By Olivia Worthington Wars were once fought on traditional battlefields with each side facing off in a stringent formation. Weapons were pointed in unison and strategic battle plans were similar among both sides. In the world today, nontraditional and asymmetric warfare techniques are used in almost all major battles. Soldiers must be ready for any situation and adapt to their surroundings at a moment’s notice. This new warfare has had an effect on the prosecution of war crimes. War crimes have always had a lot of gray area in their definition, and this gray area must be adapted to new kinds of warfare the original authors of military laws never thought would be possible. Terrorism brings up many questions about war laws and the legality of warfare techniques, especially with the increased targeting of civilians from terrorist groups. Development of War Laws The end of World War II represented a large switch in the laws of warfare because of the high number of unthinkable atrocities committed during the war. The Nuremberg and Tokyo War Trials handed out punishments for war crimes committed, such as unprecedented genocide and biological experimentation on civilians. The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 updated the war laws to include incidents from World War II and new warfare techniques. Since World War II, warfare has continued to evolve immensely. There has been no recent summit to create new war laws, and the general consensus is that new war laws must be adopted out of the existing laws that pertain to different types of warfare. This makes creating new terrorism laws challenging. Principles of War Laws A core principle of the international law of war is distinction. Combatants must distinguish between civilians and combatants, and only combatants can be legally targeted. Another principle is military necessity. If a target is militarily necessary to subdue the enemy but taking it would endanger civilians, it is legal to harm civilians to achieve the ultimate goal of winning the battle. Military necessity often overrules distinction in war. Proportionality is another core ideal of armed conflict, which means the military gain achieved must not be disproportionate with the civilian casualties and suffering caused. Combatants are not allowed to inflict military suffering on civilians. All of these principles put together still paint a very confusing picture. The principles overlap and express the same ideas differently, and choosing to harm civilians is often a judgment call. Prosecuting a soldier who may have used poor judgment in battle is difficult, and many offending soldiers escape penalty because proving a malicious intent for harming civilians is challenging. Terrorism is notorious for targeting civilians, but prosecuting terrorists is challenging because they can claim the target was of military necessity. Without a way to prove malice, terrorism cannot be charged as a war crime if the terrorists were technically acting within the laws of war. War on Terror Although it is referred to as the “War on Terrorism,” is fighting terrorism considered an actual war? The status of a conflict changes what war crime legislation applies in certain circumstances. For the Geneva Conventions to apply, two states must be fighting a clear armed conflict against one another. Many see the 9/11 attacks on the U.S. as a declaration of war from terrorist groups. However, terrorist groups do not constitute a state because they function within a state, making it difficult to figure out the correct war crimes’ status for these groups. Generally the more organized the terrorist group is, the more likely it is for them to be seen as a state actor and entered in an international armed conflict. Again, this area is subjective to the legal team and judge presiding over a terrorist’s war crime trial. Once the armed conflict status is set and the trial begins, it must be decided how to interpret laws that make no mention of the asymmetric warfare that defines terrorism. Many war crimes tribunals and courts offer their own spin on a law, and no clear precedent has been set for cases to follow. Each new trial is a new slate with new judgements, laws of war are constantly evolving in regards to terrorism. New technology and warfare techniques will continue to bring new interpretations of the war crime laws that have been remarkably unchanged since 1977. It will be interesting to see how war crimes are handled in court in the future, and whether terrorism will produce a new convention with specific laws on terrorists at war. Works Cited
Solis, Gary D. The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War. Cambridge University Press. 2016. Pages 128 to 268.
0 Comments
By Samuel Huryn Glance around any classroom in an American college and your gaze will be met by the glow of apple-shaped white light from students taking notes on their MacBooks. The MacBook has permeated the college experience and is often the most recognizable brand of laptop. A few months ago, Apple decided to update the MacBook laptop line, introducing a new model that features an interactive touch-screen bar above the keyboard. However, this new touch-screen bar has recently come under fire by proctors of the bar exam in certain states. According to Engadet.com, bar proctors in multiple states, including California, Oklahoma, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia, have outright banned the use of touch-bar enabled MacBooks, forcing bar attendees to handwrite their exam. Other states require software that disables the touch bar. Multiple states have yet to issue a ruling on the new MacBooks. The controversy stems primarily from the ability of the touch bar to “help autocomplete words based on context,” according to Above the Law. Readers may recognize the autocomplete feature as it has been available on iPhones and other Apple products for some time. Ultimately, it cannot be reasonably concluded that the touch bar’s autocomplete text feature provides any real advantage to bar exam takers with the new MacBook over test-takers with a different type of laptop. However, it is understandable why test proctors could see this as providing an unnatural advantage for test takers, and software that temporarily disables the touch bar during the exam is not objectionable.However, I think that not allowing students to use their specific laptops, especially since multiple months have passed since the new MacBooks have been released, does not provide much benefit in terms of academic rigor or originality. Ultimately, this debate serves as another example of the difficulty of integrating technology into modern learning. Works Cited
http://abovethelaw.com/2017/01/multiple-bar-exams-taking-away-computers/?rf=1 https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/30/macbook-pro-touch-bar-banned-from-multiple-state-bar-exams/ by Spencer E. Dirrig On February 17, President Donald Trump declared that the American free press is the “enemy of the American people.” Suddenly, the leader of the free world looked less like the President of a democratic nation and more like a fascist tyrant in the making. President Trump tweeted, “The FAKE NEWS media (failing @nytimes, @NBCNews, @ABC, @CBS, @CNN) is not my enemy, it is the enemy of the American People!” On January 28, 1786, future President Thomas Jefferson declared, “Our liberty depends on the freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost.” The fact of the matter is clear: these two declarations cannot be duly accepted. They are mutually exclusive. So, the question is, who do we trust? The founding fathers, the U.S. Supreme Court, legal and political theorists or President Trump? The right of freedom of the press is perhaps the most fundamental right of American democracy. Guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” (emphasis added) This fundamental right has been protected, expanded and clarified in a number of major cases before the U.S. Supreme Court over its 225 year history. Prior restraint, for example, was prohibited in the landmark case, Near v. Minnesota ex rel. Olson (1931). In the opinion, the Court ruled “under the Free Press Clause of the First Amendment, and with limited exceptions, government may not censor or prohibit a publication in advance.” This laid the foundation for the protection of the press from government regulation and review. According to the Bill of Rights Institute, the Court “also extended protection of press freedom to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment” through this landmark decision. In 1971, the Court ruled in New York Times v. United States that “A claimed threat to national security was not justification for prior restraint on publication of classified documents [the Pentagon Papers] about the Vietnam War” (Bill of Rights Institute). This is especially pertinent in the case of President Trump’s statements and attacks on the free press. Even if it is conceded that the press is waging a threat to national security (which, though untrue, is the President’s argument), there is still no justification to review, regulate or restrict the free press. Additionally, President Trump has attacked a number of news organizations for stories that he deemed to be incorrect and/ or harmful to his image. Again, Court precedent reigns supreme over this justification for regulated press. In Hustler v. Falwell (1988) “The First Amendment prohibits public figures from recovering damages for intentional infliction of emotional harm unless the publication contained a false statement made with actual malice” (Bill of Rights Institute). During his 2016 campaign, then-candidate Trump said he would “open up our [U.S.] libel laws so when they [the press] write purposely negative and horrible and false articles, we can sue them and win lots of money. We're going to open up those libel laws.” This promise is both incongruent with current legal codes and a clear attack on free speech and press. According to the American Civil Rights Union, “no such rule could constitutionally be applied in a libel case brought by a public official or public figure over any factual inaccuracy. In such cases, ‘writ[ing] something wrong’ is constitutionally protected unless the writer knew that it was wrong and published it anyway. No legislature, state or federal, is permitted to expand libel liability beyond this constitutional limit. There is, accordingly, no chance that Trump would be able to ‘open up our libel laws’ in the manner that he has proposed.” Though there are legal and judicial protections in place, the real consequence of President Trump’s declaration are their historic relevance. On CNN, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) denounced the president’s comments, explaining “They get started by suppressing free press, in other words, a consolidation of power -- when you look at history, the first thing that dictators do is shut down the press,” McCain said. “And I'm not saying that President Trump is trying to be a dictator. I'm just saying we need to learn the lessons of history.” Sen. McCain’s assertion that we must “learn the lessons of history” seems to be lost on the president and his supporters. According to the Washington Post, “Critics of Adolf Hitler's regime were frequently referred to as members of the ‘Lügenpresse apparatus.’” The term Lügenpresse was used to identify anyone that criticized the Nazi government (especially journalists) as part of the “lying press.” The Post subsequently explained that “the consequences of that rhetoric — of which the term “Lügenpresse” was an important component under propaganda minister Joseph Goebbels — were horrifying. Millions of people were killed in concentration camps by the Nazis, including Jews, political opponents and homosexuals.” Unfortunately, it’s not hard to connect the lines here. The Nazi regime did not take over in a day. Their ideas did meet opposition. The media and the press in 1930s Germany used their power to inform the public and attack Hitler’s takeover of a once-democratic nation. Is Donald Trump comparable to Adolf Hitler and other murderous dictators? No. But his tactics are eerily similar. In the United States there is a clear and fundamental right of free and independent press. It is the cornerstone of our democracy. Attacks on free press have been struck down time and time again by the Court. The American Civil Liberties Union has promised to challenge any actions taken against the press in the future. Now, it’s time for the American people to respect our justice system, respect our fundamental freedoms and fight back against this administration’s attack on our democracy. Works Cited
"Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to James Currie, 28 January 1786." National Archives and Records Administration. National Archives and Records Administration, n.d. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. "Freedom of the Press." Bill of Rights Institute. Bill of Rights Institute, 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. Gold, Hadas, and Nick Gass. "Donald Trump: We're Going to 'open Up' Libel Laws." POLITICO. Politico Magazine, 26 Feb. 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. Guerra, Kristine. "Trump Called the Press ‘the Enemy.’ Reince Priebus Says He Meant It." The Washington Post. WP Company, 19 Feb. 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. "Near v. Minnesota Ex Rel. Olson." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. Nesbit, Jeff. "Donald Trump Supporters Are Using Nazi Word 'Lügenpresse'." Time. Time, 25 Oct. 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. Noack, Rick. "The Ugly History of ‘Lügenpresse,’ a Nazi Slur Shouted at a Trump Rally." The Washington Post. WP Company, 24 Oct. 2016. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. Scott, Eugene. "McCain: Dictators 'get Started by Suppressing Free Press'." CNN. Cable News Network, 20 Feb. 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. "The Trump Memos." American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, 2017. Web. 20 Feb. 2017. By Casey Aguinaga Before teaching classes on Election and Constitutional Law at the Moritz College of Law, Professor Tokaji clerked for the Honorable Stephen Reinhardt of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and worked as a staff attorney for the ACLU Foundation of Southern California.
How did you prepare, whether it be in your undergraduate education or while in law school, to tackle social justice issues as a lawyer? I was an attorney with the ACLU of Southern California before I came here [to Ohio] and I worked there for eight years. I did a variety of civil rights and civil liberties cases on issues such as racial justice, disability rights, voting rights, and freedom of speech. Before that I worked in legal services in Boston for a couple of years between college and law school. I think that it is a really good idea for undergraduates who are contemplating law school to try to find some sort of work whether it is in the summer before graduate or professional school, to try out whatever it is that they might want to do, especially if they are interested in law. I think that it is a really good idea to get some experiences in law-related employment to figure out whether it is really for you or not because it is a big investment, both in time and resources. Many students have to take on a lot of debt in order to attend law school which should not be a discouragement, but you should make sure that that is what you really want to do before taking the plunge. Did you always know that you wanted to go to law school? What academic strengths did you have that made you realize that you would do well as a lawyer and as a professor of law? I did not always know that I wanted to be a lawyer. Probably the greatest strength that I knew I had upon graduation from college was that I knew that I was a good writer. I was an English and philosophy major so I did a lot of writing. What I would say is that this is really important because clear writing is a part of most legal jobs. Moreover, if you are able to write well then it will ultimately translate into the ability to speak and to argue well, as that is a lot of what lawyers do. My advice to undergraduates would be to work on your writing skills. The skills of argument and oral advocacy will come over time, but first you have to be able to write effectively. Did you always know that you wanted to be an attorney for a non-profit? How is that different than working for a for-profit entity? I always knew that I wanted to work in some sort of public interest or public service, that is why I went to law school. I went to law school because I wanted to help people and I wanted to work to make our country a more just place. I had no interest whatsoever in going to work for a private law firm, although I did for one summer just to see what it was like. That was just my interest. There is nothing wrong with making a good living, but I would say that that should not be your main motivation in choosing a career. How did your previous experiences as a practicing attorney prepare you to teach law? Law school is designed not just to teach you what the law is, but also to practice the law. It is professional school, we are training you for a profession. We are training you to become lawyers. My experience being a practicing lawyer for several years was very valuable in terms of helping me teach students about real life problems that they are likely to encounter as lawyers. How have you altered your curriculum since the election of Donald Trump? It is an opportunity. For example, today we talked about the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals order in the immigration executive order case, the order excluding people from seven countries. We talked about it in my “Federal Courts” class because it is relevant to the question of the federal courts power to say what the law is, to interpret the Constitution. It is also relevant to the obligation of everyone in our country, including the most powerful man in the country, and indeed the world, to follow the law. We are a country that is based upon the rule of law and upon the premise that nobody, not even the president, is above the law and our federal courts are often the ones that wind up ensuring that the president and other government officials comply with the law, including the highest law of the land, the United States Constitution. A few weeks ago there was also the lawsuit that was brought by a Washington public interest organization challenging Trump’s conflicts of interest as a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, and we are going to see more and more of these lawsuits, given that we have a president who has exhibited some strong authoritarian tendencies. The question of whether he will abide by the law, and even more important whether the other branches of our government, including the court will hold him accountable if he does not is very much alive. Does your political ideology play a role in how you approach topics such as election law and constitutional law? I would say no, but we have to be clear by what we mean when we say political ideology. It is really important that one's personal political views, for example who you voted for, or who you think is a good candidate not affect your opinion about what our election laws should be. It is very challenging because most of us who write about elections issues care a lot about politics. In that sense, political ideology does not affect my views about election laws. However, ideology can mean different things. Sometimes ideology is used to refer to someone’s philosophy. For example, the interpretive approach that one takes to construing open-ended terms of the Constitution, due process, and equal protection of law in conjunction with a judge’s own philosophy will affect how they look at particular cases. I draw a distinction between being guided by one's judicial philosophy and being biased by who you want to win a particular election. The former is just part of the law, especially constitutional law. The latter is something that we as election law professors should try to avoid. Would you consider Constitutional originalism as a political ideology or a philosophy? I would say that originalism is a judicial philosophy. Sometimes people refer to it is an ideology but all of us to some extent think that the original meaning and the intent of the words that appear in our Constitution are relevant. In other words, the distinction between originalist and non-originalist is not the bright line distinction that people make it out to be. People who do not call themselves originalists generally think that the original meaning or intent is at least relevant to the project of Constitutional interpretation. On the other hand, nobody who calls themselves an originalist thinks that that is the only thing that should influence a judge’s interpretation of the Constitution. For example, the text of the Constitution and precedents that have been decided after the Constitution was written are universally recognized as relevant. I think the distinction between originalist and non-originalist is overdrawn. How should law students who want to engage with their community approach finding work after law school? How do you engage with the Columbus community? In my capacity now, I have sat on boards of nonprofits, but that is something that I have the ability to do in part by virtue of my position as a faculty member here. But it is a different question for people who are current undergraduates or people who are graduating from college, and those opportunities may be somewhat harder to come by than they are for me at this stage in my career. I would start with the question, “What do I care about?” Then be aggressive, pound the pavement trying to find a position doing the things that you want to do. If you are able to take a volunteer position, that will make it a whole lot easier because, particularly for those who are interested in public interest, there are not a lot of paid positions, especially for people who do not yet have a law degree. My advice would also be to study hard, because America needs your voice. By Zack Valdman On January 31, President Trump nominated Judge Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court of the United States to fill the vacancy left by Justice Scalia’s passing. Many have likened Judge Gorsuch’s jurisprudence and interpretation of the law as similar to Justice Scalia’s in many respects, and while this observation is true in most respects, Judge Gorsuch is not a complete clone of Scalia. In order to determine how a Supreme Court Justice Gorsuch would rule and fit into the Court, it is fitting to examine the judge’s background, life experiences, and previous judicial decisions. Judge Gorsuch’s Background Judge Gorsuch was born on August 29, 1967, making Judge Gorsuch the youngest nominee to the Supreme Court at 49 years of age since Justice Clarence Thomas was nominated at 43. Gorsuch was born in Colorado and moved to Washington D.C. as an adolescent due to his mother’s position with the EPA. Judge Gorsuch’s mother, Anne Gorsuch Burford, was a Republican who served as the first female head of the EPA under President Reagan. Gorsuch identifies as an Episcopalian, which would make him (surprisingly) the only Protestant member of the Supreme Court should he be confirmed. Judge Gorsuch attended Columbia for undergrad, and then went on to obtain his J.D. from Harvard Law School where he was given a Truman Scholarship. (Fun fact: Gorsuch was future President Barack Obama’s classmate in law school). Gorsuch went on to clerk for Judge Sentelle of the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit for 2 years, then went on to clerk for Supreme Court Justices Byron White and Anthony Kennedy for an additional two years. Judge Gorsuch subsequently worked at a private D.C. law firm for 10 years, before being nominated (and accepting) an appointment from President George W. Bush to a seat on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. How conservative is Judge Gorsuch? Judge Gorsuch has been labeled as a conservative, and rightly so, but just how conservative of a judge can he be expected to be? This question is fundamentally a tricky one considering the supposed “non-political” affiliation the Supreme Court and judges in the United States judicial system are supposed to have, yet a method called Judicial Common Space Scores has been derived as a fairly accurate representation of a judge’s political leanings based on previous court opinions and decisions. Judicial Common Space Scores classify various positions as either conservative or liberal, and then rank a judge’s opinions and rulings based on that scale. The more liberal the judge’s decisions are, the more negative the score will be, the more conservative the decisions, the more positive the score, the more centrist the judge, the closer the score to 0. Judge Gorsuch’s Common Space score while on the 10th Circuit was a .486, reflecting staunchly conservative leanings. In comparison, the late Justice Scalia’s common space score as a judge on the court of appeals was a .538, Justice Roberts .486, and Justice Sotomayor’s -.291. (Although recalculating the scores to just take into account Supreme Court decisions only, Scalia’s score lowers to a .409, Justice Roberts lowers to a .269, and Justice Sotomayor’s lowers to a -.460). Conservatives by and large should be pleased with Gorsuch’s record on the issues, while liberals’ best hope is that Gorsuch becomes more centrist during his time on the Court in the mold of Justice Anthony Kennedy. Judge Gorsuch’s legal philosophy Judge Gorsuch’s legal philosophy, much like Justice Scalia, can best be described as both originalist and textualist. Originalism is the notion that judges should look at the plain meaning of the Constitution at the time it was written and as the founders intended. Textualists believe in only looking at the text of the law and not prescribing additional political or policy-based meaning. As Judge Gorsuch puts it: “Judges should instead strive (if humanly and so imperfectly) to apply the law as it is, focusing backward, not forward, and looking to text, structure, and history to decide what a reasonable reader at the time of the events in question would have understood the law to be — not to decide cases based on their own moral convictions or the policy consequences they believe might serve society best”. Assuming Judge Gorsuch is confirmed to the Supreme Court, the Court will look and rule much like it did before Scalia’s passing. Judge Gorsuch’s legal philosophy is similar to Scalia’s in part because Justice Scalia has served as Gorsuch’s role model. Gorsuch will likely take Scalia’s place as one of the most conservative justices on the court (although Justice Thomas is arguably even further to the right in his jurisprudence). Should Judge Gorsuch be confirmed to the Court, the Supreme Court will (finally) be back at nine justices, avoiding 4-4 outcomes and putting the Court back at full capacity. Works Cited
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/31/us/politics/supreme-court-nominee-trump.html?_r=0 http://www.cnbc.com/2017/02/01/gorsuch-age-donald-trumps-scotus-nominee-is-the-youngest-since-1991.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/acts-of-faith/wp/2017/02/01/neil-gorsuch-belongs-to-a-notably-liberal-church-and-would-be-the-first-protestant-on-the-court-in-years/?utm_term=.204be40a339b https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/01/31/us/politics/trump-supreme-court-nominee.html http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/who-is-neil-gorsuch-bio-facts-background-political-views-234437 http://www.nationalreview.com/article/444437/neil-gorsuch-antonin-scalia-supreme-court-textualist-originalist-heir By Eleni Christofides In the wake of popular shows such as Netflix’s “Making a Murderer,” or media stories like NPR’s “Serial,” there is a fear that may be salient for many individuals: “What if I were arrested for a crime I did not commit? Even worse, what if I were found guilty?” The idea of wrongful conviction is unsettling, and the fear it evokes may be part of the reason it is often dismissed. If someone is convicted of a crime, logic seems to dictate, then they must be guilty of the crime. Thus it is so difficult for many people to accept the exoneration of those who have been wrongfully convicted of crimes — including the current President, who still insists that the exonerated Central Park Five are actually guilty (they are not). It is much simpler and more comforting to assume that the authorities get the bad guy every time, and if we never commit a crime, then we have nothing to worry about. The truth was not so simple for Timothy Howard, a Franklin County man who, after discovering his wife hanging from their basement ceiling, was convicted of her murder despite the overwhelming evidence that she had committed suicide. Nor was it so simple for Kim Hoover-Moore, another Franklin County resident and child-care provider convicted of the killing of an infant based on now-primitive assumptions about Shaken Baby Syndrome. These two and many others have become victims of serious errors in the criminal justice system, and the reality of wrongful conviction touches every community (the national number of exonerations since 1989 is now 1,975, though this does not include Howard and Hoover-Moore, who are still awaiting new trials). Wrongful conviction has many causes, from trial errors to the active suppression of exculpatory evidence, also known as Brady violations. Two of the most common errors, which are more difficult to prove, involve mistaken eyewitness testimony and suspect confessions. Judges and juries are influenced most often when a witness can identify a perpetrator, particularly if the witness has also been the victim of a traumatic experience. We typically have confidence in the accuracy of our memories, especially when they are emotionally salient. But memories are not guaranteed accounts of the truth. In a famous case, Jennifer Thompson-Cannino learned this when she mistakenly identified Ronald Cotton as the man who had broken into her apartment and raped her. The fragility of memory was clear when Cannino was presented with the real culprit, Bobby Poole, and was sure that she had never seen him in her life. Ronald Cotton was exonerated 10 years after his conviction on the basis of DNA evidence; he and Jennifer Thompson-Cannino have since written about the experience and become friends — and yet, she describes that her memories of the event are permanently altered, and she still sees Cotton's face instead of Poole's. Memories are easily corruptible and vulnerable to suggestion, especially in intimidating settings surrounded by authority figures such as attorneys and police officers. According to landmark research by psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, eyewitness memory can be altered by something as simple as word choice. For example, when asking about the speed of two vehicles that "smashed" into each other as opposed to "hit" each other, witnesses tended to remember a higher speed when the word used implied a faster impact. When an officer or detective asks a leading question or encourages a witness to be more sure of something than they really are, the result can be tragedy for the person wrongfully accused. False confessions can also be the result of pressure from authority, either deliberate or inadvertent. Young people or those with mental health issues are particularly susceptible to coercive interrogation techniques. An infamous example is that of the Norfolk Four case, when four men were subjected to brutal police interrogation that involved verbal abuse and sleep deprivation. Each confessed to the rape and murder of a woman despite no evidence whatsoever that linked them to the crime. Reforms that emphasize transparent and effective law enforcement techniques are vital to fix these violations. Blind administration techniques for photo or live lineups, in which the administrator is not aware of the current suspect in a case, can prevent the administrator’s implicit bias from having an effect on the witness or victim. Using carefully worded instructions and sequentially presenting suspects can also eliminate the pressure a witness might feel to "pick the right answer" or else risk the chance of the case not continuing. To avoid both witness misidentifications and false confessions, recording official proceedings can ensure the use of proper procedure and preservation of due process rights when interviewing witnesses and when questioning suspects. While legislative and procedural reforms are promising, a cultural reform is also necessary. The adversarial system of law in America can be beneficial, but only if antagonistic and competitive attitudes are checked at the courtroom doors. In order to have a criminal justice system that truly protects the interests of the people it is supposed to represent, officials of the law must be realistic about which techniques work and which ones create more problems. When a mistake is made, police officers, prosecutors, defense attorneys, politicians and judges must have the humility and awareness to recognize that mistake and must be willing to work cooperatively with each other to find its remedy. [This month, attorney Steve Drizin (Assistant Dean of Northwestern Pritzker School of Law’s Bluhm Legal Clinic and the former Legal Director of the Clinic’s renowned Center on Wrongful Convictions) will be at Ohio State to discuss the false confession of his client Brendan Dassey, famously featured in the Making a Murderer documentary series. This will be a unique opportunity to learn more about the causes of wrongful conviction from an expert on the subject. The event will be held on February 22nd, 12PM in the Brutus Buckeye Room of the Ohio Union. Feel free to reach out to [email protected] for more details.] Works Cited:
|
Archives
March 2018
Categories |