Meagan Gorton
Another image that struck me from TheBook of Daniel was the description of Pauly, Daniel’s father as he wasbeing beaten by the mob while he on the bus. I was intrigued by the fact that although the crowd wasbreaking his arm and causing other horrible injuries to him, he calmly removedhis glasses and handed them off to Mindish. I was impressed by the calmness ofhis actions for he not only handed them off but also managed to fold themclosed before doing so. I think this is a poignant example of Pauly’s innerstrength. Its almost as if his moral conviction allows him to transcend thephysical world and removes him from the pain that the mob is inflicting on him.He confronts the mob and tells the others, “we cannot permit this outrage.” (p.50) He is unafraid to place himself in grave harms way because he believes thatit is the right thing to do. I amreminded of monks in various parts of Asia who set themselves on fire inprotest or Irish inmates that went on hunger strike also in protest. These individualsalso seemed to be able to transcend their physical pain simply by the sheerconvictions of their beliefs.
I also wonder what the glassesthemselves meant to Pauly. I think they also represent his morality andDoctorow uses them to represent the purity of his belief. After he is badlybeaten and cradled in the arms of wife on the bus, Daniel remembers he liesthere broken yet looks at his son through “glasses that were unbroken.” (p.51)This seems to represent that the beating had not waivered his convictions. Hestill saw the world as he always had. Also, the eyes are often considered to bewindows to the soul and here, though his bones had been broken and his bodybadly beaten, his eyes remained untouched. Its as if his soul or spirit couldnot be broken.

In the least shocking news of the decade, OJ Simpson hired a new
lawyer. However, this time, it is not without a sense of irony.

OJ Simpson is currently serving nine to thirty-three years in Nevada
state prison for kidnapping and armed robbery charges. OJ’s newest
lawyer alleges that his conviction was solely due to how badly he was
represented by his last two lawyers at both the trial and appeals
level.

There is a certain peculiarity to that last sentence. Having ‘OJ’ and
‘badly represented’ in the same sentence just seems weird, doesn’t it?
OJ Simpson, of course, is famous for having possibly the most highly
publicized trial in history. Each day, the nation would stay glued to
its TV and watch a Kardashian do something that required a college
degree. Heavy hitters like Johnny Cochran captivated the nation. We
were introduced to the infamous phrase, “If the gloves don’t fit, you
must acquit.”

OJ Simpson’s defense team put on a clinic as it masterfully
circumvented a mountain of forensic evidence and managed to tastefully
discredit the LAPD in order to establish reasonable doubt. And like
that, OJ Simpson became the poster child for how big money could get
even the seemingly guiltiest of individuals an acquittal. The running
joke in the country was that everyone knew that OJ was guilty. Even OJ
seemed to get in on the joke when he published the highly distasteful
book titled “If I Did It”.

Many people who believed that OJ did, in fact, commit the murders
viewed OJ as a permanent blemish on the judicial system. Media outlets
would publish photographs of OJ Simpson laughing it up with friends on
a golf course, and many took it as an insult, as if he was scoffing at
the public at-large.

Well, for those who believe in karma, perhaps some level of justice
was achieved. After one of the most successful legal strategies in
recent memory, OJ Simpson may now be in prison for the very same
reason he allegedly evaded it the first time around: by the skill of
his legal counsel.

President Obama made headlines last week when he appeared on ABC News
and declared that he believed that same-sex couples should be allowed
to get married. Newsweek quickly donned President Obama ‘The First Gay
President’ and The New Yorker ran a cover with White House columns
transformed into the colors of the gay pride flag. Much was made about
this single statement – to wit, the first of its kind by a sitting
president – endorsing same-sex marriage.

But what really was said?

The text of the statement by President Obama was as follows: “I’ve
just concluded that for me, personally, it is important for me to go
ahead and affirm that same-sex couples should be able to get married.”
No one is going to discount the potential positive ramifications this
statement could have on today’s youth, LGBT community at large, and
the inspirational feelings that this statement may engender from
people of all political and social backgrounds. But, beyond that,
beyond this statement’s ability to be uplifting and inspirational, it
really doesn’t mean much.

In the statement, itself, President Obama uses his words very
carefully. The term ‘personally’ appears once and the phrase ‘for me’
appears twice. President Obama is careful to delineate this statement
as a personally held belief rather than a legislative or legal
campaign policy. Given the possibility that President Obama could have
just come out and said, “I support same-sex marriage,” the words he
chose to use instead become crucial to understand the meaning and
motivations of the phrase. The fact that such a deliberate effort was
made to demarcate this phrase as ‘personal’, made its extension into
other arenas (legal policy debates, moral arguments, etc.) that much
harder.

Politically – or more accurately, financially – President Obama had
all the reasons in the world to make such a statement. There have been
recent reports that ‘gay money’ has taken over for ‘Wall Street money’
in the political funding arena. President Obama has been especially
hit hard by the financial sector since the stalling of the economy and
Mitt Romney is swooping in to pick up the pieces. Reports from the
Center for Responsive Politics show that in the fourth quarter of
2011, Mitt Romney received $1.49 million in Wall Street money compared
to just $127,000 for Barack Obama, a ratio of 11.7 to 1.

It is significant to note, then, that after President Obama’s
statement to ABC News, he went off to visit the Hollywood house of
George Clooney for a lavish fundraiser the very next night. Hollywood,
of course, generally is known to be very much pro-gay rights. At this
fundraiser, the President was heard touting his statements from the
day before, saying “Obviously, yesterday we made some news…” and went
on to talk about his vision for equality for the country and how it
differed from Mitt Romney’s. The fundraiser netted President Obama
$15 million.

Given the strongly touted vision of equality, one might expect that
President Obama to have put some force behind his words. To do so,
however, could be politically dangerous as same-sex marriage is still
a highly divisive issue and creating an agenda in either direction
would possibly cost a substantial number of votes.

Thus far, the President’s policy-oriented words and actions on the
issue have been rather tepid, if not anemic. When asked about his
administration’s policy on same-sex marriage, President Obama said
that marriage had historically “not been a federal issue.” In
reference to the thirty states that now ban same-sex marriage,
President Obama called the debate at the state-level a “healthy
process.” Asked if he would ask the Justice Department to fight the
state laws, President Obama answered instead that he “helped to
prompt” the Department to abandon its defense of the Defense of
Marriage Act, the federal act restricting same-sex marriage, as his
administration views it “as a violation of the Equal Protection
clause.” Even after evading the state-wide question, “helping to
prompt” is still a rather weak-footed response, considering the praise
and laudatory cheers he is getting for his single statement.

There is no taking away from the impact of President Obama’s statement
as inspirational and uplifting. But with suggestions of a moral
crusade tempered by a new ‘gay money’ fundraising effort and
suggestions of a legal crusade diminished by President Obama’s words
and actions on the issue, it is difficult to extend the impact of
President Obama’s statement beyond anything but a personal viewpoint
and possibly a shrewd political maneuver.

By RG

The biggest story of this NFL offseason has been
“BountyGate”. An NFL investigation revealed that from 2009 to 2011,
the New Orleans Saints and coaches operated a fund that paid out
bounties for hits that injured opposing players, even if they were
illegal hits. Several couches were suspended; the defensive
coordinator who created and headed the program was suspended
indefinitely, and the head coach of the team is suspended for one
year. The overall initial reaction of players around the league and
the media was that the penalties were harsh, but understandable in
order to protect the integrity of the league and the safety of
players. The coaches were the ones in charge, and it was their
responsibility to stop things like this from happening, not to start
them.

After further investigating the scandal, the NFL also
decided to suspend 4 players. The most notable suspension was handed
down to Jonathan Vilma, the defensive captain of the team for 2010 and
2011; he was suspended for the entire 2012 season. These suspensions
caused a huge uproar from many players and members of the media. As I
watched SportsCenter that afternoon, the most common defense of the
players that I heard was “they’re just players, they’re just like
soldiers, they’re just taking orders.” This is a common defense of
soldiers, but it is one that is not and should not be accepted
anymore.

Even for soldiers and NFL players, the concept of what
is right and what is wrong should trump doing what you are told. This
is what morality really is; morality is doing what is right regardless
of what you are told. There is a parallel between BountyGate and the
suspensions of these players and the Holocaust and the Nuremburg
Trials of Nazis after WWII. In the Nuremburg Trials, Nazis were put on
trial for the newly created crime, “Crimes Against Humanity.” These
players were suspend for “Conduct Detrimental to the NFL,” which is
essentially “Crimes Against Football.” Many Nazis on trial used that
same excuse, “I’m just a soldier, I was just taking orders.” From that
point on, the world made it be known that saying you were just taking
orders would no longer be acceptable; doing what is right trumps doing
what you are told. The players that were suspended deserved to be
suspended. Putting the safety of other players in jeopardy should
never be accepted in the NFL. When evidence came to light that
Jonathan Vilma personally offered $10,000 on multiple occasions for
knocking the opponent out during playoff games, the NFL had no choice
but to suspend him for the entire 2012 season. The NFL needed to take
a stand and tell the whole league that endangering the health of other
players, this crime against football, will not be tolerated.

- S. S.

Meagan Gorton
While reading The Book of Daniel I was struck by onof Daniel’s descriptions of his adoptive parents. He talks about how civilityis important to them, that it is the essence of being human. (p.27) Mr. Lewin is chastisingDaniel for being nasty to Dr. Duberstein and they expect Daniel toapologize. What I find interestingis that although Daniel is going through an emotional ordeal, he is expected toremain polite and respectful. There are societal rules he must follow and thereis no room to express what he is actually feeling. He cannot lash out for this would be rude, even though hissister has recently tried to kill herself. He must maintain his poker face even though he may be ingreat emotional pain.
Ican’t help but think how this is similar to the court of law. In this venue,public decorum and civility are paramount and loud displays of emotion areabsolutely not tolerated. Forexample, defendants are removed if they cannot “control” themselves. Yet thisis a highly emotionally charged arena. People on trial may be fighting fortheir very lives. Victims may have suffered great harms and must face thecriminals who traumatized them. Family members watch helplessly as their lovedone’s fate remains undecided. Yet it is “order in the court” that must bekept. As in Daniel’s situation,there is no room for emotional outbursts. Feelings must be kept under wraps forthe proceedings must go forward unhindered and unadulterated by personalsentiments.
Couldthe legal system be modified to allow some expression of emotion? Its doubtfulthat things will change and this may not simply be due to the fact that thecourts are cold. In America, society as a whole seems to be uncomfortable withpublic expressions of pain. For example, consider our behaviour in places ofintense grief, the funeral home. Here people are dealing with some of thegreatest loss we can experience in life and yet they are often incrediblequiet. That is the proper way to show respect. We must keep the stiff upper lipeven as we say goodbye loved ones. It is not that the funeral home has officers that enforce this quietpolicy, but rather, the participants themselves that keep each other incheck. It seems that publicdisplays of pain make us uncomfortable. We do not know how to deal with someoneovercome with grief so we expect them to deny their feelings and actappropriately. It seems that until we make room for each other to express feelingsin public we cannot expect the courts to change,

Whether you’ve got the newest iPhone, Droid, Blackberry, or even a
flip phone from five years ago, chances are it has a camera, and
accordingly, great power. Although the prevalence of recording
technology can infringe upon privacy, it can also serve as a
convenient, potent tool capable of protecting civil rights. That is of
course, if aren’t prohibited to exercise your First Amendment rights
by local laws or arrest. In the past several years, numerous
incidences of people recording police encounters and subsequently
being arrested have been reported and have now prompted state action.

Once such occurrence involved a woman in Rochester, New York, taping
an officer perform a traffic stop while standing on her own property.
Although the officer warned her to go inside her home several times,
she refused and was ultimately arrested and charged with obstructing
governmental administration. Another more recent episode occurred in
Pearl, Mississippi, where two teenagers recording a police
investigation from their apartment balcony were arrested, had the
phone seized, and were charged with disorderly conduct.

The argument most typically advanced in favor of prohibiting recording
of police, as adopted by the Rochester police department, is that
officers must ensure their own safety. Accordingly, they are offered
great discretion and power as the situation warrants. Under such a
policy, even where videotaping is not prohibited, where the officer
feels their safety is threatened, they have the authority to order
someone to cease. Such was the scenario that occurred in Rochester.
Other pro-police reasoning asserts that recording can increase
officers’ exposure to civil suits, especially if such videos are
altered.

Such arguments seem to miss the forest for the trees. First of all, it
is exactly because of the vast discretion afforded officers that
public surveillance is desirable. Of course police safety is a very
important policy concern, but any (armed and trained) officer would be
hard-pressed to reasonably determine that a 28 year-old woman holding
just a cell phone presented a threat to his/or safety. Moreover, the
persons in these cases were recording a public servant performing a
public duty; any concern of privacy should be summarily dismissed in
the interest of civil rights protection. Insofar as civil suits are
concerned, if anything a record of an officer lawfully performing his
duties only insulates him from liability. Finally, the potential of
people editing videos is laughable at best; it would take considerable
skill to convincingly edit any video and have it survive the rules of
evidence and the video would only be one piece of the record anyway.
There are less restrictive means of protecting officers and preventing
such fraud than outright forbidding the activity.

Due to public backlash, states are now beginning to address the
problem. For instance, the Connecticut legislature is currently
debating a bill that would protect any person videotaping or
photographing by subjecting officers to civil liability if they
interfere. Similarly, in Illinois, a ban on recording officers is
currently up for a repeal vote. The current law allows videotaping but
makes it a felony to record audio without both parties’ consent.
Notably, in two cases of persons charged with violating this statute,
the law was deemed unconstitutional. Both of these bills reflect
progressive reasoning and compromise between civil rights,
constitutional protections, privacy concerns and protection of
officers. The Connecticut bill allows officers to stop a recording if
they deem it necessary to enforce a law, protect public safety,
preserve integrity of crime scene, or protect privacy of victim or
third party. Similarly, the Illinois bill imposes a felony for
altering videos. Such laws would ultimately serve as a means of
securing First Amendment rights and civil protections without unduly
burdening officers’ performance.

Brandon James

See:
http://www.wlbt.com/story/18074344/twins-allegedly-arrested-for-recording-police-shooting
http://www.theday.com/article/20120419/NWS12/120419489/1019&town=
http://evanstonnow.com/story/government/statehouse-news/2012-05-01/49391/ban-on-recording-police-up-for-repeal-vote

The Stop Online Piracy Act that would have greatly expanded U.S. law
enforcements censorship power over the internet was met with
considerable criticism, particularly from tech giants such as Google
and Wikipedia. Ultimately, due to this backlash, the bill was buried.
However, the apparent (though likely temporary) demise of SOPA hasn’t
slowed the federal government’s efforts to regulate the internet.
Although seemingly intended to address national security and
intellectual property rights, the sought regulatory powers raise
serious privacy and freedom of information concerns.

Although ongoing for some time, the push has culminated in recent
months. In March, Senator John McCain purposed a bill that would
encourage voluntary information sharing between private companies and
defense agencies. Specifically, the bill encourages companies, such as
internet service providers, to send evidence of “network activity or
protocols known to be associated with a malicious cyber actor or that
may signify malicious intent.” However, as noted by Michelle
Richardson of the ACLU, the bill fails to define “network activity” or
“malicious intent,” and could thus be construed as extremely broad.
Moreover, the bill would immunize private companies from suits or
charges regarding the information shared.

Although the aforementioned bill is unlikely to be adopted in its
current form, the FBI is now preemptively pressuring internet
companies to program in codes allowing for wiretaps. This “request” is
part of its proposed reforms to the Communications Assistance for Law
Enforcement Act. The amendments, already approved by the Department of
Justice, would require internet services (such as social networking
sites, instant messaging, email, and video/voice services) that reach
a certain number of users to add code allowing for wiretaps. Although
there are still protections in place, such as court order
requirements, the breadth of potentially sensitive, private
information that could then be acquired causes pause. Also, as author
Declan McCullagh points out, equally concerning are the requirements
imposed upon nontraditional service providers, compliance costs, and
the potential disclosure of trade secrets or confidential information.

In addition to advocating for wiretap friendly programming, the
federal authorities have also flexed their muscles, so to speak, by
seizing foreign domains. Although seemingly outside U.S. laws, such
actions have been justified due to a series of contracts that place
control over most domains (.com, .net, and .org, to name a few) within
a U.S. company, VeriSign, regardless of where the owner is located.
Such was the case with Bodog.com, a domain registered in Canada with a
VeriSign subcontractor, which federal authorities seized in late
February.

These various policies reflect the changing regulation of the
internet, and they aren’t limited to just governmental agencies.
Beginning in July, the major internet service providers have agreed to
begin warning and subsequently suspending accounts of users who
illegally download content. Even if each individual policy or bill may
not be too threatening alone, a combination of all the aforementioned
regulatory powers could essentially accomplish everything SOPA ever
hoped to. Take for instance a person who illegally pirates content and
is caught by their ISP. That ISP could then send this information to
the FBI, who is then able obtain a wiretap, gather a plethora of
additional information, prosecute the individual, and seize the
website, regardless of where it is registered. Ultimately, it seems
that even if public opinion prevents that passage of SOPA, federal
authorities will find away to realize the regulatory powers desired,
even if it must be done via a less publicized combination of measures.

Brandon James

See:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1009_3-57428067-83/fbi-we-need-wiretap-ready-web-sites-now/
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/feds-seize-foreign-sites/

by Amy Y.

Americans spend a great amount of time watching television. The only
activities that take up more of our time are sleeping and working.  A
typical American household has a television turned on for an average
of seven hours a day, and what is viewed on that television has an
influence on viewers’ beliefs and attitudes.  Considering almost 1/3
of primetime entertainment since the 1960s has related to law
enforcement and crime, there is a great possibility for TV viewing to
affect individual’s roles in society as voters, jurors, and legal
clients.  Individuals often integrate ideas from TV into their beliefs
about real world systems.

Take for example, Law and Order, the longest running crime
drama on American primetime television.   Every 60-minute episode of
Law and Order follows the same structure – a crime is discovered
(usually in the opening scene), the crime is investigated in the first
half of the episode, and it is solved and prosecuted in the second
half of the episode.  Cases are wrapped up in 60 minutes, minus time
for commercials, and a verdict is reached before the credits roll.
This depiction of “swift” justice can be misleading to the public.
Most criminal investigations take months or years.  Some cases are
never solved.  The fictional portrayal of the criminal justice system
often results the truth being revealed, including the motives,
actions, or intentions of the defendant.  However, many victims never
receive this kind of finality in real life.    While legal television
shows, including Law and Order, do attempt to use real life legal
stories, the entertainment version of the criminal justice system
often results is a distorted version of legal reality.

In addition to the frequently discussed “CSI effect,”
other misconceptions presented in legal dramas involve the “excitement
of trial.”  Courtrooms lend themselves to dramatic depiction, much
more than the everyday practice of law in the real world.   In
reality, the vast majority of criminal cases are resolved through plea
bargains and never get to a jury trial.  Also, the players in the
fictional  criminal justice system often perpetuate stereotypes – the
noble prosecutor or public interest lawyer, the slimy and deceptive
defense or corporate lawyer, and the crazy or deranged defendant.
Crime shows rarely focus on mitigating, and sometimes complex,
components of criminal behavior and are unlikely to portray offenders
in a sympathetic or realistic manner.

Most people never come in contact with the legal system, and, if they
do, their contact is minimal – drawing up a will, a traffic ticket,
etc.  This allows the public’s attitude toward the criminal justice
system to be greatly affected and influenced by what they watch on
television, in movies, or see on the internet.  The public’s
fascination with pretend-real-life crime and justice is not likely to
fade, and the misperceptions and stereotypes are not going to
disappear.  It is, therefore, incumbent on everyone in the real-world
criminal justice system to acknowledge the difference and make a
concerted effort to bridge the gap.  A criminal justice system that is
indifferent to its constituents’ understanding risks the public’s
disillusionment and disenchantment.

http://blog.al.com/press-register-commentary/2012/04/you_wont_see_this_reality_on_l.html

http://madamenoire.com/106887/what-if-law-and-order-in-reality-was-like-law-and-order-on-television/

http://www.ukessays.com/essays/media/media-fiction-fact.php

http://www.albany.edu/scj/jcjpc/vol10is2/dowler.html