Law school disclosure

I would like to discuss a very relevant topic to most students in our class. I wanted to know what everyone thought about the information that you must disclose about criminal proceedings against you up to the time you applied to law school. I for one have never been in trouble with the law other than minor traffic violations. I wanted to look at the thought that every application stated that you should omit any traffic violations that are minor, i.e. speeding violations. I found it interesting that our society, well at least the lawyers view traffic offenses not detrimental to the integrity of the practice of the law. We consciously break the laws and when we get caught, we pay the fine for doing so. Why have these acts been deemed okay to commit while others like simple retail theft or minor drug possession leads to the possibility of not being admitted to law school or the state bar. If lawyers don't take traffic laws seriously, then how can we be expected to do so as normal citizens?

Weekly Topic: Economic Liberty and Natural Hierarchies

Last week someone asked me "CLS says that law benefits people of higher social status. Then how do we explain things like welfare and food stamps?" Despite having radically different attitudes on this issue, I believe that CLS and individuals who favor Economic Analysis of Law, such as Richard Posner, have similar responses to this question. Here's how Posner responds to a similar issue in his essay "Utilitarianism, Economics, and Legal Theory:" "the costs of the minimum wage may be tolerable from a wealth standpoint if it were necessary to ward off a dictatorship that would reduce the nation's wealth even more." (140) The point at which Posner and CLS theorists converge is in thinking that hierarchical economic forces will support social safety nets like welfare, food stamps or the minimum wage if these provisions, which are harmful both economically and to social hierarchy, are necessary to prevent greater social transformation and economic disruption. They differ over whether such transformations or social provisions would be a good thing: CLS theorists think it might be, while economic theorists like Posner believe it is relatively bad.

The logic behind Posner's position is that in the tradeoff between economic and political liberties, we are generally right to prefer economic liberties because the wealth generated by economic liberty "provides foundation and accommodation both of individual rights and of the material prosperity upon which, in the modern world, the happiness of most people depends." (136)

• What do you think of Posner's view that his principle of Wealth Maximization provides the basis for all relevant political rights?
  
• What evidence would you cite to support or question Posner's assertion?
  
• What significance do you attach to the CLS claim, which Posner acknowledges, that ideology—Posner calls it "advertising or other features of a market economy[—]lead people to buy things they don't really want?" (114) To put it another way, what complications arise within a legal or economic system when people are unaware of what they really want or what political rights best serve their wants and needs?

Natural Law and Sexting response

This is in response to a post from a few weeks back about sexting...

In the Introduction to the Metaphysics of Morals, Immanuel Kant provides a 'test' that could be applied in this instance. Now it might be a stretch, but he had a test for maxims (ie rules to live by) and uses the example of lying. Say i have a maxim "it is okay to lie" and i want to determine whether it is moral or not. By imagining it to be true for everyone we see that it does not work as if everyone lied then it would undermine and hurt the common good. Similarly, if we were to say that it is all right for 'sexting' i think it would be quite obvious from Kant's angle that it is wrong to text. For example, if it was alright for everyone to 'sext' then it would be as acceptable for pictures of young children to be sexted as it would be for adults to sext as well.

It might be a bit extreme on my part to compare consensual sexting between teenagers to the sexting of child pornography, but I think it is applicable. On the most basic level, sexting is sending pictures of someone naked to another person via cell phone. So if it is wrong for an adult to sext child pornography, then it would be wrong for a teenager to do the same.

Sexting could also violate Kant’s belief that people are only to be treated as ends, never as a means to an end. By sending or receiving a naked picture, an individual is turning the subject of the photo into an object that is used for their own satisfactions (ie a means to satisfaction).

Quotas

In class last week we discussed certain quotas in regards to admissions and law schools. I was wondering what the general consensus was on the idea of a quota? Do you think it is fair? Should we or shouldn't we have them?

I think my own personal belief mirrors that of someone in class (I forget who mentioned it), that is, I think by time one reaches law school it ought to be the best individuals selected for admission, whether they be all white, all black, all female, or all male; in other words, I am not partial toward the idea of a quota. While 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. Perhaps this is merely a personal opinion I hold, but I think the prevalence of racism and prejudice (while it may never fully disappear) have been mitigated by a changing, more accepting generation that we call our own. Think about it: We have an African-American President! The times are changing.

As previously mentioned I do believe minorities, genders, and races deserve a voice within a classroom. But perhaps issues like quotas should be had with lower levels of eduction, something more along the lines of undergraduate admissions. Basically, I think by the time one reaches law school--which is usually around 22,23 assuming you enroll upon completion of undergraduate education--things like race and gender should not matter; instead areas like GPA, the LSAT, and activities/work experience should matter.

Lockup and The First 48-Great Shows and Relevant to Class

In class we discussed the issue of whether or not lawyers should feel compelled to represent guilty clients to the best of their ability. Like many do, I watched a significant amount of television over the break, and much of it was a show called The First 48 and MSNBC’s Lockup. Both shows deal with criminals and oftentimes feature young adults who have committed serious crimes such as murder. The interviews with a lot of them show serious remorse and the acceptance of responsibility for their actions. While I don’t deny that these individuals should be duly punished, I feel that a lawyer who earnestly represents them could have a positive impact on their road to rehabilitation. Most of them have grown up in impoverished neighborhoods where gangs are the only people they can rely on, and so I think to have an attorney really go to bat for them could facilitate a change in lifestyle. This may seem a bit idealistic, but 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.

Life without Parole for Juveniles

Some people have been blogging about whether it is acceptable to send minors to death. This issue can link to another issue that has just made its way to the Supreme Court. This has to do with sentencing juveniles to life without parole for crimes other than homicide. I consider this to be cruel and unusual punishment because I consider life without parole to be more severe than the death penalty. Sending a minor to prison is detrimental to that child’s health. No matter what community the minor was brought up in they still have no experience with the aspects of prison. Prisoners spend a lot of time in isolation and that would drive a minor mad. These juveniles did not get a change to even begin their adult life; it was just taken away from them for one simple mistake. At a younger age a person has the ability to change unlike some adults. I think that most juveniles have the ability to be successfully rehabilitated.

I also think that there should be a consideration of the actual age of the offender because I do know that someone who is seventeen may understand his actions unlike someone who is only ten. Maybe juveniles need to be split into separate categories and then can be sentenced that way. Right now there are eight states with juvenile offenders serving life without parole for nonhomicide crimes: Florida, Louisiana, California, Delaware, Iowa, Mississippi, Nebraska, and South Carolina. I consider that to be a lot of states that sentence juveniles to life without parole. Life without parole is basically like a slow agonizing death. If a juvenile did not murder anyone than why should they have to die in prison?

LSAT should be considered

According to the Law School Admissions Council, the LSAT is meant to do the following:

"The LSAT helps law schools make sound admission decisions by providing a standard measure of acquired reading and verbal reasoning skills that law schools can use as one of several factors in assessing applicants. Prospective law students come from a wide variety of academic backgrounds, ethnic groups, and cultures. Diversity of experience among applicants—both personal and academic—serves to enrich the law school applicant pool and, ultimately, the legal profession."

I believe that someone can be a successful lawyer without being a successful standardized-test-taker. I also believe that someone who is great at taking the LSAT could make an awful lawyer. However, there is really no way of knowing who will get the most out of law school and make good lawyers. The LSAT is the best thing we have.

As far as I know, it's a good way to compare students who went to schools of different calibers and had different majors. It's simple to compare concrete scores like LSAT scores.

I don't think the LSAT should be the sole determiner of admission, but it should definitely be used because it puts all applicants on a level playing field.

Of course I say that now, because I haven't looked at the test yet...

Age of Innocence

Last week's group brought up the topic of youth and the death penalty. In the United States of America 18 is considered the age at which one can no longer be tried as an adult, but what message is that delivering? In the Christian religion there is something that is known as the age of innocence. The age of innocence is the age in which someone is permitted into heaven without "knowing acceptance of God." It is assumed that children of such a young age cannot consciously make the decision as to what there faith is, and in the eyes of God, these people are admitted into heaven. Now, I am in no way trying to turn this into a religious struggle, but I really like the idea of the age of innocence, and I think that the timeline that is followed in religion can be a similar timeline to that of what should be followed for the law. As a Catholic, my first Holy Communion into the eyes of God took place when I was in first grade. First grade. And then the official Confirmation of the Catholic Religion comes at around eight grade. Eight grade. This happens at about age 13. This is similar to the Jewish religion, where one's Bar Mitzvah comes at the age of 13. At that age humans are considered competent enough to commit themselves to one religion for the rest of their lives. I'd be willing to wager that at this age we are also capable of knowing the law. I am certain that I KNEW and UNDERSTOOD what it meant to kill somebody at the age of thirteen. I don't think that there should be an age limit to being tried as an adult, especially in cases such as these. It should go on a case by case basis, and the rule of "age of innocence" should be employed.

Youth and the Death Penalty

In this week’s presentation, the Roper v. Simmons case was explained. In this case, a 17-year old boy and his friend tied up a girl and threw her off of a bridge to her death. The courts have found that it is unconstitutional to sentence a minor to death. I understand the law and I understand that the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but 18? Think back to when you turned 18 years old. Suddenly you can serve your country and buy cigarettes and vote. But were you really more mature at 18 than 17? Probably not. However, its fair to say you probably knew the difference between right and wrong at 17, and most likely years before that. You probably knew what murder was and that it was wrong before age 18. I do not think that there should be a specific death penalty age. I think that the facts of the case (both mitigating and aggravating) should help decide. The particular depraved way that this boy murdered the girl should be taken into account. This was not just a botched robbery or something semi-accidental. It was a preplanned robbery and murder. Premeditation is an aggravating factor.

However, this does not mean I am for giving the death penalty to all minors that commit a murder. I am just saying that the age should not be 18 years old. What if I murder someone at 17 years and 350 days? Technically I cannot be sentenced to death because I am under 18. I think the age should be 16, and then you can look at the facts of the case to make your final decision on whether to execute or not.

Hierarchy in Law Schools

In class we have been talking about Kennedy’s article and hierarchy in law schools. And I feel like hierarchy is just a part of society. Outside law school walls, we have the lower class, middle class, and upper class. In other businesses there are forms of hierarchy as well. There is no company in society where everyone is paid the exact amount. Hierarchy cannot be demolished in law schools when it cannot even be demolished anywhere else.

This reminds me of professional sports like the NFL. Teams pay their most valuable players (starters) more than say someone who never even gets any time on the field during a game. You pay people with the most experience more money than those who have no experience. Once a player starts to make the big plays and becomes a crucial asset to the team then their pay is increased. Therefore, as someone works their way up the ladder then they work their way up the hierarchy.

And I do believe that law professors who receive the most pay may have some other incentive as to why they have that particular job. It might not just be the money, but maybe they work because they enjoy it. Usually most people who spend many years gaining an education by receiving an undergraduate degree, spending three years in law school, and building their resume up significantly have a particular interest in the field. After all of those years of commitment they deserve to be paid more than others because they worked for it.

LSAT/Admissions

In class on Tuesday we had discussed the structuring of law school, as well as law school admissions. At this time, I would now like to discuss a particular topic which I believe will appeal to many in the class: the LSAT and Law School admission.

Planning, hopefully, to attend law school myself, I began researching law schools a few months ago. And it was here I discovered the significance of the LSAT in the law school admissions--it makes up nearly 40-50% of of an admission decision--and it's not an easy test!

Now while I believe there has to be some way to gauge student success in law school besides GPA, I do not believe the LSAT should weigh as heavily in making a decision--that is, I think it should be closer to 30% of the total decision, not 40-50%. My rationale behind this is the following: there are multiple ways to measure intelligence (and to predict success) and, therefore, something like a LSAT--a test one can only take a few times at most--cannot encapsulate how well or not well someone will perform.

With that said, I personally believe GPA (with the difficulty of the major taken into consideration) ought to be the leading the factor (maybe 50-60%), followed by the LSAT (maybe 30%) and lastly followed by activities/work experience (maybe 10-15%). In other words, I think less weight should be given to the LSAT and more to other areas. This, of course, is a personal opinion; however, I am wondering what others in the class think of the LSAT? Do you think it will predict how well one will do in law school? Should it weigh as much in decision factors?

We the Jury Sentence the Defendant to Death

Yesterday in class we talked about the Roper v Simmons case where Simmons, at the age of 17, broke into Roper’s house with is friend, tied her up and threw her off a bridge. In court, Simmons confessed to the murder and even performed a reenactment. This case established that it is unconstitutional to impose the death penalty on someone who was under the age of 18 at the time they committed their crime. I remember discussing this case in one of Texidor’s classes and I always found it interesting. I have always been back and forth when it comes to the death penalty. For some, I don’t believe that it is necessary because it is more effective for them to sit in prison for the rest of their life with the guilt of what they did. However, others do not even think twice about what they did and would do it again the minute they are released from prison; these are the people that I then think they should be put to death. They would just be sucking up the tax payer’s money sitting in prison for the rest of their lives. So then it comes to whether juveniles should be put to death. As discussed in class, it is clear this kid knew exactly what he was doing and didn’t even seem to regret what he did; he is the type of person that is just a danger to our society and should never be allowed back into it. I do believe that some juveniles can do a 180 though and completely change their attitude. After working in the Juvenile Unit at the Chester County District Attorney’s Office, I know that many kids have done this; they make bad mistakes at a young enough age that they are able to change. In this case though, I do not believe that Simmons would be able to change; he was a sick individual. So in the end, I suppose I think that when it comes to sentencing someone to death, it all depends on the person and the circumstances.

Equality in Law School

"Pedagogical condescesion between teachers and students, which later becomes another form of professional hierarchy between senior and junior partners, and is also infected through gender, race, class and political divisions." This is offered forward by Kennedy and I think he does a good job in elequantly explaining the hierarchy of the law profession. When it comes to being a lawyer, whether in the beginning stages or after years of serving, there are always people above each other in the ladder of the law. Law students are the lowest on the totem pole, and once graduating are at the helm of all other lawyers. They are in constant competition with each other from competing to get into law schools, competing for the best grades and opportunities in law school, and then the fight continues once graduating for jobs and progression within firms, etc. The entire system fuels this competition that embodies the law profession.
The hierarchies of gender, race, class and politics come into play once graduating, especially. The class relationship starts earlier than most others these days due to the high cost of law school and the politics of gaining access to law schools. The hierarchies of gender and race play more of a role once in the work force. Whether discrimination should happen or not, it does and this affects the entire system. With the change in time and more acceptance throughout society, not just the workplace, these hierarchies are starting to break down and discrimination doesn't play as big of a role as it used to. More and more, all races, genders and classes are offered the same opportunities and hard work is creating the best lawyers.

Hershey PA

We talked in class about Hershey Pennsylvania and how the entire economy is based on the Hershey Chocolate factory. Well at one point Nestle was trying to buy out Hershey's and all the work was set. The Mayor found out that Nestlé’s was going to close the factory once it was bought so he tried to find a law to prevent the deal. They applied some random law on scholarships that prevented this deal from being done. I don't think this is right, because the law does not really apply for this situation. I know that it would hurt the economy of the town and be hard for the people to find a job but it kind of ruins is laws. We can’t have our country making up random laws for different things because nothing will get done. Think about Nestles and all the money that they put into trying to buy Hershey’s and the loss they are going to get from this. Is it fair for them to have to go through this because of some random law that doesn’t really apply? So maybe there should be a law that can apply to this situation but putting a law in that has no bearing in this situation is wrong. Maybe there could be a law put in place to prevent the selling of a company that would devastate the economy of a town. To use a scholarship and charity law for this situation I feel is wrong.

Youth and the death penalty

Today in class we discussed a case in which a young boy who was under the age of 18 killed a girl by tying her up and throwing her off of a bridge while she was still alive. The question that arose was do we think that we can or should give this juvenile the death penalty? There is no doubt that this young boy’s action was pre-meditated. He thought of the plan to tie up this girl and kill her in such a heinous way, that it’s without a question to me that we should definitely give this young boy the death penalty. I think that cases in which juveniles kill other people should be looked at by a case by case basis. However, if a murder is committed in such a grotesque way such as the young boy did, what is stopping us from even thinking twice about giving this kid the death penalty. Chip, in class, said that the worst part for that boy is that he gets a little needle prick in his arm, where as this girl probably struggled to keep her head above the water and fight to get her limbs loose so she would live. I mean think about the difference here. The girl was ALIVE and drowned to death because of this sick young kids mind. It’s a tough subject to talk about, but that young boy deserves what is coming his way. He knew what he was doing; he even offered to show exactly what he did again in a re-enactment at the crime scene. Do we really think that he didn’t know his actions were wrong?

Equal Pay in the Law

Kennedy preaches about having equal pay in the legal profession because he says most people become lawyers because of the money and prestige. I would have to say, so what? If these people are performing well and doing what the clients expect them to do, who is Kennedy to say that they are involved in the law for the wrong reasons? It is like if I am on an operating table and the doctor that is operating on me is only a doctor because he gets paid well and likes the prestige that comes with the job, as long as he does his job and does it well it does not matter. I also think that if the people that are there for the prestige and money do not do a good job then they will be weeded out just like in any other profession.

I would also have to say that making salaries equal is just fostering complacency for everyone in that profession. My mother is an elementary school teacher and gets frustrated with their pay scale some times because there are teachers in her school that do not do their job to the best of their ability, but get paid the same as her. I have asked her before, “Are there teachers that are better than you?” she always answers yes. And she thinks that they should be paid more. This would happen in the legal profession also; the lawyers that do just enough to get by would make the same as the good lawyers which would eventually bring everyone’s job performance down.

Will We Ever Get the Gold Medal?

In our reading “Legal Education and the Reproduction of Hierarchy”, Kennedy talks about how professors in a law school are in a hierarchy. They constantly want to move up and they are always worried about the rankings of their schools. They are even willing to make sacrifices in order to move up in the rankings. Kennedy then talks about how it is like this as well for law students. They change the way they dress and act in order to succeed in law school. Preserving their class status becomes a high priority and they only want the best job they can get within the law field. Kennedy states that law teachers are willing to practice affirmative action when selecting which students to admit but are completely against it when hiring faculty; therefore, they are hypocrites when it comes to hiring possible competition. The law teachers get so involved in the competition, doing anything it might take, just to receive tenure which is the grand prize. Kennedy states “law schools are a good preview of what law firms will be like.”

I think Kennedy was correct when he made this statement. I also think it applies to many other companies. There is always competition between colleagues for the higher position and the higher salary and that’s the way it will always be. The competition begins before you even have the job because you’re competing against others who applied for the same position. Competition has always been a part of our lives since elementary school when you did a series of tests to get into the gifted program, and in middle school when you were put into different levels of math classes, and in high school when you applied to colleges. There will always be competition no matter where we go; we will always compete for the best class, the best college, the best job.

DO WE CHOOSE JOBS BECAUSE OF THE PAY?

In class we had an interesting discussion about jobs and the salaries of jobs. Since I been in high school I always wanted to be a lawyer but since I came to college I don't know if I still want to go to law school. The reasons I don't know why I want to go to law school is because law school is very expensive and it is time consuming but I know if I go to law school and finish I will eventually make a good salary. The question I ask myself do I want to go to law school because of the money or because I really want to help people in society?
There are jobs in society people wont take because of the status it will give them in society on the social class level or because of the pay. Kennedy brought up an interesting point in the article that people choose certain careers because of the status behind it. Personally I probably wont take a job that pays me low or puts me on a low social scale but that shouldn't be a reason not to take a job but at the end of the day but I rather be in a high social class because society tells us that is the right choice in a hierarchy education system to always strive for the highest achievement and work our way up the ladder scale . At the end of the day people choose jobs because of the pay or that's the occupation field they want to work in. Some people may just want to be the janitor over the lawyer because they wont be in student loans debt, less schooling and they are happy.

Why become a Lawyer?

I am very interested in attending law school and hopefully one day becoming a lawyer of some kind. However, i am not entirely sure why i want to pursue this career. Law school is very expensive and time consuming. It takes a full time commitment for three years of my early twenties. Then when i get out, i will be tens of thousands of dollars in debt. Why would someone want to suffer through all that? I want to do it for a number of reasons that Kennedy talks about. I want the prestige that being a lawyer or attorney comes with. People look at you more highly when they find out your a lawyer. Also, lawyers get compensated very well, which they should be for the time, effort, and money that they spend. Finally, and most importantly, i want to help people. I want my career to matter towards something in society. No matter what area of law you go into, you will be helping someone in one way or another.

In class we were discussing the individuals who only do it for the paycheck and if they would continue to perform these duties if they were paid the same as a janitor. I feel that a lot of people would quit and do something easier if they weren't compensated fairly. However, i feel that there would a large amount of people who would continue working to help people even though they weren't compensated the same. Saying this, i feel that lawyers are paid a fair amount because they really do have to go through a lot and work extremely hard to even become a lawyer, let alone continue to be one.

Equal Pay

In class the discussion was of an egalitarian social status. I don’t think the socialist system would work in our capitalist society. What motivates most Americans is the financial gain that comes with hard work. If I was a lawyer and made the same money as a janitor, I would be extremely upset and disheartened. Why would I go to law school and spend those years studying and paying expensive tuition when I will make the same amount of money as someone with a high school degree. Most of the jobs that pay substantially higher are because the education is very expensive and the stress levels are higher. To strive for improvement, and drive of competition, is what drives our society to discover new things and improve our world. If you make everyone financially equal, that would kill the motivation of our society. I think the idea of an egalitarian society is idealistic in theory but it would lower everyone to a sub par standard, as opposed to stabilizing it. The consequences of an egalitarian society outweigh the advantages of a socialist world. I think that the effort corporate America and advanced, educational institutions are making toward diversification will be helpful in making a better life available to all people. In a few years, the higher socio-economic society will better reflect the mass population.

Hierarchy in School

I do not believe that my experiences with institutional hierarchies, teacher-student, and student-student relationships fit into any of the standard reactions to hierarchy that Kennedy outlines. I think that Kennedy’s account better reflects the experiences and relationships in a more professional setting, mainly graduate school and law school. I am almost done with my college career and can say that this has not applied to any of my relationships with teachers or students. The relationships I have had with my teachers throughout college were far more casual than the ones outlined by Kennedy. These relationships were relatively simple; the teacher was in charge, gave lectures, assigned homework, gave tests and assigned grades. Most teachers I had never totally assumed a dictator like position and instead allowed for some democracy in the classroom such as asking us for our input on how classes should be run and about which assignments we preferred. As far as the actual hierarchy goes, I honestly have never truly considered it but obviously students are at the bottom and teachers at the top, because they have the information we need and the power to pass or fail us, thus having a direct impact on our education and progress towards our careers. On the other hand, we have far less power and control over the teachers, all we can do as students is file complaints or give them bad scores on the student rating of teacher effectiveness (SRTE). Also, I would imagine teachers with tenure are even higher in this hierarchy.

legal and illegal quota systems

The use of quota systems during law school admissions was discussed in class. Quota systems can be illegal or legal depending on what content is being considered. For example, the quota systems we discussed in class were based on race. Systems based solely on race have been deemed unconstitutional by the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has stated that schools can consider race as a factor; however, race must not be the deciding factor. I agree with this decision as one’s admittance into law school must be based on qualifications rather than race. The reason why there are only 1.1 million lawyers in the United States is because lawyers are very qualified people. Lawyers have the duty to protect the rights and freedom of others; this responsibility must given to the most qualified people. Quota systems based only on race are essentially like affirmative action or reverse-racism. I think it’s a no-brainer why race can not be the determining factor in law school admissions.
Some quota systems are legal. A law school can develop a quota system based on LSAT score or GPA. For example, law school A admits 50% of their applicants who have a GPA of 3.5 or greater and 50% of applicants between a 3.0 and 3.5. This quota system is perfectly legal because it is based on academic qualifications and not solely on race. Likewise, law school B who decides they want to expand their Hispanic student population, can admit higher numbers of Hispanics, as long as race is not the deciding factor. The Hispanics who are admitted must have met some other qualifications besides race. Quota systems must be used carefully, as they can be legal or illegal and are often met with much contention.

Another Response to Kennedy

I completely agree with Kennedy's article and his conception of the hierarchy that is suffered by law students. For example, the LSAT is a test that is based on rankings. It is not even a content based test. It is SUPPOSED to measure the students ability to think logically but I was told by many recruiters that the LSAT doesn't measure how well you'll do in law school or how good of a lawyer that you'll be. Why make the LSAT so important to get into the top law schools? Pre-law students strive to score within the 90th percentile on the test in order to get into the top three. Even my internship this summer, that was for FBI and Department of Justice, told me that I would have to at least get into law school in the top 5 schools and graduate in the top 20% of my class in order to get a job as an attorney there. The admissions process is extremely competitive and it definitely shows hierarchy.

When you do get into that top law school that you worked so hard in, you're ranked within the class. I was told that you do most of the work yourself, as we do in undergrad, and then are ranked in class by a professor who you have to contact using a secretary. I personally like to be able to speak with my professor and check up on my status here in undergrad. How is one supposed to get into the top 20% when you can't even interact with the people that are supposed to be teaching you how to become an attorney? Some schools even kick out the students who aren't in the top of their class and keep the tuition money anyways.

Personally, I believe that professional school is more of a business than it is a place to obtain the education that you need to succeed in the career of your choosing.

Reaction to Kennedy

I do not really agree that the student performs certain tasks and the institution does everything else. The way the job market is lately, I think students are pretty much on their own and the institution is there to simply hand them a degree. I agree with Kennedy’s idea about the student responses to hierarchy; I do think that students expect to be able to do what they want with their private lives after they put in the time and effort required by their classes. I also think students who leave law school and even college feel like after putting in so much time and money to their degree, the system kind of owes them a job. There is already some sort of hierarchy in the massive amount of students attempting to find jobs that probably worries most students. It was hard for me to evaluate the hierarchy ideas based on my experiences because I am not in law school and I think college is probably extremely different from what is described in the article. I cannot imagine having to go through a professor’s secretary to talk to them. It would not surprise me that the teachers really are obsessed with law school rankings and other types of evaluations of greatness. It is hard to relate to the article without being in law school.

Lawyers are rare...

I would like to reflect on something that Kennedy states in the article that we read the other day. The article is one of the the most enlightening items for someone who is on their way to becoming a lawyer. Based on the ABA sheet that we saw in class, we realized that 1.1 million lawyers exist in the US today. Kennedy claims that individuals go into practice of the law because they feel that they should be a part of the elitist structure that exists in society today. I find it troubling to see that this is what the main idea is that people view lawyers as. Lawyers and students of the law most likely want to enter the law because they have a desire and a deep passion for legal process and ideals. I did not realize how prestigious the law is when I chose it as a career path. Now that I know the law is so highly revered, I have a fear that people will judge me as only looking to the law as a way to make money and become wealthy. I have a desire for law that has a deep rooted nature in who I am and I would like to continue that passion because of what it means to me. Money is of no object, if one has a goal and it requires extra costs to achieve that goal, then it should be of no consequence that there is extra compensation provided for me.

Perato and Admissions

Unfortunately, I think that once again, especially after the discussion in class about law school admissions yesterday, it is time to once again examine the subject in terms of Perato's efficiency. The main points of our discussion examined how unfair it is for a certain group (read: white males) over other groups when it comes to law school admissions. We also discussed how certain systems have been put in place to help balance out this inequality. However, we only very briefly discussed the impact that these systems have on the group that is supposedly in a much better place than most others. Being a white male who has grown up in a lower middle class family, I have been pushed my entire life by my parents to do well and school and work hard, even to the extent that my parents sacrificed to get me into an expensive private high school, where we ended getting almost all tuition paid for by aid. I took this sacrifice by my parents as motivation for making myself succeed, and I did better than I could of ever imagined. Now I sit here as senior applying to law schools and preparing to take my LSATs, however unlike the supposed unfair group that I belong to, I am not going to any classes and had to skip certain necessities for two months in order to be able to have enough money to pay for my actual LSAT exam. I think that there is way too much made about how much of an advantage white males have over groups. I think that if we are to look at this in terms of Perato's efficiency, we would see that while white males have dominated the system, it may be in part because of the effort some of us make and if you want to truly equalize the admissions, many of us hard working and just as disadvantaged will end up being greatly harmed, if not harmed worse than the other groups because there is then NO chance of gaining access to a high learning institution such as law school. In the end, I believe that is you want to change admissions the only true way to do it is through a grass roots level actions that forces the values my parents pushed on me to other individuals while they are still young, then everyone will be on a level playing field, because in the end money does not have that great of an impact if you are willing to actually work for your goals.

Weekly Topic: Models of Hierarchy

Reflecting upon his "Utopian Proposal" for disrupting institutional hierarchies in law schools, Kennedy observes that his plan "already seems [. . .] dated and inadequate, mainly because it doesn't pay enough explicit attention to the modeling of hierarchy through teacher-student and student-student relationships." (614) Compare the models of hierarchy Kennedy discusses (602-608) to your experience.

• Does your experience fit into any of the standard reactions to hierarchy Kennedy outlines (608-610) and if not how would you adjust his account to better reflect your experience?
  
• Based on your understanding of the hierarchical relationships between teachers and students and among different student populations, how could Kennedy's proposal be altered to better address your experience of these kinds of hierarchical relationship?

An Extension of Kennedy's Criticism

As a current law school applicant, I would like to take Kennedy’s criticism of schools one step further in regards to the recruitment process. Most schools use median salaries while preying on the type of students Kennedy describes as striving to achieve a higher social status via law school. For sake of example, I will use Penn State, a very respectable law school. The most recent median salary I could find (it was left off of the employment page this year) is from 2007 and is an attractive $100,000. The first tactic of such schools, is the assumption many students make that this applies to the entire graduating class, when it is actually just the most profitable private sector. Second, closer observation reveals that in fact only about 1/3 of the class enters said field, and one could safely assume that the majority are from the 1/3 of the class as is reflected by salary. Finally, it is also important to note that a median allows for wide disparities in the sample space (i.e. as long as 50% is below the median it does not matter HOW FAR they are below it). The National Law Journal reports that during the legal boom times of 2005, only about 9/181 Penn State graduates landed in NLJ250 firms, which supply the vast majority of coveted $130,000 salaries for recent graduates. Thus, about 30 graduates fall between the median and the ceiling. An analysis of salary dispersions in the field of law reveals that almost all graduates either make about $40,000 or the above NLJ250 standard. Therefore, the chance of a Penn State graduate making the median or higher is at best 19% and at the tuition-price of approximately $120,000 this seems absurdly predatory in my opinion.

Response to Schenck v. United States

Call it paranoia of “the man,” but I think that any time the government is allowed to limit the rights of citizens (regardless of the situation) it is problematic. I am especially worried by the thought of the government limited the freedom of thought and speech, whether political or apolitical. On one hand I understand why it might be necessary for a country to disallow the voicing of anti-government opinions in order to maintain a façade of solidarity in the face of enemies, foreign or domestic. However, what exactly does it take to constitute ‘wartime’? America has been involved in conflicts in Iraq in some way or another for the better part of most of our lives, but I doubt there is anyone who would say that it’s a war the way the Second World War was. At what point does a military action escalate to the point in which it is okay to limit rights? Specifically, the right to speak against the government? At what point do the rights return?

My problem with the argument against certain forms of speech during wartime is that the same logic could be used (and has been) to justify the limiting of speech in ‘peaceful’ times as speeches of insubordination could undermine national solidarity and productivity. The amendments protect us from governmental removal of certain rights. In order to uphold the integrity of such laws, there must be some sort of consistency in its execution. If the law could be separated so that we could understand it logically apart from society, then I might agree that removal of such rights is good for the whole of the country, but it is so entwined into society that I do not think this is possible. It would require the understanding of what wartime is and is not.

Kennedy's Admission Quotas

Kennedy gives his ‘solution’ for the problem in America’s law schools in the final pages of his essay. I respect and understand his problems posed earlier in the work, yet I find this solution to be in some ways more troubling than the original problems that prompted them. Specifically, I found his idea for how admissions to be run to be problematic. It seems to me that he’s arguing for an affirmative-action-type program, which sends up red flags for me. I think that it is correct that law schools should have tests that establish the minimal legal skills for legal practice and avoid scaring off those who might not test well in certain areas but who are innately gifted for the legal profession. The idea of quotas, however, is ever troubling. Though people are not laws, I think we can take something from the legal theories we have studied and inspect his claim. I understand that proponents of the Critical Legal Studies believe that Law is most often advantageous to only the rich and powerful and as such they wish to use law as a social vehicle to change this dynamic. Kennedy’s admissions policy does go along with this for the most part, but I am having trouble seeing how a set of rules can determine the individual as meeting certain requirements. Is this use of quotas going to really provide the best people for the job? It seems to me that there can be examples in which favoring a quota for minorities can be just as damaging as favoring the elite upper class. These quotas seem (at least to me) as rules under the assumption that a student can be classified one way or another—which seems in opposition to the Critical Legal theorist who seems to deny that laws, rules, or even quotas, can be so fine cut to be understood in only one light. There are always exceptions and I think that would have to be taken into consideration if Kennedy’s idea of Admissions were to be put into practice.

Schenck v. United States

Last week during the legal realism presentation we got into a debate about the Supreme Court case, Schenck v. United States. It was stated that the case was basically a waste of time and that the defendant should have not been prosecuted since he was only distributed “15,000 leaflets”. This small amount was not enough to have a powerful affect. I think this to be true, but I also belief that for the fact that this was during a time of war, the circumstances were different. It does not matter that Schenck was not making a large impact with this distribution. It does matter that the criticism of the daft was during a time that could provide a threat. I think that this case needed to be ruled the way that it was in order to make precedent. This case was compared to someone “shouting fire in a crowded theater” because free speech does not protect this comment either. The most important aspect about this case is that the social effects are what established the ruling. If this had taken place during a time of peace then his First Amendments would have probably been protected. Something else that came from this case was the aspect of “clear and present danger”, which is a fundamental rule in determining how far free speech can be stretched. This way people will not be able to abuse their first amendment rights when it comes to encouraging insubordination. So, I believe that this case is very important in our history and provides a basis for other cases involving the First Amendment.

The natural law take of sexting

I would like to look the natural law view of the sexting issue that we have been discussing on the blog. We certainly look at what the positivist has to say about sexting. We know that if it is illegal and we do it, the positivist surely knows that we should be convicted of the crime as it was written down and distributed throughout our society. The Natural law theorists may have a hard time interpreting laws that surround sexting. Because sexting is a new phenomenon, it is hard to relate how the sexting should be regulated. While it might be considered inherently bad to share naked pictures of yourself to others, it is hard to say how it should be regulated in the context of electronic media and distribution. How does a natural law theorist respond? My best guess is to try to use abstract circumstances from the past of similar problems and attempt to deduce a solution for modern problems. This is often one of the problems of legal theory, it runs aground and fails to stand the test of time. What does everyone else think?

Yet Another 'Sexting' Blog

A big issue about 'sexting' seems to be the huge moral dilemma surrounding child pornography. I think we can all agree on one thing, no matter what you're background, and that is that child pornography is wrong, gross, and just plain fucked up. However, I do not feel you can go around charging a 16 year old kid for child pornography because his 16 girlfriend sent him a nude picture of herself. Technically, yes this is child pornography, but it was sent to him with full consent and trust that he would not share it with anyone, unless the girl clearly stated otherwise.
Now say the boy decided to send this picture to some of his friends, maybe his older brother or something, who is 19. Now the boyfriend has committed the crime of distributing child pornography, as it was against the girls will to have anyone else see the picture. The girl could suffer harm if these pictures were to circulate around their school or work or whatever, as she may be ostracized by other people.
The main point I am trying to make is that sexting could be either a harmless photo sent between a couple with trust, or it could turn into a serious crime. This issue is growing larger because, for some strange reason, parents feel the need to get their kids cell phones at younger ages. What the hell does a 7 year old need a phone for anyway? If this trend of toddlers with cell phones continues, then 'Sexting' could grow into a huge legal issue.

Losing Morals because of Technology

It seems everybody is blogging about technology in class. I always taught that technology is adjusting to society more than our laws. Technology has advance in society over the years but i feel personally that we are loosing our morals when it comes to technology. We all know one of the ten commandments is thou shall not steal; but there is millions of people who download music compare to millions of people who don't go to a music store and steal records. Another commandment is thou shall not commit adultery but we have millions of people who have cyber sex than committing adultery. Also on the Internet a lot of people download illegal things such as porn, and computer programs. People know committing these acts are wrong but choose to commit these acts because they can get away with them on the Internet even though some times people get caught. I feel we are loosing our morals because we can take advantage of things on the Internet like get music for free and enjoy things on the Internet that wouldn't be acceptable in society. I'm might not agree with the things people do on the internet because of morals and I know its wrong but if you can get away with it and it makes you happy then why not.

Social digitalization

Everyone seems to be posting on sexting, so I thought I might throw in my two senses. The problem with the law in this case seems to be its inability to keep up with the advancements in technology. In our lifetimes alone, think about all the different advances in technology that have caused the need for new laws (music piracy, internet freedoms, etc.).

There seems to be ambiguity about digitalized information—a digital picture is not a reliable as a picture developed from film. I think that if a case emerged where one underage teenager was taking pictures (with film) of other teenagers and then distributing them, it would quit clearly be a problem. To take a picture and develop it takes time and energy and quite clearly shows “intent” on the part of the person taking the pictures. Now, a cell phone picture is so easy to take. For instance, my last phone would take pictures when I had it in my pocket while walking. Digital information is quicker and as such requires a lot less thought on those involved.

This also can be seen with music piracy. How many of us, whether in the past or currently, have seen the opportunity to download one of our favorite songs for free. I would be lying if I said I am not guilty of this; it takes so much less effort to click a mouse than to drive to a music store and search for a whole cd. The song itself is a product of the artist but as a digital file, well, it’s nothing more than a free song. With the cd there is a physical aspect to the exchange. The law is more clear on the actions of stealing when it involves something physical (ie stealing a cd) than when stealing an intangible data file.

Likewise, though “sexting” does not involve a stealing, persay, I believe the problem is similar. One might argue that by one student sending pictures of himself or herself the receiver is stealing the innocence of that person. From a legal realist perspective, it seems that the law must take into consideration that our society is quickly becoming digitalized.

Why Sext?

I think there are many reasons why people sext today. A few years ago, this capability didn't even exist. What was a cell phone? It was one of those huge bricks Zach Morris carried around. One reason that people sext today is the obvious fact that it is a brand new thing. When technology advances, people get excited. Look at the Nintendo Wii. People went crazy just because you can swing a controler in your hands and virtually get a hole in one in golf. With technology comes and excitement, and people do crazy things with excitement. Another reason people sext is because it's fun. I would imagine if I took a picture of myself naked making a kissing face in the mirror, I would be sending to someone I want to have fun with. I would imagine the feeling would be invigorating. Another reason is because people are far more open to sex. People being prude may be a thing in the past. I remember a girl in one of my classes saying, "There are no such thing as dates anymore. People just hookup and that's how they meet." Is this true? Well the fact that many of these sexts are girls and women shows that women even believe that they can be more open about sex and their bodies. Another reason people sext is because they do not know the consequences and believe it is completely ok. They think nothing can happen either through being punished or through their lack of responsibility. My last reason I will say goes along with how people are more comfortable with sex. I think the media has a huge role because sex sells. Look at all the magazines of how to pick up girls, and how to pick up guys. They give you techniques on how to fuck, love, and everything inbetween. Along with the media, goes this craze over how celebreties have all these sex tapes and pictures. Like I said, sex sells and the sellers know this. I think there are also many more reasons that can be debated why people sext. Why not sext? Well, like I just said, there can be and are consequences. First it is illegal depending on the age of the sender. This act is punishable by law both through the sender and receiver. Other consequences can be that one's body can be completely exposed to thousands or even millions in a matter of days. The capability of the internet is incredible and some people have zero amount of morals and care about nobody but themselves and their horny buds. If people had some respect for one another they wouldn't spread around their nude, underage pictures. I think that people wouldn't send these sexts if they knew that there were consequences involved both physically and mentally. Sexting is a strange and new way for crime to happen and the three branches will have to act accordingly to help this problem out that the best they can.

cyberbullying and law

As a Crime, Law and Justice major, many of my classes are law related. It is a common theme in these classes that the law is largely reaction based. New laws and policies arise as a response to some social phenomenon. These social phenomenons often complicate law. Old laws may not describe new crimes and offenders may be found innocent because the law is not specific to these new crimes. One example that stands out in my mind is cyberstalking. Cyberstalking is a new crime that is facilitated by the internet. In one case, http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314620,00.html, a teenage girl committed suicide after being dumped by a fictitious boy on MySpace. The boy’s identity was created by a mother of one of the victim’s friends. The mother purposely harassed and stalked this girl, ultimately resulting in her suicide. It seems obvious that the mother committed a crime and should receive some sort of punishment. However, the woman’s actions did not meet the criminal standards for harassment in the state of Missouri and no charges were ever filed. This case is tragic because a crime was obviously committed and there was no law in place to protect a minor. 45 states have since enacted cyberbullying legislation; two states are still pending legislation. This new legislation protects citizens from new crimes brought on by technology. However, this case just proves that our law will forever be reaction based and some citizens will have to suffer before new legislation is enacted.

Legal Decisions

Looking back to the Sotomajor article that was given to us in class, I decided to try to get the scoop from my dad. My dad is a magistrate for my hometown and neighboring areas. Once a week he travels to Pittsburgh for night court. So many people are brought into court in Pittsburgh that they employ judges at night to arraign criminals as they are brought in during the night. My dad sees hundreds of cases per week, so he must have some notion of guidelines for deciding cases. I wanted to find out what is expected of judges in making decisions. I asked him about this, and the response was surprising. Once a year my dad joins all the magistrates for a mandatory week in Harrisburg. During this week, the judges attend various classes that are required to address new legislation and precedents, ethics, etc. The judges all attend these classes which supplement their knowledge relevant to holding these positions. My dad told me that judges are told to remain impartial to every case. They are expected to gather the facts and make a decision based off of only the facts. The criteria of legality is clearly spelled out, and they must act accordingly. The ideal judge bases their decision without bias in response to the facts presented. However, my dad agrees with Sonia Sotomajor. He says that personal experience does play a role in legal discretion. Judging off experience is inherent of humans. Even the best judge is affected by his/her personal experience. The previous magistrate before my dad had her daughter killed by a drunk driver. As a result, the magistrate imposed the harshest fines and penalties on those convicted of alcoholic offenses. This was undoubtedly due to her personal experience. My dad went on to tell me about our local State College magistrate, Carmen Prestia. My dad met him at his latest trip to Harrisburg. I'm convinced that my dad was trying to get in his good graces should I have an encounter with the law. My dad told me that Carmen is very rigid in his legal decisions. Carmen used to be a police chief, and as a result, he has perceptions about juvenilles and crime that reflect in his decisions. My dad says that his decisions are strict and consistent because of his experiences as a police chief dealing with delinquents. Carmen doesn't let anyone off because of the volume of cases. If one person received leniency, then everyone would expect leniency. I conclude that judges personal experiences do, in fact, affect their decisions. It is an inevitable part of being human.

Sexting and Legal Realism

Sexting and Legal Realism has been discussed on this blog for the past week or so, but I think the subject of why these girls or guys send these pictures needs to be breached. A legal realist would say that these kids have only have a legal duty to follow these laws if they feel that they will be made to suffer by the judgment of the courts. I think that the kids that send these pictures feel as though there is no way the courts are going to punish them for sending a picture of themselves to their boyfriend/girlfriend. This is because these laws are so new and are just now become prevalent in the media that kids are just now finding out about them. Think about it, in high school we knew the basics about the law, don't hurt, don't steal, and the speed limit. That's all we needed to know to get by, but now with our classes and more exposure to the outside world we have become aware of many more laws and the legal system itself. The kids sending these pictures have no idea that its a crime, a felony in some cases, and this is why they do it. They do not believe that there will be a judgment by the courts that makes them suffer. They worse that they think can happen is that the picture could possible get out to people who were not supposed to have it and they would be embarrassed.

Sexting by Legal Realist

So the group last week touched on the topic of Sexting and a lot of you have also touched on it too. I have actually seen this on the news and realize that it is debatable situation. In my opinion the best way to look at this problem is from a legal realist point of view. I think that in certain case like this you have to look at the facts of the case and the rules, not just one. For example the natural law would feel like this should be punished because it is immoral for people to send this type of picture. For the positivist who feels like if the law is there you have to strictly follow it would find them guilty of possessing child pornography because the law says it is. I am for the legal realist who takes into consideration the facts of the case. In a case where it’s two minors and they mutually agree on sending and receiving the picture, I don’t think that this should be punishable. If however, the girl is bothered by an older guy say someone in his forties for the picture and gets it he should be punished. I think that the judges have the right to use their discretion in these cases. It can’t be something that we follow because it is written down but has to be something we look at on a case by case basis. So legal realism is the best type for these laws because I feel like its core and penumbra case, which is that the law was written but new things occurred that there had to be adjustments.

The Power of the Courts

I think that the recent blogs about when the government should or should not limit Constitutional rights proves not only how ambiguous the law is, but also how fragile it is as well as the necessity of the courts as a form of checks and balances. It seems like for every one of the Bill of Rights a situation has come up or can be imagined in which a restriction on the rights would be justified. It is for this reason that I feel the federal court system is so crucial to the maintenance of our present form of government. While the concept of the “right ruler” who would never abuse the generality of laws is ideal, the possibility is certainly there. If a president were to attempt to take extreme actions in unjustifiably restricting freedoms, the courts would be the citizens’ best ally.
This unfortunately also reveals the great power held by judges in the United States. The Supreme Court especially has an almost completely free reign because of their lack of accountability as life-time appointed judges. Because of this power, I found the Realist theories of adjudication especially interesting. Their concept of fact-responsiveness, seems intuitively true and thus shocking. Again, we are only confident in a judge’s use of experiences and the social circumstances in deciding cases based on the idea of the “right ruler,” and it seems as though that is quite the assumption for an unelected, unaccountable position in the highest court of the country.

More on Sexting

Last night while I was procrastinating doing work, I watched a very interested Law & Order Episode that focused on a girl who was sexting.

This new concept of sexting, (texting illicit pictures of oneself or another to other people) has taken many by people by surprise, and until very recently had no legislation to monitor or control it. By a positivist view on this, sexting would be considered producing, possesing, and distributing of child pornography (if the girl is under 18). These offenses can carry strict penalities such as jail time, and could cause the offender to be labeled as a sex offender for the rest of their lives.

In the episode of Law & Order, a girl had sexted pictures of herself to her boyfriend and to a second boy that she had been involved with. When the boyfriend found out about this second guy, he not only beat her, but viraled the pictures to the rest of the school, causing the girl to be harrassed and made fun of daily. The girl ended up being beaten badly enough by her boyfriend that she ended up in teh hospital. In an attempt to get her to reveal who was beating her (she wouldnt disclose his name) the prosecutor placed her under arrest for distribution of kiddie porn. While this was just a scare tactic, when she went to court, she was placed in front of a bribe taking judge who had it out for kids committing sexual crimes that thought they could get away with it.

The Judge based her decision on a purely positivist view of this law and sentanced the girl to a year in jail for the distribution of child pornography. Even though this girl had only intended for the photo to be seen by her boyfriend and lover. This girl was victim of severe abuse and was being punished for simply sending a nude photo of herself to two boys. Both the prosecution and defense took a realist approach to this case and argued that in the circumstances of the case, this girl definitley did not intend to distribute porn to the entire student body. She was the victim, not the criminal. While they admitted that child pornography was against the law they didnt feel as though this girl should have been made an example of and sent to jail.

The episode ended with a revealing that the judge had been taking bribes to fill beds at a certain sex related penetentiary and the girl was released.

This episode however does raise the issue of whether or not sexting should be considered such a serious crime. I did some research and found that currently "In Pennsylvania, sexting can result in state felony charges, including creation, possession and distribution of child pornography.
In the United States, it is against the law to possess lewd photographs of minors. A New York lawyer is petitioning for federal sexting legislation that would make sexting a misdemeanor for minors". By taking a striclty positivist view, and following this to the letter of the law, sexting should remain a felony because it fits the exact description of this type of crime. However, if we examine this issue from a realist viewpoint and take in all of the circumstances of the case, should a 17 year old girl really be charged with a felony, sent to jail, and labeled a sex offender just for sending a picture of herself to her boyfriend??

I feel that it is best to examine these cases from a realist viewpoint. However this is a very serious offense because teens do not understand the implications that their actions might have. If these pictures get distrubted to many people, they may never go away. They could resurface years down teh road when they are applying to interships and jobs. In this new technology driven world, people really need to becareful of what they are putting out there that could harm them some day down the road.

Sexting

The discussion of sexting came up during a presentation and whether or not it should be considered a crime if a teenager sends picture of him or herself to another person. Technically, it is distribution of child pornography but no one took advantage of this person, if he or she distributed them themselves. The child pornography laws are meant to protect children, not necessarily punish them for sending a sext or posting an inappropriate picture of themselves online. Young kids don’t realize how serious this is or how far these pictures can travel. For some reason, mostly girls, don’t realize that these pictures can’t be contained and even though several cases of this nature are becoming more public, this offense doesn’t seem to be slowing down.

I think one of the reasons girls do this is obviously, low self-esteem. People can blame the media if they want, and I am sure they hold some part, but I also blame the parents. It is the job of a parent, not the media to raise these children. Parents, especially mothers, need to instill self-confidence in these girls. Mothers always tell daughters what not to do, but they rarely tell them what to do. I don’t know think mothers spend enough time telling girls to love themselves. Girls don’t need to impress anyone but themselves, and NEVER need to impress a boy. Another problem with the child pornography laws is that men are writing them and adult men don’t know how to deal with young girls and sex, especially girls their daughters’ age. Their only goal is to stop it but not the reason for it.

Traditional Natural Law in the Old and New Testament

Was doing some research on Aquinas and found a topic I found noteworthy:

"Divine law is divided into the Old Law and the New Law (q91, a5). The Old and New Law roughly corresponding to the Old and New Testaments of the Bible. When he speaks of the Old Law, Thomas is thinking mainly of the Ten Commandments. When he speaks of the New Law, the teachings of Jesus.

Old Law -- commands conduct externally -- reaches humans through their capacity for fear -- Law promised earthly rewards (social peace and its benefits)

New Law -- commands internal conduct -- reaches humans by the example of divine love -- promises heavenly reward" ()

Now the divine law derive from eternal law and according to our notes, does so: "Because human reason is insufficient to determine what kinds of behavior correspond to the natural laws assuring the common good, it needs to be supplemented by scripture, which acts as a guide for human reason when rules for acting cannot be derived from the observation of nature alone. (17c1)"

Nonetheless, suffice it to say that divine law is basically the will of God as revealed in the scriptures and is revealed to provide humans with a deeper insight on how to act/administer the law.

Isn't it interesting, though, to see the difference between revelation in the old testament versus the new testament. That is, the old testament, when one thinks of it, has prominent biblical figures performing God's will or commands (specifically the 10 commandments) in hopes, as mentioned above, for some kind of social benefit. The new testament, however, with Jesus, has a different view of God's will, a view which dictates how we feel internally--that is to say, we develop some sense of compassion or love for thy neighbor, something different than acting of out God's commands in the old testament.

Nonetheless, it was interesting to see the different dynamics of divine law as presented in the bible. I never really thought about how the teachings from one part of the bible versus another differ.

Government Infringement of Free Speech

In the previous post “Social Needs versus Individual Rights in Legal Realism,” the author makes a good point: when is it acceptable for the government to waive rights, especially freedom of speech and press?

Freedom of speech is a cornerstone of American Freedom. The very idea of the government hushing people, waiving someone’s right to free speech, makes me cringe. On the other hand, I would argue that there are some cases when it would be necessary for the government to suppress certain things, even if it contradicts the constitutional right of free speech.

For example, the CIA leak scandal in 2003 which revealed the identity of a CIA operative in a newspaper column. Although this situation specifically refers to the constitutional right of free press, I find it relevant because it runs hand-in-hand with free speech. In this case I find it necessary for the government to prevent this kind of information from being released to the public. The publication of this article endangered the CIA operative’s life and potentially her families, after all, the operative probably had information some people valued and would go to great lengths to obtain.

When safety- for a single person, a community, or all Americans- could potentially be threatened by information, whether spoken or published, some may argue that it is the government’s responsibility to prevent that from happening (even if it undermines the very essence of free speech). For example, you can’t yell “bomb” on a plane or “fire” in a movie theater. These scenarios could potentially result in someone getting seriously injured which is why it is illegal for someone to do so.
Government infringement of free speech against people outspoken about politics and government actions is where this topic gets even more interesting.

Social Needs versus Individual Rights in Legal Realism

In light the twitter blog posted by Prof. Kurdys, I began to think of other scenarios where a right of an individual (freedom of speech in the twitter) interfere with legal realism's view of social needs or utility (not allowing this twitter member to "tweet" as his actions would cause harm). A good example I thought of was the red scare during the cold war (I think we had mentioned this is one group's presentation) and how, if one were to write a novel positing that America should become Communistic or Socialistic, this should be outlawed--during appropriate time I suppose--because of possible negative effects it may have.

I guess this is another example of freedom of speech though Sure, I don't think anyone really wants another individual writing a novel stating that we should become Communistic or Socialistic during the cold war, but does not that person still have a right, namely freedom of speech, to do so. And, if he does have that right, can the government take it away? I am unsure, though I think the safety of the country and individual's needs must come first. Therefore, if one takes away the right of freedom of speech in such a scenario that the freedom of speech could interfere with safety then, yes, I think it would be appropriate.

It is still interesting, however, to see how freedom of speech has shaped America and America's government. I recall one debate, specifically when our country was just forming and the polemic of whether we should be more of a federal or anti-federal government. During this debate many articles (freedom of speech) were created arguing both sides, federalism and anti-federalism. Nonetheless, this was generally permissible (as far as I know; though the authors may have been castigated by the general public) at this time. Still, today if someone were to write a journal that wanted to change the government (suppose they wanted us to be socialistic or communistic)--if it is written at a time in which if the journal were published it would hurt the American well being--then it is not permissible. (Though couldn't one argue that when these federalist anti-federalist articles were written they could hurt America's well being and, therefore, should not have been allowed--if this were so, however, then we wouldn't have the government we have today.)

While I still believe safety ought to be a major concern, I do believe that there is a fine line between sacrificing rights (e.g. freedom of speech) for the over all well being of the country. I guess I would like to know where the distinction is, that is, I would like to know where and when denying a right in order to promote the safety of the country is acceptable.

Possible Legal Realism Drawbacks

In this blog I would like raise two concerns regarding legal realism: first, I would like to discuss the realist tenet that subjectivity of judges (i.e. their political affiliations, backgrounds, cultures, etc.) should play a factor in adjudication; second, I would like to discuss a potential problem regarding legal realism, specifically the fact that the form of jurisprudence is, more or less, grounded in a utilitarian outlook.

While judges characteristics and backgrounds may always play some type of role--whether that be consciously or unconsciously--in decision making, is it in the best interest of a nation or state to allow these characteristics to dominate in legal decision making? For instance, consider the fact that many supreme court judges are Catholic, and, thus being Catholic, their religious affiliations/tenets may play a role in their decision making. Is this fair to individuals in this country who are not Catholic, individuals that do not adhere to these religious tenets and beliefs, if judges were to adjudicate in a Catholic outlook? Might it be better that we adjudicate, if possible, in a manner that tailors to all individuals? This is only a thought. I am interested in what others think.

Secondly, another concern, possibly, with legal realism is the fact that it is grounded, more or less, in utilitarianism--that is, it is based in a consequential-based form of jurisprudence, the greatest good for the greatest number. Now suppose that we were to adopt this normative framework, what if the greatest good for the greatest number meant that, hypothetically, if we killed 10,000 U.S. citizens then the entire U.S. population, namely 3 million individuals, would never starve (a made up scenario of course). Now in a utilitarian framework this is kosher; after all, even though we will be killing 10,000 citizens, 3 million will never starve.

I guess my point in the second criticism of utilitarianism is that utilitarianism, while it may appear noble and well thought out, has a fundamental flaw, that is, it lacks a moral dimension (for instance, the fact that killing 10,000 people, even if producing happiness for 3 million, is morally wrong), and, lacking this moral dimension, may not be the best form of ethics (or jurisprudence) to adopt.