A recent New York Times article looks the current state of Rwandan
society. The article describes how a country which saw one of the
worst human tragedies in recent history 16 years ago has now become a
“darling of the foreign aid world and something of a central African
utopia.” Rwanda has gone from war-torn, corrupt, violent nation to one
with clean, safe streets and national health insurance.

But the radical change has come at a cost. In order to ensure that any
violence simmering under the surface does not reappear, the Rwandan
government has brutally repressed free speech and expression;
political dissent or even dialogue is not tolerated. Civil society
organizations are discouraged from mounting any criticism of the
government.

The situation in Rwanda is in many ways unsurprising when looked at
through the Human Rights and the Holocaust lens. A country with such
an excess of pent up spiritual hurt has reacted, or overreacted, by
attempting to silence any antagonistic or harmful speech. After seeing
the consequences of chaos and disorder, with memories of Hutus
encouraging mass killing over the airwaves, the Rwandan government has
clamped down harshly on speech to ensure order and calm. While
understandable, and perhaps in some ways effective, the situation in
Rwanda illustrates the difficulties in recovering from the deep
spiritual wounds left 16 years ago.

-Thomas Webb

The conventional legal system is only concerned with
administrative closure and does not acknowledge moral righteousness. In
contrast, the moral justice paradigm serves to integrate the conventional legal
paradigm with moral awareness and sensitivity. Consequently, the legal system
is misguided and inadequate. Under the conventional legal paradigm there is no
interest in giving victims a sense of resolution- a spiritual resolution. The
conventional legal paradigm does not acknowledge the power of spiritual
penalties and the significance of apologies.

Recently, an Oregon jury found the Boy Scouts of America
liable for the sexual abuse of a 12-year old boy. The abuse occurred more than
25 years ago. The plaintiff, Kerry Lewis, now 38 is among six other victims who
sued the Boy Scouts of America alleging sexual abuse. The victims alleged that
during the 1980s, the organization was aware of at least one of the sexual
abuse incidents. During the trial the Lewis’ lawyer produced various documents
that evidenced many years of sexual abuse. The convicted sex offender, former
assistant Scoutmaster, Timur Dykes was released from prison in 2005. According
to Lewis’ lawyer, Dykes admitted to abusing 17 scouts. Lewis also claimed that,
though the organization knew of the abuse, nonetheless, it allowed Dykes to
remain with the organization as a volunteer.

The jury returned a verdict of $18.5 million in punitive
damages and awarded Lewis $1.4 million resulting from the organization’s
negligence in allowing a scout leader who was a sex offender to have contact
with him. The jury held the Boy Scouts of America 60 percent negligent and held
the Cascade council, the body that oversees the scouting activities, 15 percent
negligent. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints, who has sponsored
many of the Boy Scout Troops, was held to be 25 percent negligent.

When considering the outcome of the case, one cannot help
but wonder whether this was a morally righteous outcome. Did the punitive
damages serve as a means of moral retribution? Will the tarnished reputation of
the Boy Scouts of America serve as a proper moral penalty? By holding various
parties responsible, will the victims of the abuse receive a spiritual
resolution? Should the parties held responsible give an apology? Should the
abuser give an apology and will an apology matter?

The concept of moral apologetic recourse states that an
apology should be sincere and the person apologizing must fully acknowledge the
wrong that was done. There must be a genuine gesture of repair. The party who
caused the harmed by either acting or ‘not acting’ has the moral obligation to
show recognition, remorse and shame for the act (or non act). Acknowledgements
and apologies are antidotes to the conventional notion of cash and jail time.
Here, none of the parties have acknowledged the harm that was caused. They all
argue that there was insufficient evidence to prove that the abuse occurred.
Dykes refused to comment on the case, Boy Scout of America refutes the claim,
and the Church of Jesus Christ refuses to acknowledge any wrong doing on their
part because they argue they were innocent bystanders. It is not surprising
that the abused victims will never truly receive true moral relief from the
parties who facilitated the harm. Here, just acknowledging the harm that was
done would have been the first step to a righteous apology.

 
Christina Blythe
 

_________________________________________________________________
Your E-mail and More On-the-Go. Get Windows Live Hotmail Free.

https://signup.live.com/signup.aspx?id=60969

“The conventional legal paradigm does nothing to prevent or diffuse
the desire of revenge.”

This sentence from The Myth of Moral Justice reminded me of the 1894
story of 11-year-old Jody Plauchéwho had been taking karate lessons
from Jeffrey Doucet (25 year-old pedophile) in Louisiana. Jody was
kidnapped by Doucet and taken to a hotel in California during which
time Doucet was accused of molesting Jody. Authorities found both Jody
and Doucet, and Doucet was quickly extradited back to Louisiana for
trial.

Leon Plauche, Jody’s father, was at the airport on March 16, 1984 when
Doucet was being led by police officers through the airport. Plauche
had managed to bring a handgun into the airport with him and stood at
a set of telephone booths, pretending to use the phone, waiting until
Doucet walked by. As Doucet walked past the telephones, Plauche turned
around, raised his firearm and shot Doucet once in the head, killing
him almost instantly. This was all caught on camera by a news crew
covering Doucet’s story: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oi3Hyxuf5AE

For Leon Plauche, justice was served.

Plauche pleaded No Contest to a reduced charge of manslaughter and was
sentenced to 5 years of probation.

It is clear that the father felt that no matter what sentence Doucet
was given by a court, it would not have been enough. Incarceration and
any potential monetary compensation would not have relived his grief.
20 years in prison? Registering as a sex offender? IF he was found
guilty! None of these punishments would have allowed this father to
feel justice had been served for the lifetime of emotional and mental
damage that had been brought upon his young son. Plauche felt that
Doucet had taken his son’s life so he had to take Doucet’s. Simple.
With cameras rolling and numerous police officers and witness
watching, Plauche still believed this was the only way justice would
be served. The law would not have neutralized this feeling of revenge;
Plauche’s own “individualized grief” had to be relieved and he was
obviously convinced that would not have been achieved by today’s legal
system when dealing with crimes of this nature.

In this very case, legal system only proves the above point that
people have no reason to believe justice will be served. By sentencing
Plauche to 5 years of probation for the calculated, premeditated
murder of Doucet, the legal system is condoning revenge. Doucet was
someone’s son too. Where does the cycle stop?

-Elizabeth Perry

More than one week after NFL Commissioner Roger Goodellannounced his (conditional) six-game suspension of Pittsburgh SteelersQuarterback Ben Roethlisberger, the fallout from the decision is still front-pagenews. In case you missed it, here is a brief recap of the events that led up toGoodell’s announcement.

On March 5, 2010, a 20-year-old female college studentaccused Roethlisberger of sexual assault following an incident in a bathroom ofa Georgia nightclub. The Midgeville, Georgia Police Department conducted a fullinvestigation and submitted a report to the District Attorney’s Office ofOcmulgee, Georgia. On April 12, District Attorney Fred Blight announced thatRoethlisberger would not face any charges stemming from the incident, notingthat while he did not “condon[e] Mr. Roethlisberger’s actions,” there wasinsufficient evidence to prove criminal charges beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether on ESPN, CNN, or MSNBC, the question posed to every sportsanalyst and legal expert called in to comment on the Roethlisberger situationhas been essentially the same: Should the NFL be permitted to punish an athletefor questionable conduct that does not result in formal criminal charges? Themedia analysts’ response was nearly unanimous: Yes. The experts agree that whiledefendants in the criminal justice system are entitled to a standard of proofbeyond a reasonable doubt, there is no similar guarantee under the NFL’spersonal conduct policy. Additionally, the opportunity to play in the NFL is aprivilege, not a right, and all players are expected to abide by a minimalstandard of conduct in their personal lives. Roethlisberger’s actions on March 4-5clearly did not meet that standard, and therefore he should be punished.

In the interest of full disclosure, I should mention that Iam not a Ben Roethlisberger fan. Since he entered the NFL in 2004,Roethlisberger has made one terrible decision after the next:
· Exhibit A: (June 12, 2006) Roethlisberger isinjured in a motorcycle accident in which he is not wearing a helmet;
· Exhibit B: (July 17, 2009) Roethlisberger isaccused of sexual assault in a Lake Tahoe hotel room while attending acelebrity golf tournament;
· Exhibit C: (March 5, 2010) Roethlisberger isaccused of sexual assault for the second time in eight months.
Moreover, as a Washington Redskins fan, I resent the factthat the Steelers have won two Super Bowls during Roethlisberger’s tenure, whilethe Redskins have not won a Super Bowl since 1991 (and have run out elevendifferent starting quarterbacks since 2000).

While I agree with the analysts’ consensus that the NFL waswell within its right to suspend Roethlisberger for his actions on March 4-5, Itake issue with the “sentence” imposed by Goodell to the extent that itreflects punishment for a “pattern of behavior” rather than for Roethlisberger’smost recent transgression. During a radio interview that aired the day beforethe suspension was announced, Goodell explained to ESPN’s Dan Patrick that the Roethlisbergersituation was troubling primarily because it indicated “a pattern of behavior and bad judgments.” I have no problem with theNFL’s desire to hold Roethlisberger to a higher standard of conduct as a high-profileplayer, but the notion of punishing a player for a “course of conduct” runscounter to the legal principle that defendants should not be convicted on thebasis of propensity evidence. Even drawing every reasonable inference in Roethlisberger’sfavor, his conduct on the night of March 4-5 was more than sufficient towarrant league action. By roping in Roethlisberger’s previous transgressionsinto his punishment, Goodell not only set a questionable precedent, but also weakenedhis condemnation of Roethlisberger’s actions on the night in question.

Brendan Hanifin
Law and Literature Blog Post

A few weeks ago I caught an episode of “Snapped,” a true crime series
about female killers, on the Oxygen Network. This particular episode
was about a woman who worked at a correctional facility as a nurse.
While there, she fell in love with and eventually married one of the
convicts. It was not long before he had her illegally bringing him
food, drugs, and other items. A few months into their marriage, the
convict convinced the nurse to figure out a way to break him out of
jail. Her plan to do so went horribly wrong when she accidentally shot
one of the officers that was transporting her husband. Although they
managed to flee the scene, they were eventually found and arrested. The
woman was charged with first degree murder and faced either life in
prison or the death penalty. Surprisingly, the prosecutor left it up to
the family of the deceased officer to decide whether he should seek the
death penalty. In an attempt to keep his client off of death row, the
woman’s lawyer sent a video of his client’s children to the officer’s
family, basically pleading that they not have their mother killed.
Although the family had been pretty steadfast in their decision to seek
the death penalty, the video hit an emotional cord and they agreed to
life in prison without the possibility of parole. However, this was
conditioned on the defendant sitting down with the family of the
deceased officer and listening to the effect her actions had on them.
The defendant spoke about how the conference gave her the opportunity to
hear about the person she killed and to really know the life she had
taken. She stated that it forced her to deal with the fact that she had
taken someone’s husband, father, and sibiling and not just a faceless
man in a uniform.

This episode made me think about the Victim Offender Reconciliation or
Mediation Programs mentioned in “The Myth of Moral Justice.” Under
these programs, the victim or the victim’s family is given the
opportunity, in a face to face encounter, to confront the offender and
speak to the damage and loss. Although entirely voluntarily, the
process serves to bring in a more moral or emotional counterpart to
legal justice. Punishment had already taken place and therefore repair
was necessary. Unlike these programs, the situation in the episode of
“Snapped” was not entirely voluntary – if she turned it down, she faced
death. Nonetheless, programs such as these serve to humanize the crime
and provide closure. Apologies are sometimes given and victims are
given the opportunity to confront the defendant which helps to ease the
insult of being a mere observer in a criminal case. Moreover,
defendants are given the opportunity to seek forgiveness. Ultimately,
justice requires truth as much as it requires punishment. These Victim
Offender Reconciliation or Mediation Programs are a great step in the
direction of bringing morality into the legal system.

- Kristina Allen

On April 27th, Oklahoma passed a law requiring that doctors perform
ultrasounds on patients considering abortions, as well as provide
patients with a “detailed description of the fetus before getting an
abortion.” The law is obviously controversial but is defended by the
pro-life community as a “statement for the sanctity of human life.”
Whether or not this is true, a companion law, also enacted on Tuesday,
is unsettling on a level far removed from the pro-choice versus
pro-life debate.
The second law “prevents women who have had a disabled baby from
suing a doctor for withholding information about birth defects while
the child was in the womb.” The obvious consequence of the law is
that doctors will no longer be required to fully inform pregnant women
about the health of their future child. The medical condition of a
future child is a relevant concern to any expecting mother, regardless
of whether she is considering an abortion (which, needless to say, is
a legal course of action). But, even setting aside this obvious
criticism, the laws, taken together, make a strange pair. The first
law seems to suggest that Oklahoma is concerned that women are making
the decision to have an abortion without honestly confronting the
facts about their pregnancies; the second law then encourages doctors
to prevent women from honestly confronting the facts about their
pregnancies.
There is perhaps less morality in our legal system than we would
like, but laws that actually encourage dishonesty in order to promote
one side’s position in the culture wars must be considered a low point
in the ongoing fight over abortion. The law not only supports
deceitful doctors, who are inherently elevated to positions of great
trust, but it presupposes that the state is authorized to control its
citizens access to medical diagnoses. Both sides in the abortion
debate claim to be standing on the moral high ground; those who claim
this position should be careful about the means used to achieve their
end.

M. Webb

Quotes taken from James C. McKinley, Jr., Strict Abortion Measures
Enacted in Oklahoma, N.Y. Times, April 27, 2010
(http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/28/us/28abortion.html).

By Pavan Hari

In Law and Literature, we discussed the idea of being able to
tell your story in a court of law and having a forum in which your
grievances against a defendant can be aired. Professor Rosenbaum has
often lectured on the cathartic experience of being able to look your
wrongdoer in the eye and telling them that they have wronged you. In
many cases, the punishment that ultimately is meted out to a guilty
defendant doesn’t bring the type of satisfaction that the plaintiff’s
revelations to the court brings. In trial, therefore, a settlement or
plea bargain serves to block this truth-seeking mechanism of the
court.
In the case of Goldman Sachs, the investment banking and
securities firm that was recently charged by the SEC for misleading
investors about the details of a mortgage-securities deal, it is
disheartening to know that the SEC will probably accept a settlement.
This not only prevents the full details of the fraud from reaching the
public, but it once again allows these wealthy banks from escaping the
type of punishment they justly deserve.
What’s more, the clients that Goldman Sachs lied to in the sales
of millions of bad investments will not get the justice they deserve.
The SEC, a government-run organization, is supposed to present the
people in this lawsuit. While many people would prefer to take this
to trial and have the truth come to the surface, the SEC will instead
block the truth from ever coming out by accepting the settlement.
Sources close to Goldman Sachs believe that they will not be able to
afford a trial and thus a settlement is the only way to go. Since
Goldman posted higher profits than most banks, and even did well in
the stock market this past week while its officials were being
questioned by congress, it is hard to believe they can’t afford a
trial against the government. Lawyers for Goldman, however, claim the
SEC’s allegations have no basis. If this is the case, why not hash it
out in a court of law and let the truth be revealed?

–
Pavan Hari
Fordham Law, J.D. Candidate ’10
949.254.1403
hari@law.fordham.edu

Human Rights Holocaust and The Law wrapped up its last class yesterday.
Last semester I participated in the International Human Rights Clinic.
From my participation in both I have learned a lot and realize there is
so much I don’t quite understand. For example, how does one determine
the limits of human rights crusades in light of cultural relativity? How
do you punish individuals for such vile atrocities like the holocaust
and other forms of genocide taking place around the world keeping the
notion of human rights in mind? Do human rights violators lose their
right to be treated in humanely? Yesterday’s class discussion focused on
the Displaced Person’s Act, the Holtzman Amendment, and the idea of
collective responsibility. Professor Rosenbaum compared the rights
afforded members the KKK even though they are one of the worst human
rights violators in the country. To prosecute a KKK member there had to
be direct proof that the potential defendant was actually at the scene
of the crime and played a direct role in the event. However,
non-citizens accused of wartime atrocities tried in the American court
system were not afforded the same legal protections and suffered
consequences absent proof of active participation in an actual event or
wrongdoing. My conclusion? Human rights are not universal but rather
relative. Depends on who you are and whether or not the powers that be
deem you worthy. Better yet, in America- human rights are only
applicable to other countries. And when the term is used in relation to
America, it is because there is some benefit to be had- not in the
genuine interest of morality. We are all human despite country of
origin, skin color, race, class or gender yet are not afforded the same
opportunities and protections for something that, for the most part, we
have no control over. I am no idealist, I understand the reality of the
situation- as human beings, contradictions, prejudices, and hypocrisies
are inevitable. I think my issue is more with the attempt to act as if
it doesn’t exist- America is just as guilty as other human rights
violators yet here, it is portrayed as if the “other” is worse. That the
“other” needs America’s assistance in learning humane treatment. Well,
if this is the case- who will teach America?

By Nikos Valance