By: Michelle Herman

In one of my classes last week we spent the entire class discussing human sex trafficking in New York City.  Particularly, we focused on the sex trafficking on minor children.  The majority of prostitutes in New York City are young girls under the age of 18.  We watched a video entitled “Very Young Girls” which will air on Showtime on December 11th.  Some of these girls first entered prostitution when they were only 12 years old.  In one case a girl was picked up by a pimp who pretended to be interested in a relationship and after a few weeks informed her that he was in fact a pimp.  In another case the pimp took on a fatherly role to a girl in need of parents.  The pimps convinced the girls that they “had to make money” for the pimp by prostituting themselves out and selling their bodies.  These girls were not allowed to keep a single dollar for themselves.  This is an issue that exists in New York City today.

Oftentimes, these girls will get arrested and arraigned in criminal court.  They claim to be older and their fake IDs provide false proof.  The girls show up in court with the pimps’ lawyer, with the pimp present, and thus the girls are forced to plead guilty to prostitution.   This is a clear example of why plea bargains and the legal system is not always morally just.  The prosecutors will turn a blind eye and take a guilty plea.  They feel like they won the case and the girls return to their pimps are forced to continue to prostitute themselves and sell their bodies for the pimp’s benefit.  The prostitutes never get their day in court to tell the truth.  They are never truly able to confront their abusers, the pimps and obtain justice.  No one inquires as to what is actually causing the girls to be prostitutes and full investigations into their ages are never conducted.  The DA office is happy to “rubber stamp” these cases and accept the guilty plea as a win.  This is clearly not a morally just outcome.

In a morally just court system the prostitutes will have a chance to tell their story to the court and the court will actually have the opportunity and perhaps the duty to help these unfortunate young girls.

By: Sara Ehrlich

I attended Mel Brooks’ soon-to-be-defunct Broadway production of Young Frankenstein last night.  In the play, when the townspeople realize that Dr. Frankenstein has created a monster, their leader riles them up and they gather to hang the doctor as per the laws of Transylvania.  They swarm his castle with pitchforks and torches, and pound down the door.  Upon seizing Dr. Frankenstein, the mob doesn’t give him a chance to explain; rather they escort him directly to the gallows.  While presented in a lighthearted fashion, two important lessons emerge from the townspeople’s reaction that provide food-for-thought for any law student.  First, it is essential that when applying law a Judge (or, in this case, the people) takes into account all factors and doesn’t simply apply the most literal interpretation because that’s the easiest way out.  Second, Judges must be very careful not to use the law to push their agenda.  These two lessons are essential for justice to be served.  In the play, the townspeople refused to consider the Doctor’s positive intentions, as well as the possibility that the “monster” that he created may well be good instead of evil.  All too often, Judges (both liberal and conservative) as well as the public use the law to push their own agenda (be it social or otherwise).  Doing so undermines our legal system and, in turn, weakens our great nation.

By: Ndidi Igboeli

On November 19th, 2008, 19-Year old, Abraham K. Biggs committed suicide on Wednesday while broadcasting himself on video site, Justin.tv.  He announced his intentions on bodybuilder.com. Some commentators were allegedly egging him on.  Biggs overdosed on pills while on camera and appeared to be breathing for hours until watchers realized he might be serious, at which point they alerted the police. Biggs’ father subsequently condemned both viewers and the site’s operators, calling for tougher regulation of the internet.

In the context of a duty to rescue where the distressed is not physically available to be rescued, where they may be states, even miles away across a computer screen, does that duty still exist and can there still be a nation of bystanders?

Our cybersuicide innocent bystanders are technologically connected, not in space, but  rather by wires and by the cyberworld. The low costs of distributing speech over the internet, plus internet anonymity, make it easy for individuals to inflict significant harm to others. The decision for anonymity may be motivated by fear of retaliation, social ostracism, or merely a desire to preserve your privacy. These interests are at odds with society’s interests in prosecuting criminals and civil tort plaintiff’s interests in locating defendants.

In The Nazi Doctors, Robert Jay Lifton states that technology and bureaucracy were the preconditions to the Holocaust. Bureaucracy creates efficiency, impersonality, and drones that simply respond to orders. Technology creates specialization and professionalization, which makes us desensitized to the things that bring us moral revulsion. It allows us to have greater access to weapons, and desensitizes even children with increasing access to violent video games and toys.

Was this a true suicide?

Recent discussions of suicide tend to indicate that the majority of suicide cases now are connected with personality disorders and medical ailments. An autopsy concluded Biggs died from a combination of opiates and benzodiazepine, which his family said was prescribed for his bipolar disorder.  Additionally, Megan Taylor Meier was known to have suffered from low self esteem, attention deficit disorder and depression. These instances give new meaning to suicide when eggers manipulate these circumstances, resulting in death. It suggests that it is part suicide, part homicide.

Who should be held responsible?

Should the Internet website be held responsible? Allegedly, with the case of Abraham Biggs, the moderator of the bodybuilding site wherein Biggs announced his intentions ignored his words. Clearly further investigations would have to be done as to the truthfulness of that comment. If it turns out that they knew that this was happening and had the ability to intervene and did not take action, I believe that there should be a moral and legal reprimand.

The eggers cannot hide behind the cloak of assisted suicide for the right to die with dignity. Rather, they spouted what seemed to be meaningless, but inappropriate words that render them on the border of homicidal. We can never know to what extent these eggers played in causing the victims’ death, but as a matter of public policy they should certainly be morally and legally reprimanded.

Because of our sense of morality, we claim a right to criticize legal arrangements. The existence of unjust laws, the reasonable person and a non-duty to rescue proves that morality and law are not identical and do not coincide; however, the existence of law that serves to defend basic values, such as laws against  rape, murder, fraud, malicious defamation of character, also prove that the two can coexist peacefully. In an effort to be active bystanders, we must reject the notion of innocent bystanders, understand the venues through which dehumanization thrives, such as technology, and endeavor to cope with moral justice as our leading principle. Duty does exist half-way around the world, and Deathcams are merely sophisticated windows into another’s reality. We do not shed our moral obligation at our chatroom’s gate.

By: Guillermo Stampur

Biking uptown along Broadway this afternoon after handing in my final exam, I noticed a homeless man talking to two well-dressed ‘corporate looking’ older men – they turned out to be missionaries. They were wearing pretty nice clothing, hair parted to the side, and held small brief-case like looking bags. The homeless man was sitting on a milk crate with a sign that read, “Ask me anything for 1 dollar.”  Having just taken my Human Rights and the holocaust final, I could not resist hopping off my bike and entering the discussion. Having just thought about our legal system’s obsession with the body and things material and having actually used the homeless man hypothetical in my take-home exam, i gingerly approached the three men and asked, ” Do you think humans have any fundamental rights?” Taken aback by the frankness of my question,  the two  men in nice clothing looked at me like I was crazy – i looked a little crazy since I just finished my last exam – but the homeless man looked at me and said, “Does it look like we have any human rights?” I got it right away. While the two men looked at the homeless man in confusion, I got it – negative rights! Like Anatole France said, “In america everyone has the right to live under the bridge.”

Remembering the lesson put forth in The Myth of Moral Justice regarding the moral sphere and languages limits i remained quiet – acknowledging that sometimes language has its limits and sometimes pretending like you understand what people are going through is in fact diminishing. I let the man continue. He talked to me for the next 5 minutes about his upbringing, explained that his family lives in Newark, his sister works for the post-office, and he loves to watch the kids play baseball in riverside park.  While the ‘church guys’ and I looked on and listened to the man talk – quite a scene with Grays Papaya as our backdrop -  I realized that this was a source of healing for the man. He did not know either the men or myself, but he was getting to tell his story.  While he might be totally content with his current situation and who i am to judge whether or not he is, he showed me that story rally does have remedial and therapuetic powers and in America we really do have negative rights. It was a very powerful lesson to learn on the last day of exam period.

By: Kellen Stevens

So here it is. Not much by any stretch of anything, but sitting here nonetheless. Well, rather less sitting, more progressing, traveling perhaps, or one could even say proclaiming its birthright as a thought. The thing is, the older I get, the more prevalent this phenomenon becomes, at least in my perception, and probably because I cannot help but notice it. Cambodia had to be the place where it first struck. Or if not the place of first impression, then definitely where it began to stick, to nag me, and altogether put a damper on what seemed like what could have been a rather pleasant summer working abroad. Maybe it would be easier if described what exactly I did in this monsoon inclined environment, before I state what I observed.

I worked with a consulting group. Not just any consulting group, but one that catered to non-profits. We ran them like a business, they paid us a nominal fee, (because, really, no one except tycoons works in Cambodia for the money) and soon enough new schools sprouted, clean water was delivered, I think we even managed to get some computers from the Gates Foundation. So up to this point, fantastic and charitable, thankful people mixed with hard work is spiritually rewarding, there is no other way to slice it. But then a strange thing happened. The day ended, the employees of our company, and those of others similarly engaged, went home, and they reverted to being normal, dysfunctional, rather mean people. But it was more than normal, it was tenacity for some really disconcerting evil, and I think its excess grew from entitlement. Yes, entitlement. These people, who during most of the day treat sick kids and champion the impoverished, would return to people who were healthy, who were not starving, and act with complete dishonor, be toxically rude, as if they had earned the right through their charity to act inhumane.

This got me thinking about how prevalent this has become. I thought of people who think they are buying their way into heaven for donating 20 large (the big large, like thousand large), then walk around the streets of Manhattan not holding doors for the elderly, scoffing at those less privileged, judging relentlessly for the sheer pleasure of convincing themselves and their friends they are better, and well, it just really exceedingly bothered me. People think giving money that is used to save lives in third world countries entitles them to act rudely here, or at least they think it validates their lifestyle. They have no room for improvement, no urge to change. And I can’t stand it. It is just ridiculous. This has got to be one of the worst and unexpected side effects of charity. So think about it. Ask yourself if you recognize this trend, or if you do it yourself. And if you do, try to be a good person, not just a good donator.

By: Jessica Fliegelman

When my grandfather was alive, I had no interest in hearing his story. His mother and sisters had been murdered, that much I knew, but I knew nothing of his own experience in concentration camps and his journey to America. And I had no desire to know.

My grandfather was a man of few words. When I spoke to him after Shabbos, he said the same thing every week- just be happy and healthy. Our conversations were never extensive. We would sit and watch television together. He would accompany my grandmother and I to the mall, and would sit quietly somewhere in the food court while the two of us shopped.

I learned extensively about the Holocaust growing up. My school made a production of it each year and frequently Holocaust survivors were guest speakers. I attended fundraisers for Yad Vashem and every trip to Washington DC or Israel wasn’t complete without a visit to the Holocaust memorials. Yet I still knew nothing about my own grandfather’s experience.

Right before he passed away, he made a testimonial video with the Shoah foundation. The man who barely uttered a few sentences in each conversation, who left the talking mostly to my bubbly grandmother, suddenly was speaking and speaking. Five hours worth of speaking. When we talk about the value of storytelling, it often seems so abstract. Yet here was my grandfather, fully embracing its value, feeling such an imperative need to let it all out and preserve that testimony. I don’t know how much relief it provided- I didn’t ask. But I know that he had never spoken for five hours, let alone when he was sick and frail.

I still haven’t watched the tape. To be honest, I’m terrified. Despite the countless works of Holocaust literature, the speeches from Holocaust survivors and those museum trips, it all seems incomparable to facing the true horror of what my grandfather, a person I love so very much, went through. I don’t want to know. I want to envision him happy, pain-free, without bottled-up and lasting torment. I promised myself though, at the conclusion of the Holocaust course, that I would have the courage to watch it. I hope that I do. His testimonial truly conveys the powerful nature of storytelling, which goes way beyond the spiritual relief it can provide directly to survivors. Had he not made a tape, had I never asked, I would have forever lost the opportunity to hear his story. That testimonial provides a way for his children, his grandchildren, and so many future generations to listen directly, long after he is gone. It is baffling to me that despite so much evidence to the contrary, there still are individuals who believe the Holocaust is a myth. And as Holocaust survivors continue to pass away, there will soon be no one left to say, “I was there. I experienced it.” These tapes preserve a legacy for the family, for society, for our social conscience so that their stories can never be silenced, even after their deaths, to ensure that we not only remember the tragedy of the Holocaust, but the unique stories of each individual who experienced his own personal tragedy.

By: Joe Reiss
My post is in response to this morning’s New York Times editorial titled The Torture Report.  In this article, the author urges the government to bring criminal charges against former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, his legal counsel, William J. Haynes, and other top officials, including the former White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and David Addington, Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff. The author points to the abuse, torture and death that occurred at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and discusses how those incidences are a direct result of the policies enforced by the officials at the top. The author then discusses how the CIA’s interrogation practices violate countless laws, and the importance of following these laws in order to maintain America’s good image in the rest of the world. As horrible as torture is, I strongly disagree with a number of the propositions advanced in this article. The author discusses how the prisoner’s had their “human rights” violated. Why doesn’t the author talk about the fact that these men are being captured, held and interrogated to prevent terrorist attacks on US soil? Do American’s not have human rights? Do American’s not have the right to walk to work in the morning and not fear that terrorists will fly 747’s into their office? Aren’t those human rights violations?

The author generally condemns America’s response to 9/11. They site some of the provisions of the Patriot Act as reprehensible. They advocate a full investigation in to all of the government’s response to September 11th because we need to know, “precisely what went wrong in the last seven years . . . [to] make sure those terrible mistakes are not repeated.” I just can’t help but feel puzzled by this declaration. I thought the problem was what happened seven years ago. I was also pretty sure, that those “terrible mistakes” of the last seven years were pretty effective in preventing further terrorist attacks. As Professor Rosenbaum pointed out many times throughout the semester, not one person in the classroom on September 12, 2001, would have believed that, seven years from now, the country would not endure a single attack. What if these “mistakes” were not made, and terrorists successfully flew a plane in to the capital building, or Sears tower, or contaminated our drinking water with chemical weapons, or somehow acquired and used a nuclear weapon. I wonder if this author would remain consistent and, in the face of such tragedy, applaud our government’s protection of the terrorist’s human rights even at the expensive of the lives and human rights, of American’s. I am not a fan of abuse and torture, nor do I like the thought of the government monitoring my communications, but someone must acknowledge that our counterterrorism efforts have been stellar over the past seven years. If our safety has been the result of those “terrible mistakes”, then I hope we keep making them.

By: Yasmin Zainulbhai

A comment Sam Waterston made during his conversation with Professor Rosenbaum before Thanksgiving has particularly stuck with me. In discussing his performance as Polonius in Hamlet this summer, Mr. Waterston noted that performing in a Shakespearean play is not necessarily so different from performing in the television show “Law and Order.” He explained that a near universal theme of all of literature is the search for truth, and that this search is evident in narratives as varied as those of a Manhattan DA on television and Polonius in a Shakespearean play.

One of our goals in Professor Rosenbaum’s Law and Literature class is to explore the popular culture’s fascination with the law.  Mr. Waterston’s suggestion is that the subject of both legal and non-legal dramas is the search for truth, and that the presence of the law only creates a difference in form. I found this suggestion particularly compelling, as it portrays the law as only one possible vehicle for the search for truth.

By: Matt Stark

With the recent DVD release of this year’s biggest blockbuster, The Dark Knight, I began thinking about the commentary that the film makes on the law.  While the Joker, played by Heath Ledger in an Oscar-worthy performance, gets most of the attention from fans and the media, I find the dynamic between Bruce Wayne/Batman and Harvey Dent to be the most interesting element of the film.

Harvey Dent is Gotham City’s District Attorney.  He represents the uncompromising moralist, eager to clean up Gotham and to fight the corruption that has infiltrated the city’s government.  Batman is Gotham’s “silent guardian” and “watchful protector.”  He’s a vigilante who apprehends criminals that have until that point evaded the grasp of the law.  Batman works as a sort of agent for the law, helping it along.  He never takes justice into his own hands, and he is governed by one personal rule: he doesn’t kill.  Wayne believes in the law, and he hopes that one day it can exist and function without Batman.  Wayne views Harvey Dent as the realization of that hope.  Dent is a force of truth, justice, and honesty working tirelessly within the bounds of the law.  He is the moral attorney that can hopefully fuse morality with the law.  He is the white knight to Batman’s dark knight.  The film acknowledges the absence of a moral dimension within the law, and Dent is a revelation.

While most superhero movies present a clearly defined battle of good versus evil, director Christopher Nolan’s film is far more complex.  Harvey Dent’s vision is ultimately frustrated.  The corruption the city government coupled with the Joker’s random acts of chaos ultimately leads to the death of Dent’s girlfriend and to his disfigurement.  Dent becomes a villain, Two-Face, enacting revenge and carrying out his new version of justice by the flip of a coin.  The 50/50 chance of the coin seems just as good a system of justice as a flawed legal system.  He becomes a tragic figure, and the audience sympathizes with his need to punish those who have wronged him, even if it means working outside the law.

In the end, Batman takes responsibility for Two-Face’s revenge killings in order to preserve Dent’s reputation.  Harvey was the one person that Gotham could believe in, and Batman doesn’t want that image tarnished.  If Gotham can’t have hope and faith in the law, the city will destroy itself, and chaos and lawlessness will reign.  We need to know that there is a force working to punish wrongful acts, to provide remedies, and to set things right.  Batman accepts vilification in order to maintain this ideal, saying “I’m whatever Gotham needs me to be.”

By: Emily Wei
Last night I watched the opera Lucia de Lammermoor, and like most dramatic stories, it involved a woman who falls in love with a guy on the wrong side of the tracks, as it were.  Again, as most stories go, they promise themselves to each other out of true love and under the witness of heaven, and the guy has to leave for just enough time that something can go wrong.  Of course, her plotting family decides that she needs to marry someone else, convinces her that her lover has been unfaithful, and the scene’s climax is Lucia and her new husband’s signing of the marriage contract.  When Lucia realizes she had been duped, she goes crazy, sings some great arias, and then dies.  In the process she kills her husband by law and inspires her lover to also kill himself.  Very dramatic, indeed.

This plot reflects many of the questions we’ve been asking in our class, Law and Literature, specifically with the role of law in society, and how it often doesn’t reflect true humanity or fairness.  As the marriage contract had much more weight in the opera than the two lovers promising themselves to each other by true intent and love, the law proved to harm the characters more than it helped them, literally driving them to madness and death.  In my experiences in clinics and with the legal system,  it seems that law often fails to help individuals, but rather harms them, when procedure or law takes precedent over fairness or morality.

The law as existing outside of life, rather than for the purpose of it, seems to echo the ideas laid out in Kafka’s The Trial, in which the machine-like bureaucracy that is the law operates on its own, ever-turning and going on with the help of its cronies.  Yet no one really cares about what happens to the people who actually seek justice.  Like the parable told at the end of the book, where a man stands outside, giving everything he can to the doorkeeper of the law, whose doors shall always remain open, the law comes to play such a role in reality as well.  It seems that seeking justice in the law might not be realistic either.  The question then is how the legal system can serve the purpose it was created for, and how it can incorporate the humanity that is so important when it comes to achieving morally and spiritually just outcomes.