By Brittany Cardoza If you are a human being living in the United States, what do you do if you have been robbed, assaulted, or otherwise grievously wronged? You get the law involved! Sure, there are times when you will resent the law for prohibiting you from doing things you might want to do, like pirating movies or running around Central Park in the nude, but in the end the law protects you and gives you more liberties than it takes away. In America, we look to the law to correct incidences of injustice. We may want justice for ourselves, perhaps in the form of money for actual damages, or justice for others in situations that offend our moral sensibilities. If we are particularly interested in matters involving justice, we may choose to study to become a lawyer. But what can you do if you are concerned with incidences of injustice that are largely ignored by the law? Paul McCartney famously said, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be vegetarian,” and in the age of camera phones and YouTube, the walls of all major industries are becoming quite opaque. Hundreds of thousands of Americans are exposed to videos of animal abuse committed in factory farms, often referred to has CAFOs (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) in animal rights circles. Cows stand in small pens up to their knees in excrement, hens live short lives stuffed in crowded, cages in dark warehouses, and male chicks are funneled into a grinder hours after hatching. Though farming abuse exposé videos receive a lot of online attention, there are many other instances of animal injustices that have become widely publicised thanks to the internet. Perhaps you have seen videos of the “world’s saddest polar bear,” which lives in a miniscule exhibit in the middle of a mall for shoppers’ viewing pleasure, or pictures of tigers living in cement pits in roadside zoos. This kind of contact is reaching wider audiences than ever before, forcing people to ask themselves if what they see is just. Perhaps the most sacred value of the law is the pursuit of justice, and it is in this pursuit that many have engaged the law in the fight for animal welfare. Though animal injustices are getting a lot more attention in popular media today, people have been fighting for legal protections for animals much longer than the internet has been in existence. 2016 marks the 50th anniversary of the Animal Welfare Act, the first and only federal law in the United States to provide protections for some species of animals. Animal law is a relatively small but fiercely dedicated subgroup of the legal community that is hitting a much needed growth-spurt. Lewis & Clark College, a small law school located near Portland, Oregon, pioneered the study of animal law as a specialization in 1992, but the last decade has seen animal law courses and programs offered at top law schools such as Harvard University, University of Chicago, and University of Virginia. Though many law schools do not offer animal law curriculum, many law students are still pursuing their interest in animal law through the Animal Legal Defense Fund, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing the interests of animals through the legal field. The Defense Fund has 193 student chapters in the United States and 22 chapters abroad. It is clear that animal law is gaining momentum, but what does it mean to be an animal protection lawyer? Where better to find the answer to such a question than at the Animal Law Conference itself? The Animal Law Conference is a joint venture by Lewis & Clark Law School and the Animal Legal Defence Fund that has been held annually in the fall for the last 24 years. The conference is an opportunity for lawyers, academics, business people, law students, and anyone else interested in the intersection of animal welfare and the law to network, learn about new developments and strategies, and recognize members for their accomplishments in the field. This year, the Animal Law Conference was held at Pace University in the heart of New York City and featured panel discussions on aquatic animal law, litigation on factory farming, animals and the First Amendment, captive wildlife, international animal law, and more. As an undergraduate, I attended the conference in hopes of getting a better perspective on what it means to be an animal protection lawyer. What kind of specialized training would I need? Where do animal protection lawyers work and do they make enough money to pay back those law school loans? As it turns out, the best training you can receive to fight for animal welfare is to work hard in law school to become the best, and most well-rounded, lawyer that you can be. Perhaps the most salient, overarching take-away from the conference is the sheer diversity of approaches to animal law. Like humans, animals are impacted by just about every sector of the law and therefore need advocates trained in each area to protect their interests. Animals need criminal prosecutors like Nicoletta Caferri, chief of the Animal Cruelty Prosecutions Unit of the Queens District Attorney’s office in New York City. They need human rights lawyers, experts on the First Amendment, to fight the “ag-gag” laws that punish whistleblowers who report factory farming atrocities. Lawyers can use environmental laws, land-use laws, food laws, open-market laws, public health codes, and many more legal avenues to fight for the interests of animals. As to where animal lawyers work and if that work is lucrative: they work in every aspect of the law and often it is not their work on animal welfare that pays the bills. In fact, animal law is more often than not litigated by lawyers who are working pro bono. The first night of the Animal Law Conference is dedicated to recognizing pro bono animal lawyers for their hard work and success. These animal advocates varied greatly in their trade professions, they were investment lawyers from Texas, technology lawyers from California, and family lawyers from Maryland. While there are more and more people who are able to practice animal law full-time in positions with the Animal Legal Defense Fund, the Humane Society, and other nonprofits as the field grows, most animal advocates still make their money elsewhere. However, it is this diversity of legal experience that makes the animal law community so versatile and will allow them to make meaningful differences for the futures of our animal friends. As eminent animal rights lawyer Steven Wise proclaimed in his keynote address, “the animal law work being done today is not the end, nor even the beginning of the end, but is hopefully the end of the beginning." References:
Biome, J. & Winders, D. (9 October, 2016). Captive Wildlife. Presented the Animal Law Conference: New York, New York. Culpepper, J. & Holmes, E. (8 October, 2016). Current Litigation Approaches to Factory Farming. Presented at the Animal Law Conference: New York, New York. Wise, S.M. (7 October, 2016). Keynote. Presented at the Animal Law Conference: New York, New York.
0 Comments
By Casey Aguinaga Professor Ralph has taught at the Moritz College of Law since 2011. Previously, she clerked for Judge Kenneth Ripple of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
Q: When did you know that you wanted to teach law and how did you come to this decision? A: During law school I had the sense that my law professors had great careers set up. Getting to know many of them very well, it seemed like a fantastic job to dig deeply into interesting legal issues, to work with students, to write scholarship, and to comment on the latest state of the art in the law. I knew someday in my path I would want to be a legal academic. Q: What do you like about teaching law students, and what is the most rewarding part of teaching for you? A: I teach writing courses. I teach the required first year legal writing courses and I teach an upper level elective in pre-trial litigation, which is a very writing heavy course. Some of my favorite things to teach students are how to weave the theme of a case through all of their arguments and documents, how to have a bigger picture view on what is going on in a case and to bring that throughout a document that they are writing. And I also like when students have a basic sense of what they want to say, working with them to make their message as persuasive, graceful, and sophisticated as possible. Q: What do you think your biggest challenge is when teaching these courses? A: I think the biggest challenge for writing courses, and this might go for all law courses as well but certainly with writing, the way a person writes is very individual. There is not one right way to approach a writing project, because the way that people write is so different. To really guide students through the writing process and to help them find a way that works for them individually is challenging but also really fun. For law classes in general, I think that people learn in such different ways. A big part of law school is figuring out how you best learn. Most people who end up in law school have been successful students throughout their career and it has not been too much of a struggle for them to learn something. In law school, material gets more challenging and the time demands get a little bit steeper. So figuring out how you learn best and how you best process and organize information can be a bit of a challenge, but that is always fun to work with students to figure that out. Q: What kind of preparation do you think best prepares an undergraduate for the rigors of law school, and what did you do to prepare for law school in your undergraduate career? A: I was an English major. I got that advice from a family friend who was a lawyer, because I always had in my mind that maybe I would like to go to law school. I admired the lawyers that I knew and I thought the work that they did was interesting, and my family friend recommended to me to study whatever interested me as an undergraduate; because whatever you study, if you dig into it deeply, you get passionate about it, you write a lot and you read a lot, that will be good preparation for law school. So I was an English major and a philosophy minor because I was passionate about those fields and that prepared me very well for going into law school. The philosophy training helped a lot with the logic games on the LSAT. The English training involved close reading, which really prepared me well for law school. But you can also get that from reading primary source documents in a history class, analyzing a statute in a government class, or by reading a poem in an English class. I think that a lot of course work is going to prepare you well for that close reading a thorough writing. I took a practice LSAT from a prep course and I taught myself from the books for the LSAT when I had some time over the summer. For students preparing for law school, I would give similar advice to what I got, which is to study hard in an area that is really of interest to you, it could be something that is related to the law very closely or something that is tangentially related to the law. But, if you are engaging yourself in deep intellectual inquiry that will help prepare you. I think that it is important as an undergraduate to start noticing things about the world, to pay attention to detail and nuances both in your classes and outside of them, because law school will require you to look very closely at very fine points. I also think that it is important to know yourself very well, knowing what you want to do and what interests you. Law school can be a stressful time so you should have a sense of how you can constructively blow off steam, and those types of things. Q: From what I understand you attended the University of Virginia’s College of Law, so why Moritz College of Law over your alma mater? A: Well, I am from Columbus originally. I grew up in central Ohio in Upper Arlington. I was actually practicing law in Columbus when I decided to make the switch to teaching and there was an opportunity at Ohio State. That seemed like a dream come true to me so that I could be close to my mom and my sister and stay in central Ohio which I love, and teach at a great law school that trains excellent lawyers with the public service mission of a public law school. Q: Having taught a legal analysis and writing course, would you have any suggestions as to how undergraduates can improve their writing skills to be competitive in law school? A: Take every opportunity that you have to write and to be edited by other writers. One of the biggest things that is a learning curb for students coming into law school is that you get much more rigorous editing in law school courses than you may have gotten before in your undergraduate career. A lot of that depends on your undergraduate major and your professors, and the institution so that may not be accurate but in your legal writing course you will get a lot of editing and feedback. It is great to get that early on, and I would also say to read a lot of good writing. Read excellent journalism, whether you read the newspaper, news magazines. You will start to get a sense of how good writers put sentences together and the way that they have rhythm in their language. There are also some very good writing manuals that are easy to read, one I have on my desk right now. It is called Writing with Style by John Trimble, a lot of folks are probably familiar with The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White, the lessons are very relevant, timeless, and classic. Good legal writing is just good writing. Q: About how many hours of work do you expect your students to put in for your class? A: The ABA recommends two hours of preparation outside of class each week for every hour spent in class. I try to spread things out over the semester so that my students are never spending more than twenty hours in one week on a project. If there’s reading, research, and a writing project, I usually try to predict the time spent and assign manageable work. Q: Do you see yourself practicing law again, or what does the future hold for you? A: The practice of law is so interesting and so fun that I still try to do some work consulting with practicing lawyers. I do not have an open practice now but I will work with lawyers on their writing in projects that they are doing. I love what I am doing now and I can see myself doing this for a long time but the great thing about a law degree is that you can do so many different things with it. While I see myself staying in this chair and teaching legal writing for a very long time, I think that the nice thing about being a legal academic is I can explore different areas of my scholarship as my interests’ change and as the legal landscape changes. Q: Do you have any advice for students who aspire to attend law school or aspire to teach law? A: If you are thinking of attending law school, spend some time talking to lawyers. You may want to reach out to lawyers that you know, if you do not know many lawyers, you can always look in the city that you are living at some law firm websites and see if anyone shares an alma mater with you. A lot of lawyers love to talk about being lawyers, so they may be willing to talk to a student who reaches out to them. I would also say to read about the law. There are some good books that you do not have to be a lawyer to understand, that can tell you more about how the law works and how the practice of law works. I recommend some great books about the Supreme Court such as The Brethren by Bob Woodward and Scott Armstrong, The Nine by Jeffrey Toobin. They have really cool inside looks as to how the Supreme Court operates. I know reading The Brethren made me really want to be a lawyer. For students who want to be law professors, I would say that once you are in law school, throw yourself into everything that you are doing. A really helpful credential to have is a clerkship with a judge after you graduate. I would also say to get to know your professors really well because they are the best source of insight into how the path goes from law student, to legal professional, to professor. By Zack Valdman On October 11, 2016, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the Samsung v. Apple case. This is the first time a design patent case had come before the court since 1885. The case stems from a 2011 trial in which the jury ruled that Samsung infringed Apple’s design patents. More specifically, certain elements of Samsung’s smartphones, including the Galaxy and Nexus models, infringed on the design patents Apple possessed for the iPhone’s rectangular front face with round corners, the rim around the phone, and the icon grid on the phone itself. The original jury trial awarded Apple just over $1 billion in damages out of the $2.75 billion damages they were seeking. Samsung appealed, and the district court ordered a partial retrial, where the jury awarded approximately $300 million in damages. Samsung appealed once more, contending that the jury erroneously based the damages on the entire profit margin for the phones, rather than the profits that are precisely attributable to the design patent infringements. The main question the justices must consider in the case is how the damages should be calculated. Since the infringed patent in question relates only to a part of the phone rather than the entire phone itself, should the damages be limited to the profits that arise from that component, or on the profits for the entire phone? It makes logical sense, for instance, that if only a car’s patented cup holders are copied, the company that copied the cup holders would only have to pay based on the accounting cost of goods sold or profit margin associated with those cup holders, rather than the whole car itself. However, the issue becomes much more complex with the design of a phone, an issue the justices grappled with continuously throughout oral arguments. The enormous difficulty of determining just how much profit a company makes from a design element tripped up many of the justices. Questions from the justices included asking how much the design of a good influences the customer’s purchase, as well as how to calculate the cost of creating the design in the first place. A recurring example throughout oral arguments was the Volkswagen Beetle, which has a distinctive design different than other cars. The justices could not pinpoint exactly how much the design of the car influenced sales compared to other factors, and noted that while the key to the car’s success could be its shape, other factors must play a role in a buyer’s decision to purchase as well. Those in the technology industry have closely followed the Apple v. Samsung case, with many tech companies such as Facebook, Google, and eBay siding with Samsung. On the other hand, design professionals including well-known names such as Calvin Klein have sided with Apple and supported amicus briefs in Apple’s favor. Even the Officer of the Solicitor General has gotten involved, filing an amicus brief “in support of neither party” in theory, but in actuality supporting Samsung. If you are interested in learning the outcome of the case, you may have to wait a while. The Supreme Court will most likely make the decision sometime in early 2017, but can make the decision anytime between now and June 30th when this session of the court ends. Until then Apple, Samsung, and the rest of us will have to wait on the court’s ultimate ruling. Works Cited
1. Brachmann, Steve. "Supreme Court Skeptical of Apple, Hears Oral Arguments in Samsung v. Apple Design Patent Case." IP Watchdog, 12 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016. 2. Golson, Jordan. "Supreme Court Hears Samsung v. Apple Oral Arguments." The Verge, 11 Oct. 2016. Web. 23 Oct. 2016. 3. "Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple." SCOTUSblog RSS. N.p., Oct. 2016. Web. Oct. 2016. 4. "Samsung Electronics v. Apple." Oyez. Chicago-Kent College of Law at Illinois Tech, n.d. Oct 23, 2016. <https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-777> 5. Tibkin, Shara. "Apple v. Samsung Heads to Supreme Court: What You Need to Know." CNET, 11 Oct. 2016. By Eleni Christofides Visiting a prison is a profoundly sad experience; one sees adults with their wings clipped, stripped of freedom while outside life continues on without them. But there's something particularly tragic about women's prisons. Approaching the gatehouse of the Ohio Reformatory for Women (ORW) in Marysville, one can see tiny playground equipment in a yard, surrounded by a fence. It’s a reminder of the many women who have families on the outside, and how easy it is to make a mistake and end up a world away from one’s children. One of the most remarkable things about the prison population today is the changing demographic: female prison populations are skyrocketing compared to male populations, and most of the women (82 percent) indicate some dependence on drugs and alcohol (The Columbus Dispatch). Even more tragic is the effect this has on families: nearly 80 percent of incarcerated women are mothers (The Columbus Dispatch). This phenomenon is seriously fueled by the heroin epidemic sweeping the country — and Ohio in particular, as most incarcerated Ohioan women are charged with drug possession crimes. America's heroin epidemic is frightening, and in a post "War on Drugs" world (a war which we have most certainly been losing), public outcry and fear puts a great deal of pressure on law enforcement and prosecutors to fight this epidemic. Traditional methods focus on eliminating the supply of drugs, i.e. how much is available on the street. This includes officers conducting "buy and busts," a strategy where undercover officers will make drug purchases and use that evidence to secure a warrant for the dealer’s arrest, in order to incapacitate the drug sale market by locking up street dealers. Other methods include neighborhood "crackdowns," when officers use aggressive enforcement tactics in a high crime or "hot spot" area in order to reduce drug sales and associated crime. While intuitively appealing, these tactics are fraught with error and inefficiency. Neither serves as an effective deterrent for selling drugs and they lead to several unfortunate side effects. There are replacement and displacement effects, referring to new dealers quickly replacing arrested ones and crime being pushed to a new area while police presence is high — only to return to normal when the crackdown has ended. These tactics also create the opportunity for officers to profile suspects, which often leads to discrimination and prejudicial enforcement. Typically officers will target poor and minority areas, even though drug use of white populations, especially for youth, tends to be the same if not higher than use among black and Hispanic populations. This leads to disproportionate arrest and incarceration rates. Prosecutorial methods also prove inadequate: pushing for the incarceration of people for minor, non-violent drug offenses, especially under mandatory minimum sentencing, has led to disastrous levels of overpopulation in prisons and jails, with many people spending the rest of their lives in prison with no hope of recovery or release. What these techniques fail to recognize are the needs of those who are being incarcerated for drug possession: namely, people with substance use disorders. Despite Nancy Reagan's proposed solution of "Just Say No," drug addiction is incredibly complex. Overcoming addiction is not a matter of pure will, which explains why conventional deterrent methods do not work to deter drug use, because it is not a matter of rational decision making. In the same way that telling someone with the flu that they need to stop being sick is pointless and even cruel, telling someone with a substance use disorder to "stop it" does not help them and perpetuates the stigmatization of drug addiction, which may also prevent someone from seeking help. What is effective is treatment and support, and thus tactics that try to educate the community on drug addiction and offer treatment and prevention programs are far more promising than our current legal strategies. Prison is not the appropriate setting for people with substance use disorders to get the help that they need. In fact, incarcerating them leads to the criminalization of a specific status—drug addiction—which is arguably a violation of equal protection. To solve this, it's essential that law enforcement and prosecutors change the philosophy of their approach to drug crimes. Rather than arresting and imprisoning people for drug possession or use, they should refer them to social support organizations and treatment centers instead. That way, people can get the help they need for drug addiction and stop using (thus decreasing the demand for drugs) without destroying their lives with a criminal record. This saves the taxpayer money on incarceration costs, and keeps communities healthy as families can stay intact. Ohio is fortunately on the forefront of necessary reform. There are improved resources for incarcerated people to get substance use treatment, especially for women. The Tapestry program at the ORW is a therapeutic community within the correctional facility that helps women beat drug addiction and prepare for the transition into the community after incarceration. It also connects them to a network of alumni of the program, who offer continued support. Tapestry has proven very effective as recidivism among its graduates is significantly lower than the national or state average. In addition, in Ohio there is an increased push for community-based treatment so that the state can avoid involving people in the criminal justice system unnecessarily. Public support for reform is also critical, especially in such a pivotal election year. It's important to make your voice heard by voting for national and local candidates who represent positive change and who will truly keep our communities safe while protecting the rights and dignity of everyone. References:
Filipovic, Jill. “The flaws in prosecuting mothers who suffer from drug addiction” The Guardian. April 2012, 2012. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/26/flaws-prosecuting-mothers-drug-addiction McNamara, Brittney. “Addicted moms often torn between treatment, kids” The Columbus Dispatch. September 23, 2016. http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2016/heroin/1-0923-addicted-moms-often-torn-between-treatment-kids.html Wade, Lizzie. “How America is Battling its Horrific Opioid Epidemic” Wired. October 3, 2016. https://www.wired.com/2016/10/america-battling-horrific-opioid-epidemic/ “Drug Addiction is an Illness, Not a Crime” CRC Health. http://www.crchealth.com/addiction/drug-addiction-rehab/drug-addiction-rehab-2/home-2/addiction_is_illness/ By Spencer Dirrig On October 9, during the town hall presidential debate, Donald Trump made a historic announcement, saying that he would take action to prosecute his opponent if he became president. Specifically, he stated: “I’ll tell you what. I didn’t think I’d say this, but I’m going to say it, and I hate to say it. But if I win, I am going to instruct my attorney general to get a special prosecutor to look into your situation, because there has never been so many lies, so much deception. There has never been anything like it, and we’re going to have a special prosecutor.” Trump then proceeded to say that if he was in charge of the law in our country, Hillary “would be in jail.” During her time as Secretary of State of the United States from 2009-2013, Secretary Clinton has admitted to using a private email server as her primary mode of communication. In July 2015, according to a USA Today report, “The inspector’s general at the State Department and Director of National Intelligence ask the Justice Department to review whether classified information was compromised in Clinton’s use of private email.” A year later, following congressional investigation, State Department investigations and continued investigation from the FBI, “Attorney General Loretta Lynch [said that] she [would] accept recommendations from the FBI and career prosecutors in the email case in an attempt to dispel criticism of her potential conflict of interest.” This move is an important one because it was clear that the Attorney General took steps to maintain a clear and unbiased role in her investigation. This action reflects decades of an important precedent of a Justice Department independent of the politics of the country. Our Justice Department, and entire judicial system for that matter, rests upon the continued “firewall” between politics and criminal justice. In promising criminal retribution against his opponent for president, Donald Trump has put into question the future of judicial impartiality and thus, the very nature of our democratic governing system. Fortune Magazine reported that “a Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard Law School, Laurence Tribe, said that even threatening such a thing was ‘incompatible with the survival of a stable constitutional republic,” while carrying out such a threat would constitute an “impeachable offense.’” Trump, by every measure, has led a campaign full of shocking firsts – but this may be one that could set a dangerous precedent that truly threatens the future of our democracy. A number of prominent legal minds across the country have weighed in on why the threat posed by Donald Trump on October 9 is reckless and a danger to our system of government. Tribe explained that “Under the laws and Justice Department regulations governing federal prosecution, a President Trump would not have legal authority to direct the Attorney General to appoint a special prosecutor to ‘look into’ Hillary Clinton’s email situation or the Clinton Foundation or anything else. That’s not within a president’s power.” Tribe continued to lay out the only precedents for Trump’s vow to jail Clinton. “The only precedents for the kind of vow Trump made in last night’s debate are to be found in dictatorships and banana republics, not the United States. The closest parallel may be what [Viktor] Yanukovych did to [Yulia] Tymoshenko in Ukraine. Some of the political leaders who’ve jailed their political opponents [in the past] have been Hugo Chávez, Recep Erdoğan, Robert Mugabe, Manuel Noriega, Augusto Pinochet and, of course, Vladimir Putin.” It should be abundantly clear that the precedent for Trump’s vow to prosecute and jail Clinton comes from a deeply troubling worldview. While the pattern of national leaders prosecuting their political opponents is no less than terrifying, the effect this action would have on our democratic system of government – and the impending constitutional challenge it would spark – could destabilize the constitutional republic we’ve built. Tribe explains that, “Making threats or vows to use a nation’s criminal justice system against one’s vanquished political opponent is worse than terrible policy: it’s incompatible with the survival of a stable constitutional republic and, under our Constitution, would represent an abuse of power so grave that it would be an impeachable offense.” With the deeper constitutional legitimacy in mind, it is imperative to also point out the fact that Trump’s assertion demonstrates a disconcerting lack of knowledge as to the procedures of the Department of Justice and the fundamentals of prosecutorial discretion. Jim Jacobs, a professor at New York University School of Law, specializing in criminal law and procedure told Fortune, that Trump’s comments are “very contrary to the way the Justice Department operates. It is essential that the Department be apolitical with respect to its choice of law enforcement targets and to its exercise of prosecutorial discretion. And very improper if the president were to be making phone calls to the attorney general with respect to a particular target of investigation… That would call into question the independence of the law enforcement wing, and put a grave cloud over it.” Donald Trump has made countless disturbing threats as to his actions if he would be elected as the 45th President of the United States. However, the threat to undermine prosecutorial independence and use his position for political retaliation goes further than insulting the American people. Donald Trump, in true dictatorial style, is challenging the sacred pillars of democratic government and independent justice that make America a worldwide symbol of stable government by and for the people. We shouldn’t give Trump the chance to diminish that in any manner. Works Cited
Glueck, By Katie. "Trump Threatens to Tap Special Prosecutor for Clinton If He Wins." POLITICO. Politico Magazine, 19 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. Krieg, Gregory. "Trump Threatens to Jail Clinton If He Wins Election." CNN. Cable News Network, 10 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. Parloff, Roger. "Could a President Donald Trump Prosecute Hillary Clinton?" Fortune Magazine Online. Fortune, 09 Oct. 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. Slack, Donovan. "Timeline: Hillary Clinton Email Investigation." USA Today. Gannett, 05 July 2016. Web. 17 Oct. 2016. By Olivia Worthington Border control and combating illegal immigrants are rising legal issues given the worsening refugee crisis in the Middle East. Concerns about terrorism are also prominent with border control, as citizens fear that relaxing the borders will make it easier for potential terrorists to enter the country. The Paris attacks in November 2015 demonstrate the ease of border infiltration by terrorists, as all of the attackers had crossed into France without any problem before killing 130 citizens. The rules for border control differ between countries, and the U.S. is debating their own immigration controls heavily as the presidential election draws closer. While some suggest we “build a wall,” many laws are in place and more have been proposed to balance the fine line between accepting refugees and legal immigrants while using border control to keep terrorists and harmful individuals out of the country. All U.S. citizens are required to present a passport or some other pre-approved identification when crossing borders. Lawful, permanent residents, such as citizens holding a green card, must present a passport or another secure travel document when entering the U.S. borders. In the countries of Canada and Bermuda, citizens may present a WHTI-compliant document when crossing into the U.S. border. Mexico is a special case, as citizens can show a passport with a nonimmigrant visa or a laser visa when visiting. These visas can present an illegal immigration problem, as after these visas expire some Mexican citizens choose to illegally stay in the U.S. There are also Trusted Traveler Programs that have pre-screenings and allow frequent border crossers to travel with low-risk passage rules. In Europe, the Schengen Area is comprised of 26 countries that have no internal borders and only one external border. All of the European Union countries are within this area with the exception of the United Kingdom and Ireland. Qualified citizens are granted free movement within this area, and countries are responsible only for maintaining their external borders. The Schengen Plan has come under scrutiny lately, as the Paris attacks in November 2015 were perpetuated by a cell in Brussels that moved into France with ease, partially due to the open nature of the Schengen Area. Some citizens are calling for its abolishment, while others maintain that the European Union must maintain a sense of openness among its neighbors. The United Kingdom has strict border control laws, and has recently moved to using a points-based migration system that is designed to curb illegal immigration. The Border Agency is known for stringently policing the border, and citizenship is not granted to those residing in the United Kingdom without extensive background checks and paperwork. In France, a state of emergency following the Nice truck attack in July 2016 is still in effect. Border control has increased substantially, but France is still part of the Schengen Agreement and maintains open borders. No emergency visas are allowed in France at this time, and the government is discussing possible new border controls to combat the recent terrorist attacks in the country. Canada continues to admit immigrants under economic, family, and refugee categories. The Immigration and Refugee Protection Act guides Canada’s laws on immigration, and the country has been open to accepting as many refugees as possible during crisis. Mexico has a Law of Migration that has broad immigration policy framework applicable to many different areas of border control. The loose laws have led to conflict over illegal immigration to the U.S., because many U.S. citizens are concerned that loose border controls in Canada and Mexico can lead to illegal immigration more easily into the U.S. Donald Trump has a plan to be strict on immigration: to build a wall and force illegal aliens to leave the U.S. immediately. Hillary Clinton wants to implement comprehensive immigration reform with a path to full and equal citizenship. Most Americans currently polled by Gallup favor Clinton’s less radical approach, but the immigration wall certainly has vocal support. According to the Pew Research Center, there were 11.1 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2014. 52 percent of these immigrants were from Mexico. Most of the illegal immigrants were in states such as California, Florida, Texas, and New York, which all reside on the outer border of the U.S. Illegal immigrants have been on the rise in the U.S. for the last decade and continue to be a large legal issue for the country. The upcoming presidential election will determine what approach is taken to curb illegal immigration in the U.S. Most American citizens want a compromise between completely stopping immigration and having unrestrained, open borders. The Schengen Area presents a challenge to Europe currently in the new age of terrorism, and it is certainly possible that in the future Europe will have closed borders with stricter control if malicious attacks continue. Some in the U.S. are calling for more stringent laws from Canada and Mexico, while others encourage the continent to assist more refugees as the refugee crisis in the Middle East continues to worsen. Americans remain divided on immigration, and as terror attacks and illegal immigrant problems increase, a decision must be made soon on how best to control the country while benefitting the most amount of people as possible. Works Cited
Clinton, Hillary. “Immigration Reform” On the Issues. June 13, 2016. https://hillaryclinton.com/issues/immigration-reform/ Law Library of Congress. “Citizenship Pathways and Border Protection” Legal Issues. September 15, 2016. https://www.loc.gov/law/help/citizenship-pathways/index.php Passel, Jeffrey S. “5 Facts About Illegal Immigration in the U.S.” Pew Research Center. September 20, 2016. www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2-16/09/2016-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-us.html Sandbury, George. “Crossing the U.S. Border: Laws and Regulations” FindLaw. 2015. Immigration.findlaw.org State Department. “U.S. Passports and International Travel in France” February 29, 2016. https://travel.state.gov/content/passports/en/country/france.html Trump, Donald J. “Immigration” 2016. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration by Samuel Huryn Earlier this year, I wrote an article about the American Bar Association urging states to adopt a uniform bar exam, which can be read at http://ohiostateulr.weebly.com/blog/-american-bar-association-asks-states-to-adopt-a-uniform-bar-exam. A uniform bar exam has many theoretical benefits, most importantly allowing attorneys to seek employment outside of the state in which they passed the bar exam. This would allow attorneys more flexibility in determining their future, and would allow for increased job opportunities. However, a uniform bar exam may have negative consequences. In February of 2016, New Mexico adopted the uniform bar exam. Unfortunately, “the pass rate fell to 69%, an 11% decline of the pass rate” in February, and fell even further in July, down to a 64% overall pass rate.1 Additionally, students who failed to pass the universal bar exam were disproportionately women and minorities. New Mexico University School of Law Co-Deans Sergio Pareja and Alfred Mathewson, in a letter to alumni and students, addressed this issue. They wrote that “some other states that adopted the test also saw pass rates drop as well. But Arizona, which adopted the test in 2012, was not one of them. And Colorado’s pass rate dropped slightly from 2012 to 2015”, promising to study the results and make changes accordingly.2 These score discrepancies are “likely because the New Mexico essay exam largely focused on New Mexico law, and those types of questions are not present on the UBE, which they take at the same time”.2 Because of this, decreases in passage rates in New Mexico do not immediately dispel the merit behind a uniform bar exam, and more information from other states will be needed before determining its success. Works Cited
1 http://www.barexamstats.com/february-2016-new-mexico-bar-exam-results/ 2 http://abovethelaw.com/2016/09/bar-exam-passage-rates-plummet-after-adoption-of-uniform-bar-exam/?rf=1 By Maddy Gledhill Sarah Elizabeth Hurst Hopp is a graduate of Kenyon College (‘95) and The Moritz College of Law at The Ohio State University (’02). Sarah started her career after Moritz at Bricker and Eckler before accepting a short clerkship with District Judge Graham. She returned to Bricker after 18 months, but missed the court so much she accepted a Career Law Clerk position with Magistrate Judge King, whom she stayed with for eight years until Judge King’s retirement in 2016. Currently, Sarah is a Law Clerk for District Judge Watson in the Southern District of Ohio.
1. What is a law clerk? In the federal court system, an attorney who works with and assists a judge is known as a law clerk. In the state court system, that same attorney is often called a staff attorney. Law clerks (or staff attorneys) help a judge by drafting orders, assisting in court proceedings, and managing cases. 2. When did you know you wanted to go into law and why? After completing my undergraduate degree, I met with a law professor whose specialties were human rights and international law. Through that meeting, I realized the versatility of a law degree, which sharpened my interest in law school. 3. Do you think law school prepared you for a clerkship or for private practice? In some ways, law school did prepare me for a clerkship and private practice. My seminars and experience on law journal provided a lot of writing experience, which was very helpful when drafting legal memoranda and proposed orders. However, law school did not expose me to some practical realities of work after law school such as the local customs in the courts located in Columbus, interacting with clients, and overseeing support staff. 4. When did you know you wanted to be a clerk and why? After law school graduation, I joined the litigation department of a local law firm. One of the litigation partners spoke many times of the wonderful experience he had clerking for a federal district judge. His stories piqued my interest in clerking, which was not a career option I had previously considered. 5. What has been your favorite part of being a clerk? The variety of legal issues and fact patterns in my clerkships has been fascinating. Developing a close relationship and rapport with the judges also has been a rewarding part of my clerkships. 6. What is the most challenging aspect of your job? Although the variety of legal issues has been very interesting, it also presents the most challenging part of my job. This requires me to frequently research and understand new complex legal rules and theories. 7. Do you have any recommendations for future law students? I strongly recommend that students be on a law journal, which will provide a great opportunity to develop legal writing and critical thinking skills. I also recommend that students take advantage of practical classes such as externships and clinics. Finally, law students should remember to always treat their fellow law students with respect. Whether law students stay in the city where they graduate or move out of state, it is a small legal community. Through my own personal experience and through stories from classmates, it is surprising the number of times a former classmate has resurfaced and impacted a job interview, client development, or professional reputation. By Brittany Cardoza In May, the country was outraged when a Western Lowland gorilla residing at the Cincinnati Zoo was shot and killed after an incident involving a three-year-old child. On the morning of May 28, a three-year-old boy wandered away from his mother and managed to fall 15 feet into a moat surrounding the gorilla habitat. Harambe, a 17-year-old, 440-pound male silverback, descended into the moat to investigate the disturbance. Onlookers watched as Harambe seemed to switch sporadically from protective to destructive behavior, hovering over the boy, propping him up, and then dragging him around in the water by the leg. After about 10 minutes, Harambe carried the boy out of the moat and onto dry land, at which point the zookeepers ended the fiasco with a single, lethal bullet, killing Harambe just a day after his seventeenth birthday. The incident caused national controversy, with experts like Jane Goodall, who has been studying primates for over 40 years, weighing in on Harambe's behavior and the actual threat he posed to the child's life. Goodall said that Harambe did not intend to hurt the child and posed himself in a way that suggested that he was protecting the child at many points during the episode. It was perhaps the hysterical screaming coming from onlookers that agitated Harambe and caused him to drag the child in spurts. Regardless of Harambe's potentially harmless intentions, it was decided by the zoo staff that Harambe's strength and level of agitation made him too much of a potential threat to the life of the child and took his life instead. The widespread outrage over Harambe's untimely end caused some people to search for justice to be served. Many called for charges to be brought against the mother of the child, claiming that her negligence led to the endangerment of her child and the death of the gorilla. Others blamed the Cincinnati Zoo officials for their decision to shoot Harambe or their failure to build a more impenetrable barrier around his habitat. Others caught on to a more profound and institutional issue and asked how Harambe ended up in this unfortunate situation in the first place. Critics pointed to the mere existence of zoos as the truly responsible party in his death. Though Harambe's death sparked a lot of discussion about the operation of zoos in America, animal activists have been working to reform zoos for many years. Enter Steven Wise and the Non-Human Rights Project. When Wise began his legal career as an animal protection lawyer in the 1970's, he hoped to defend animals from all manners of abuses, but he quickly discovered that he would be unable to make any real legal progress for animals because they did not possess any rights in the eyes of the law. Legally, all non-human animals are “things” not “persons.” This state of affairs is extremely disadvantageous for animals because it precludes them from any kind of legal protection from the abuses of human beings. However, we should not assume that being a human being automatically entitles one to legal personhood, or that legal personhood can only be applied to human beings. The terms are not synonymous. In America, many corporations are “people” in the eyes of the law. Centuries of slavery and female oppression remind us that legal personhood has had to be earned by a large part of the human population, proving that the seemingly immutable line between legal thing-hood and legal personhood are not drawn in permanent ink. Legal cases for the inclusion of a group into legal personhood are made on the values of liberty and equality. According to Wise, the primary rights promised to those the law sees as deserving of liberty are the rights to autonomy and self-determination. These rights are so heavily protected that you, as a human being, have the choice to refuse medical treatments that would save your life or withhold permission to have your organs donated after you die. Your self-determination is held to such a high importance that it cannot be violated to save your own life or the lives of others. On the other hand, equality rights are awarded to groups that are significantly similar enough to make a case for equal treatment under the law. When women fought for the right to vote and African Americans fought for freedom from discrimination, it was their equality that was in question. The disenfranchised groups had be legally accepted as significantly similar to those who were granted these rights, namely white men, in order to have access to these rights themselves. Steven Wise and the Non-Human Rights Project are currently engaged in a long-term, strategic litigation campaign that they hope will eventually break the barrier between legal thing-hood and personhood for animals, starting with higher apes– specifically chimpanzees– because of the overwhelming evidence that exists to show that they are similar to humans in a significant way and therefore deserving of the rights to autonomy and self-determination. If he succeeds with this line of litigation, it will be a violation of liberty to falsely imprison chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and other members of the animal kingdom with advanced cognitive abilities for entertainment or research. There is a growing body of research in primatology that suggests that greater apes, such as gorillas, chimpanzees, and bonobos, have a much greater capacity for emotional and cultural intelligence, cognitive abilities, and self-awareness than they have been given credit for in the past. According to Jane Goodall, the main difference between humans and chimpanzees is our intricate and sophisticated language. If you accept this body of research, it follows naturally that you should question the morality of imprisoning such highly intelligent, self-aware, and self-determining beings in zoos, biomedical research institutions, and other facilities that cater to human interests. Wise is working to achieve this goal by following the path carved by the downfall of human slavery. One case in particular inspired Wise to begin his campaign by using the Great Writ, habeas corpus, to fight for animal personhood. The Common Law writ of habeas corpus, a latin phrase that translates to, “[we demand] that you have the body,” legally compels a detainer to produce the body of a detainee so that the court may question the legality of his imprisonment. Habeas corpus is the driving force behind the entire criminal justice system in the sense that it is the reason a person is taken from the jailhouse to the courthouse to stand trial after being arrested. It protects those of us with established rights to liberty from false imprisonment, and because habeas corpus is a product of the English Common Law, it provides an opening for the inclusion of new groups in the right to liberty. One such opening was blown open for African slaves in the case of Somerset v. Steward, the court decision that inspired Steven Wise's strategic litigation. It was 1772 in London, England and escaped slave James Somerset had been recaptured by his American owner and imprisoned on a ship off the coast. A writ of habeas corpus was issued by a group of citizens compelling Lord Mansfield, perhaps the most powerful judge in England at the time, to require the captain of the ship to produce Somerset's body so that his imprisonment could be challenged. Because the writ of habeas corpus can only apply to a legal person, the act of honoring the request on the behalf of James Somerset would challenge his status as a legal thing. Lord Mansfield upheld the writ, altering the Common Law and establishing a precedent for the legal personhood of slaves. The trial that followed the writ eventually culminated in the finding that Somerset's imprisonment was unlawful on the grounds that slavery was illegal in England; the moment that man stepped off the American ship and onto English soil, he became a legal person and his bodily liberties could not be violated. This transformation from thing-hood to personhood in the eyes of the law is exactly what Wise to planned to accomplish when he, backed by the Non-Human Rights Project, filed suits on behalf of four chimpanzee's in the state of New York in 2013, demanding judges issue writs of habeas corpus. The chimps he chose were imprisoned in particularly inhumane conditions and being used for biomedical research. Wise collected hundred of affidavits from primatology experts around the world demonstrating the cognitive and cultural abilities that expose chimpanzees as autonomous and self-determining individuals who are significantly similar to humans and therefore cannot be tortuously imprisoned. These cases are currently being litigated, and growing awareness of animal welfare issues and interest in Animal Protection Law promises change for great apes and all other non-human animals in the imminent future. The national outrage seen over the death of a captive gorilla is evidence that attitudes are changing and becoming more inclusive and sensitive to the potential rights of other species. Roman jurist Hermogenianus famously stated, “Homa causa omne jus constitum,” or, “All law was established for men's sake.” Thanks to the initiative of activists like Steven Wise, our society may finally move past the foundation of teleological anthropocentrism that has dominated legal thought for so long. Works Cited
Fieldstadt, E. & Stelloh, T.. (2016). Outrage grows after gorilla Harambe shot dead at Cincinnati Zoo to save tot. NBC News. Retrieved from http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/outrage-grows-after-gorilla-harambe-shot-dead-cincinnati-zoo-save-n582706. The Non-Human Rights Project. (2016) About the project. Retrieved from http://www.nonhumanrightsproject.org Wise, S. M. (2000). Rattling the cage: Toward legal rights for animals. Cambridge, MA: Perseus Pub. Wise, S.M. (2015, March). Steven Wise: Chimps have feelings and thoughts: They should also have rights.https://www.ted.com/talks/steven_wise_chimps_have_feelings_ and_thoughts_they_should_also_have_rights#t-743208 Interview with Franklin County Assistant Prosecutor for the Criminal Division, Renee Amlin10/3/2016 By: Casey Aguinaga Renee Amlin is an assistant prosecutor for the Criminal Division in the Franklin County Prosecutor’s office and has worked there for the past three years. She previously worked in the Tenth District Court of Appeals and at the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. She earned her Juris Doctorate from Capital University Law School in 1998.
Q: Did you always know you wanted to practice law, and when did you know you wanted to work in the criminal law? A: It was kind of in the back of my mind that I wanted to go to law school, and while I was in law school, criminal law was what I was most interested in. When my first opportunity came up, I was about a year out of law school. I was able to get a position at the prosecutor’s office, staying there for about seven years before leaving to do something else. I came back three years ago. Q: What best prepared you, whether it be in law school or your experience in the prosecutor’s office, for the job you do now? A: You learn some of the basics about the law when you are in law school but it really does not prepare you to actually practice law. It is more about getting your feet wet. This is the kind of job where when you start they tend to throw a lot at you. You should find someone to help you and guide you through it, but you are really just off and running. It was mostly about finding the right people to learn from when I first started observing trials, and getting other experience and taking it from there. Q: What does a typical day at the prosecutor’s office look like? A: I usually have cases in court Monday through Thursday, it might be anywhere from three cases to ten cases depending on the day. I usually spend most of my morning in court until noon. In the afternoons, I am usually back in my office, preparing for cases the next day, answering phone calls, issuing subpoenas, or updating my files from earlier in the day. Friday’s a lot of the time are sentencing hearings, so that is usually an easier day. If there is a case that actually goes to trial where we need to have people come down and testify in person, then we have to pick a jury then that pretty much runs from eight to five everyday until you are done. Q: What kind of cases are you working on now? A: All of the cases that we prosecute in the county prosecutor’s office are felony criminal cases ranging anywhere from things like forgery, receiving stolen property, theft, possession of drugs, up to some of the more serious crimes like robbery, burglary, murder. I have a pretty wide range, so I recently had a murder trial a few days ago, but I also try less serious cases like robberies, a theft case, and things of that nature. Q: How often do you go to trial? A: It depends on the case and the circumstances, and the year. Some years you may have two or three trials, or you could have five, six, seven or eight. It also depends on the type of cases you get. The more senior people tend to get cases that end up going to trial, while less senior people have the less serious cases which tend to not go to trial. You might have anywhere from zero trials in a year to say twelve or thirteen. Q: When witnesses are involved, how do you prepare to question them? A: As far as preparing witnesses, we typically meet with the most important witnesses ahead of time to interview them and practice by letting them know the types of questions we are going to ask them. We let them review any statements they have given to the police, or that they have put down in writing, audio, or video recording. Sometimes we show them the courtroom so that they feel comfortable and that they know where they need to go, where they will be sitting, and things of that nature. Sometimes if they are a less serious witness or if they live out of state we might just talk with them on the phone, telling them what to expect and interviewing them. It really just depends on the circumstances. Once in awhile we may just have them come in maybe an hour or so before we have them testify at the trial and prep them then. Q: Do you have any advice for other women who aspire to be lawyers or are currently in law school? A: It can be kind of intense at times. It is a lot more work than just completing your undergraduate courses. But if it is something that you are interested in, understand that for most people law school requires you to make a huge financial commitment, because it is very expensive. So you really should think through whether or not law school is something that you want to do, and if it is you just need to commit yourself to it and understand that there may be ups and downs. Some days law school can be really difficult. Where I went to law school people were very friendly and everyone helped one another, they shared information, and studied together. In some places the environment is more competitive, where people are less helpful. So, I think that the environment of a school is something that you need to take into consideration when you are deciding where you want to go to law school. |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |