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