By Anne Kim

Last week, through a cascade of cheeky, cajoling, and continuous text
messages, my (non-law school) friends convinced me to take a break
from studying and meet them for dinner. Four guys hatched a scheme to
talk their significant others into joining them for a feast of baby
back ribs – and it worked. Notwithstanding multiple protests of lack
of time and need to study (three of the girls had final exams
looming), the original party of four became a party of eight. Once our
group of mid-late 20-somethings had gathered, one of the
co-conspirators turned to the other and said, “It’s great to see that
peer pressure still works.”

When it comes to peer pressure, age really is just a number, and the
advances of social networking through the Internet have only
multiplied the spheres that can influence a person. The influence is
unconfined, with the potential to expand to polar opposites, and
though tales from both ends of the spectrum make the rounds, it is the
stories where the bad guy gets his just desserts that leave us with
the gut-deep satisfaction of a real happy ending.

Our in-class discussions regarding moral censure led to the ways in
which society works to dispense justice when the legal system is
remiss in fulfilling its duties. In the aftermath of the Bernie Madoff
Ponzi scandal, his wife Ruth Madoff experienced it firsthand. Though
her innocence remained intact in the legal sense, she did not go
unpunished for lack of prosecution. Four months after her husband was
arrested, stories broke about how Mrs. Madoff was no longer welcome at
the hair salon she had been frequenting for nearly a decade. Her
response? “I understand.” A florist and high-end restaurants followed
suit, her two sons began to refer to the Madoffs as “Ruth” and
“Bernie,” and the New York Times labeled her “The Loneliest Woman in
New York.”

Shortly thereafter, another story ran about Ruth Madoff finally
breaking her silence. Mr. Madoff was quoted as saying his wife “cries
herself to sleep every night” and she issued a statement expressing
sympathy for the victims. The statement also included the sense of
betrayal she felt from what her husband had done. While her initial
response to being ostracized reflected understanding and acceptance of
her role in the scheme, the statement add-on relegating responsibility
to her husband has the marks of what Professor Rosenbaum would call “a
typical American apology.” Something along the lines of, “I’m sorry
YOU think I’ve done something wrong.”

Here, even though society acted to show its disapproval, the seemingly
unrepentant Mrs. Madoff leaves a sour aftertaste. Many would say an
insincere apology is better left unsaid. Nonetheless, the small
rebuffs within our power give some amount of comfort that the people
have spoken in a way she can’t ignore.

On a more positive note, here is an example of a creative way to use
peer pressure to get results. On December 8, Time released its Top 10
Lists for 2009. Of them, “United Breaks Guitars” was number seven on
the Viral Video list. The creator of the music video is Canadian
country singer Dave Carroll. After flying on United Airlines, Mr.
Carroll was left with a broken guitar and technicalities denied him a
claim that would have only reimbursed him for one-third of the
guitar’s value. To retaliate, Mr. Carroll vowed to write and make
three music videos about the entire ordeal (two are viewable online).
A million views after the first one was posted, he was contacted about
a reimbursement. Mr. Carroll also posted a video statement expressing
thanks for the public’s support and asking people to ease up on the
harsh treatment of the airline employee who handled his case. A
detailed account is on his website at http://www.davecarrollmusic.com.

– Addie Bendory

On Christmas Eve, the US Senate will vote on a new health care bill
designed to “fix” the current insurance system. This program will
force many Americans who do not have health insurance and many
American business who do not provide health insurance to purchase a
one size fits all policy or face severe penalties. Increased
government mandates and intervention will not lead to lower costs, but
rather to increased spending, increased taxes, and government rationed
care.

Most of us would agree that there need to be changes. Our current
system completely misallocates resources and creates distorted market
incentives. This leads to skyrocketing cost and lack of coverage for
those who need health care the most. Most primary care costs are
covered for those who are insured, thereby allowing them
disproportional access to health care services. As John Mackey (CEO
of Whole Foods) wrote in an August 11, 2009 op-ed in the Wall Street
Journal, “Health care is a service that we all need, but just like
food and shelter it is best provided through voluntary and mutually
beneficial market exchanges. A careful reading of both the Declaration
of Independence and the Constitution will not reveal any intrinsic
right to health care, food or shelter. That’s because there isn’t any.
This “right” has never existed in America.”

Mackey’s Whole Foods health plan was seemingly inspired by Nobel Prize
winning economist Milton Friedman in his essay entitled, “How to Cure
Health Care” which advocates taking power from third party payers and
entrusting individuals to make health care decisions. Mackey’s fixes
some of distorted incentives of an insurance run system by giving
employees access to high deductible health insurance which is combined
with an HSA (health savings account). Whole Foods contributes
thousands of dollars into employees HSA’s. Those HSA’s then grow
tax-free and can be used by employees for any type of health care
expenditures they choose. This introduces the power of the free
market into health care. Employees are incentivized to shop around
and look for the best price. Inevitably this system lowers costs as
doctors compete for business. This is readily apparent in medical
services that are not covered by insurance such as cosmetic surgery
and LASIK where technology steadily increases while costs decrease.

Mackey’s system should be applied to all Americans. When individuals
determine their health care expenditures, then the will scrutinize
purchases, doctors fees, and self-ration care based on their own
needs. As Mackey stated, health care is not a human right and, just
like the “right” to food or shelter, is not guaranteed in any of our
founding documents. Human rights are grounded in objectivity, the
Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence. The founding
fathers never envisioned that protecting life, liberty, and the
pursuit of happiness would lead to intrusion of government into the
minutiae of our daily lives. The government should stick to
protecting our liberty, and leave health care to the free market.

America was founded on the values of freedom and liberty. How can we
therefore advocate for a massive entitlement program, justified by the
Commerce Clause run amok, which takes away individual choice and
leaves government bureaucrats in charge of our most important health
decisions? Many supporters would argue that with programs such as
Mackey’s the poor and sick are those that suffer the most. However, a
system that empowers the individual and creates markets in health care
will only help Americans by driving health care costs down. Further,
those who earn under a living wage should receive a taxpayer funded
negative income tax which guarantees a living wage while preventing
the welfare trap created by government entitlement programs. This
will ensure health care incentives are where they should be, with
doctors and the individuals receiving care, and not with an insurance
company or a government bureaucrat.

By John B. Anderson III

Last Saturday night—with a stressful week of exams ahead—I decided to
take a quick study break to visit the Christmas tree in Rockefeller
Center with my girlfriend. Despite the hoards of shoppers and
gawkers, the twenty-block walk was quite enjoyable. We strolled by
Macy’s, Lord and Taylor and Sak’s, enjoying the holiday decorations
and the brisk weather.

The tree itself was beautifully lit, and most everyone was in the
holiday spirit.

Upon leaving Rockefeller center, we opted to walk past Bryant Park.
As we passed the park, our attention was grabbed by a passing Hanukkah
parade on 6th Avenue.

The parade consisted of a series of cars and rv’s topped with large
Menorahs. Many of the vehicles were playing music and the passengers
were wishing the onlookers happy holidays.

At this point, I heard an onlooker—a young man of between 20-25 years
of age—shout, “Heil Hitler!” I was utterly astonished. It was simply
incomprehensible that anyone could say something so insensitive,
disgusting and hurtful. Although not Jewish myself, the remark made
me sick to my stomach. In my astonishment, I remained inactive in the
face of the remark, continuing to stroll with my girlfriend, as if
nothing had transpired.

Since that evening, I have contemplated the young man’s remark and
held an internal dialogue framed in terms of the Human Rights Law and
the Holocaust perspective.

The young man’s comment, and my inactivity in the face of his
comment, recalls many discussions held in Professor Rosenbaum’s class
this semester.

The first discussion that comes to mind is our discussion on Free
Speech. In this discussion we attempted to delineate the bounds of
legitimate speech, as opposed to speech that does not convey any real
ideas. It goes without saying that this remark does not convey any
legitimate idea—it is pure venom. That having been said, in a moral
legal system, this form of speech would not receive Constitutional
protection, even if it fell short of the “fighting words doctrine.”

A second discussion, or more aptly, an ongoing theme of the course
was spiritual harm v. physical harm. As we know, the legal system,
while sufficient in the context of physical injury, is largely unable
to account for and redress spiritual harm. This remark would appear
to be the archetypal example of a statement that would cause intense
spiritual harm, but no physical harm. As such, a moral legal system
would punish the young man appropriately for his vile remark. The
range of punishments employed in a moral legal system might range from
shaming to having the wrongdoer volunteer at a Jewish organization, in
order to give back to the community he wronged.

A third issue raised by the events is my own duty given the
circumstances. In a sense, my inactivity in the face of such an
inflammatory remark makes me complicit. Although I did not act
affirmatively and was not the proximate cause of the remark, it would
have been well within my means to explain how hurtful this comment
could be. By choosing to do nothing, I lived up to the Kantian belief
that some men are without virtue. I failed morally. Perhaps my moral
failure is why I chose this subject to blog about in the first place.

That brings me to the final issue raised by the events, truth and
storytelling. By writing about this incident I hope to at least
partially alleviate my sense of guilt over not having intervened in
any way. By preserving a record of what I witnessed, I have attempted
to fulfill my duty to tell this story. It is my hope that anyone who
hears a hurtful comment such as this will choose to get involved in an
effort to educate the wrongdoer about the hurtful nature of the words
they speak rather than merely continue with their lives unphased.

By Melissa Paquette

Last night, news spread that the infamous sign hanging above the
entrance to Auschwitz was stolen.  The sign reads, “Arbeit Macht
Frei,” or “Work Brings Freedom,” a cruel misrepresentation to the many
Jews who would enter the camp and find freedom from Nazi atrocities
only in their own deaths.  Poland announced a state of emergency when
it learned the sign had been stolen, tightening its borders and
embarking on a nationwide hunt for the missing sign.

Rabbi Andrew Baker wrote a piece for BBC News explaining the physical
importance of the sign.
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8421787.stm). He writes that while
many museums, such as the United States Holocaust Museum employ
replicas to educate visitors as to death camp experiences, Auschwitz,
as a historical site, prided itself as a true-to-life experience.
Visitors would walk under the same sign that the concentration camp
victims had walked under, and this contributed to the emotional
understanding of the Holocaust.

Whoever is responsible for stealing the sign is denying victims of the
Holocaust, as well as those who wish to remember or pay tribute to
Holocaust victims and survivors, of an important piece of cultural
history.  The theft of the sign was not only a desecration of the
historical site, but also a desecration of the memories of victims and
survivors.  Those who would deny the Holocaust gain a small victory
when objects of such cultural importance disappear, for it becomes
easier to dismiss evidence of an atrocity that only exists as replica.

However, while original pieces must be preserved to the best of a
historical site’s abilities and should certainly never be stolen, it
is important to note that material evidence of the Holocaust is bound
to disappear eventually.  Luckily, physical objects do not bound
memories, though they may be convenient reminders. Holocaust survivors
are passing away, but simply because their bodies are gone does not
mean their stories and memories of the Holocaust have disappeared with
them.  Elie Wiesel has dedicated his life to preserving the memory of
his and others’ experiences during the Holocaust and to acting on
behalf of others who are suffering atrocities.  When he dies, he will
leave a record of his memories and stories that no sign could ever
communicate.

The loss of the sign above Auschwitz is offensive and disrespectful,
but the physical object is only a symbol of the memory we should be
working to preserve. The international outrage regarding the physical
stealing of the sign is really international outrage at the spiritual
damage caused by threatening the memory of the Holocaust.  As we
learned in class, legally, those who stole the sign will likely only
pay for the physical damage resulting from their crime.  A polish
minister noted, “This is an act of vandalism that knows no equal.”
International outrage is likely to be felt anew when thieves are
brought before a tribunal facing only the most severe charges of
vandalism.  The theft of the sign above Auschwitz is not only a
reminder of the importance of remembering atrocity, but also a
reminder of the inadequacies of our legal system to punish people for
the spiritual damage for which they are responsible.

By Anika Rappleye

            One of the themes that resonated through our class
discussions over the course of this semester was the notion that
stereotyped groups – African Americans, Jews, Muslims – must speak out
against those amongst them responsible for perpetuating their
stereotypes.  These discussions came up in the context of
conversations about collective responsibility; the idea that one’s
responsibility as a human being extends beyond his own actions to the
actions of his entire culture and religious community.  It is not
enough to say, “I didn’t do it.”  While it is undoubtedly true that as
individuals they haven’t all “done it,” it is equally true that people
sharing their physical features or religious beliefs are consistently
acting in ways that perpetuate their stereotypes, and as a result,
they are all suffering.

            A few weeks ago New York 1 did a segment called “Muslim in
NYC,” where each day they featured a story about Muslims somewhere in
the city, and how some particular aspect of their lives was affected
by their religion.  In the wake of the Ft. Hood shooting, these
perspectives were particularly profound, and reflected many of the
issues we discussed in class.  Specifically, they underscored the real
struggles of these stereotyped New York Muslims, and the decision that
some of them made to speak out.  “I didn’t do it” is no longer enough
for them.

            The first couple, the husband a native of Queens, and the
wife a Native of Brooklyn, spoke out about how they are often
ridiculed as a result of the way they look
(http://ny1.com/8-queens-news-content/top_stories/109661/-muslim-in-nyc—queens-couple-fears-growing-anti-islam-sentiments/).
 This couple epitomizes our class discussions about “the price you
pay” for having certain physical features.  In their segment, the
woman talks about having people come up to her face and call her a
“towel head,” and the husband relays anecdotes about being asked where
he comes from and being told to go back to his country.  They’re New
Yorkers, and they didn’t do anything, but they recognize that they
need to fight back.  The couple points out that a lot of Muslims in
New York are doing what they can to speak out against terrorism and
radical Muslims.  The couple says that they speak to authorities
whenever they hear of any “incidents.”  Is that enough, though?

            A few days later the series featured a group of Muslims
speaking out against radicals, and speaking loudly
(http://ny1.com/8-queens-news-content/top_stories/109724/-i-muslim-in-nyc—i–queens-imams-speak-out-against-terrorism).
 Masjid-Al-Hamdu-Li-Llah, a mosque in Jamaica, Queens, dedicates its
Friday prayers to speaking out about radical Islam and terrorism.  The
group says they seek to educate their community about the dangers of
people acting in ways that are contrary to the religion of Islam, and
trying to do it in their name.  One man is quoted as saying “we’ve got
to identify these people and let them know, ‘Brother, that’s not what
we’re about.’”  In addition to meeting with authorities whenever
necessary, the group has recently gone a step further and started
kicking members out of its organization for making anti-American
comments.  These men have faced some resistance from their community,
people questioning whether this outspokenness compromises the sanctity
of the mosque, such that what people say during prayers may be taken
out of context and reported to authorities.  However, the group
recognizes that, at this point, “there is little choice.  Those who
don’t want to speak out and they have a reservation, well, they have a
problem.”

            As we have discussed in class, these Muslims are paying
the price of looking and dressing a certain way.  In the wake of the
Ft. Hood shooting, these Muslims have recognized that no one will
break that stereotype for them if they don’t.  They are stepping up
and speaking out, and although they are the minority right now, at
least it’s a start.

In June 2007, Apple’s Chief Executive, Steve Jobs introduced the
world to the iPhone. The device quickly became the most sought after
consumer electronic gadget. News crews filmed as thousands camped
outside Apple’s flagship 5th Avenue store hoping to be among the first
to get their hands on the sleek device (or hoping to be the first to
get it to auction on eBay). Who can blame them? Weighing in at merely
4.8 ounces it makes your Blackberry look obese. Allowing you to
visually scroll through your CDs it makes your old-MP3 player seem
about as cutting edge as your 8-track tape. To date, Apple has sold
over 7 million iPhones.

Perhaps the allure of iPhone is its ability to multitask. As any good
lawyer should know, the ability to juggle several responsibilities at
once is essential to being effective. Your iPhone can seamlessly
operate as a telephone, camera, web-browser and music player. However,
just like any law student or young associate must get their early
afternoon coffee at Starbucks, the iPhone’s battery can only last 6-8
hours. Where the iPhone lags in energy it makes up in performance.

Popularized by the ever-present commercials, Apple has capitalized on
Apps. Apps are typically 3rd party developers that provide software to
find new ways to utilize the iPhone. While popular Apps include
familiar games like Tetris and Pac-Man, a simple search of “Lawyer” in
the iTunes store yields over 150 Apps. The App “Sign Here” (free)
promises the user it can help prepare a non-disclosure agreement or a
“professionally drafted demand letter.” All that in a button that can
sit next to Facebook. The entire text of the New York Code of Criminal
Procedure is available. ($4.99). According to its developers, The App
BillTarget (0.99) is “primarily intended for lawyers and other legal
professionals who have minimum annual billing requirements.” The App
Basic Legal Will ($14.99) allows a user to get their affairs in order
in case they are too often using any of these Apps while driving. Law
students shouldn’t feel neglected. A search of “law school” yields
about 75 applications. The makers of Law in a Flash have provided
Torts flashcards ($39.99). If  $40 is too steep maybe students can
just check out the “Lawyer Jokes” App (free).

Regardless of whether lawyers or law students are actually using some
of these Apps, their very existence may be cause of concern.
Certainly, information is power and I think its great that people can
have the U.S. Constitution (free) or New York Motorist Statutes (0.99)
accessible at their fingertips. However, the prevalence of Apps such
as “BillTarget” or Easy Biller should be cause for concern.

By: James Markel

The Unmaking of American Law

Liz Garbus’s Shouting Fire explores the current state of free speech in America. Interweaving historical cases like The New York Times’s fight to publish the Pentagon Papers and the Nazis’ insistence on marching in Skokie, with contemporary free-speech infringements, the film documents the way both the Right and the Left have lashed out in fear.
The primary focus is on four cases from the last decade in which unpopular opinions were unduly suppressed. When University of Colorado professor Ward Churchill’s musings about U.S. political-economic imperialism as a partial 9/11 explanation were discovered by right-wing ideologues, he was swiftly fired. Principal Debbie Almontaser was forced to resign from New York’s first bilingual Arabic-English public school after press distortions painted her a virtual terrorist sympathizer. Thousands were inappropriately restrained by police while peacefully protesting the 2004 Republican National Convention. That free speech isn’t always pretty or laudable is underlined by San Diego high schooler Chase Harper, suspended for wearing a “Homosexuality Is Shameful” T-shirt.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

First Amendment to the Constitution | United States Bill of Rights | Ratified December 15th, 1791

Filmmaker Liz Garbus would argue this guarantee has been broken, especially when threatened by an outside enemy, perceived or real, we often demonize each other, undermining the very freedom we seek to protect. We think of First Amendment rights as inviolable; in fact, she argues they’re profoundly vulnerable.

From the Sedition Act of 1798, through the Smith Act of the 1940s and McCarthy’s red scare, to the FBI’s infamous COINTELPRO program of the 1960s, during times of crisis and war, the U.S. government has hampered the free speech of Americans by closing down avenues of dissent.
Most recently, since 9/11, the First Amendment has again been under attack, specifically with the passing of the “Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act,” better known by its acronym, The USA PATRIOT Act, which all but officially sanctions the practice of ethnic and religious profiling, places our First Amendment rights to freedom of speech and political association in jeopardy and erodes due process rights.
The documentary warns, if we don’t fight for our freedoms every day, we will lose them. Calling for action to challenge the government even when it is unpopular to do so, and to consider that perhaps our future safety lies in the expansion, rather the contraction, of the democratic values set forth in the Constitution.
Can we trust our elected leaders to value and protect the American idea as they act to secure the homeland?
President Obama said in his inaugural address:
“To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history.”

Yet, the balancing act of civil liberties and national security is more complicated. What are the trade-offs between liberty and safety? What if we chose to regard the 2,976 innocent civilians killed in the 9/11 atrocity not as victims but as democratic martyrs? Is this the price you’re willing to pay in order to preserve our democratic way of life? If our future safety lies in a few interrogatories without suspicion, arrests without charge, warrantless surveillance and detention without justification (knowingly compromising the democratic values set forth in the Constitution) well, then perhaps I’m on the wrong side of history.

Agnesa Mahmudi

The film Mississippi Burning, set in the 1960s, tells a story of 2
federal agents, Gene Hackman as Mr. Anderson and Willem Dafoe as Mr.
Ward, who travel to Mississippi to solve the murders of 3 young civil
rights activists.  While Anderson and Ward are sure that the KKK was
responsible for these deaths, they cannot find any evidence to help
them prove it in court.  Ward and Anderson don’t know who specifically
committed these murders; they cannot even prove the KKK was involved.
The film shows atrocity and frustration because nothing is being or
can be done within the boundaries of the law to remedy it.

The following lines are from the beginning of the film:

Ward: Just don’t lose sight of whose rights are being violated!
Anderson: Don’t put me on your perch, Mr. Ward.
Ward: Don’t drag me into your gutter, Mr. Anderson!
Anderson: These people are crawling out of the sewer, Mr. Ward. Maybe
the gutter’s where we outta be!

This quote does a very good job outlining these two characters.  From
the start Ward was a legal idealist.  He believed that honest legal
work would eventually get them justice, that proper investigation
would lead him to the killers, and that the law would then punish the
guilty parties. Anderson was more realistic; he had previously worked
in the Mississippi Sheriff’s office and better understood the
challenges they were going to face in the course of their
investigation.  Anderson’s tactics tended to step on a few
constitutional toes, but in the end prove to be the only effective
means for their desired ends.

The majority of the film depicts these law agents desperately trying
to carry out justice within the boundaries of the law; however, no
real justice comes about until the Ward decides that Anderson’s less
conventional investigative techniques are necessary if they want to
catch the bad guys.  And they were right…once they free themselves
from their constitutional restraints they finally get results.   So,
what is the moral of the story?  Atrocity is different; sometimes it
is appropriate and even necessary to do what we have been taught is
wrong in order to do what we know is right.

We are taught in law school that the law and constitution are
supreme…what is legal is right and good and what is illegal is wrong
and bad, but in this film we cheer when law enforcement wiggles around
their constitutional requirements, why? Because atrocity is different
and the atrociousness means that we pick and choose what works and
deviate from strict constitutional standards.  Ward and Anderson’s
police work may ultimately be unconstitutional, but it opens up a
moral path to justice that becomes necessary because of the moral
gravity of the crimes that were taking place.  They had to skip around
the constitution so that they could get justice and this was okay
because it was the moral thing to do, and it was moral because
atrocity is different.

By: Samara Geller

By Kaitlyn Piper

It’s been fifteen years since South Africa made the transition to a democratic government. It faced its apartheid past head on when the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) pardoned many of the criminals who committed heinous crimes against the black and colored population of South Africa. South Africa has made great progress with their new democracy since 1994. I was in South Africa this year when South Africans of all races came together to celebrate Mandela day by spending sixty-seven minutes of their day to help other people, symbolizing the sixty-seven years Nelson Mandela spent fighting for human rights and equality. But how far has South Africa come from white minority rule? Have the blacks really forgiven the Afrikaaners for the all of the murder, humiliation, and damage they have inflicted?

A video that surfaced on YouTube last year showed some of the racist acts that are still happening in the country today. In the video, several black women cleaners of the University of Free State dorms are shown on their hands and knees eating food that had apparently been urinated on by a white student. Apparently, it was a type of initiation that the black cleaners were forced to partake in. In the video, the white students also expressed their opposition to the integration policy at the university. Although criminal charges are still pending for the students, the newly appointed head of the University of Free State has pardoned all four of them and invited them to return to school. The head of the university placed most of the blame on the university for being racist and did not even request an apology from the students.

This leads one to ask – is anything being accomplished if people are no longer punished for their action or even held remotely responsible for them? The pardon was meant to be a “gesture of racial reconciliation” and the workers were offered reparations as well. However, how much justice is actually being done if the people who committed the crimes are not held accountable for their actions to the people whom they actually committed the crimes against. This leads back to the broader issue of who was held accountable after apartheid ended. Although the TRC required the offenders to admit to their crimes, it was South Africa itself who actually paid the victims reparations. Although the Afrikaaners probably experienced shaming for their actions, the actual effect on their lives and lifestyles was probably minimal.

The fact that people were not actually punished for their crimes may account for some of the reason that there is so much racism still apparent in South Africa today. It may also be one of the reasons that South Africa has one of the largest, if not the largest, gap between the rich and the poor. Some argue that the pardon is putting the welfare of the criminals before the welfare of the victims. The same could be said for how the TRC pardoned murderers and racists. The dissatisfaction for the way that the head of the University of Free State handled things is evidenced by the amount of people are speaking out about their disapproval of the pardon of the Afrikaaners. The problem of racism and the healing of the wrongs of the past are things that South Africans have dealt with and continue to deal with. However, progress toward a more united culture may be slowed until people face real, tangible consequences for their racist crimes.

    In January of this year, federal prosecutors alleged that Mark A.
Ciavarella, a county judge in Wilkes-Barre, Pennsylvania, had been
taking kickbacks from privately owned juvenile detention centers in
return for sending thousands of juvenile offenders to jail.  And these
weren’t your typical juvenile offenders.  Kids were being sent to jail
for months at a time for crimes as small as stealing change from cars
and creating antagonistic Myspace pages about their school principal.
Apparently, this had been going on for nearly five years without
anyone — not county officials, not probation department officials, no
one — saying a word.
    One would assume, maybe even hope, that this scam continued for so
long because Ciavarella was just very good at gaming the system and
making sure nobody noticed.  But he actually didn’t have to do much
gaming at all, thanks to a deeply flawed juvenile justice system.  The
way kids were processed through the courthouse, it would seem that
everyone was in on the scam.  They would be brought in for minor
violations, sent before the judge and sentenced to jail in a matter of
minutes.  Ciavarella routinely ignored their legal rights, including
right to counsel and the presumption of innocence.
    According to a 2009 ABA Journal article titled “Town Without Pity”
, there were times when court officials would meet a juvenile’s
parents at the courthouse elevators, stick a Miranda waiver form in
their face and tell them to sign it.  Then, when the kid would ask for
a lawyer, he would be denied because his parents had already (and
often unknowingly) signed away his rights.   Even when parents would
think to ask about a lawyer, probation officers would often lie to
them, saying that the situation was nothing to worry about and lawyers
wouldn’t be necessary.  But, more often than not, it was something to
worry about — especially for the juvenile who would end up spending a
few months in jail.
    Apparently, in Ciavarella’s juvenile courtroom, not only were
lawyers not welcome, but you were guilty before you even walked
through the door.  In many cases, juvenile “offenders” were told what
their sentence was going to be before they had even stepped before the
judge.  In a guerrilla 20/20 interview on ABC (you know the type –
where they ambush you getting out of your car on the way to work)
Ciavarella himself admitted that he preferred to compile a dossier on
each kid before he saw them in court, so he could decide what the best
sentence might be.  Again, this was before the juvenile ever even had
a chance to plead.
    Ciavarella stepped down in 2008 and only now, after five years and
over a thousand juveniles sent to jail, is the Wilkes-Barre juvenile
court starting to reverse his decisions and overturn sentences.  This
past September, he was indicted by a federal grand jury and is
currently out on bail.  But, in an unfortunate turn, a Pennsylvania
judge recently granted him partial immunity from lawsuits stemming
from the scandal.  It still remains to be seen what kind of punishment
awaits a man who essentially sold the freedom of hundreds of kids for
a couple million dollars.
    While this is an admittedly extreme case, it is unlikely to be an
isolated one.  Juveniles are inherently vulnerable in these kinds of
situations, lacking the knowledge and awareness to adequately protect
their rights.  Whereas Ciavarella’s violations may have been
intentional, even the most well-intentioned court can hang kids out to
dry simply by failing to properly take their age and inexperience into
account.  There need to be protections in place, beyond those we give
to adults, in order to ensure that they are treated at least as well
as an adult would be.  Until then, there’s no way to guarantee that
something like this isn’t taking place as I finish typing this
sentence.

By:  Sasha Holguin