By: Zack Valdman With the rise of the on-demand economy and recent explosion in the sharing economy, companies like Uber, Lyft, and Airbnb have seen dramatic increases in users, demand, and valuation. However the law has been slow to adjust to this collaborative and peer economy, where consumers share access to goods and services they own in exchange for monetary compensation (i.e. transportation for Uber and Lyft, lodging for Airbnb). The thought behind these companies is that assets such as cars or houses should create value for an owner even when not in use by the owner. Nevertheless, with the recent growth and take off in popularity of this new sector of the economy, the law has been slow to adjust.
Airbnb serves as a broker between those looking for short-term rentals or leases on apartments, homes, hostels, and hotel rooms and those providing said lodging. Recently the company has recently run into some legal challenges to its business model, specifically due to the nature of the short-term rentals utilized between users of the service. Cities in the US and abroad, including San Francisco (the city Airbnb launched in) and New York City have recently passed laws restricting an individual’s ability to host paying guests for shorter than a one month time frame. Depending on the city, an individual looking to rent out their apartment or house may need to obtain a business license before accepting payment from guests. If listing a property subject to rent control, other factors come into play, such as limits on the amount of money one can earn from these properties. Cities like San Francisco even require quarterly reports disclosing the dates of short-term rentals of your property. Because the law surrounding Airbnb is just beginning to evolve and trying to make sense of the relatively new business model the old laws do not adequately address the business, and there are no uniform guidelines yet in place. The law ranges widely depending on location, from cities such as Baltimore with little to no regulation or rules governing rentals, to cities such as Santa Monica enacting extremely tough regulations requiring owners to live on the property during a renter’s stay, charging a 14% occupancy tax, and requiring the renter to apply for and obtain a business license. For those in Columbus, while no regulations have been enacted, the Columbus City Council and The Ohio Hotel & Lodging Association have begun talks to push through legislation that would require Airbnb hosts to pay taxes just as hotels do and register their rentals with the city. Regardless, most cities and counties that currently do not regulate Airbnb are scrambling to pass laws to standardize short-term rental practices. Still a grey area on many fronts, it remains to be seen how the law adapts to this exciting emerging market. Works Consulted: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/investing/083115/top-cities-where-airbnb-legal-or-illegal.asp https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/376/what-legal-and-regulatory-issues-should-i-consider-before-hosting-on-airbnb https://www.airbnb.com/help/article/1376/responsible-hosting-in-the-united-states http://www.dispatch.com/news/20170708/columbus-ohio-consider-taxing-regulating-likes-of-airbnb
0 Comments
By: Eleni Christofides The statistics of prison population growth are not new to anyone familiar with the criminal justice system; rates continue to soar above what they have been in previous decades, and mass incarceration is an increasingly common term outside of academia and within public conversation. Yet frequently, this image of the carceral state remains black and white, lacking attention to the human element. Simply, mass incarceration means that institutions often house twice the number of people they were originally designed to house, which unsurprisingly creates deplorable living conditions and indifference—or even outward hostility—toward an incarcerated person’s needs. What does such a situation imply for prisoners’ rights? In the book Mass Incarceration on Trial: A Remarkable Court Decision and the Future of Prisons in America, Jonathan Simon examines the unparalleled magnitude of the United States’ incarcerated population through the lens of Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishment. Specifically, he argues that this criminal justice model of total incapacitation denies a basic sense of humanity and dignity to prisoners through violence and indifference. After the fear-fueled coverage of prison uprisings such as Attica, and serial killers such as Charles Manson during the 1970-80s, the image of the prisoner changed and sentencing policy goals soon shifted from rehabilitation to incapacitation to deal with this new, violent predator. People felt that any decrease in imprisonment was a direct threat to public safety and viewed offenders as unchanging, permanently dangerous criminals.
Simon focuses on a series of court cases out of California that were necessary to begin dismantling the mass incarceration system and to restore a sense of dignity to prisoner treatment. First was Madrid v. Gomez, which specifically examined supermax-level security prisons and found that the violent cell extractions used by guards violated the Eighth Amendment protection against cruel and unusual punishment; the decision did note that the treatment was particularly egregious for the mentally ill, but did not rule that those violations were inherent to the supermax structure. Instead it levels the blame at insufficient training for the prison guards. Simon calls Madrid a missed opportunity to stop mass incarceration and the associated inhumanity in its tracks. In Coleman v. Wilson, the plaintiffs went beyond the supermax issue of Madrid and filed a class action suit for the mentally unwell in California prisons at all security levels, saying that failure to provide appropriate mental health care was a violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Court’s order in Coleman for California to create a better mental health system indirectly prioritized the individualized approach to mental health needs; recognizing that an individualized approach is difficult if not impossible to achieve in such overcrowded conditions, the Court began to blame the very structure of mass incarceration for creating these constitutional violations. The inhumanity of mass incarceration was best showcased through the lack of physical health care for an aging prison population, affecting those with and without mental health problems, particularly captured by plaintiffs in Plata v. Davis. This decision is remarkable in its use of human stories that must generate empathy in its readers, detailing the health emergencies that many prisoners suffered or even died from while incarcerated—emergencies that were regularly ignored by staff. Plata showed the ways in which California’s attempts at totalitarian control over prisoners failed: they could not keep track of such a large number of prisoners as individuals, particularly in matters of health, and it revealed the conflict between the dehumanizing mission of incapacitation and the “do no harm” mission of health care providers. Here the federal court officially blamed mass incarceration for this health crisis and thus the constitutional violations. Coleman-Plata v. Schwarzenegger highlighted the overcrowding effect of mass incarceration that ultimately led to California declaring a state of emergency. The federal court issued an order for population reduction, finding clear and convincing evidence that the overcrowding problem was the cause of the unconstitutional state of operation and thus decided that reducing the population was the only practical solution. The Coleman-Plata series of decisions was appealed to the Supreme Court as Brown v. Plata, which put California’s issues of mass incarceration on the national stage. The Court upheld the reduction order and the opinion, making clear that it understood how the very laws and policies themselves needed to change to end this mass suffering. The greatest impact of Brown v. Plata could be in forming a new “common sense” when it comes to prisoners and their treatment in the criminal justice system. The old common sense holds that prisoners are inherently dangerous, but Brown managed to show that many prisoners do not fit this “super predator” description and their risk level does not warrant such treatment. Going forward, Simon argues, the goal of prison and criminal justice sanctions should be to prevent further deterioration in mental and physical health, not to worsen the decline. This set of case law illustrates that appellate courts in this country have not only the power but also the responsibility to create positive change in the way our criminal justice system operates; this will be done both through the legal precedence they set and the effect on public opinion that their decisions may have. As further cases find their way before the Supreme Court that address a denial of dignity, this shift in the common sense will ideally lead to the further dismantling of a system that offers no substantive additional protections and only serves to harm those under its control. References:
By: Spencer Dirrig On November 7, the people of Ohio will be tasked with voting for or against an amendment to the Ohio Constitution. Issue 1, also known as “Marsy’s Law,” claims to enshrine victims’ rights into our state constitution. While the campaign in favor of the amendment has received broad support and an influx of political contributions, the proposed amendment is facing a growing resistance. This week, the American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio came out in opposition to the amendment, saying that it will infringe upon the principle of “innocent until proven guilty.” With election day approaching, many Ohioans are unsure about the impact this amendment will have and why they should support or reject the issue.
The official ballot issue reads as follows: “Issue 1 - Proposed Constitutional Amendment to repeal and replace the existing language in Section 10a of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio. A majority yes vote is necessary for the amendment to pass. The proposed amendment would expand the rights of victims under the current Section 10a and require that the rights of victims be protected as vigorously as the rights of the accused. More specifically, for the purpose of ensuring due process, respect, fairness, and justice for crime victims and their families in the criminal and juvenile justice systems, the amendment would provide victims with:
The Columbus Dispatch explains that “Issue 1, if approved, would enact constitutional protections for crime victims and their families, including the right to notification of all proceedings and to be heard at every step of the legal process. Victims could be involved in offenders’ plea deals and would be entitled to financial restitution.” According to the Dispatch, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine, “not only supports the crime-victims’ proposal opposed by his former colleagues, but he also accepted the position of co-chairman of the Issue 1 campaign.” DeWine told the Dispatch, “I think this is the natural next extension of victims’ rights. It seems the right thing to do to engrave it in our constitution. ... Most prosecutors are doing everything that will be required by Marsy’s Law, but it make these things a matter of right, not discretionary.” Marsy’s Law, an organization that has spent nearly $3 million propagating this amendment in Ohio states that “We can all agree that no rapist should have more rights than the victim. No murderer should be afforded more rights than the victim’s family. Marsy’s Law would ensure that victims have the same co-equal rights as the accused and convicted – nothing more, nothing less. Marsy’s Law is not a partisan issue. Giving crime victims equal rights is a rare political issue that Republicans and Democrats are unified in supporting.” However, civil rights activists strongly disagree. The ACLU of Ohio explained that the law “will allow victims to refuse interviews, depositions, or other discovery requests made on behalf of the accused. Additionally, it will allow victims to intervene at various phases of the criminal proceedings and eliminate judicial oversight of the victim’s participation, threatening the fundamental rights to fairness and a speedy trial.” While the proposed amendment has been characterized as a saving grace for crime victims, many in the criminal justice system believe that the law will disrupt due process and unfairly prejudice the criminal defendant. In addition to the encroachment upon the rights of the accused, Gary Daniels, chief lobbyist for the ACLU of Ohio warns that this law will take the criminal justice system backwards, explaining, “The consequences will be felt systemically as well as individually. This initiative will result in longer prison sentences and higher incarceration rates, and will bolster the state’s power over the accused.” Despite their strong opposition to the proposed amendment, the ACLU continues to reaffirm their support for victims’ rights legislation as long as they do not impede on the Constitutional rights of the accused. Civil rights activists are not the only dissenters to this amendment. John Murphy, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association said that “Marsy’s law goes too far and actually may slow down the criminal justice process and make it more expensive for taxpayers. What we’re concerned about mainly is it creates the ability of the victim to intervene in the criminal justice process at any point along the line if they think they aren’t getting their proper due,” he said. “It could be a real mess” (Columbus Dispatch). The Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys are joined by the State Public Defender, Tim Young, who explained his opposition stating, “Issue 1 does not provide additional resources and the government remains immune to liability… This amendment will result in increased litigation, increased costs to taxpayers, and will delay cases, only hurting victims. This amendment is wrong for Ohio” (Columbus Dispatch). The Cincinnati Enquirer broke down the concerns that have ironically united the State Prosecuting Attorneys and the Public Defenders. Among their concerns: Victims could withhold evidence. Victims could recant and leave prosecutors scrambling – not wanting to violate victims' rights but still wanting to pursue the case. Victims could disagree with plea deals negotiated by the prosecutor and defense attorney. Victims could repeatedly interrupt court proceedings and violate the accused's right to a speedy trial. Who would pay for the attorney who represents victims” (Cincinnati Enquirer). In addition to the ethical and logistical opposition to the proposed amendment, Louis Tobin, executive director of the Ohio Prosecuting Attorneys Association, laid out a monetary and resource-based argument against the law, warning, “Taxpayers could be paying for the prosecutor; for counsel for an indigent defendant; and for counsel for an indigent victim. This duplication of responsibilities and costs is bad enough in one case. Multiplied by thousands of cases each year, it could delay justice at best and deny it at worst” (Columbus Dispatch). Despite the growing opposition to the law, there is no official opposition organization and is therefore being outspent by the supporters by $3 million. As such, the amendment is expected to pass with ease. There is certainly merit to the amendment’s proposals and the effort to advocate on behalf of victims is incredibly admirable. While Issue 1 may give victims additional rights, it runs a very real risk of slowing down an already sluggish court system, impeding the right to a speedy trial, and accumulating massive costs to taxpayers. Given the dangerous domino effect of enshrining this law into our Ohio Constitution, citizens should think critically and act cautiously before voting. By: Zack Valdman It is that time of year again. Law schools are in session, and most law school applications have either just opened or open within the next few weeks, prompting hopeful candidates around the country to begin the application process. With all the hubbub around LSAT’s, letters of recommendation, personal statements, and resumes, lost in it all is an often overlooked, but crucial part of deciding which law school is right for you: the law school visit.
After visiting six different law schools in the past couple months, I wanted to share some helpful do’s and don’ts with anybody currently struggling with the best approach to touring law schools. Based on personal experience, these are the tips I would recommend to any prospective law student hoping to narrow down their selection of law schools. DO: Research the school beforehand. You do not want to tour all 205 ABA approved law schools throughout the United States, narrow your search down to a reasonable number (whatever that number may be for you) before you begin your visits. DON’T: Forget to research parking, directions, and location of the law school on campus. Having this information ready to go before you arrive will help save you valuable time when you actually are on campus. DO: Schedule law school tours in the first place. While financial and time constraints may hamper some from visiting law schools (especially those out-of-state), a law school tour is incredibly beneficial not only in helping you determine which aspects of a school are truly important to you, but also in helping you discover if the environment and culture of the school fit you. DON’T: Schedule tours or visits on Saturdays or Sundays (or when the law school is not in session) if possible. While you may get to see the law school itself, you most likely will not see many students or professors in the hallways, the admissions offices may be closed entirely, and you will not be able to determine the general atmosphere of an average day at the school. DO: Schedule a tour guided by a current law student, preferably a 2L or 3L if possible. These students know the ins and outs of the school, and while all are hired to promote the law school, they generally will answer your questions honestly and to the best of their ability. DON’T: Arrange for a self-guided tour. While some self-guided tours are more helpful than others (such as audio tours wherein you are directed throughout the law school by a pre-recorded guide on the law school’s website), not having a current student to bounce questions off really detracts from your ability to determine if this is the right school for you. DO: Ask questions. Whether you are asking the law student leading your tour, various students you see walking down the hallway, or even professors or admissions officers you may happen to meet, asking good questions about the school, the process, finances, what life is like at the school, career placement opportunities, and so on are incredibly valuable in helping you make a decision. If you are specifically interested in a specific subject, clinic, or program offered by the law school make sure to ask those questions as well. DON’T: Just tour the law school. Explore the campus, living areas, and city (or area) surrounding the school. Especially if the school is not local, you will want to know whether you can see yourself living wherever the school is located for the next three or more years. DO: Sit in on a class or two if possible. This generally will help you understand the law school’s teaching methods and whether or not they mesh well with your own learning style. DO: Enjoy and make the most of your visit. As hectic as the tour and entire process may be, you are not on evaluation while visiting a school, it is your job to evaluate and properly assess whether the school is the best fit for you. So relax and treat law school visits as a mini-vacation rather than another chore or obligation to check off. By: Eleni Christofides This November, an issue regarding crime victims will appear on the Ohio ballot: Issue 1 is colloquially known as Marsy's Law, or the Equal Rights for Crime Victims amendment. Though the name implies nothing especially controversial, there is significant disagreement on how appropriate this amendment is for Ohio.
The Marsy's Law movement began in California after a young University of California Santa Barbara student, Marsy Nicholas, was killed by an ex-boyfriend who had been stalking her. Shortly after her murder, her brother and mother were confronted by the accused killer in a grocery store; they did not know he had been released on bail. The Marsy's Law For All movement, founded by the victim's brother, argues that their goal is to ensure that crime victims nationwide have the same number of rights as crime suspects during the criminal justice process (1). The actual ballot language of the proposed constitutional amendment for Ohio (2) states that it aims to "repeal and replace the existing language in Section 10a of Article I of the Constitution of the State of Ohio," which covers Ohio's current protections for crime victims. The proposed amendment would add expansive and specific protections to Ohio's law, including "the right to be present and heard at all court proceedings, including the right to petition the court to protect the victim's rights; the right to a prompt conclusion of the case; to refuse discovery requests made by the accused, except as authorized by Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio constitution" (2). These tenants are cause for concern, as they seem to go far beyond the issue of alerting victims of proceedings in a case, instead creating many opportunities for victims to affect the criminal justice outcome in a way that compromises suspects' rights more than it protects victims. Limiting the discovery process means that an accused person would be unable to secure evidence that could be essential to mount a thorough defense, and the right to a "prompt conclusion of the case," vaguely worded as it is, implies that the right of the accused to a full trial process could be compromised, especially as the victim's right to be "present at all court proceedings" allows them to be involved in a suspect's plea deals. Granting this broad reach for alleged victims into criminal proceedings would essentially presume victimization at the hands of the accused even before trial; ultimately, this could lead to the erosion of the presumption of innocence until proven guilty for the defendant. This would be detrimental not only to the rights of the accused, but also to the best interests of the community: if an appellate court rules that a defendant's right to a fair trial was undermined by these rules, they may choose to overturn a sentence and order a new trial, which would be emotionally difficult for the victim and expensive for the taxpayer. It is important to note that if Issue 1 passes it will become a significant alteration to Ohio’s very constitution. The current Ohio law, Ohio Public Defender Tim Young points out, does include a sufficient measure to require prosecutors to protect rights of victims, including the right to notification about a defendant's arrest or the possibility of his or her pretrial release (3); specifically, "In 1998, Ohio implemented one of the nation's first automated victim notification systems, which offers victims information 24 hours a day, 365 days a year" (4). If the legal system is not protecting these rights efficiently, he argues, then a constitutional amendment is not the answer. Ohio should start by allocating better resources to its existing victims' rights system, and providing a recourse against the state when it fails to protect these rights—a component that Issue 1 lacks. As it currently operates, the criminal justice system does in many ways ignore the needs of the victims it ought to protect, and there is certainly a need to prevent a victim's experience with the criminal justice system from feeling like a re-victimization. But as it stands, Marsy's Law appears not to provide appropriate rights to protect the victim; instead it would create a law that could undermine the interests of both defendant and victim, and prove costly to the state of Ohio. The 2017 general election in Ohio will take place on November 7th. Be sure to make it to the polls on election day, vote early at the Franklin County Board of Elections, or fill out an absentee ballot so you can make your voice heard on this significant issue. References:
By: Spencer Dirrig This week is the beginning of the Fall 2017 Supreme Court term and many say it may be the most consequential term in decades. Let’s take a closer look at the cases being heard and how they may play out. Immigration and Deportation: Crimes of Violence? Sessions v. Dimaya Issue: “Whether 18 U.S.C. 16(b), as incorporated into the Immigration and Nationality Act's provisions governing an alien's removal from the United States, is unconstitutionally vague” (SCOTUSBlog). Summary: Under the Attorney General Jeff Sessions, illegal immigrants who came to the United States as children can be deported if they have committed a “crime of violence.” However, some prosecutors have extended the meaning of “crime of violence” to include drug possession and non-violent theft. Is this constitutional? Lower Court: U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “Held that the INA’s crime of violence provision was unconstitutionally vague because it was largely similar to the violent felony provision in the ACCA that the Supreme Court struck down in Johnson. The appellate court found that both provisions denied fair notice to defendants and failed to make clear when a risk of violence could be considered substantial” (Oyez). My Take: The spirit of the law seems to sway to the side of the Respondent, James Garcia Dimaya. If, as understood, the point of the law is to allow deportation of criminals who pose a threat to citizen safety, the law should not be extended to include non-violent theft and drug possession as those are, by definition, non-violent crimes. Prediction: 5-4 Majority Opinion Upholding the Ruling of the Ninth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals. Gerrymandering: One Person, One Vote? Gill v. Whitford Issue (Basic): “Whether partisan-gerrymandering claims are justiciable.” (SCOTUSBlog). Summary: “In 2010 Wisconsin voters elected a Republican majority in the state assembly and the senate, and a Republican governor. As a result, the Republican leadership developed a voting district map that its drafters calculated would allow Republicans to maintain a majority under any likely voting scenario. The redistricting plan was introduced in July 2011, and both the senate and the assembly passed the bill shortly thereafter. The governor signed the bill into law in August 2011… Plaintiffs in this case challenge the plan as an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander. At issue is whether the plan systematically dilutes the voting strength of Democratic voters statewide” (Oyez). Lower Court: Federal District Court “A federal court upheld the plan as not violating the “one person one vote” principle nor violating the Equal Protection Clause” (Oyez). My Take: I concur with the ACLU’s stance, stated, a “Constitutional obligation of government neutrality stems from the First Amendment (and the Equal Protection Clause). It is the same principle that circumscribes government regulation of access to public fora and facilities… Wisconsin’s partisan gerrymandering scheme violates the First Amendment.” The principle of “One Person, One Vote” and equal protection and representation under the law are inherently diminished by partisan gerrymandering. Prediction: 5-4 Majority Opinion Upholding the Ruling of the Lower Federal District Court . LGBT Rights: Cake Discrimination? Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Issue: “Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment?” (Oyez). Summary: “In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages” (Oyez). Lower Court: Colorado Court of Appeals “Administrative Law Judge issued a written order finding in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the Commission's ruling” (Oyez). My Take: According to the ACLU, “Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.” As such, I believe that this is clearly a case of illegal discrimination. While the First Amendment guarantees the right to practice one’s religion, it does not negate the legal ramifications of civil rights violations. The fact that the cake-seller decided to open a private business that sells cakes to the public necessitates the understanding that he must now follow the laws of the State of Colorado. Here, the burden of religious liberty is outweighed by the force of illegal discrimination against an LGBT customer. Prediction: 5-4 Majority Opinion Reversing the holding of the Colorado Court of Appeals (with aggressively contradictory decisions by Justice Gorsuch in the Majority and Justice Ginsburg in Dissent). Works Cited "Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop." ACLU. American Civil Liberties
Union, 2017. Web. "Gill v. Whitford." ACLU. American Civil Liberties Union, 6 Sept. 2017. Web. "Gill v. Whitford." Oyzez. Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2017. Web. "Gill v. Whitford." SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog, 03 Oct. 2017. Web. Katherine-howard. "Sessions v. Dimaya." SCOTUSblog. SCOTUSblog, 06 Oct. 2017. Web. "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." Oyez. Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2017. Web. Nilsen, Ella. "The Supreme Court Is Back in Session. Here Are the Top Cases to Watch." Vox. Vox, 02 Oct. 2017. Web. "Sessions v. Dimaya." Oyez. Cornell Legal Information Institute, 2017. Web. Vogue, Ariane De. "Supreme Court Kicks off Blockbuster Term." CNN. Cable News Network, 02 Oct. 2017. Web. By: Zack Valdman Since the 2009-2010 admissions cycle, law school applications have been steadily decreasing or at best remaining the same each year. While the initial reduction in applicants may have been due in large part to the financial crisis of 2007-2008, the lack of normalization to pre-2008 levels has worried countless law school admission officers.
In addition to the quantity problem law school admission offices are facing, a quality problem also exists with the applications. According to research done by Professor Ogden at the University of St. Louis: “33 percent of law school entrants had median LSAT scores of 160 or higher in 2013, compared with 40.8 percent in 2010 (the LSAT is scored on a scale between 120 and 180). Conversely, first-year students with scores of 149 or lower rose from 14.2 percent to 22.5 percent” (CBS News). With the rising cost of a legal education and the dearth of qualified law school applicants, it seems as though many law schools, especially lower tier schools, find themselves in a bind between a decrease in admissions requirements or fielding smaller class sizes in the future. With most deciding on the former, what this means for the legal profession in the future remains to be seen. On the bright side, law school enrollment seems to be stabilizing in law schools throughout the country. The precipitous drop in applicants has finally ceased in the past few years, with application numbers leveling out and even increasing slightly over the past year. With this, however, comes the question of whether this shift is a reversal of the bottoming out trend previously seen or the beginning of a new normal that law schools and the legal profession will simply have to adapt to. I believe that although law school numbers will not rebound to their pre-2008 financial crisis level, nevertheless law schools should begin to see a steady increase in applicants as the gloom and doom pessimism that has been associated with the legal profession for the past decade or so dies down while the legal job market improves. The legal profession is one that has withstood the test of time in the United States, and regardless of the fairly modern negativity towards the future in many circles, the profession, just like the law, is ever adept at adjusting and surviving even the most turbulent of times. This time is no different. Works Cited 1. http://www.nationaljurist.com/prelaw/why-flat-enrollment-great-news-law-schools 2. https://www.lawschooltransparency.com/reform/projects/Admissions-Tracker/?show=NatlApps 3. http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/reduction_in_law_school_admissions_favor_applicants_in_several_ways 4. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/law-schools-are-admitting-students-they-would-have-rejected-years-ago/ By: Spencer Dirrig Conflict is brewing in Northeast Spain as the Catalonian government ramps up its defiance in the face of Spanish threats. The Catalonian Parliament voted on September 6th, 2017 to hold a referendum on Catalan independence. The referendum, scheduled for October 1st, would ask Catalonians whether they wish to remain part of the Spanish nation, or so they support independence and the creation of their own sovereign state.
Naturally, the government in Madrid is not pleased by this development. In fact, the Prime Minister, Mariano Rajoy, has publicly asked the constitutional court to nullify the vote and any subsequent result. However, in the face of threats from above, the Catalonians are standing firm. “With its own language, a recorded history of more than 1,000 years as a distinct region, and a population nearly as big as Switzerland's [7.5 million], Catalonia's claim to nationhood is serious” (BBC). According to BBC, “The pro-independence Catalan government has been preparing for the 1 October vote for months. In a bill announced on Wednesday it said a Yes vote would be followed within 48 hours by a declaration of independence.” In an attempt to quash the referendum, Spain’s Government is taking legal, political and financial action against the Catalan State. So, is the vote legal? BBC explains that “The constitutional court argues that Spain's constitution does not allow regions to unilaterally decide on sovereignty.” In this, the Spanish government sees their saving grace: a legal challenge to the legitimacy of any referendum vote. The Institut De Dret Públic (Institute of Public Law) at the University of Barcelona states that, for the Spanish Government, “the legal basis for its position is founded on the fact that the Constitution of 1978 does not provide expressly for a referendum of the characteristics noted above, in line with the provisions of Articles 1 and 2 of the Constitution.” Additionally, the central government “finds support for their position in the Judgment of the Constitutional Court (JCC) 103/2008, which seems to exclude the possibility of any popular inquiry regarding the identity and unity of a sovereign entity except a constitutional reform referendum involving all of the Spanish citizens.” While the State Courts have continuously sided with the Spanish Government’s interpretation of their Constitution, the Catalans reject their authority. The Catalan Government responded to the legal challenge with international law, minority rights protections and standard European precedent. Concerning International Law, the Catalonians turn to the United Nations for authority. The Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, adopted by General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, states that “All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.” Catalan President Carles Puigdemont affirmed his commitment to this principle in a statement declaring “The people of Catalonia are a sovereign subject and as such exercise the right to decide their political status freely and democratically” (Politico). The Spanish Government, as well as the national courts, contend that the Spanish Constitution must be the final authority on domestic affairs and subsequently claim that the rights of sovereign people apply to the entire Spanish populace, not just the Catalan nation. The Constitution of Spain, Section 2 states: “The Constitution is based on the indissoluble unity of the Spanish Nation, the common and indivisible homeland of all Spaniards; it recognizes and guarantees the right to self government of the nationalities and regions of which it is composed and the solidarity among them all.” The government argues that the Catalonians have been granted the right to self government through their devolved state parliament but that power does not usurp the national parliament’s authority. The Catalan Government and their supporters also draw strength from similar popular independence referendums in western countries in the past twenty five years. The Catalans point to the Quebec Referendum for independence from Canada held in 1995 (Failed: 49.42% Yes, 50.58% No) and the more recent Scottish Independence Referendum held in 2015 (Failed: 44.70% Yes, 55.30% No). Though the legal and political battle playing out before the scheduled referendum is one with a long history, the actions taken by the Spanish Government to impose their authority have been astoundingly unjust and oppressive in nature. BBC reports that “Spain's national police force, the Guardia Civil, has been deployed to enforce the suspension of the referendum, searching for election materials.” These reports describe Mayors being “called in for questioning by prosecutors for agreeing to facilitate the vote locally.” Additionally, the Spanish Government is now threatening to withhold any and all public funding to Catalonia unless they cease the referendum. In an interview with Reuters news agency, the Prime Minister said, “These measures are to guarantee that not one euro will go toward financing illegal acts.” Citing evidence from numerous government reports, the European Free Alliance (an organization supporting self-determination across Europe) claims that the Spanish Government “criminalizes a former head of government for organizing a non-binding consultation; Urges police to confiscate ballot forms and ballot boxes; Raids newspapers with police forces; Prosecutes the speaker of the Catalan parliament for allowing a debate on the referendum; Limits freedom of speech and freedom of association; Shuts down websites with information on the referend; and Convokes mayors in front of a court for assisting in the organization of the referendum.” In regards to the will of the Catalonian people, these actions on behalf of the Spanish Government are simply reprehensible. The Spanish government is no longer “defending their constitution.” Government officials have employed autocratic methods of control and oppression to, ironically, defend “rule of law.” From a political standpoint, the Spaniards are playing right into the secessionist’s hands. We’ve seen in Scotland and Quebec that, when the federal government allows a region to determine their own future, they are far more likely to vote to reject independence. However, by denying Catalonians the right to vote, infringing on their right to free speech and withholding public funds, the Spanish government is igniting stronger secessionist sentiments. The government’s confiscation of ballots, raiding newspapers, prosecution of political activists and limits on the freedom of speech, have changed the game: this is no longer a legal disagreement: it is militant oppression of a free minority community. The Spanish government cannot logically employ tactics that so clearly violate the basic political rights of the Catalan minority while simultaneously demanding respect for the Spanish rule of law. This is no longer a domestic Spanish issue of authority as its membership within the European Union contradicts the government’s actions. The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Article 11 states: “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.” The Spanish Government’s decision to combat the Catalonian Referendum have strictly violate the Charter of Fundamental Rights - directly interfering in the Catalan people’s expression of their political and cultural opinions. As such, the nations of the European Union and the United Nations must intervene in order to secure the political liberty of the Catalan minority in this political conflict before the situation escalates further. Works Cited Constitute. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "Catalonia Referendum: Separatists Rally around Mayors in Barcelona." BBC News. BBC, 16 Sept. 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "Catalonia Referendum: Spanish State Poised to Seize Catalan Finances." BBC News. BBC, 15 Sept. 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "EU Charter of Fundamental Rights." EU Charter of Fundamental Rights - European Commission. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "EUR-Lex Access to European Union Law." EUR-Lex - 12012P/TXT - EN - EUR-Lex. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. "Home." Referèndum 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. Jackson, Patrick. "Catalonia's Collision Course with Madrid." BBC News. BBC, 16 Sept. 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. Torres, Diego. "Catalans Rile Madrid with ‘self-determination Law’." POLITICO. POLITICO, 05 July 2017. Web. 17 Sept. 2017. Vintró, Joan. “LEGALITY AND THE REFERENDUM ON INDEPENDENCE IN CATALONIA .” idpbarcelona.net/docs/blog/legality_referendum.pdf. By: Eleni Christofides It is no secret that the United States leads the world in incarceration rates, particularly for non-violent offenders convicted on drug charges. This problem has a shocking trend nationwide, and separately in Ohio, women’s rate of incarceration grows as the men’s rate has fallen in recent years (1, 2). Since incarcerated women are struggling to support children, often as single parents, there is a unique strain on families as mothers go through the arduous court process, from arrest to pretrial stages to incarceration. In addition to the shame and confusion from facing criminal charges, court fees create another crippling pressure — especially when considering the trend of rising monetary bail, with average amounts increasing by more than $30,000 between the years of 1992 and 2006 (3). Particularly for low-income and indigent people, this is an oppressive cost that becomes its own punishment, before innocence or guilt has even been determined. This also means that many low-income parents who are unable to post bail are kept in custody before their trial, frequently for weeks or even months (3). For a family that is already struggling to make enough money to support themselves, that leads to weeks or months without being able to work, to provide childcare, or even see their families. It also makes it more difficult for a defendant to aid in the preparation of their own case, if they cannot reach their attorneys in a timely manner or visit their offices.
Modern-day bail practices affect certain groups more than others, entitling those who can afford the fee to pretrial release while those who cannot afford it are forced into dismal situations that can become prophetic for the outcomes of their cases. This system effectively creates a modern-day debtor's prison. Perhaps, some might say, if there is evidence that the current system is effective at protecting society, then the discrepancy is defensible and based in something other than discrimination. However, there is no evidence to suggest that monetary bail makes a community inherently safer (4). A possible remedy to this situation is the introduction of an alternative bail practice that does not disproportionately affect low-income families. It should also improve community safety while improving the likelihood that those facing trial return for their court date. This could include the use of a risk assessment tool, in order to determine the possibility that a suspect will pose a danger to the community or fail to appear. This would gauge risk through factors such as prior convictions or failures-to-appear, community ties and familial responsibilities, unemployment, history of violence, and severity of the current charges — all of which are supported by research as reliable (5, 6). For those rated as low-risk, they would be released on their own recognizance and notified as their court date approaches. This will allow them to maintain their responsibilities at home and make arrangements before standing trial. A formal risk evaluation system might still be vulnerable to discriminatory practices, but this simply means that a new system should be thoroughly researched before being instituted and should only include necessary factors in determining real risk. The struggle in instituting such a policy would no doubt include the appeal to public perception: while many polls show public support for community-based alternatives to bail (3), there will still be resistance to the idea of deferring a greater number of people to the community who are suspected of committing a crime. Citizens might reject the idea that current bail practices don’t make them safer and that an alternative could better balance public safety and the individual rights of justice-involved persons. This is why, as with most legal reform attempts, it is vital to educate the community on which policies work and which policies do not. Certain practices may give people peace of mind because they sound like the most “common sense” options, but policy must be driven by evidence-based practices if it is to be worthwhile. If the average person (and average voter) can understand which practices truly make them safer, rather than simply provide the illusion of safety, it is more likely that such reform can succeed. References: 1. The Sentencing Project. Fact Sheet: Incarcerated Women and Girls. November 2015. http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Incarcerated-Women-and-Girls.pdf 2. American Civil Liberties Union of Ohio. A New Prisoners Report: How Does Ohio Compare? October 31, 2014. http://www.acluohio.org/blog-posts/a-new-prisoners-report-how-does-ohio-compare 3. Justice Policy Institute. Bail Fail: Why the US Should End the Practice of Using Money for Bail. September 2012. http://www.justicepolicy.org/uploads/justicepolicy/documents/bailfail.pdf 4. Prison Policy Initiative. Detaining the Poor: How money bail perpetuates an endless cycle of poverty and jail time. May 10, 2016. http://www.prisonpolicy.org/reports/incomejails.html 5. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Ohio Risk Assessment System. January 2013. http://www.drc.ohio.gov/oras 6. Ohio Office of Criminal Justice Services. Creation and Validation of the Ohio Risk Assessment System Final Report. July 2009. http://www.ocjs.ohio.gov/ORAS_FinalReport.pdf By: Casey Aguinaga On Monday September 18, a Kaplan Test Prep survey questioned law school admissions boards about potential changes in admissions. Answers from 128 schools showed a 9% uptick from 2016 to 25% of schools stating that they planned on eventually including the GRE in admissions decisions. The LSAT - which until this point had been the sole standardized law school admissions exam - tests individuals on intensive reading, writing, analytical and logical reasoning abilities that administrators of the exam insist are integral skillsets to survive the rigors of law school. On the other hand, the GRE encompasses a broad range of testing points, ranging from verbal and quantitative reasoning to critical thinking that most graduate schools use as an admissions requirement. This shift indicates attempts by law school admissions boards to diversify the range of applicants they get by including a more STEM-friendly and technologically accessible admissions test. Furthermore, it reveals a push from the legal education community to increase the pool of applicants during a time when application rates are stagnated.
However, doubt as to whether the GRE is an accurate predictor of law school success still remains since so few law schools have officially adopted this change. Among the schools that have begun implementing the GRE into their admissions processes are University of Arizona’s James E. Rogers College of Law, Harvard Law School, Northwestern University Pritzker School of Law and Georgetown Law School. Each schools’ dean of admissions maintains that including the GRE offers a more inclusive approach to filling spots in their respective schools. Opponents of adopting the GRE as a standard for admissions argue that the LSAT exclusively “tests the analytic and logical reasoning that are critical for law school success,” according to Elizabeth Olson’s New York Times article. However, only time and extensive quantitative research will reveal which – if either – of the standardized tests is a better predictor of law school success. Works Cited |
Archives
March 2018
Categories |