Columbia University made history last week when it became the first U.S. university to divest its endowment from the private prison industry. A student-led activist campaign has put pressure on the Board of Trustees to divest since early 2014 when a small group of Columbia students discovered that the school was investing in G4S, the world’s largest private security firm, and the Corrections Corporation of America (CCA), the largest private prison company in the United States. After a vote last week, Columbia’s $9 billion endowment will now be void of its shares in CCA and its estimated 220,000 shares in G4S. Divesting from an industry that makes its money by breeding human suffering is a move that should be loudly applauded.

The divestment vote occurred within the larger discussion of mass incarceration and the tribulations that stem from the systemic injustices that American prisons propagate. While local jails and state and federal prisons all seem to value a punitive rather than rehabilitative approach, private prisons are by far the cruelest. There is an inherent conflict between the supposed goal of the criminal justice system–rehabilitation–and companies’ profit motives. For-profit, private prisons make up a multibillion-dollar per year industry. The U.S. Department of Justice reports that as of 2013, there were 133,000 prisoners in private prisons, or 8.4 percent of the U.S. prison population. These numbers break down to 19.1 percent of the federal prison population being detained in privately owned prisons, and 6.8 percent of the state prison population.

Since 1990, violent crime in America has dropped 51 percent, property crime has fallen 43 percent, and homicides are down 54 percent. But incarceration rates since 1990 have increased by 50 percent. If crime is down, why do we have so many more people in prison? Due to the war on drugs and the increase of harsher sentencing laws, more low-level and non-violent offenders are sent to prison. Almost half of state prisoners are serving time for non-violent crimes, and more than half of federal inmates are imprisoned for drug offenses. Nobel laureate economist Joseph Stiglitz wrote, “This prodigious rate of incarceration is not only inhumane, it is economic folly.” The United States has 5 percent of the world’s population but 25 percent of the world’s prison population. We incarcerate a greater percentage of our population than any other country on Earth, and our compulsion to incarcerate costs taxpayers $63.4 billon per year.

The overcrowding of jails and prisons across the country and a reluctance to adequately finance these correctional facilities precipitated the movement toward private prisons, which proponents claimed could result in overall prison cost reductions of 20 percent. However, allowing the facilities to be operated by the private sector has resulted in a meager 1 percent cost decrease. With crime rates on the decline, private prisons began doing everything they could to increase imprisonment rates so that they could stay in business and continue to make money. From 2002 to 2012, CCA, GEO Group, and Management & Training Corporation (MTC), a contractor that manages private prisons, spent around 45 million dollars lobbying state and federal governments, arguing for harsher laws and more arrests. These corporations also poured hundreds of thousands of dollars into the election campaigns of governors, state legislators, and judges in order to ensure that their plans become laws that guarantee more people will be incarcerated, so they can continue to make money.

Some people try to justify this system with the thought that people who are in prison are there for a reason. But this wishful thinking is untrue. About 50 percent of immigrants who are in prison are detained in privately owned prisons, and the majority of these people are simply being detained while waiting for their cases to be decided in court. In other words, immigrants who have not been convicted of any crime are being housed in violent, corrupt, dangerous private prisons while they wait for months for courts—that are often illegally being paid off by corrupt companies like CCA to keep people in prison—to decide their fate. The private prison industry has an incentive to keep people in jail. If their business plans included imprisoning to rehabilitate and treating people for mental health or drug addiction issues that may have contributed to their arrests, the industry would collapse. Instead, private prisons are rampant with abuse, neglect, and misconduct; private prisons understaff their facilities to save money, ignore pleas for help and prisoner-on-prisoner violence within the prison, and even refuse healthcare to inmates. In order to make the most profit, the private prison industry wants harsher drug laws, longer sentencing, and wants to increase recidivism rates.

In New York, about $60,000 of government money is spent per year to keep just one inmate imprisoned, while just under $20,000 is spent to educate an elementary or secondary school student. This trend extends nationally: no state in the country invests more—or even an equal amount—on educating an individual student than on housing a prisoner. Maybe if we relaxed drug laws and unreasonable sentencing, focused more on rehabilitation than punishment, did not allow prejudiced and ill-intentioned companies like CCA to spend millions on lobbyists, and we invested more on education than on our corrupt criminal justice system, the United States would be a happier, healthier place.

Columbia University’s divestment from the private prison industry will not solve the issue of mass incarceration. It will not redesign the broken system that we call criminal “justice” in America. It won’t even put CCA or G4S out of business or make a sizeable dent in their net worth. But what divestment will do is beyond economic comprehension. Refusing to reap benefits from companies founded upon violence forced on people by virtue of their race, class, or citizenship status is a social stance that proves a complete rejection of everything private prisons stand for. When you stop investing in something, you’ve stopped believing in it. And no one should believe in the private prison industry.

Emily Dalgo

Emily Dalgo is a member of the American University Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Contact Emily at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Columbia University Backs Away From Private Prisons: We Should Follow Its Lead appeared first on Law Street.

Jury duty is often considered to be one of the “necessary evils” of life. Some people are lucky enough to never get the summons, while others seem to be prime choices. But few people know what to do once they get that summons in the mail, and fewer still know about the judicial history and roles that juries play. Read on to learn about the intricacies of the American jury process.

Why do we have juries?

Though it is often maligned, serving on a jury is an important civil service that allows us to have fair trials. Many consider this act to be one of the best ways that citizens can assure that the judiciary holds up our rights and liberties. Each potential member of a jury will first receive a mailing. Any other form of contact, including phone calls and in person visits, should be considered fraud and reported.

A jury is promised to citizens of the United States in the Constitution:

AMENDMENT VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Juries are representatives from the community that make up a cross section of that community; rarely will there be two people who are alike. The goal is to be as impartial and fair as possible when trying to reach a verdict.

There are slight differences between juries in civil and criminal cases, but both are given clear instructions on what they need to decide. In a civil case, the burden of proof o the plaintiff, or the obligation to prove what one says, is much lower than the burden of proof on the prosecutor in a criminal case. The burden in a criminal case is beyond a reasonable doubt, while in a civil case the burden is “preponderance of the evidence,” or more likely than not, in most cases.

To serve on a jury, one must:

• Be a United States citizen.
• Be at least 18 years of age.
• Reside primarily in the judicial district for one year.
• Be adequately proficient in English to satisfactorily complete the juror qualification form.
• Have no disqualifying mental or physical condition.
• Not currently be subject to felony charges punishable by imprisonment for more than one year.
• Never have been convicted of a felony (unless civil rights have been legally restored).

However, some people can still avoid jury duty even if they meet the above requirements, such as members of the armed forces on active duty, police and firemen, and “public officers” of local, state, or federal governments. These people are not likely to receive a mailing from the state, but in such a case they often can just call in and report the problem. With only a few exemptions, including being physically unable to get to the courthouse, there are few other reasons that a person would be allowed to call in with an excuse–everyone else must fill out the form they received and show up on the given day.

Are there any controversies over juror eligibility? 

As our nation grows and changes, questions about who exactly can be on a jury have evolved. A recent example includes a 2013 California bill that would have allowed undocumented immigrants to serve on juries. California assemblyman Bob Wieckowski (D-Fremont) did not want to change any of the other stipulations for serving on a jury, but hoped that this particular bill would reduce the amount of times one person would have to serve on a jury, and would also “help integrate immigrants into the community.” The bill was eventually vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, who said, “Jury service, like voting, is quintessentially a prerogative and responsibility of citizenship.” Still, it helped to raise questions about who exactly should serve on a jury.

There are also concerns about the age at which one can serve on a jury–questions are raised that 18 may be too young, or on the flip side, not young enough. In George v. United States, a minor defendant who was under indictment for violation of the Selective Service Act of 1948 challenged the exclusion of minors from the grand jury. The Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, upholding the right to exclude minors from jury service.

What does a jury do?

Serving on a jury is a very formulaic procedure that requires a lot of “hurry up a wait” timing. Each step is meticulously thought out, but just takes time because of the sheer amount of people that they call at one time.

Here’s how the process is supposed to go: You’ll be expected to bring photo identification (driver’s license, state ID card, student ID) so that they can verify your identity and jury summons. Then you will sit and wait while everyone else checks in and things happen behind the scenes. Eventually, you may be subject to a voir dire. Voir Dire is “the second stage of jury procedures, and is the process by which the court and the attorneys narrow down the pool of juries to the 12 people that will decide the case.” How this happens largely depends on the state, the case, and even the specific judge. You may be asked questions so that the lawyers can determine who is going to be fair and able to listen to the facts of the case without jumping to conclusions. Lawyers are trained to look at every single thing you do while answering the questions; as a result, people are often released for reasons that may seem unclear.

The lawyers are looking for anything that may make the potential juror biased against the person he or she is defending. Some of those disqualifiers may be personal knowledge of the case, or prejudicial views. Others include:

• Negative pretrial publicity.
• A connection to law enforcement.
• Being a victim in a similar case.
• A past connection with someone involved in the trial.

Jurors can also be disqualified for falling asleep, illness, contact with the defendant, or bringing outside information into the court.

What problems are there in jury selection?

One of the biggest problems that comes from juries and jury selection is that “well rounded” aspect that they go for–often, it isn’t as well rounded as they had hoped. One of the biggest problems in recent memory was the grand jury in the Ferguson case: the jury was largely white, middle-class people on the older side.

According to CNS News:

The grand jury is composed of 12 people “selected at random from a fair cross-section of the citizens,” according to Missouri law. The jury is 75 percent white: six white men, three white women, two black women and one black man. St. Louis County overall is 70 percent white, but about two-thirds of Ferguson’s residents are black. Brown was black. The officer is white.

While a grand jury is a slightly different process, this example highlights the difficulty of finding a good cross section of people to serve on an unbiased jury.

Sometimes the problem isn’t always with who is included in the jury, but who was excluded and why. The Equal Justice Initiative explains that many African American jurors are excluded from juries because lawyers sometimes think that they won’t be unbiased, explaining:

In Powers v. Ohio, 141 the United States Supreme Court held that jurors have a right not to be excluded based on their race, yet race-based exclusion continues to stigmatize growing numbers of Americans.

Serving on a Jury

If you are one of the “lucky” few, you are then sworn in by the judge. You will receive some basic notes about what you can and cannot do during the trial. Both sides will remind you not to make decisions until you have heard everything, and you will be encouraged to pay attention to every little detail. During the trial, you will not be allowed to talk to anyone about what is going on inside the courtroom; this rule includes members of your family, or reporters who might want a scoop.

After the trial starts, you may be shuffled back and forth a few times depending on what is argued. From there, you can just expect discussions and explanations from many different people. Each case is handled differently depending on the evidence and the people present. Eventually you will hear the closing arguments and move to deliberation.

The first step of the verdict is usually to select a spokesperson whose “role is to preside over discussions and votes of the jurors, and often to deliver the verdict.” The jury is also free to ask questions or look closely at evidence. They then have to deliberate away from any other people. If something goes wrong, like a juror speaking to an outside party, or if a juror seems “off,” they can be removed. Deliberations may take a few hours, or they could take days. In some cases, the jury will not be able to reach a unanimous decision. While in some courts having ten out of 12 people agree still serves as a valid decision, others will call it a hung jury and declare a mistrial.

However, there is another controversial choice that few people know about–jury nullification.

Jury Nullification

When many people serve on a jury, they often think that they have two options to decide upon: guilty or not guilty. However, there is a third option that few people know about–jury nullification, or the practice of saying “not guilty” in a case involving a law you feel is unjust. Basically, the jury feels that the defendant does not deserve that particular punishment for what he or she did.

This is a jury’s way of saying, “by the letter of the law, the defendant is guilty, but we also disagree with that law, so we vote to not punish the accused.”

For a full explanation, see the video below.

 Conclusion

Some people love serving on a jury while others hate it–it all really depends on what kind of person you are; however, it is one of your duties as a citizen, and the chances of you actually serving are very low. While the juror system has evolved significantly over time, and there are still questions that routinely pop up, it stands strong as one of the tenets of the American justice system.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Courts: Juror Qualifications, Exemptions, and Excuses

New York Western District Courts: Frequently Asked Questions – Jury Duty

U.S. Courts: Jury Service

Additional

American Bar Association: How Courts Work

Cornell: Sixth Amendment

FindLaw: How Are Potential Jurors Selected?

Fox News: California Bill Would Let Illegal Immigrants Serve on Juries

New American: New Hampshire Jury Nullifies Major Felony Marijuana Case

American Bar: Effective Voir Dire

Bloomberg View: Ferguson’s Grand Jury Problem

Court Listener: George v. United States

Find Law: What is the Role of a Jury in a Criminal Case

Fully Informed Jury Association: Can a Juror Be Removed?

The People’s Law Library of Maryland: What to Expect the Day You Go to Court

Lawyers: Excluding Jurors: Removing and Disqualifying

The New York Times: Jury Duty? Prepare for Rejection; Though Many Are Called, Few Ever Deliberate

Primer: Five Easy Steps For Surviving Jury Duty

The Pennsylvania Code: Conduct of Jury Trial

Truth Out: Jury Nullification: Why Every American Needs to Learn This Taboo Verdict

Wise Geek: What Happens When There’s a Hung Jury?

Flex Your Rights: Nine Arguments for Nullification Debunked

Lifehacker: Eight Myths About Jury Duty, Debunked

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Here’s What You Can Expect When You’re Called For Jury Duty appeared first on Law Street.

There are a lot of stories about idiots who are wanted for one crime or another who get caught through social media. This might be because the police post their searches on Facebook and people see them and report the fugitives’ whereabouts. It could be the girl who posted a video on YouTube talking about everything she had just stolen. Or the guy who posted a pic of himself siphoning gas from a police car. Basically what this shows us is that many crooks are stupid and arrogant, and the man in this week’s story is no exception.

Christopher Wallace was recently apprehended in his home. This was a big score for the police since they had been looking for him for weeks after linking him to a burglary. How, you wonder, did they finally find him? It actually turned out to be quite easy. He spurred his own downfall by using the app Snapchat.

Wallace is obviously a big fan of the kid’s game Hide and Seek because it was a giant version of this game that he played with the cops. First he sent a Snapchat, which the receiver sent to the cops (never forget that phones are screenshot capable, people, because if you do, you might have some embarrassing Snapchat photos leaked just like this guy). In it, Wallace said he returned to his house. So the police took that as an invitation.

Courtesy of Giphy.

When they got to the Wallace household they were told that he was not, in fact, home. The police were not content at leaving it alone, so they decided to search the premises. That is when they got their next Snapchat message: Wallace knew that the police were searching, and, oh yeah, also, he was hiding in the cabinets.

According to the sheriff office’s Facebook page, “a search of the kitchen cabinets turned up some food, some pots and pans, and also a pair of feet.” Now, I assume that the investigating cops figured one of two things when they saw these mystery feet: either Wallace was guilty of a much worse crime than burglary or else he had not lied in his post and they had just won this weird game of Hide and Seek.

As it turns out, it was the latter. Connected to those feet, as the Facebook page relayed, was Christopher Wallace. As you might imagine, he was quickly arrested.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Peek-a-Boo! Cops Find Crook Who Snapchatted His Location appeared first on Law Street.

Watch any legal drama on TV — Criminal Minds, Law and Order, CSI, NCIS — and you’ll probably see at least a few suspects caught, or exonerated, through DNA testing. But how is DNA testing actually used in the real world? Read on to learn about DNA testing, its benefits, and its problems.

What is DNA testing?

DNA evidence is used to identify criminals or exonerate the falsely accused. Its technological advancement has led to widespread acceptance in crime scenes across the country. Today, the federal government and twenty six state governments allow genetic swabs to be taken without a warrant. In June 2013, the Supreme Court ruled that DNA could be tested after an arrest, before a trial and conviction.

“When officers make an arrest supported by probable cause to hold for a serious offense and they bring the suspect to the station to be detained in custody, taking and analyzing a cheek swab of the arrestee’s DNA is, like fingerprinting and photographing, a legitimate police booking procedure that is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment,” the majority wrote.

What are the arguments for DNA testing?

Proponents tout the advantages of DNA testing such as helping solve difficult cases and exonerating the wrongfully accused. According to the Innocence Project, more than three hundred wrongfully convicted individuals have been freed due to post-exoneration DNA testing. The government has created grants to help fund the research and development of DNA testing. It is especially helpful in identifying missing persons, solving cold cases, forensic backlog reduction and conviction accuracy. It has been called the most significant advance in criminal investigation because it ultimately leads to a higher rate of accuracy keeping dangerous criminals off the street.

DNA evidence most often remedies cases in which there was:

• Eyewitness Misidentification or Lying: Often, juries and judges listen to an eyewitness, especially if they seem confident, compelling, or convincing. However, as humans we aren’t perfect, and it’s entirely possible that eyewitnesses can make mistakes. Witnesses can also lie, possibly because they were coerced to do so. Informants are sometimes used in criminal trials, but they’re not always the most valuable witnesses because they’re usually testifying because they will get something out of it, such as a reduced sentence of their own.
• Forensic Mistake: There are some forensic techniques, especially older and more technologically rudimentary forensic testing methods that seem sound but actually have never been fully subjected to rigorous review. These can include things such as bite mark and shoe mark comparisons.
• False Confessions: It is also possible that a defendant lies. Whether out of confusion, coercion, fear, or any other reason, DNA has revealed that a confession was fabricated.
• Police or other law enforcement mistake: Police officers are also fallible. Whether mistakes are accidental or made on purpose varies, but it’s entirely possible that a police officer could make a mistake by not paying attention, due to corruption, or personal biases. DNA testing can help sort out where those mistakes were made.
• Lawyer Mistakes: Lawyers also aren’t perfect. Public defenders don’t always have the time or resources to launch a full defense, which can lead to false convictions.

What are the arguments against forensic DNA testing?

Opponents are concerned about the credibility of the process surrounding DNA testing. An investigation of eight hundred and forty three rape cases revealed that the technician had failed to document DNA evidence in twenty six sexual assault cases and had assigned the evidence to the wrong case in twenty six instances. Scientists have also reported that it is possible to fabricate blood and saliva samples containing DNA, essentially giving someone the ability to engineer an entire crime scene.

There have also been arguments against the way in which we as a state hoard DNA. Often when people are arrested, a DNA sample is collected, just like fingerprints are taken. But collecting the DNA isn’t always that effective. For example in 2011, the state of Maryland collected roughly 11,000 DNA samples, and less than 20 led to an arrest. Although there is limited and restricted access to DNA storage systems, they may get hacked or leaked by government officials who access these every day. Crime lab testing in general has numerous reports of sloppiness, inadequate training, and bias throughout the country.

Case Study

Michael Phillips

Michael Phillips was accused of raping a young woman in 1990. He pled guilty, not because he was guilty but because of the advice of his attorney. Phillips was a black man, the victim a white woman. And in Texas, a jury trial probably would have convicted him and sentenced him to a much worse punishment than what he received by pleading guilty. The young woman had also picked him out of a lineup, making the likelihood that he would be found guilty through a jury trial even more likely.

He was exonerated through DNA testing almost 25 years later. Through DNA testing of the rape kit performed on the victim, officials were able to determine that another man had raped the victim. Craig Watkins, the Dallas County District Attorney, released a statement saying:

DNA tells the truth, so this was another case of eyewitness misidentification where one individual’s life was wrongfully snatched and a violent criminal was allowed to go free. We apologize to Michael Phillips for a criminal justice system that failed him.

Conclusion

DNA testing is an important tool that can be used to find the guilty party and rule out those who have not committed the crime. But it’s not a magical solution to all law enforcement problems. It needs to be used carefully and responsibly to make sure that our criminal justice system is always fair.

Resources

Primary 

ABA: Standards on DNA Evidence

National Institute of Justice: DNA Initiative

Additional

The Innocence Project: Home

CNN: Supreme Court: DNA swab after arrest is legitimate search

PBS: The DNA “Wars” Are Over

DNA Resource: Forensic DNA Policy

Law Office of Kevin P. O’Donnell: Is DNA Evidence Always As reliable As We Think?

The New York Times: DNA Evidence Can Be Fabricated, Scientists Show

FSI Genetics: Authentication of forensic DNA samples

Congressional Research Service: DNA Testing in Criminal Justice: Background, Current Law, Grants, and Issues

NOLO: DNA Evidence in Criminal Cases

Lawyers: Use of DNA in Criminal Investigations

Law Street Media Staff

Law Street Media Staff posts are written by the team at Fastcase and Law Street Media

The post DNA Testing and Criminal Law: Not Always a Perfect Match appeared first on Law Street.

Here at Law Street, we’ll be donating a lot of time to the bad guys in the next few days (foreshadowing!).  Today I am going to buck that trend, and extol the virtues of the modern day superheroes: prosecutors.

I’m embarrassed to say that I’m one of the kids who used to watch Law & Order and Perry Mason and think “one day I want to be a lawyer.”  They did all of the quintessential lawyer-like stuff, or so I thought.  I then went to law school and learned that most lawyers never get to do the awesome stuff that I saw on TV.

Cut to summer 2011, and I’m in New York at the first day of my internship with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York.  I’ve mentioned this before, but I took the job on a whim.  I had no idea what being a prosecutor entailed, but the AUSAs I worked for gave me a baptism by fire.  This baptism was among the best experiences of my three years in law school.

I worked with two of the smartest people that I have ever had the pleasure of meeting.  One AUSA graduated from law school and worked at a top law firm for four years.  He then decided he wanted to become a prosecutor, so took the (often necessary) first step of clerking for a federal judge.  Immediately after starting the clerkship, he began the arduous task of applying to be a U.S. Attorney.  The timing worked out perfectly, and by the time his clerkship ended he was sworn in as an AUSA.  The second AUSA that I assisted had the highest GPA on record at her law school, clerked for a 4^th Circuit Judge and then Justice Scalia (SCALIA!!!!).  The pressure was definitely high; I knew that if I could impress them, then maybe the whole “legal career” was not just wishful thinking.

On my first day, I met AUSAs and was given three memos due by the end of the week.  This task was daunting considering that first year law students have four months to create their first legal memo. The difference with these memos was that they were being used in real trials of real people who faced real loss of their liberty.  That kind of pressure lit a fire under me that a legal writing grade never could, and it was the best type of game time challenge.

The second day, I was the second chair at a hearing in an illegal reentry case in front of a Southern District of New York judge. Big stuff! It was also my first encounter with a heinous example of legal unprofessionalism; a legal aid attorney was in no mood to be cordial or cooperative, and was not going to let a little thing like the law get in the way of representing her (guilty) client.  What did I learn?  The best way to shut opposing counsel down is not by being rude or snarky; it is stopping every argument they make with correct law, strong analysis, and a smile.

I experienced much in those three months working with the USAO-SDNY, and I maintain that it was the coolest job I had while in law school.

It became evident to me that summer why prosecutors are the most likely candidates for judicial appointments.  They gain real experience in the practice of law, in terms of persuasive writing, oral arguments, and jury trials.  They have insane workloads, and still find time to give each case the attention it deserves.

During my second year of law school, Justice Sonia Sotomayor came to my school for a dialogue with the students.  One of the questions presented to her was what she thought of the Supreme Court’s composition of former prosecutors and how that background affects their rulings.

Part of her answer focused on an inherent desire to stop the bad guys, and how that desire colors their interpretation of the law.  With that statement, she solidified what I always knew: prosecutors are wearing capes today, and are a huge cog in the wheel that protects us from criminals.

I work in homeland security now, and we often have to deal directly with prosecutors, judges, and law enforcement to further our goals of public safety.  The scenarios that I have been privy to range from the mundane to the insane, and the federal and local prosecutors are in the thick of the madness.

So as you consider your career trajectory, or why you’re considering law school, think about the lawyers you see on TV and know that it’s a real option for you.  Also, check out our crime blog, with it’s analysis of FBI statistics and crime data.  When you find yourself being terrified by the danger levels of certain cities, just make sure you locate the District Attorney and U.S. Attorney’s offices and send them a fruit basket or something, because they’ve got your back.

Images: [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia] [Wikimedia]

—

Peter Davidson is a recent graduate of law school who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy.

Featured image courtesy of [megadem via Flickr]

Peter Davidson II

Peter Davidson is a recent law school graduate who rants about news & politics and raves over the ups & downs of FUNemployment in the current legal economy. Contact Peter at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Prosecutors as Modern Superheroes appeared first on Law Street.