It’s a wonder that anyone comes to the aid of a person in distress in
our society.  Our legal system not only fails to impose a duty to
rescue on individuals, it holds individuals who choose to try to help
someone liable for any damages they may cause during their rescue
attempt. Despite this, we still hear stories of such heroism on a
daily basis. How can we explain these “irrational” decisions to
rescue? The answer is that, despite our legal systems best efforts to
the contrary, people still feel a moral obligation to those in peril
and will risk personal liability to do what is right.

One can barely open a newspaper without reading a story about a heroic
stranger who saved someone in danger. One recent example was the story
of Fabrice Muamba, and the doctor who came to his rescue. On March 18,
Fabrice Muamba, who plays for Bolton in the English Premiere League,
was playing in a match against Tottenham. Dr. Deaner, a well-respected
cardiologist, was watching the match from the stands. Muamba suddenly
collapsed on the pitch for no apparent reason. Medical personnel
rushed out to him, but were uncertain what had happened.

Dr. Deaner immediately recognized the signs of severe cardiac arrest
and raced down to the pitch. He fought past security guards, shouting
that he was a doctor and knew what to do, and ran out onto the field
to deliver care to Muamba. Dr. Deaner continued life saving treatment
until the ambulance arrived, and then accompanied Muamba in the
ambulance to the hospital. An expert cardiologist was quoted as
saying, “The thing that was most vital was how quickly [Muamba]
received treatment.” There is no doubt that were it not for Dr.
Deaner, Fabrice Muamba would have died.

What Dr. Deaner did was undoubtedly a “dumb” decision from our legal
system’s perspective. By simply staying quiet, absolutely no legal or
financial harm could have come to Dr. Deaner; he would have had no
risk of liability in our system. By stepping onto the pitch and trying
to help Muamba, Dr. Deaner instead exposed himself to all sorts of
legal liability. But considering his decision to be “illogical”
ignores the profound moral duties that individuals still feel towards
one another. It ignores the important role that morals play in our
lives more generally. Dr. Deaner is trained to save people who were
having heart attacks; it is what he decided to do with his life. It
didn’t matter whether there were concrete barriers or legal barriers
in his way, there was simply no way that Dr. Deaner was going to let
Muamba die when he could do something about it. We should be thankful
that there are still so many “irrational” people out there. I am sure
that Fabrice Muamba is.

Jeremy Richmond

A Montana Supreme Court ruling will force the United States Supreme
Court (SCOTUS) to reconsider their highly controversial Citizens
United ruling. The Citizens United ruling allows corporations or
sponsors to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns in support
of a political candidate of their choice, and thus ensuring the
candidate’s allegiance to their financier. The SCOTUS’s
interpretation of our constitutional right to freedom of speech is at
the heart of this decision.

The SCOTUS agreed to hear a case that involves this familiar topic of
campaign finance. The Montana Supreme Court ruled that Citizens
United only applies to federal elections. Corporations in Montana
were obviously unhappy that campaign financing is limited within their
state. Montana has a century old tradition of limiting campaign
expenditures.

This case marks the first time that the Citizens United ruling will be
tested. Supreme Court Justice Breyer commented that this Montana case
will, “give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of
the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance,
Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

Many critics feel that the freedom of speech should not be extended so
as to allow unlimited campaign financing by corporations. They argue
that allowing wealthy individuals or corporations, that are by law
considered a person, to use their right of freedom of speech will in
actuality be detrimental to this fundamental freedom as a whole. In
other words, these corporations or wealthy individuals will throw so
much money into campaigns that millions of citizens will never be
heard, and thus, in effect, trumping millions of people’s right to
freedom of speech.

The name of the coalition that leads this movement towards overturning
Citizens United is Free Speech for People. This organization is
fueled by their ambition to remove the corporate influence over
American politics, and to ensure that the government is for the people
and run by the people.

Samir Goli

I have a few thoughts on the Citizens United decision. When I first
began researching the decision I was torn on which side was “right”.
On the one hand, you have the argument that the government should not
and does not have the power to prohibit any form of political speech
that advocates the election of a political candidate. On the other
hand, there are concerns that elections will essentially be bought by
corporate interests. To me, these two sides are both concerned with
the same question. What does freedom mean?

At first I questioned whether it would contradict the idea of a free
nation if political speech were prohibited. Shouldn’t people (or the
people in charge of corporate treasury money) be able to spend money
on financing campaigns for the political candidate of their choice?
Shouldn’t they be free to do so? I don’t mean to get too
philosophical, but my reasoning changed when I stopped asking who was
right, and went back to the question I posed earlier. What does
freedom mean? To me, freedom is truth. And with that in mind, it is
clear to me that the Citizens United decision is a mistake and an
attack on democracy, freedom, and truth.

Spending money to support a political candidate in itself is not an
attack on these three principles. However, the way our pro-corporate
society carries it out, is an attack on them. The freedom granted to
corporations by the Citizens United Decision is freedom to spread
convincing misinformation. The truth is that the majority of our
country’s population is not very well informed, and in many ways their
decisions are based on emotion rather than weighing the facts at
hand. When masses of people are swayed to vote for a candidate by
information (propagated by a relatively small group of financial/
political elites) consisting of half-truths and fanatical language
that only deal with wedge issues, manipulation is occurring. To
manipulate another is an immoral act. To manipulate millions
politically is arguably an act of tyranny, and thus, an attack on
freedom, truth, and democracy.

Corporations spend billions of dollars each year researching human
responses to advertisements so that they can more effectively persuade
people to buy their product. The product they are selling here is
politics. Politics should not be for sale.

Samir Goli

By Amy Y.

An incident involving 11 Secret Service agents on a
security detail in Cartagena, Colombia earlier this month has drawn
worldwide attention for accusations of misconduct involving
prostitutes.  The incident allegedly occurred when the agents brought
prostitutes to a hotel while on a security detail in advance of
President Obama’s trip for the Summit of the Americas.  Prostitution
is legal in Colombia; however, the actions of the agents are not
acceptable by Secret Service standards and are a breach of the
agency’s conduct code.  So although no criminal violations are alleged
in this case, the attention drawn to the Secret Service scandal has
sparked increased debate over the issue of legalizing prostitution.

Those in favor of legalizing prostitution believe it
would reduce crime, improve health through required STD and HIV/AIDS
testing, increase tax revenue, and get prostitutes off the streets.
Proponents of legalization contend that prostitution is a victimless
crime.  Opponents believe that legalizing prostitution would lead to
increases in human trafficking, sexually transmitted diseases, and
violent crime.  They contend that prostitution is commercially
exploitative and promotes the repression of women by men.

One approach that seems to satisfy many of the
concerns of people both for and against legalizing prostitution is
known as the “Swedish Model.”  First introduced in Sweden in 1999,
this model criminalizes the buying of sex and decriminalizes the
selling of sex.  In addition to the two-pronged legal strategy,
Sweden’s prostitution legislation also provides for social service
funds aimed at helping any prostitute who wants to leave the industry,
and additional funds to educate the public.

The Swedish Model addresses many of the safety
concerns that support legalization.  With no fear of prosecution,
prostitutes are more likely to go to the police and seek out help or
medical attention.  Some argue, however, that targeting the demand of
the sex industry only drives the sex trade further underground because
banning prostitution clearly does not prevent people from seeking it.
The Swedish Model also does not address the argument that prostitution
is a victimless crime and that people are free to make their own
choices.

While it is true that many people enter the sex
industry by choice, women are often drawn into the world of
prostitution by poverty, desperation, or drugs.  Many systemic, global
factors make women so vulnerable – poverty, gender inequality, racism,
child sexual abuse, lack of educational and employment opportunities
for women.   Addressing, searching out, and punishing the means and
factors of coercion into the sex industry should be the primary focus
of the prostitution debate.  There are certainly distinctions to be
made regarding the circumstances of those entering the sex industry.
If every person were in fact in the sex industry by choice, the
question of legalization would be much easier to answer.

By Raymond C.

Taxes are terrible. Nobody likes paying them. In the United States, it is estimated that $400 billion to $500 billion dollars worth of taxes go uncollected per year due to evasion and non-compliance. Another $100 billion gets lost through offshore banking. Ouch. These are eye-popping figures and would certainly go a long way to help solves some of the budget problems we are currently dealing with.

There is however one little problem, nobody seems to know how to deal with this problem of tax non-compliance. Here is a story that deserves some ridicule. On February 8th Harry Redknapp, the current coach for English soccer team Tottenham and Milan Mandaric, the owner of Sheffield Wednesday, were acquitted on charges of tax evasion after five years of investigation and court proceedings. The details of the case are pretty common for tax evasion trials; it involved a bank account in Monaco opened in the name of Redknapp’s dog, and Mandaric depositing a sum of money into said account, thus saving each party a small tax bill. Now here is the kicker, the amount at the center of this transaction is 189,000 pounds. Which, even taxed at 50%, quite high by any standard, comes out to a 94,500 pound tax charge plus some penalties. The cost of this five-year investigation? 8,000,000 pounds.

Sometimes the numbers just don’t add up. Ask yourself, in what circumstance would you, normality and sensibility presumed, spend $100 to seek a return of just 0.875 cents? Or rather, more generally, is justice worth pursuing at any cost?

Now, the argument for pursuing cases such as this one is the notoriety. Governments believe that ordinary people, like myself, will refrain from cheating the system because we see these cases play out on the news and famous people do sometimes go to prison. However, it might not be the right approach to combat tax evasion. The IRS has recently been very successful with infiltrating the UBS client side tax evasion system by turning one of the key bankers within the bank itself. The settlement forced UBS to turn over 4,450 names and eventually that number may increase to 10,000. It allows the IRS the access to enough information to prosecute a large number of Americans for skipping out on their taxes, in another word, a big payday for the IRS at a very minimal cost.

I believe this is the correct way to go about finding a solution to this issue and the correct way to spend our tax dollars.

By Raymond C.

On February 9th 2012, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission approved two new reactors at the Vogtle nuclear plant in Georgia. As controversies go, nuclear power plants are near the top of the list. This is especially so after an earthquake and tsunami caused a meltdown at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan. This begs the obvious question, what is behind our commitment to this technology? Why are we messing with it? The answer, it seems, lies in our desire to become energy independent and to become more green.

The United States is the second highest consumer of energy in the world, at 19 percent of world energy demand, only recently losing the title to China in 2011. We are also the highest consumers of oil, at 21 percent of global demand. To satisfy this thirst for energy, the United States imported 11.4 million barrels of petroleum per day from 80 different countries in 2011, accounting for 45 percent of our consumption requirements. This heavy reliance on foreign oil is one of the main driving forces behind the energy policies of the Obama administration. In president Obama’s press release on March 21, 2012, he vowed to travel the country to promote his all-of-the-above energy strategy, highlighting the administration’s focus on “reducing our reliance on foreign oil, saving families and business money at the pump, and positioning the United States as the global leader in clean energy.” The message here seems very clear, the United States is fully committed to becoming energy independent as well as combating the problem of global warming.

While the focus of this all-of-the-above approach has been to increase domestic production of oil and natural gas, promote efficiency, and increase domestic renewable energy production, the administration also strongly supports nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is currently used around the world to generate electricity. The United State currently has 104 nuclear reactors producing more than 800 terawatts of electricity annually, accounting for 20 percent of the domestic electricity demand. As with other forms of electricity generation, there are both benefits and downsides to nuclear power. It is currently one of the more reliable and readily available clean energy technologies globally, but it is also one of the most dangerous. Its emissions are 50 to 100 times lower than fusel fuel and it provides consistent electricity, as oppose to renewables like wind and solar. On the other hand, the events at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear plant in Japan have provided ample evidence of its dangers.

The debate pits pollution and foreign dependence on coal and fossil fuels against the potential for radioactive catastrophe of nuclear power. The government current policies seem to stand on the side of nuclear power; the Energy Policy Act of 2005 provides plants with loan guarantees and tax benefits, the Department of Energy shares some of the costs of site development, and the cap-and-trade emission requirements all points to an alliance between the government and the nuclear power industry. I believe, though with certain reservations, it is the right step to take.

By Marisa Winoker

In 1987, Michael Morton was convicted of brutally murdering his wife and sentenced to life in prison.  Yet, after serving near twenty-five years behind bars, Morton has recently been released; DNA testing has proved that another man, an already convicted felon, is responsible for the murder.

Morton is thankful that he was not on death row because it gave the Innocence Project “time to do their thing.”  The Innocence Project is “dedicated to proving the innocence of wrongly convicted people through the use of DNA testing, and to reforming the criminal justice systems to prevent future injustice.”

After District Judge Sid Harle set Morton free, he stated: “You have my apologies . . . We do not have a perfect system of justice, but we have the best system of justice in the world.”  How could an apology ever justify the system’s inexcusable failure?  How could this apology ever make Morton whole again?  Not only did Morton lose twenty-five years of his life, but more importantly lost something that can never be repaired: his dignity.  Not to mention, he lost his wife and eventually “lost” his son.  At the age of twelve, Morton’s son was adopted by a relative; at the age of eighteen, Morton’s son told him that he would be taking his adopted parents’ last name.  This, Morton says, is when he hit rock bottom.

As Professor Thane Rosenbaum states: “we live in a world that only recognizes harm in the physical realm but there is so much harm that that involves the spiritual realm.”  Professor Rosenbaum suggests that denying someone dignity is a type of spiritual death.  This spiritual death, he says, is irreplaceable.  So, while Morton is still alive physically, a part of him has died.  This death took place over the course of many years while imprisoned.  In a 60 minutes segment entitled ”Evidence of Innocence,” Morton states: “My first cell I could stretch out my arms and before my elbows locked, I was touchin’ both walls. And you got two grown men in there. The food’s abysmal. You’re never alone. The system controls every part of your life.” In response, the reporter asks: “Its soul destroying?”  Morton then states: “Yeah. It eats at you kind of like a rust.” With this in mind, how can the state ever compensate Morton for the pain he has suffered?  While Morton will receive nearly $80,000 for every year he served behind bars, no amount of money can repair the emotional distress he has suffered.

Although Morton is now a free man, “the jury responsible for convicting [him] had never known that [at the time of his trial], state prosecutors possessed both physical and eyewitness evidence leading to another suspect.”  Allegations have been made that the lead prosecutor in the case, who is currently a Texas Judge, knew of the evidence that could have proved Morton’s innocence but concealed it from the defense.  This evidence was a police report, “in which [Morton’s mother-in-law] told investigators that her 3-year-old grandson Eric had witnessed the murder and described to her in detail how he saw a “monster” with a “big moustache” kill his mother.”

A prosecutor’s role is to seek justice, yet ironically in this case, the exact opposite was achieved.  It is quite possible here that the prosecutor was seeking nothing more than a victory.  According to Professor Rosenbaum, “there is no greater spiritual crime than to deny a truth” but ultimately the “truth will always come out”.  In most instances, I agree with Professor Rosenbaum in that the truth will prevail but what about the innocent men and women that remain behind bars that might never experience the same fate as Michael Morton?

By S.S.

The Book of Mormon is the new hit Broadway musical
from the creators of the hit TV Show, South Park, Matt Stone and Trey
Parker. The play is the story of two young Mormons who are sent
together on their mission to Uganda, and hilarity ensues. The Book of
Mormon won 9 awards at last year’s Tony Awards and has received
overwhelmingly positive reviews. I have been lucky enough to see this
wonderful play since it opened last year, twice. What you get with the
Book of Mormon, after you take away all the jokes and cursing, is a
lesson about the power of religion, how it can be used correctly, and
how it can be used incorrectly.

The Book of Mormon, to put it so crudely, is about one
Mormon, Elder Price, learning that maybe everything he’s been told to
believe his whole life isn’t true, and the other, Elder Cunningham,
learning that it doesn’t matter what you believe as long as you can
stop people from raping babies and cutting of women’s clitorises.

Two songs from the play show this sharp contrast
between good religion and bad religion. When the two main characters
meet their fellow missionaries, they are greeted with a nice song
called, “Turn It Off.” This song is about “a nifty little Mormon
trick,” which involves repressing your feelings about everything from
a sibling’s death to seeing your father beat your mother to
homosexuality.  This song symbolizes everything that is wrong with
religion and how it can be used to judge people and hide immoral
behavior.

Later in the play, Elder Cunningham is left to try to
bring the local Ugandans to the Church all by himself, through the
song “Making Things Up Again.” After an initial failure to relate the
story of The Book of Mormon to the Ugandans, one of the locals gets up
and walks away, saying he is going off “to rape a baby.” Not wanting
this terrible thing to happen, Elder Cunningham makes up stories,
combining elements of The Book of Mormon, Star Wars and Lord of the
Rings, and the villagers’ actual problems, saying it is forbidden to
do things like rape babies and cut off women’s clitorises. This is the
essence of the play and the message I took out of it; it does not
matter how crazy the stories you believe are, as long as it gets you
to do the right thing (the argument between moral relativism and
universal morality and how you define what the “right thing” is is a
completely different issue).

The message of The Book of Mormon all comes together
during the play’s climax (minor spoiler alert). After the villagers
learn they will not be accepted into the Church of Jesus Christ of
Latter Day Saints, Nabalungi, the female lead, is disappointed she
will not be able to go to the magical city she had been told about in
these stories, Sal Tlay Ka Citi (Salt Lake City). After expressing her
sadness to the other villagers, they all laugh at Nabalungi for
believing that Sal Tlay Ka Citi and all the other stories Elder
Cunningham told were real. They said Sal Tlay Ka Citi is not a real
place, but a place that resides within each of us, a place that sets
us on the right path in life. The villagers knew the stories were all
made up, but it made them happy and got them to do what is right, like
any good religion should.

By D.G.

“Summertime… and the livin’ is easy.” These are the opening lyrics
to the Gershwin’s “Porgy and Bess.” After having watched it, I want
my money back! I sat for two hours as the cast embodied stereotypical
images of African-Americans all over the stage. Every possible
stereotypical image of African-Americans you could imagine was there
on the stage. And they suffered from hardships one assumes plagues
all African-Americans: drug abuse, poverty, and violence.

The story takes place in Catfish Row, a fictitious town in South
Carolina.  It is a tale of an African-American woman who is torn
between a host of men.  First, there’s Crown–her abusive and
possessive lover, who commits murder in opening segments of the story.
Then, there’s Porgy–a crippled beggar who falls in love with her
and struggles to save her from her old ways. Porgy also resorts to
murder later in the story.  And finally, there’s Sportin’ Life–a
drug dealer that’s determined to have Bess accompany him to the big
city, all the while supplying her drug habit.

It is important to discuss some of the history and background behind
the story. The story was based on the novel, “Porgy,” written by
DuBose Heyward–a white man from South Carolina. George and Ira
Gershwin, along with Heyward, adopted the novel into “Porgy and Bess,”
the opera.

Essentially, “[i]t’s a story of “black life” penned by a white
Southerner, scored by a New York Jewish composer, written in dialect
(cartoonish, by today’s standards) and containing strong whiffs of
well-intentioned paternalism, tourism, and exoticism.”  In other
words, it is a story about African-Americans created entirely by and
through the lens of white people. This is problematic for a number of
reasons. First, there are obvious problems that arise when an
outsider attempts to give his take on a community and culture that he
is not qualified to comment on. The result in this case: the
characters are nothing more than stereotypical caricatures of
African-Americans with no real depth. Isn’t art and music supposed to
be uplifting and enriching? Shouldn’t the experience of “Porgy and
Bess” be one that elevates understanding of the African-American
experience in South Carolina? Instead of being a celebration of
African-American music and life, it is nothing more than a
misrepresentation that reinforces stereotypical depictions of
African-Americans.

I understand that “Porgy and Bess” was ahead of its time. I
understand that it provided African-Americans an opportunity to
perform on Broadway. But all of this was done at whose expense? Many
consider “Porgy and Bess” to be one of Broadway’s greatest. I, on the
other hand, find it extremely offensive.

On April 22nd’s episode of “The Good Wife,” the characters of the firm
Lockhart & Gardner are asked to represent a judge who is being
investigated for misconduct during his days as a prosecutor.
Specifically, he prosecuted a man for killing his wife, only to have
DNA evidence exonerate the convicted murderer 22 years later. This
episode was filled with scenes and dialogue exploiting the injustices
of Chicago’s (and America’s) just legal system. For instance, the
accused judge displays no remorse for his actions of prosecuting an
innocent man. Rather, he explains his actions away as being what any
prosecutor would do in the same situation with the same evidence.
And, truthfully, he’s probably right. Moreover, Alicia Florrick (the
show’s protagonist) and the other attorneys working on the case
convince their client that the only way he is going to be able to get
past the charges of judicial misconduct is if he shifts blame to his
co-prosecutor in the case, even though it is made clear that the
co-prosecutor did nothing wrong at the time.

While I couldn’t help but laugh to myself as I noticed all of these
digs at the legal system by the show’s writers, what interested me the
most in the episode was the character of the judge presiding over the
judicial misconduct hearing. In his entrance to the courtroom, he
tells the attorneys and defendant that he is new to this type of
proceeding and that they can refer to him as “Murph” instead of “Your
Honor.” After this statement, the defendant turns to his counsel and
says something along the lines of, “This guy is a moron.” Ironically,
however, it turns out that Murph is anything but. In fact, he is
portrayed as the only character in the legal system who actually cares
about getting the story out. Throughout the hearing, he cuts the
attorneys off and asks the witnesses his own questions, which are much
more pointed and get to the point the attorneys had been getting at in
a round-about way. Furthermore, he constantly tells counsel to stop
objecting and let the witness tell his or her story. He even
approaches the defendant directly and asks him questions, despite the
fact that the defendant never took the stand.

I found this dynamic extremely interesting because the very person who
is deemed a “moron” by his peers in the legal system is actually the
only person in the whole affair who is on a mission to find the truth.
I can’t help but think that this entire episode was about the
inadequacies of the legal system and immorality of the lawyers and
judges who promote (and attempt to circumvent) such a system. “The
Good Wife” often deals with the moral issues defense attorneys working
for a prestigious firm face in their professional lives, and I thought
that this episode pointed out the immorality inherent in the legal
system exceptionally well.