with the ever increasing amount of inmates. If marijuana were legalized, the courts as well as the prisons would not be so over-burdened. Additionally, medical marijuana users (yes, skeptics, there are health benefits to marijuana) would not be wrongly persecuted for their medicine. I will concede that legalization may have both positive and negative social implications. However, I do feel that the law should be adjusted to correct for these social realities. The current laws enforce unnecessary sanctions upon individuals for behavior that is considered normative. To not adjust legislation to social reality creates disparity between normative behavior and legally accepted behavior. If normative behavior remains punishable by law individual liberties are limited. There are both positive and negative implications of the realist position that law should be evaluated not only by social advantage but by social implication as well. One danger would be that legislation may evolve to benefit specific individuals and lead to a state where certain groups would be afforded more or less rights than other groups. One benefit would be that laws would not remain unevaluated by the social effects they produce. This would lead to laws that are more or less justified in their actual effects in terms of the behavior in question.

What Constitutes Rape?

Many women in today’s society do not know the true definition of rape. They have a notion in their mind that a rapist is the guy who jumps out of the bushes or follows you down a dark alley. In reality, most rapists are acquaintances. But, most women do not accept this as a form of rape. A wife may believe it is her duty to her husband or a girlfriend’s duty to her boyfriend. If a woman does not consent to sex and is forced in any way then it is without a doubt rape no matter whether it is a stranger, a friend, or a boyfriend/husband.

In the past it was legal for a man to rape his wife, but times have changed and women are given more power. But, women need to be informed of this power. Not only women need to be informed, but society as a whole. I know that sometimes if a woman accuses her husband of rape then society looks down upon this woman. They wonder why she is accusing him of this, doesn’t she know that she’s his wife, or that because they are married this is not considered rape. The public needs to be aware of the true definition as well because when they torment women for being brave and going to the authorities it will either make the women back down or become emotionally unstable. Therefore, our society needs to be more educated and not shun away from the topic of rape.

Posner

I agree with Posner's assertion that his principle of wealth maximization provides the basis for all relevant political rights. However, I feel that the implications of this statement have varied signficance. As Posner states, "The wealth maximization principle accommodates, with elegant simplicity, the competing impulses of our moral nature." This can be very problematic, however. Because of the nature of the beast, the elite are inherently more advantaged both economically and politically. Thus the elite are better suited to transform and change political as well as economic liberties to better suit themselves. They can work the system such that they are undoubtedly better suited to profit and retain the majority of the power. I would argue that wealth maximization leads to situations where small businesses are ever increasingly being put out of business by larger corporations. Because of wealth maximization, the working class struggles to get ahead while the elite class simply retains and builds upon its power. The complications that arise from a legal or economic system in which people are unaware of what they really want or what political rights best serve their wants and needs only contribute to the disparity between the elite classes and everyone else. Because people are unsure of what they want, they are easily deceived into perpetuating a system that benefits the advantaged. Because people are unfamiliar with their rights and how to benefit from them, they will struggle both economically and politically. Those that are enlightened, however, will use the system to their benefit.

Social life

I believe people are a product of their environment, to some degree. When it comes to being male or female, I think nature has more to do with it than we think. We say that we are animals, but what separates us between each other is our logic and reason. We can think things through, level out the pros and cons, do math problems, and even go to speed dating. One thing still troubles me and it is the fact of mating. Sure animals usually have sex just to reproduce save dolphins and a couple other animals who have it also for their enjoyment. So now you have to ask a question, do we get turned on and all "hot and sweaty" for things that the social system says to be hot, or is it all down to a personal level? I honestly think use social ads just use our personal choices against us so that we must buy something or do something. What I'm saying, is that what turns me on can be very different from other people. For the general part, I am attracted to women and so are most dudes, but what lies differently between me and other men is different color hair, different color makeup, different skin tones, different outfits, and so on and so on. Is it Disney flicks that tell me what I should see in a girl, or is it just because I like hot girls? So my point with nature is that males seek out the females and the males usually seek out a "hot" one to them and the males always have to be the strongest and toughest. People have always grown up like this. Girls get barbies, toy houses, and fake stoves and guys play in dirt, knock down block buildings, and play with trucks because that is what they like to play with. Ads and companies aren't setting the example for what we should buy; it's people's nature, as well as animals' nature, to pass on the things they've learned from their parents and businesses see this and simply sell more. I just feel that nature has a lot more to do with explaining things than we think. Sometimes because of our gift of reason, we tend to over think and over analyze our way of life. Some things are just unexplainable and that is just the way of life.

A sexiest judicial system

What it means to call a judicial system sexiest if it does not mean one sex is promoted over the other is that when laws or decisions are created by legislation their must be some type of adversity. If a judicial system is sexiest Mackinnon is trying to explain that men are dominantly making the rules for the country. Without the diversity of women then according to her theory there is a discrimination against women because they are not involved in the legislative process. Men dominantly hold most positions in congress and are the majority on the U.S. Supreme Court. Unfortunately women do not hold many positions in congress or on the bench and there still has yet to be a woman president. This does not mean that woman have not made strides through history because there are two women who serve on the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, there are several women in congress and the House of Representatives such as Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin. Mackinnon’s argument does make sense because it is the same comparison to having to diversify juries when deciding a case. By having diversity in the jury it will bring different opinions and views to the court giving the defendant a fair trial instead of having all of the same people with same philosophies deciding the case. This was shown in the Powell v. Alabama case where the Supreme Court found the trial unconstitutional because they did not allow black citizens to rule on the jury. By not having women involved in the legislative process and judicial process the judicial system is sexiest under Mackinnon’s arguments

Different but not Equal

Isn't that post the exact same thing that I said in class? Anyway, let's just assume that I'm right no matter what and move on. Here's the thing: it's true that men and women are not equal. Neither is better than the other, but it's like comparing apples to oranges. The problem is that unlike apples and oranges, we are comparing two categories of self-defined human beings. In order to compare, we need categories and criteria. So basically what we have here is categories to compare categories to each other, the criteria for which are not constant and are self-invented. It's definitely confusing and that's why there won't be an answer to who is better. There are so many different ways to compare men and women that there will never be a right answer. How society sees things is different. Society as a whole thinks men are more powerful, dominant, and in control. But since society is made of individuals, couldn't we change this perception just by thinking differently? It's a wonder that hasn't happened yet.

Women Need To Take Responsibility

I think women are just doing themselves an injustice by claiming that society and cultural institutions are denying them ownership to their sexuality. While it is certainly true that no law should ever actively discriminate against a gender, society seems to have forgotten that there ARE differences between men and women. Men and women are not the same, and they shouldn't be treated the same. That doesn't mean that one gender is better than the other one, it just means that they're different. Women need to stop complaining that society is treating them unfairly. In today's society there are very very few instances were women are being discriminated against because of their gender. Most of the time, women are favored for jobs and grad schools because companies and universities want to diversify. Women need to stop being victims, they should be empowered by the gender and not let it cripple them. To some extent women are in control of how they're treated by men and society. You need to respect yourself before you can ask other people to respect you. Women need to behave in a manner that shows that they are respectful of themselves and that will earn respect in return.

Equal Opportunity Employment

Traditionally females are at a disadvantage in the workplace. It has been said that male have a higher salary for doing the same job that a female can. But then we look further into the situation. When females are given opportunities, they make the argument that they are only getting the job because they are female. They turn the qualifications into something gender related, while they really fit the qualifications. Females will go out and say I’m only getting this position because I’m a female. Well this is not fully true; we should be basing all positions on qualifications not gender. Females have gotten more rights over the past fifty years and they still want more, but they are looking at it in the discriminatory way. This is totally wrong. They should be seeing that they are supposed to be in that position and accept the opportunity. Instead they argue that they are just getting the position because they are female. We look into society and see that men and women are not equal and they probably will never be. The military is an equal opportunity employer, but the draft only requires men to register. There is no fairness in that. Men should not be above females and females should not be above men, we just have to accept our responsibilities and do the best we can to help society.

Pornography

Pornography is a controversial topic of discussion due to its vulgar and obscene nature. Throughout the porn industry, indivdiuals expose their bodies on a daily basis as a career, yet do they feel forced to take part in these actions? Personally, I feel taking part in sexual acts for public enjoyment is a personal choice, although quite degrading. In Mackinnon's opinion, pornography acts against women twice, when it is made, and when it is viewed. First, women are degraded, raped and (in her belief) even killed in the making of pornographic pictures and films. Then, the pictures and films further participate in the degradation, rape and murder of women by the users of pornography. To cite just one example from Mackinnon's Only Words, Linda Marchiano, then known as Linda Lovelace, was beaten and threatened at gunpoint by her husband during the filming of Deep Throat. The movie then caused men to force women to try acts which Marchiano had only been able to perform under hypnosis. According to Mackinnon, numerous women were hospitalized directly as a result of the film; some were raped by strangers, others were coerced or raped by boyfriends. So is the porn industry led by a demented group of men abusing women on daily basis, or are these women placing themselves in "uncompromising" positions? Where do we draw the line between choice and coercion?

media and gender roles

Traditional gender roles place women subordinate to men. Although much improvement has been made in recent years, traditional gender roles are still visible in much of society. For example, advertisements portray women as skinny and weak and men as strong and dominant. Female models look like twigs and male violence is glorified in movies. The media plays a large part in how young children view the world. Young girls are encouraged to look like skeletons and young boys learn that steroids are safe from their favorite baseball stars. Children feel pressured to fit these stereotypes or else they will be ridiculed. Girls will be called fat and boys will be wimps. Sports are a great example of gender disparity. Girls who play sports are labeled as tomboys or lesbians. On the other hand, boys are expected to be athletic and to play sports. Children learn the way they should act from a very young age. Outside influence, such as media, tends to enforce traditional gender roles. The most important influence on a child comes from the home environment. Children who are abused at home often become future abusers. However, what sort of impact does the media have on the lives of children as they become adults? Would children grow up differently if they watch pornography instead of Sesame Street? I believe the answer to that question is yes; however where do we draw the line? Parents have the responsibility to guide their child in the correct direction and not let the media cloud their view of the world.

Focus on the Kid, Not the Sexual Preference of Parents

While there is much debate over gay people adopting children and how it is unfair to the child, I think that nothing is really fair for a child whether his/her parents are gay or not. The fact that the parents are gay should not determine whether or not they get to adopt a child, but there should be some sort of test all child-wanting couples should go through in order to adopt a child.
There are cases where a gay couple may provide a much better childhood for a kid than a straight couple would. For example, my friend's cousin is gay and is about to finish grad school, and his boyfriend or significant other or whatever is a lawyer, and they easily pull in enough money and are happy with each other that when they do adopt a kid they can provide for it. On the other hand, a friend of mine from high school had a kid when she was 17. She got drunk with the kid's dad and had sex without thinking, and now they have a kid, and neither of them had a job or even finished high school. The kid's dad drank way too much, so this story had drunken abuse written all over it. In these two cases, would the child not be better suited to be raised by the gay men rather than an alcoholic straight couple? I know that they didn't plan on the kid but this example was just to show that there are tons of kids out there who are in shitty homes and would most likely not mind two mommies or daddies in exchange for a happier childhood. When you look back on your childhood and your time with your parents, you think of the times you spent with them, so as long as the people can provide happy memories, who cares what their sexual preference is?
As for the test, orphanages or adoption services should investigate potential adopters, regardless of sexual preference, and if they have a stable income, healthy environment, and are generally happy people, then they can adopt a child.

girl push-ups

Feminists want equal rights and opportunities for women. Women got the right to vote; they now receive higher education and obtain professional jobs. Gender relations have come a long way but feminists still want more. Feminists only want the advantages of being male to be equal for females. By taking this road, women hide behind their gender and take less responsibility.
For example, even though women are now allowed to join the military, they are still not required to register for the draft. All U.S. male citizens are required to register for the draft once they turn 18. It’s interesting that women fought to get into the military yet left out the part about registering for the draft.
Today, I was taking a physical fitness assessment for my walking class and I noticed something odd. In this assessment, you are required to perform sit-ups, push-ups, a sit and reach test and a bike test. While riding the bike, I noticed a girl doing “girl” push-ups. Yes, girl push-ups; the ones on your knees and not your feet. I just did push-ups the regular way, how can you allow her to do girl push-ups and grade us equally? The test does not ask how many girl push-ups you can do. Do girls not want to do regular push-ups as the test states? If women want to be judged equally to men, they can’t decide to take the easy route and hide behind their gender. Feminists have a habit of only pointing out the inequalities when they are not in favor of women.

Sex fo MONEYYYYY

When discussing feminist jurisprudence, a topic that came to my mind is prostitution. Nevada is the only U.S. state to allow legal prostitution; in most of it's rural counties brothels are legalized, yet heavily regulated. 28 legal brothels exist in the state with 300 prostitutes in each. What comes to my mind is whether or not this would be allowed if some of the prostitutes that were legal in the state were male. A subject that surrounds much feminist controversy is that men view women as sexual objects who are meant for their pleasure and admiration. This is part of the reason that many people believe that prostitution has flourished throughout the world. Would male prostitution be as accepted throughout society? This is part of the reason that many feminists believe that society is focused on the male perspective of women and their objectivity. Male prostitution does exist. But, how prevalent is it? Many people don't even know that male prostitution happens throughout the world. I believe that this happens because it is not as accepted for men to be seen as sexual objects. This can also stem to the argument that when men sleep with several women, it's seen to be a conquest. Opposite of pride, a woman can sometimes be persecuted for sleeping with several men and they are called "sluts." Why is there this constant double standard? Although it is not seen through all aspects of society and not all people believe this, the facts still stand true. The ratio of male to female prostitutes is very large and I believe this has a lot to do with the fact that women are objectified within society.

Gay Parents

A topic of much controversy is the issue of gay couples being able to adopt. I can't honestly say that my opinion goes either way on the issue. Over the past four years of college I have found myself becoming much more accepting of gay people and their rights. I come from a very conservative rural town and the views of my parents are much different than my own have grown to be. Although society is changing and our views are becoming more accepting of homosexuals, transgenders, and their rights, we are still not at a point where this is completely accepted. The common norms of society have not become even equally half and half when it comes to those that live "alternative" lifestyles. I do believe that gay people have the same amount of compassion and ability to raise healthy and happy children, but I do not believe that those children will be treated equally when it comes to other children's ridicule and growing up in today's society. I have never met someone who has been raised by gay parents so I cannot say from experience whether or not they lived a different life than those that were raised by heterosexual parents. It can be argued that homosexual or transgender parents can actually be BETTER parents than heterosexual parents. Some people are unfortunate enough to be raised by divorced parents, single parents, or even no parents at all if they are orphans who never had the privilege to be adopted. The issue is one that each individual needs to take their own side on and I hope that eventually it will be accepted amongst all that homosexual and transgender people are just as capable as any other to raise healthy and happy children.

More Gay Adoption

After hearing the debate in class over whether or not gay people should adopt, i have come up with my own opinions. Now i do not personally know any gay people with adopted children nor do i know anybody that was raised by same sex couples but i have heard a lot about it on the news and internet. Many people claim that a child with same sex parents will not get the right upbringing and will develop problems later in life. This goes back to the whole nature vs. nurture debate. So it is hard to study teenagers who had same sex parents and blame all of their faults on that. To a traditional natural law theorist, homosexuality is morally wrong and is considered a sin by the Bible so they would not agree with it. To a positivist, there are certain states that have no laws against same sex couples adopting so as long as its legal, there is no problem. In my personally opinion, i have no qualms about gay adoption. I am actually very for it. There are so many orphans in the world that are in desperate need of a loving home whether its a heterosexual or homosexual couple should not matter. Coming from a feminist perspective, if men and women are equal then it should not matter if its two men, two women, or one of each who raises a child. In the eyes of the law, i feel that if two competent human beings want to take an orphan into their homes and love and care for them, there should be no law restricting that.

gay adoption

The issue of gay adoption was brought up in class. Some argued that having two moms or two dads is detrimental to children as they would be the subject of ridicule from other classmates. Others argued that having two, same-sex parents would be better than only having one parent. Either way, gay adoption is sure to stir some debate. I don’t believe this dispute will be settled without a clear stance on gay marriage, a topic I chose not to discuss.
To be honest, I used to be against gay adoption. I thought that gays would teach their children to be gay. These children would be ridiculed in school for having two moms or two dads. I thought the boys would turn into wimps and the girls into tomboys. We debated gay marriage in one of my other classes and my viewpoint changed. I’ve heard stories from former classmates that said they were not ridiculed for having two moms. I’ve seen statistics that said children are no more likely to turn out gay if parents are gay. It seems these myths I previously believed are just common homosexual stereotypes.
Many children in the United States are currently orphans and don’t have any parents. Is it fair to deny these children a loving family just because of the parent’s sexual preference? I don’t think so. These children want parents no matter if they are black, white, blue, green, gay or straight. Times are changing and many more people are acceptant of homosexuals. Homosexuals can not be discriminated against in the workplace so why can’t they adopt an orphan child. By prohibiting gay adoption, we place thousands of children in a misfortuned situation.

Should this really be a law?

A lot of people are blogging about sexting and how they feel about it. It is quite obvious that possessing child pornography is wrong and should be illegal. However, we need to take a non-positivist approach to this. We have to look at the facts of the case and not just prosecute because the law says to. A realist would look at a case involving a 15 year old girl who has naked pictures of herself on her phone and ask themselves, does she deserve the same punishment that a middle aged man with naked pictures of a child should receive? A positivist would say yes. This just doesn't seem right to me. However, i see the predicament that lawmakers are in. They have to make laws that apply to everyone. No one should receive special treatment in the eyes of the law. Getting convicted of possessing child porn can have the consequence of labeling you a sex offender. So let's say that the 15 year old is convicted of having naked pictures of herself on her phone and has to register as a sex offender. That means that pretty much any career she wanted to get into that involved children is no longer available, all because she has naked pictures of HERSELF on her phone. This does not seem fair to me. Now in the eyes of a traditional natural law theorist, she is morally wrong to some people because porn is morally wrong but she is doing what makes her happy and that is what natural law is all about.

So She's a Prude?

On Tuesday in class, the topic of MacKinnon's sexual history came up. Several comments were made about the fact that she seemed like a prude and someone that had never had sex because she didn't believe women had control when it came to sex. Two things came to my mind when thinking about this claim. First, I believe that MacKinnon was saying that the reason it seems as if women do not have as much control as men do when it comes to sex is because of the definitions when it comes to rape and sexual intercourse. By law, the definition of sexual intercourse is "penetration" of the vagina by a penis. Rape is when this occurs forcefully and without consent of both parties. Because the definitions of these terms are more focused on the action of the man and not focused at all on the action involved in the woman, MacKinnon is stating that the law is more focused on men instead of women. Secondly, part of the reason that MacKinnon might have put her words the way that she did is because of the way that society views women and femininity. Women are meant to be passive and are rarely seen as the aggressors when it comes to sex and sexuality.

Penn State students live in a unique situation. Many college women are able to be aggressive and most men have learned to express that they enjoy women to be both passive and aggressive. Just because MacKinnon believes that the law is defined in terms of the male and his actions, does not mean that she did not ever have sex or that she isn't a sexual being. Some women are stuck in a time in which it was unacceptable for women to be the aggressors they are sometimes accepted to be in today's society.

megan's law

I’m sure most of you are familiar with Megan’s Law. If not, Megan’s Law requires convicted sex offenders to register for a website that the public can view. The website offers a way to know if a sex offender is living in your area. Megan’s law was enacted in response to the rape and murder a little girl in New Jersey. Megan was killed by a neighbor who was a convicted sex offender. Megan’s parents argued that if they had known the neighbor was a convicted sex offender, they would have told Megan not to interact with that man. At first glance, this law seems to be a great tool for parents to use to protect their children. However, Megan’s law has sparked much debate.
Proponents of Megan’s law state that the law is necessary to protect children. The law works in the way that it creates awareness. Parents can look on a Megan’s law website and find a list of convicted sex offenders in their area. The parent can then see a picture of the individual, his or her address and the crime he or she committed. For me, this law is a no-brainer. The law was obviously enacted to protect children, minors who can not make legal decisions for themselves.
Those opposed to Megan’s law state that the law violates the rights of sex offenders. People with this view are more concerned with due process rights than the safety of citizens. They argue that sex offenders’ lives are ruined upon release from prison and registration with this website. I do not feel sorry for sex offenders. What about the life of the victim that is forever changed? I’m sorry Mr. Sex Offender, but you made a bad decision and now you have to pay the price. The safety of children is more important than the rights of convicted sex offenders.

sexting laws

The topic of sexting comes up frequently in class as this is a new trend. Currently, sexting is being prosecuted under old legislation. This poses a problem because new crimes don’t often fit old laws. Law and technology are competing in a race and law is trailing far behind. This is the result of the law being reaction-based, as I have discussed before. Laws tend to be a step behind society. This disparity can be seen in trials involving, Twitter, MySpace, Napster, etc. Technology seems to be a driving force behind the law, requiring the law to adapt and change with society.
Minors are often those who are charged with sexting crimes. We’ve all heard stories of when a young girl sends a boy a picture of herself naked. There are several different charges that can arise from this situation. Let’s assume both parties are under the age 16. The girl can be charged with distributing child pornography and indecent exposure, both hefty crimes. The boy can be charged with receiving/possession of child pornography when he himself is a minor! He may not have even wanted the picture! Also, neither party can legally consent to any transmission of pornography because they are both minors. Therefore, sexting is illegal when minors are involved and both parties can face prosecution. It will be interesting to see when legislation rules on the legality of sexting. It’s hard to make sexting a crime as the action is almost always voluntary. However, I understand the need to protect children and prosecute those who possess child pornography.

Females

On the topic of women and comparing them to men I find that there are certain qualities that each group is generally better at. For example, the stereotype is that men are bigger and powerful, while women are better communicators. There has also been question on the inequalities for women. Affirmative action is one topic that seems to come to mind. About every class on law we have talked about affirmative action, so should women who have been passed over for years for jobs be given an advantage because of affirmative action? I feel that it would be unfair and from talking in other classes some women don’t want the help they want to do it on their own. They feel like affirmative action makes people look at women in that position as being the benefit of affirmative action even if it isn’t the case. So to me I think that affirmative action is unfair and we as a society should just get away from the belief that women are not capable of doing certain jobs. Some women are showing this now, for example, in law enforcement. Many feel that only men can work as a police officer but many women are doing well at this job. Look at the case of the shooting at the army base in Fort Hood, Texas. The officer that took down the suspect and saved many lives was female. So for me I feel like we as a society can get away from the view of women as being incapable of performing at certain jobs. We don’t need affirmative action to help with this because it just creates more problems in my opinion.

Yeah, Duh

Women's sports is a pretty complex issue in Feminist Jurisprudence. Here's the deal: women's sports are not as exciting as men's sports, because men are physically more developed. The top male athlete vs. the top female athlete in the same sport would favor the man 99% of the time, and the 1% would be because he was getting a drink of water. The common misconception is that people don't watch women's sports because they're sexist, or because they have some grudge against it as if it's hurting men's sports. This is completely false.

The reason people don't watch women's sports is because it's less exciting than men's sports. Men (for the most part) run faster, hit harder, jump higher and kick further than women. Consider this: people love watching sports. Don't you think that they'd also love it if they had more sports to watch? I wouldn't care if it was a man or a woman playing soccer as long as it was an awesome match and it was entertaining. Unfortunately, I've watched women's soccer and I've watched men's soccer. Women's soccer doesn't interest me. It has nothing to do with sexism; hell, I WISH it fascinated me. I long for the day when I can watch twice as much soccer, first watching the women's matches and then switching over to the men's. That isn't the reality of the situation.

Because of the above situation, women's sports recieve far less attention. Ask yourself though, "in today's economy, is there really a monetary upside to ignoring women's sports if it's as entertaining as men's? Surely then it would garner equal, if not higher, ratings." If women's sports were equal to men's, it would be a pretty stupid broadcast network that ignored a potential cash cow that would essentially double its revenue. ESPN would go out of business if it only showed men doing slam dunks when women were doing the same thing. The problem is that women AREN'T doing the same thing.

I am fully behind giving women the opportunity to play sports and I also fully support women's sports teams. That doesn't mean I want to watch them, but it does mean that I am all for that equality. Moral support doesn't mean much, however, when viewers vote with their eyes and with their wallets. And that's what it really comes down to. (See, somehow I kind of tied that back into Economic Analysis of Law).

Women and Rape

In class on Tuesday we had quite an interesting debate. One of the things discussed was the definition of rape and the power men have over women. I think that it is always looked at that men always have the power over women when it comes to sex. However, I think that women just have as much power as men do. Yes, men may be bigger and stronger but that doesn’t mean they are the dominate one. Women use their wits sometimes while men just use their strength. I worked at Rockview last summer and I had a bunch of rapists on my case load; obviously they were all men since it is an all male institute. These men were sick, the way they manipulated the women and children they raped and the lengths they went to just to have sex with them. So this sparked my interest while I was there about women and rape. I remember reading this one case about the woman who sexually molested her own daughters. The father was part of it too, but she was the master mind behind the whole thing. She told her daughters it was natural to be naked around the house and she even made them sleep naked with her and her husband. They also penetrated their daughters using pencils and other objects saying it was good for them. So women can be just as disgusting as men. Even though men commit these crimes more often, I think women are just as capable to commit horrible crimes.

Women Image and Sexism in Sports

As we all know women always complain about they don't have the same power as men. Truth is we don't have the same power as men in society because our laws came from a male traditional view point. Even though today we have the right to vote and we are involve in politics and the government there are still issues that bother me. For example many Americans love sports in our country. Female sports isn't as popular as male sports. First if a female plays sports people sometimes automatically think she is a lesbian. Some males look at females to be manly when they play sports. Females sports don't get high ratings and don't get publicized as much. I feel sometimes ESPN airs a women sports because they don't want to be view as sexist. When ESPN airs a women sport their TV ratings go down at time. Here at Penn State Penn State Football and Women's Volleyball team are in season at the same time. One can see its all about Penn State Football when reality the Women's Volleyball is the best team at Penn State but when you read the Daily Collegian they have a section for the Penn State Football team. The only time I remember a women's team being popular around campus was the Women's Basketball Team Coach didn't approve of her player being a Lesbian. Yes this shows that a women coach didn't support a lesbian on her team but this scandal took away from how good the women's basketball team was good a few years ago. I feel we don't have enough support from the media about women sports .I feel women sports makes ESPN countdown when is something negative for example ESPN played the WNBA fight so many times then a womens basketball game. As we all know everything takes time because women just started getting thier shine in politics and we also have famous athletes representing for women sports. I bet a someone can name a Mens basketball team roster before a women basketball team roster.

Were Our Laws Base on Men Views?

Feminist Jurisprudence is the philosophy of law based on the political, economic , and social equality of sexes. Some feminists believe our laws were written from a male point of view and doesn't reflect the women's role in making history and structuring society. I do believe our laws were written from a male point of view because it is true that men wrote our laws lol. When our laws were written women werent important to society. They were still known as traditional house hold wives who's job was to cook, clean , pro- create and keep their husbands happy. It wasn't until the 19th century women had the right to vote and participate in making laws and governing laws. As one can see our laws were base on men views and even up today certain laws do affect women in the patriarchal power because they are based on men morals. Women today still feel laws enable women to compete in the market place. When are laws were created they had traditional values behind it that put women at a lower advantage and didn't take in consideration women value and morals. It wasn't until cases like Roe Vs Wade women started having a voice in law and protection of their rights. We are improving last year Hilliary Clinton was a Democrat candidate for President of the United States and not only we have another women United States Supreme Court Justice but she is a Hispanic female.

Digging for Empowerment

In class Tuesday, there was much debate over feminism and a woman's control of her sexual being. MacKinnon argued that women do not control their sexuality because it is dominated by men. I think that this thought may have some truth to it...but only in certain situations. These situations would include when a woman is raped or when one is in a relationship where she is often convinced to have sex when she doesn't want to. However, I feel that women do have control over their own sexuality, and many abuse it more than MacKinnon thinks men do. I do not mean women raping men, although that does happen, but I am talking about gold-diggers. Gold-diggers are, more or less, glorified prostitutes, as they have sex with a man that not many would like to touch simply because he has money and spends it on her. The gold-digger would most likely feel empowered because she is getting a lot of glamorous things and living the good life for the low cost of her dignity, which probably isn't worth much, and having sex with someone who probably won't be alive for very long if it is a case like Anna Nicole Smith or something. But would MacKinnon cheer on gold-diggers because they are women that are taking control of their sexuality? Or would she make some claim about men trying to control all women with their bank accounts and keep them from working so men can dominate the working fields?

We are better at different things

A question that I want to ask is whether or not we think that creating a government that is autonomous of sex would be the best thing for our Country. MacKinninn defines sexuality and gender as political terms. Concrete medical research points out the biological differences in men and women. For one thing, men are much better at compartmentalizing emotions. Perhaps this is a reason that men tend to take the dominant position in our society. It is not necessarily a bad thing that men are better at this, and that women are worse, but it is a factor that would cause the genders to rule in a different way. I don't know that looking toward a political state that possesses an autonomy of gender would even make sense. Maybe we are put in our societal roles because that is what we are inherently better at. Men might just be inherently better rules, where women might just be inherently better nurturers. But I guess maybe we are in those roles because society says that it is so... Would creating an absolute autonomy of gender ever work in our society? Or would it fail?

Women dont have complete control of sexuality

I believe that in our society today, women still do not have complete control of their sexuality. While they may argue that they are using this sexualtiy and position of "vulnerability" as someone mentioned earlier to their advantage, they are doing so under the social pressures placed on them by society and men. Men have been and still are the dominant gender in society. Look at any political profession (president, senators, supreme court justices), all are dominated by men. Women are still trying to gain control of their own sexuality and to break away from what society is pushing upon them. However, most women are comfortable with their role in society and are not trying to change it. There is so much pressure placed upon women to please men in our society that they go way out of their way in order to do this. Regardless of whether or not some admit to it. There is no other reason for women to buy such expensive designer name clothes, wear make-up, or dress sluty except to impress. And for what purpose would women need to impress each other in such a manner. Clearly there is still a holding by men of women's sexuality and how they use this sexuality. Women are typically the ones that are expected to please a man. It is not the other way around in this society. THere are pressures placed on women to have sex with guys and while they do have the final say in whether or not they participate in these sexual acts, society's pressures play a much larger role in this decision than the womens opinion, feelings, or amount of control over her sexuality.

"Men's" Definition of Rape

I think that MacKinnon's feminist theory holds no water, particularly in today's society. She talks about how the crime of rape is defined by penetration, which is a "male-defined" loss. By all means, change rape to a "female-defined" loss, but I am unsure exactly how she would change it. A defining part of rape is "penetration, however slight." It is usually this aspect that distinguishes between sexual assault from rape. These crimes carry different punishments, so they have to be clearly defined. If MacKinnon wants to redefine rape to a woman's definition, does this mean changing how rape is defined into something lesser? I'm sure being sexually assaulted is very traumatizing, but most would agree that being raped (by today's definition) is worse than being sexually assaulted. For comparison, think about the difference between being stabbed in a fight and being killed in a fight. This is why I think that the current definition of rape, no matter what sex defined it, is good the way it is.

Also, I think it was very interesting to find out that MacKinnon was once engaged for several years but the relationship later ended, with her declining to comment. Maybe this fueled the bitterness a little? It adds a fun new twist. I know that it is a stereotype, the man hating femi-Nazi that only hates men because she can't get one, and she probably doesn't really hate men, but it just worked out too perfectly to not comment about it.

Women's sexuality

I feel that women have definitely gained complete control over their sexuality, especially in today's society. I will take porn for example. People always say that porn is demeaning to women and it shows them in inferior positions. However, no one is forcing these women to do porn. They are choosing this occupation on their own free will. Most women realize that a very large portion of the male population views porn and are willing to pay top dollar. In the porn industry, women are paid a substantial amount more than their male costars. So even though the porn industry was created by men, it is controlled by women who are taking advantage of their sexuality to make money. On a broader scale, if a woman wants to go to a bar for a casual encounter with a man, they will dress accordingly and usually use their sexuality in deciding their outfit. I'm not saying all women because i don't like to generalize but it is quite evident, especially in the bars in State College. Women have been oppressed for a very long time and i completely agree with them using any advantages they have in order to advance in society. There is the classic saying "Sex sells" and this is very evident. Just look at most ads on TV. For example, the Victoria Secret commercials. They do not need to show models with perfect bodies displaying their product if they are solely advertising towards women. If the models were normal women with average bodies, i think women would still buy their product. So why use sex to sell this product?
Maybe in the '80's, women were less inclined to take advantage of their sexuality but, in today's society, they have complete control over it.

women as equals

I think it is fair to say that in today’s modern society the feminist movement has been a great success and has advanced many women into positions in society that they never thought they could achieve years ago. This is because women in today’s society are and can just be as successful as men, when they apply themselves, and show that they are just as good as a man if not better in a certain positions. We have seen from the past political election that women have a very good chance at becoming a President or Vice President. We saw Sarah Palin advance to the primary elections with John McCain. John McCain could have chosen strong a male candidate such as Mike Huckabee or Rudy Giuliani, to be his running mate. Women have definitely advanced since the women’s suffrage movement first started. Women are not seen as stay home mothers, or someone to come home to and expect dinner to be on the table, anymore. This is not the standards of today’s society at all. Women have risen through the ranks through suffrage to gain the respect they have deserved throughout many years. Personally, I think that it is shared among most households that men and women work together to build a successful family and a good and healthy relationship. This used to be known as the women’s job and duties around the house, now men are accepting the fact that it is team work that in fact builds a family.

Damsels don't distress

This post is in reference to the conversation that we had in class today regarding the sexuality of women. It is easy for us as a society to say that women are more helpless than men because that is the position in which we are put. But there is so much concrete biological evidence that shows that women and men are inherently different as human beings that I think we need to think about that aspect of it. McKinnon talks about how women are never truly in control of their sexuality, and that "sexuality" is a political term. But maybe women can actually gain more power by embracing the vulnerable position. There are many instances throughout history of women using their sexuality as a manipulation tool in order to get what they want. And while there is a lot of argument today about women being put in the inferior position, maybe women have done this because subconsciously they (as a group, not as individuals) have wanted to become more vulnerable. Maybe the damsel isn't really in distress, maybe she just wants to pretend that she is.

Feminism and Equality

I think 'feminism' almost always carries a negative connotation, even though that according to the definition of feminism, there is nothing negative or outlandish about it. Feminists are stereotyped as being butch man-haters advocating for women to hold some sort of power over men. But really, all feminists really seek is equality for all genders, which to me seems completely reasonable. It sounds so simple, and many probably think that men and women are already equal, just like so many fail to see the inequality that still exists between races. I think that much of society sees us way past civil and women's rights movements, looking down upon those that are still trying to stand up for some sort of equality. Realistically, society has a long way to go towards equality. There are definitely radical, extreme feminists that give others a bad name, but I do not think feminists in general should be looked at as negatively as they often are.

How Men See Women

"The law sees and treats women the way men see and treat women." MacKinnon states that the state achieves it's dominance by embodying and ensuring male control over women's sexuality at every level. I believe that this is true to an extent. For centuries, men have had control and dominance over the law as well as the most influencial and controlling aspects of society. Because of this control, they have been able to subdue women to a role in which they are at a lower status than men. It hasn't been until the past couple decades that some men have become progressive and accepting of women as capable members of society. Success has come to those women who have been persistent and have been able to break the status quo and make upward movement professionally. The law is controlled by a largely proportionate male population. Yes, we there have been female members of the Supreme Court. Yes, there are female judges. Yes, there are female Congrees women. But, overwhelmingly our government is still controlled by men. This is reflected in discrimination to women within the court system and the difficulty for women to reach high status within the government. The nation has seen tremendous strides in these terms though, and they cannot be ignored. Hillary Clinton is the prime example of how far we've come and how much it will continue.

Rape vs. Sex

While reading MacKinnon’s article, I came across something that really bothered me. On page 647 Mackinnon states, “What is the violation about rape, what if we ask, what is the nonviolation of intercourse? To tell what is wrong with rape, explain what is right about sex.” ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Everything is wrong about rape; you are taking someone else’s body without consent and performing any kind of sexual act on that person man or women that they do not want. If someone doesn’t want you to do something to them, (i.e. rape) you are in violation of that person’s personal space and their body. Also rape is not a onetime deal for the victim. The victim has to live with what happened to them for the rest of their lives, and most of the time that victim has mental trauma that they have to come over. It has been proven that after someone has been acquaintance raped, they usually go on and have sex with their perpetrator to get their dominance back over that person. Also, the rape can have an effect on their future sexual life with a partner.
What is right about sex? What is not right about sex? Other than moral obligations to a higher power, I argue that nothing is wrong with CONSENTUAL sex. Sex is not rape. Rape is more than just intercourse. It is any unwanted touching or feeling of someone without their consent to partake in the same practice.
This is the problem, we live in a culture which is sexually supportive, towards women. Of course women are trying to become equals, its questions like MacKinnon that still are holding women at a lower level in society. Maybe we should not victim blame but have the violator take responsibility for their actions.