On Monday, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a left-leaning government watchdog group, announced that as a result of its recent lawsuit, the government will have to turn over logs and records of individuals who visited Mar-a-Lago, President Trump’s Florida residence.

CREW filed the lawsuit alongside the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University and the National Security Archive under the Freedom of Information Act. The group has been working to reveal visitor logs for the White House, Mar-a-Lago, and Trump Tower in New York City.

Currently, the Department of Homeland Security says it has no records of people visiting Trump Tower. The lawsuit regarding the White House records is ongoing.

“The public deserves to know who is coming to meet with the president and his staff,” CREW executive director Noah Bookbinder said in a statement. “We are glad as a result of this case, this information will become public for meetings at his personal residences–but it needs to be public for meetings at the White House as well.”

District Court Judge Katherine Polk Failla wrote in her ruling: “The Secret Service will complete its search for and processing of responsive ‘records of presidential visitors at Mar-a-Lago,’ and produce any non-exempt responsive records, by September 8, 2017.” CREW says it plans to share the information publicly once it’s released.

Amidst promises to “drain the swamp” and allegations of collusion with foreign officials, Trump’s poorly-disclosed private dealings have been at the heart of public debate in recent months.

The public has essentially been prevented from knowing which lobbyists, political donors, and others the president is meeting with behind closed doors, making it difficult to fully comprehend Trump’s allegiances and stances on issues.

The Mar-a-Lago visitor logs may prove to be revelatory because of the unique role the estate has played since Trump took office. In a sense, Mar-a-Lago, which the president affectionately refers to as the “Southern White House,” best represents Trump: a mix of his gold-plated private life, his business ties, and now, his executive power.

The venue has controversially served as the backdrop for high-profile diplomatic visits with foreign leaders as well as numerous costly golf weekends for the president.

This lawsuit is not CREW’s first attempt to compel transparency from the White House. The group also sued the Obama Administration, which agreed to release White House visitor logs as part of a settlement. That effort began during the Bush Administration before it was settled with President Obama. Since 2009, about 6 million visitor records were made public.

In April, the Trump Administration announced it would end this practice, citing “grave national security risks.” Currently, the website where the logs were previously published is blank and reads: “Thank you for your interest in this subject. Stay tuned as we continue to update whitehouse.gov.”

Celia Heudebourg

Celia Heudebourg is an editorial intern for Law Street Media. She is from Paris, France and is entering her senior year at Macalester College in Minnesota where she studies international relations and political science. When she’s not reading or watching the news, she can be found planning a trip abroad or binge-watching a good Netflix show. Contact Celia at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Judge Orders Trump to Release Mar-a-Lago Visitor Logs appeared first on Law Street.

President Trump and many of his advisers have faced criticism for not putting enough distance between their government work and their private financial interests. Ethics watchdog groups, state attorneys general, and even Democrats in Congress have resorted to legal action in efforts to address what they consider to be problematic conflicts of interest. While much about the financial interests of the president is unknown to the public, we can tell a lot from regularly mandated financial disclosure laws. As financial disclosures have become particularly relevant as the new administration gets to work, it’s important to take a look to understand existing disclosure requirements and the people in charge in charge of overseeing the conduct of our government officials. Read on to find out the story behind financial disclosures, the agencies in place to keep politicians ethical, and whether or not the current administration’s actions are out of the ordinary.

A History of Financial Disclosure Requirements 

Financial disclosure requirements date back to the 1978 Ethics in Government Act, which was passed in the wake of the Watergate scandal. In an effort at improved oversight, the law created financial disclosure requirements for the president, vice president, all members of Congress (as well as candidates for those offices), federal judges and justices, and certain high-level staff throughout the federal government. High-level staff can include cabinet members, political appointees, agency heads, and others who qualify based on their income and duration of employment. These reports must be filed with the ethics agency that oversees their branch of government by May 15 each year. They must be made available to the public within 30 days of that deadline.

While lower-level government employees do not have to file public financial disclosures, many are still required to submit confidential financial disclosures. Private disclosure requirements generally apply to people whose responsibilities include government contracting and procurement, grant making, licensing, and other areas where conflicts of interest may arise in the course of their work.

So what are all these people required to report? As part of that same Ethics in Government Act of 1978, current federal employees are required to disclose detailed information about their personal financial interests and affiliations as well as some details about their direct family members. Specifically, they must disclose income, gifts, assets, liabilities, transactions, positions outside the government, various agreements, and blind trusts. If assets are held in a qualified blind trust, however, only the value of the assets needs to be reported.

In addition, the STOCK Act passed in 2012 also requires government officials to report transactions totaling more than $1,000 for securities like stocks and bonds. However, reporting is not required for mutual funds. These reports must be made within 30 days of when the official is notified of the transaction and no later than 45 days of the original date of the transaction. The rule applies to all federal officials who also make annual public financial disclosures, and for public officials at the highest level, the disclosures must be posted online. The general idea behind the STOCK Act–which is short for the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act–is to prevent government officers from using their unique knowledge for their own personal profit.

The video below explains the STOCK Act in terms of how it applies to government employees:

Oversight

Government ethics offices play a crucial role in the oversight processes, as they create ethical codes of conduct and act as a hub for oversight. Members of the executive branch, including the President and Vice President, file their reports with the Office of Government Ethics. For those in the House of Representatives, they file with the Clerk of the House and House Ethics Committee for Review. Members of the Senate file with the Secretary of the Senate and the Senate Select Committee on Ethics. Lastly, those required to submit financial disclosures in the judicial branch submit them to the Judicial Conference.

The Office of Government Ethics, or OGE, oversees 130 agencies within the executive branch, including the White House. That includes about 2.7 million employees and nearly 400,000 public and private financial disclosure records. As part of this effort, the OGE makes sure executive branch programs are in compliance with ethics rules and is tasked with training the more than 5,500 ethics monitors in the executive branch. The director of OGE is appointed to a five-year term by the president. The OGE is divided into four divisions: the General Counsel & Legal Policy Division, Program Counsel Division, Compliance Division, and Internal Operations Division.

The House Committee on Ethics was founded in 1967. Originally, it was known as the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, but its name was changed in 2011. The committee has a unique structure that is designed to give equal influence to each party. It includes five representatives from each party and has a non-partisan staff. The committee is responsible for regulating the conduct of House members and providing guidance on all ethical issues. This effort has been bolstered over the years by legislation such as the Ethics Reform Act of 1989, which barred government officials from earning money for certain activities outside their job. Separate groups have also formed from within the Committee including the Office of Advice and Education in 1990 and the independent Office of Congressional Ethics in 2008.

The Senate Select Committee on Ethics also traces its origins back to the 1960s. Much like the House, the Senate had a tradition of policing itself as issues arose. However, the push for an established committee reached a peak in 1964, following a senator’s high-profile resignation during an ethics scandal. This led to the creation of the Senate Select Committee on Rules and Conduct. After complaints that the committee was ineffective, it was replaced by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics in 1977.

Lastly, members of the judicial branch, namely federal judges, must adhere to the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges adopted by the Judicial Conference of the United States. The code provides a blueprint for judges detailing how they should conduct themselves and what activities they should avoid. This prohibits judges from hearing cases in which they have private knowledge of disputed facts, a financial interest in the outcome, personal bias, and prior involvement in the case in a different capacity. However, the law does not prevent them from being active outside of their formal position, and in fact, encourages judges to engage in activities that might improve the quality of the legal system. Employees of the judiciary are also expected to uphold the standards set by the conference.

Mandated Disclosure vs. Tradition

Ensuring the ethical conduct of government officials has become a particularly significant issue for critics of the Trump Administration. Specifically, many people question whether the current president and his associates have adequately distanced themselves from their private interests, as governed by the various ethics committees, to the point where decisions are insulated from conflicts of interest. To his credit, the president has submitted his required financial disclosure form, which at 92 pages is twice as long as former Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney’s. However, President Trump has been just as steadfast in refusing to release his tax returns, a move that goes against longstanding tradition.

Namely, since 1976, every president or candidate for the position has released their tax returns. While Trump has frequently claimed that he cannot release his tax returns because they are being audited, there is no rule preventing such a disclosure. Like Trump, Richard Nixon refused to release his tax returns during the campaign; however, he did release them later in his presidency while under an audit. This distinction between disclosure forms and tax returns is important because while financial disclosure forms are useful, tax returns would reveal things that would not otherwise be available. Examples of that sort of information include effective tax rates and details about charitable giving. Without this information, there is concern over whether or not the leader of the United States has private interests that may dictate his policy decisions. One example is a proposal made by President Trump and many Republicans to eliminate the Alternative Minimum Tax. When a part of President Trump’s 2005 tax returns was leaked in March, it became public that a large portion of his tax burden that year was due to the Alternative Minimum Tax.

Tax returns released by candidates and presidents have created political problems in the past. For example, Mitt Romney’s tax returns showed that he paid a particularly low tax rate relative to his income because most of his income came from investments, which are taxed at a lower rate. Deductions from charitable contributions also lowered the amount he owed. His tax returns also showed that he had approximately $3 million stored in a Swiss bank account, a fact that the Obama campaign used against him in attack ads. And when President Obama released his tax returns during the 2008 campaign, donations to his church furthered a debate over Obama’s ties to his controversial pastor.

Conclusion

Ethics and conflicts of interest are perennial political issues. In the United States, the Watergate scandal spurred a number of reforms that enshrined certain transparency and disclosure requirements into law. Those efforts extend beyond self-policing as they also created several of branch-specific ethics agencies that set guidelines and investigate misconduct.

Adherence to ethical standards has become an established norm in Washington, D.C. going back at least to the Ethics in Government Act of 1978. Critical to maintaining that tradition is holding people at all levels of the federal government accountable. Ethics and transparency have been issues for presidents over the years and gave rise to particularly large scandals for Presidents Nixon and Clinton. And it appears to be an issue once again with the current administration. While many forms of disclosure are required by law, there are a number of traditions that have previously helped ensure accountability. Given President Trump’s decision to reverse a longstanding norm by refusing to release his tax return, it’s possible that Congress may seek to mandate such disclosure with future legislation.

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Do Financial Disclosure Laws Work? appeared first on Law Street.

The California Bar Association really doesn’t seem to like fraternization between lawyers and their clients–so much so that it’s considering a rule to punish sexual relationships between the two groups as it reworks the state’s ethics rules for attorneys.

While California attorneys can obviously get in trouble for coercing or demanding sex from a client as a quid pro quo, the new rules would potentially discipline attorneys who engage in any sex with clients. The argument in favor of the ban is that any relationship between a client and an attorney is unequal, as the attorney presumably holds the cards. But attorneys who are opposed to this proposed new rule argue that it’s invasive and doesn’t respect their privacy or judgment as consenting adults.

The California Bar Association–the largest in the country–is rewriting its ethics rules for the first time since 1987. Some of the 70-odd proposed changes are a long time coming, and will bring California in line with other states. For example, under the new rules, according to the Associated Press the state will begin “subjecting prosecutors to discipline for failing to turn over evidence they know or reasonably should know would help the defense.” There are also new guidelines being considered for certain instances, like when a lawyer is working with a client who has a “diminished mental capacity,” among others. The new rules are expected to be finalized in the spring of 2017 by the rules commission, and then will be sent to the California Supreme Court for final approval.

Nationwide there’s been a split on whether or not to institute a sex ban between attorneys and clients. Seventeen states have taken the plunge, but California would obviously be a big one to join.

There are, of course, some exceptions that would be in place–like for individuals who are already in a personal relationship prior to the attorney-client relationship. But of course, not all lawyers are happy with this proposal. James Ham, one of the lawyers on the commission, wrote a dissent that included:

Proponents of a complete ban cannot articulate why a lawyer should be disciplined for sexual relations with a mature, intelligent, consenting adult, in the absence of any quid pro quo, coercion, intimidation or undue influence.

But those in favor of a ban argue that the issue is that it’s difficult to tell whether coercion or consent are present–and the potential for coercion creates the problem.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California Bar Association May Ban Sex Between Attorneys and Clients appeared first on Law Street.

The world’s first baby conceived using a new technique that combines the DNA from three people has been born. The baby boy was actually born in April, but it is now being reported that he seems to be in good health. The issue of combining three people’s DNA is a controversial one, posing questions about ethics and the possibility of intelligent design of embryos. But in this case, Dr. John Zhang at the New Hope Fertility Center in New York decided it was the more ethical choice.

The parents, who are Jordanian, had already endured four miscarriages and the death of a daughter who lived until the age of six, as well as a baby who only lived for eight months. The problem was that the mother carries genes for the hereditary disease Leigh syndrome, which harms the developing nervous system. It affects the body’s mitochondria, which is the structure that provides our cells with energy.

As a last resort to starting a family, they sought out the help of Dr. Zhang. The mitochondrial transfer procedure has only been legalized in the United Kingdom so far and is not used in the U.S. It basically involves taking the nucleus from one of the woman’s eggs, inserting it in a donor’s egg from which the nucleus has been removed, and then fertilizing it with the husband’s sperm. Zhang created five embryos, out of which only one developed normally. He then implanted the embryo in the woman.

Unanswered questions surround baby born to three parents https://t.co/gJewi2UOYN pic.twitter.com/oDGqRFyXG8

— ScienceInsider (@ScienceInsider) September 28, 2016

Since it is not legal in the U.S., the procedure was carried out in Mexico, where there are no specific regulations. The fact that they had to leave the U.S. to perform the procedure created concern among some experts. But Dr. Zhang defended his decision. “To save lives is the ethical thing to do,” he said.

“This is great news and a huge deal. It’s revolutionary,” said stem cell scientist Dusko Ilic from King’s College in London, where the procedure is legal. He added:

This was an ice-breaker. The baby is reportedly healthy. Hopefully, this will tame the more zealous critics, accelerate the field, and we will witness soon the birth of the first mitochondrial donation baby in the UK.

Creating embryos with three parents has actually been done before with another technique. In the 1990s, scientists tried injecting mitochondrial DNA from a female donor into the future mother’s egg, together with the father’s sperm. But some of the babies born developed genetic disorders so the procedure was banned.

One of the problems with mitochondrial transfer is that it doesn’t guarantee that your child will be healthy. Since the baby will still have some of the primary mother’s DNA, there is a slight risk that the child will inherit the disease that the procedure tried to avoid. Another aspect of the debate is the notion that this type of disease affects very few women, and it would be a better strategy to invest research money into diseases that affect more individuals, or to find a treatment for the disease. Some worry it could also lead to intelligent design of babies, meaning we could maybe in the future pick which traits we want in our children and dismiss others.

But in February a panel of researchers in the U.S. recommended the government allow scientific tests of the technique, deeming it ethical as long as it is used to create male embryos, since they cannot pass on mitochondrial diseases. So maybe a future of more babies with three parents is not that far away.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post World’s First Baby Born With New Three-Parent DNA Technique appeared first on Law Street.

It is finally seen as professional misconduct for men to make sexist remarks or call women “honey” and similar epithets when practicing law in court. Thanks to the American Bar Association’s (ABA) revisions to its ethics rules, sexism as well as comments or actions based on a person’s religion, race, sex, sexual orientation and other factors are no longer allowed.

Discrimination Against Women

Even though some states already have similar rules in place, there has been no formal, nationwide prohibition against such behavior. Therefore many male lawyers have felt free to use misogynistic language to undermine female opposing counsels, causing many female law practitioners to feel belittled and discriminated against.

Some of the women who spoke with the New York Times described how condescending male lawyers treated them when carrying out their profession. “Don’t raise your voice at me. It’s not becoming of a woman,” one man told lawyer Lori Rifkin when she objected to him interrupting her. “I got the pat on the head,” said Jenny Waters, now chief executive of the National Association of Women Lawyers, about working as a lawyer.

NAWL is a group that has supported the rights of female lawyers since 1899 and has over 5,000 members. They sent a letter to ABA to support the amendment to the ethics rule. And it worked–ABA presented the revised rule at its annual meeting in San Francisco on Tuesday. Any violations against it will result in either a fine or suspension from practice.

The Changes

The additions to the rule prevent discrimination based on sex, race, religion, and several other factors. They also detail what constitutes sexual harassment. The updated the ethics rule notes:

Discrimination and harassment by lawyers […] undermines confidence in the legal profession and the legal system. Such discrimination includes harmful verbal or physical conduct that manifests bias or prejudice towards others

The rule also describes that it applies during any activity that is related to the lawyer’s practicing of law. This includes when:

Representing clients; interacting with witnesses, coworkers, court personnel, lawyers and others while engaged in the practice of law; operating or managing a law firm or law practice; and participating in bar association, business or social activities in connection with the practice of law.

This part of the rule caused critics to say that the new rules could lead to limitations on free speech while working with clients, but so far no lawyers have objected to the adoption of the revisions. Further revisions were made before approving the rule to make sure it is only offensive conduct if the person doing it “knows or reasonably should know [it] is harassment or discrimination.”

Only 36 percent of law practitioners are women, according to the American Bar Association, and they still make about $1,400 less than men per month. But at least this new rule is more than welcome as a step forward in the fight for gender equality.

Emma Von Zeipel

Emma Von Zeipel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. She is originally from one of the islands of Stockholm, Sweden. After working for Democratic Voice of Burma in Thailand, she ended up in New York City. She has a BA in journalism from Stockholm University and is passionate about human rights, good books, horses, and European chocolate. Contact Emma at EVonZeipel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post No More Sweet-Talking: ABA Bans Calling Female Lawyers ‘Honey’ appeared first on Law Street.

The Girl Scouts of Western Washington were more than thrilled when they recently received a $100,000 donation to fund activities for girls participating in the organization. However after seeing the note that came attached to the donation, the program made a hard call–to send the money back. According to Seattle Metropolitan magazine, the note read:

Please guarantee that our gift will not be used to support transgender girls. If you can’t, please return the money

This past May the Girl Scouts of America clarified its  longtime policy of allowing transgender girls to be Girl Scouts. While that decision resulted in applause from some, it also garnered protest–presumably the people who sent the note and donation fall into that camp.

The Chief Executive Officer of the Western Washington Chapter, Megan Ferland, claimed to feel very sad after receiving the letter, but sent it back without any hesitation. She said: Girl Scouts is for every girl. And every girl should have the opportunity to be a Girl Scout if she wants to.

With $100,000 covering nearly a third of the organization’s financial assistance program for the year, returning the gift was a big loss. So in an effort to replace the donation, the Western Washington council set up an Indigogo fundraiser, and received significantly more than the original donation. The “Girl Scouts is #ForEVERYGirl” page was able to raise more than $175,000 from more than 3,200 donors in one day, and more than $249,000 from over 4,900 donors in two days.

This is reportedly the second time the Western Washington Girl Scouts under the leadership of Megan Ferland have taken a stand to support transgender individuals, even though the organization has received some controversial feedback in regards to the issue. “Our position is not new,” Andrea Bastiani Archibald, the Girl Scouts USA’s chief girl expert, told CNN. “It conforms with our continuous commitment to inclusivity.”

However, as much as various arms of the Girl Scouts organization have stood up for transgender individuals, Boy Scouts of America has taken a different road when it comes to acceptance of LGBTQ individuals. After long debate, the Boy Scouts of America’s National Council was finally able to vote and ease a long-standing ban and allow openly gay young men in the organization in 2013. The policy took effect in January 2014. Although the vote was considered a milestone, there were some who were distraught with the outcome. There was talk of a new organization being formed, but that has yet to come to fruition. “This has been a challenging chapter in our history,” the BSA chief executive, Wayne Brock, said after the vote. “While people have differing opinions on this policy, kids are better off when they’re in Scouting.”

With a long road ahead, it seems both organizations are taking the necessary steps to ensure Boy and Girl Scouts of America include all people, although the Boy Scouts are clearly trailing behind the Girl Scouts somewhat. This move toward equality is certainly a good thing–whether it means extending membership or not taking donations that don’t go to further equality. 

Angel Idowu

Angel Idowu is a member of the Beloit College Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Angel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Girl Scouts Reject Anti-Transgender Donation appeared first on Law Street.

Online journalism has opened the door for non-traditional journalists to enter the industry. However, as more and more people trickle into the field, the ethical concerns inherent in journalism evolve as well. Digital media ethics of all kinds exist, they serve to streamline the practices of all sorts of online journalism: blogging, writing, photojournalism, and even social media journalism. Many discussions circle around how online journalists, and those with an audience equal to or even surpassing print journalists, should research, publish, and interact with the text. Read on to learn about how the internet is changing the field of journalism, the basics of journalistic ethics, and what new questions are arising for online journalists.

Changes in the Water

Journalism is transforming at an alarming rate–paper sales of newspapers and magazines are down, and online consumption is at an all-time high. No matter the topic–daily news, celebrity gossip, sports analysis, or even legal news–it’s online. Part of this is because of the turnaround time. No longer is there a need for multiple newspapers depending on the outcome of an event. Instead, a journalist can write, edit, post, and interact on a topic in just a few seconds on social media platforms within minutes on a blog or website.

Change can be difficult to circumvent, especially for those who are used to doing things “the old fashioned way.” Shrinking physical sales equate to shrinking profits from sales, advertising, and usage. Still, online journalism leads to experimentation, integration, and collaboration. Most of the principles taught in college classrooms up until only a few years ago centered on the mass production of newsprint, dating back to the late nineteenth century instead of the current age. Schools are picking up on the advent of digital journalism, teaching ethics, and discussing best practices. Without clear cut guidelines, however, it can be difficult to get everyone to agree on just what the online journalistic ethics actually are and how to implement them. But the question isn’t just how to come up with ethics and how to implement them, but rather: how do we create online journalistic ethics that will work for everyone creating content?

What exactly is online journalism?

Before setting any ethics, there are a few questions to answer. There is a distinct lack of clarity over what it means to be a journalist, mostly among those who actually write, but not as much among those who consume. But still, the questions remain: what is journalism and what is online journalism? Like print journalism, the online variation requires  having the skills to investigate, research, work with technology, and write clearly. Ethics wise, all of these skills are used to verify truth and promote accuracy.

Types of Online Journalism

There are countless different types of online journalism. While this list isn’t exhaustive, some examples include: websites affiliated with major media companies, the websites that mesh articles and blogs, and those websites that are comprised of all blogs.

Traditional News Sites

The Washington Post has been a major American paper for more than a century. It has a completely separate print newspaper from its website and stories that originally premiered on the website rarely, if ever, end up going to the printer; however, stories that run in the newspaper do appear on the website. Some newspapers, such as The New York Times, require readers to subscribe to the service in order to read stories and access some content online. Today this type of journalism has a smaller staff of writers that may also dip into the print writing. As such, many of their ethical issues mirror those of print writers.

Hybrid News Sites

For websites that mix blogs and news articles like the Huffington Post, you will see a combination of ethics coming into play–including those surrounding images and the concerns of a 24-hour news cycle. These websites may pool from a greater number of writers  with a varying amount of skills and knowledge. In addition, they may aggregate content in addition to or instead of creating original content more than traditional news sites.

Comment News Sites

Comment-based news sites, most commonly blogs, are another way to share news. Most often, editorial content that was produced by a variety of journalists is dissected and discussed by the blogger and then through audience participation. This content is often the shortest form of news, ranging up from the 140-character limits of Twitter into full blog postings. Whether or not this is truly journalism is up for debate–but there are definitely bloggers who follow journalistic principles, and those who focus entirely on opinion.

Journalism Code of Ethics

Print journalism has had a code of ethics for decades. As per the Society of Professional Journalists, there are four categories to the code:

Seek Truth and Report it

Whenever possible, journalists need to be able to ensure that what they are reporting is true and reported fairly and accurately, without bias. This includes providing appropriate context, following up on a story if facts evolve, reporting sources fairly,  and avoiding stereotypes and assumptions.

Minimize Harm

Journalists are present to report, but must remain observers. That means that they need to be respectful of the subjects and take precautions such as the ability to “balance a suspect’s right to a fair trial with the public’s right to know.”

Act Independently

This principle is simple–a journalist shouldn’t report on a topic if he or she has a vested interest in it, such as a personal relationship with a subject.

Be Accountable and Transparent

Whenever possible, journalists should allow the public to understand the reasoning behind the information included, and the validity of that information. In addition, journalists have a responsibility to correct any errors they may have made.

While online journalists are still held to these standards, there are additional ethical concerns that online journalists have to take into account; however, many of these ethical concerns fit into the categories of the code.

New Concerns in Online Journalism

Anonymity

Online journalism gives people the chance to be anonymous, and not in a “Dear Abby” sort of way. Anonymity is a prominent facet of the internet. Today, someone can just create a name and start posting content–few would even know if that person isn’t who he or she says wrote the article. Some portals require identification, but it can be as easy as taking someone else’s photo, duping the program with a fake email, and turning off location services.

Anonymity takes away the risk of journalism and allows people to be honest and free with their thoughts; however, some worry it also creates an environment filled with irresponsibility and hurt. Even if online platforms take the extra steps to remove the anonymity of it all, comments and shares aren’t protected from “trolls” or those with ill will.

In addition, it makes many question the validity of online reporting from anonymous platforms. After all, it’s inherently not transparent. Whether or not anonymous journalists can truly be considered “journalists” is a hot topic for debate.

24-Hour News Cycle

The 24-hour news cycle that is possible because of online journalism is also one of the biggest things to cause concern in the online news market. Journalism ethics do require reporters to be accountable and seek to report truthfully, but that becomes more difficult when everything is moving so quickly. Reports, images, and opinions circulate the world faster than ever through Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, blogs, cell phones, and hashtag activism. This speed does not always promote quality, clarity, or accuracy. Instead, it is sometimes a gut reaction to the events at hand, leading to misunderstanding, and at times, fear. Major news sources like CNN often pick up rumors that are later found to be untrue, especially in situations where there is little other information. These reports can cause a “trickle down” effect where incorrect information gets reported once and then repeated, as recently seen in the Ferguson case.

Impartiality: Editors Wanted

When people write about things that they are very passionate about, which is often the case for online journalists, there is a tendency to not remain as impartial as one would wish. Online media sometimes encourages people to tell their opinion and back it up without ever posting the “flip side” of the argument. Many bloggers, in particular, take pride in this, seeing themselves as activists for particular causes or movements, rejecting neutrality; however, that doesn’t neatly fit into the ethical guidelines that require journalists to stay unbiased and truthful.

Of course there has always been an opinion sector in journalism. In fact, some even claim that we are seeing a return to the partisan journalism that colored the profession throughout the early 1900s. Some argue that the responsibility may just fall to the reader on this one: it’s important to search out people on both side of the argument.

Social Media + Reporting = Journalism?

News organizations often send their reporters “into the field” to use social media to pass on information to the general public, creating a brand and influencing traditional reports. Typically they use Twitter, but have been known to use Instagram and even Snapchat as well; however, the new world of online personas creates an ethical gray area.

Take, for example, a reporter who writes political think pieces. In her published articles, she remains impartial on the topic of Hillary Clinton’s presidential run; however, on her Twitter account, she follows @ReadyForHillary and constantly tweets about her desire for Clinton to run. Could these comments give a critic something to chew on regarding authenticity in reporting? In the past, the ability to figure out a writer’s political leanings was much harder because there was less information out there for public consumption.

The ethical challenge for news organizations that use online and offline reporting is to develop social media guidelines that allow reporters or staff members to explore the online media world while also having an online presence. That sometimes means requiring that journalists take on multiple personas, a private one and a public one, in the aims of keeping their public name neutral.

Image Ethics

Photojournalism has only boomed in popularity relatively recently since the start of the internet. Photos and videos now make it easier than ever to capture historical events; however, those same programs that allow us to snap photos and share them in just a few minutes also allow for those photos to be altered and manipulated in a relatively short amount of time. If there was no one else at the event, manipulating an image could manipulate a whole event. Take for instance the latest video of New Jersey Governor Chris Christie falling off of a chair. Said to be punishment for him supporting an opposing football team, the Philadelphia radio station added music and doctored the video, making Christie seem like a clown.

Can news sources trust the images that come from regular citizens? In the past it wasn’t as confusing, as pictures were more difficult to manipulate unless you had intense training. Now, most people know how to use at least some of the tools on Photoshop. According to the Center for Journalism Ethics: “Photojournalists often talk about how it is permitted to change the ‘technical’ aspects of a picture such as altering slightly the tone or color of a photo. But they draw the line at any further changes. Changing the meaning or content of the image so as to mislead viewers is considered unethical.”

Conclusion

In the end, we are left with a lot of questions and very few answers. The problem is that we are currently in the midst of a huge change in journalism. Ten years ago no one would have predicted the rise of websites like Instagram and Twitter because we just didn’t have that technology yet.

Until we have the answers for those questions, and the thousands more that stem from them, the answers of ethics for online journalism is left up to the individual–company, blog, person, or website. Soon enough, we will start to see a convergence on topics like anonymity and image use–it’s already happening. Colleges are slowly rolling out courses only on online journalism. The best we can do, for now, is work with integrity and professionalism and try to hold our news sources to those same standards.

While the principles of journalistic ethics still do hold true, new questions are popping up every day. Journalists do still have an obligation to seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable and transparent. The internet may make it more difficult to parse out how those ethics apply in every situation, but they remain the standards of professional journalism.

Resources

Primary

SPJ: Code of Ethics

Additional

MIT: Ethics in Photojournalism: Past, Present, Future

Boise Weekly: Ferguson Case Reveals Media Flaws

Atlantic: How is Social Media Changing Journalism

Huffington Post: Impartial Journalism’s Enduring Value

Huffington Post: Journalism in a New Era

State of Media: Newspapers by the Numbers

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics – Photojournalism

Center for Journalism Ethics: Online Journalism Ethics

Poynter: Online Journalism Ethics

SABEW: Online Journalism Poses Challenges, But Doesn’t Require New Ethical Guidelines 

Guardian: Authenticity Has Replaced Authority

Indiana University: Journalism Ethics Cases Online

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to the Center for Journalism Ethics. 

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 What New Ethical Concerns Affect Online Journalism? appeared first on Law Street.

It can be a very traumatic experience suffering from a personal injury, whether it be from a trip and fall, automobile accident, or otherwise. As someone who has suffered injuries, you want an attorney who will be on your side and fight for you. As in any profession, there are those professionals who are ethical, and those who might fall short of that. As a client, it is important to know what side of the spectrum your attorney falls on, in order to see whether you really are in the best hands.

Attorneys must abide by the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct. These model rules are meant to keep attorneys in check, and hold the profession to a high ethical standard. If they fail to abide by the rules they could run the risk of some sort of penalty, or in the worst-case scenario, disbarment. As a Personal Injury client, you should be aware of some of the basic model rules in order to determine if your attorney is really the best fit for you.

Rule 1.4 Communication

Under this rule, lawyers must promptly inform their clients of material developments in the matter including settlements or plea offers, reasonably consult with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are being accomplished, and keep the client reasonably informed about the status of the matter.

For you, this means that your attorney should be keeping you in the loop. Many times clients want to seek an update on their lawsuit and the attorney should be calling the client back promptly and updating them on a regular basis. Realistically, that is not to say that the attorney should be calling the client every day to report to them, since it is most likely that the attorney has other cases to work on as well. However, if the client feels that they haven’t been updated in a significant period of time, and have not had calls returned to them, they should consider taking their lawsuit elsewhere.

Rule 1.7 Conflict of Interest

Under this rule, a lawyer cannot represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. That is, if an attorney represents Client A and Client B, if the representation of either client will be directly adverse to the other client, then there is a conflict of interest.

If an injured client is in an automobile accident, and the attorney is representing both drivers of each respective car, that is absolutely a conflict of interest. Clients should be aware of this rule, as it might not be as obvious of a conflict, like the situation with the automobile accident. If the client feels that an attorney’s representation of another client is directly adverse to their case, they should bring it to the attorney’s attention.

Rule 4.2 Communication with Person Represented by Counsel

Under this rule, an attorney cannot communicate with an individual whom he knows to be represented by counsel, unless counsel gives permission or unless there is a court order.

As a client, if an attorney who is not the attorney representing your case tries to contact you, it is important to notify your attorney right away to see what is going on. The client should not give any information to other attorneys except their own, as those individuals probably do not have the best interests for you.

Although these are just three rules of many under the ABA Rules of Professional Conduct, a client should be aware that they deserve ethical representation by their attorney. Although it is ideal to think that all attorneys are ethical, the sad truth is that not all are.  As a client, if something doesn’t feel right about your representation, you should address it.

Melissa Klafter

Melissa Klafter has a JD from St. John’s University School of Law and plans to pursue a career in Personal Injury Law. You can find her binge-watching her favorite TV shows, rooting for the Wisconsin Badgers, and playing with her kitty, Phoebe. Contact Melissa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Your Attorney Ethical? appeared first on Law Street.

Conflicts of interest are a tough field for law firms and individual lawyers to navigate. In order to help with these tricky situations, the American Bar Association has created a set of guidelines to prevent conflicts of interest. But whether or not they’re effective and prudent is a constant topic of argument. Read on to learn about the ABA’s rules, and the arguments for and against them.

What is a conflict of interest?

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual or firm represents multiple clients whose goals or requests conflict with one another. For example, a conflict of interest would occur if a law firm represented both a company and an individual suing that company.

What are the ABA’s rules about conflict of interest?

The ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, Rule 1.7 states:

(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b), a lawyer shall not represent a client if the representation involves a concurrent conflict of interest. A concurrent conflict of interest exists if:

(1) the representation of one client will be directly adverse to another client; or

(2) there is a significant risk that the representation of one or more clients will be materially limited by the lawyer’s responsibilities to another client, a former client or a third person or by a personal interest of the lawyer.

(b) Notwithstanding the existence of a concurrent conflict of interest under paragraph (a), a lawyer may represent a client if:

(1) the lawyer reasonably believes that the lawyer will be able to provide competent and diligent representation to each affected client;

(2) the representation is not prohibited by law;

(3) the representation does not involve the assertion of a claim by one client against another client represented by the lawyer in the same litigation or other proceeding before a tribunal; and

(4) each affected client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing.

Simplified, this rule prohibits lawyers from representing the interests of anyone whose interests are directly against any of his or her current clients, or taking on any representation that creates a meaningful chance that representing the new client will significantly lower the lawyer’s ability to help the current client.

However, there are exceptions within this rule.  A lawyer can accept the representation if he reasonably believes that he can provide “competent and diligent” services to each affected client, the representation is not otherwise illegal, the lawyer isn’t representing two clients against each other in the same suit and each affected client gives informed, written consent.

Ideas about conflict of interest don’t just include a given lawyer’s particular firm, but also the relationships that they have with other lawyers, family members, and the like. In essence, any way that they can be influenced by conflicting parties can raise conflict of interest concerns.

What are the reasons to support these rules?

Proponents of the sufficiency of ABA conflict of interest rules base their arguments on the comments to Rule 1.7. Prohibiting the representation of directly adverse clients (even if the lawyer is representing them in unrelated cases) is proper for multiple reasons. The client against whom the adverse representation is undertaken may feel betrayed and that feeling of betrayal may interfere with the lawyer’s ability to effectively represent the client’s interests. Also, the client who is receiving the adverse representation may be concerned that the lawyer is not zealously performing the representation out of loyalty to the first client. The import of these fears is magnified if the lawyer is forced to cross-examine his client in an unrelated case. This can cause severe distrust and animosity between the lawyer and the client.

What are the reasons to disagree with the ABA rules?

Opponents of the sufficiency of ABA conflict rules argue that if the clients’ opposing interests are purely economic such as if a lawyer is representing two competing corporations in unrelated cases, then consent may not be required. This situation allows lawyers to represent corporations that are indirectly adverse against each other. Serving a corporate client’s interests that are indirectly adverse to another corporate client can still be harmful to the latter corporate client. This means that a lawyer can conceivably charge money to a client that she is indirectly harming.

Case Study: Covington & Burlington, LLP and 3M

A judge ruled in 2012 that Minnesota law firm Covington & Burlington LLP couldn’t represent the state in a suit against manufacturing conglomerate 3M because it had previously represented 3M itself. The suit involved chemicals used by 3M that were dumped into landfills in the area, and then caused health problems in approximately 60,000 residents. Despite the fact that Covington traditionally represented the state when it came to environmental issues, the judge ruled it a conflict of interest because Covington had previously represented 3M in arguments involving those exact same chemicals.

Conclusion

Conflicts of interest are difficult to navigate, even for the most professional lawyers. The ABA has attempted to create guidelines to avoid conflicts of interest. While the guidelines receive some negative feedback, they are in place for a reason and most likely will not be going away anytime soon.

Resources

Primary

ABA: Rule 1.7

ABA: Comment on Rule 1.7

ABA: How to Avoid Conflicts

Additional

JD Journal: Covington & Burling LLP Not Permitted to Represent Minnesota in 3M Case

JD Journal: Model Rules of Professional Conduct: Preamble & Scope

American Bar: Conflict-Checking Systems: Three Great (and Cheap) Ways to Effectively Manage Conflict Checking

American Bar: Client Rapport and Ethical Considerations

Tech Crunch: Judge Allows Quin Emanuel To Continue Representing Snapchat in Lawsuit

ABA Journal: Model rule change aims to help lawyers confronting conflicts issues involving multiple jurisdictions

ABA Journal: Model Rule Change Recognizes Need for Conflicts Checks Before Lawyers Move, Law Firms Merge

Elliot Schissel Law Blog: What Does the ABA’s adoption of New Conflicts Rules Mean for New York?

St. Louis University Law Journal: Using the Concept of ‘A Philosophy of Lawyering’ in Teaching Professional Responsibility

TLIE: ABA Approves Changes in Model Rules

ID Journal: O.J. Simpson Returns to Court

American Legal Ethics Library: End-of-Life Notice

Attorneys Advantage: Do You Represent Multiple Clients in the Same Matter?

Massachusetts: SIDEWAYS: Lateral Hires and Conflicts of Interest

John Gomis

John Gomis earned a Juris Doctor from Brooklyn Law School in June 2014 and lives in New York City. Contact John at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Conflict of Interest: The ABA’s Guidelines and What They Mean appeared first on Law Street.

The past few decades have seen an increase in negative childhood behavior such as bullying and school violence, causing many to feel that today’s youth do not subscribe to the same moral values and codes of conduct that previous generations have. Traditionally, education in morality and social conduct was primarily done in the home, and children learned from their parents, elders, and neighbors. School was a place merely for academic education, and children were expected to come prepared with a sense of right and wrong. However, there are many people today that feel that public schools are, at least in part, responsible for providing students with education in areas such as morality, ethics, and good citizenship.

Answering the call, numerous character education programs have been created by private organizations, state and local school boards, and corporations that have designed curricula, created lessons, and provide the tools necessary for schools to provide character education to their students. Read on to learn about these character education programs, their benefits and problems, and what they mean for the future of education.

What does character education consist of?

Character education usually consists of some sort of system of values or principles that help students develop their own moral priorities and ideologies.

Eighteen states currently mandate character education in public schools through legislation such as North Carolina’s Student Citizen Act of 2001, which requires local boards of education in the state to develop and implement a character education program in their schools. As the momentum for character education grows, it remains to be seen whether it will become an integral part of the American education system.

What are the arguments for character education?

Advocates of character education argue that these programs teach universal values that create more academically successful students and, in time, more socially productive citizens. Values such as respect, responsibility, integrity, perseverance, justice, courage, and self-discipline are commonly agreed to be desired characteristics in an individual, and character education programs target these core values and teach children to incorporate these values into their everyday lives. Teachers, parents, and students who have worked with character education argue that teaching these values in school produces students with higher academic performance, improved school attendance, reduced violence, fewer disciplinary issues, less substance abuse, and less vandalism.

Reports and polls have shown that around 90 percent of Americans support teaching values such as honesty, democracy, and acceptance in public schools. Additionally, many teachers argue that character education makes students easier to teach. More importantly, advocates argue that character education is necessary in a democratic society to create good, moral citizens. In a society in which the people have power in the political sphere, many argue that it is imperative to have a citizenry with a strong sense of morality and its role in society. Therefore, character education is entirely required to transform the youth of today into the citizenry of tomorrow.

Lastly, many character education programs are reactionary tools used to combat an increase in bullying and school violence. Advocates argue that by teaching universal values, schools can help create a stronger sense of community and a safer learning environment for students.

What are the arguments against character education?

While character education has its advocates, many argue that it presents children with a negative view of humanity and is often used more as a tool for control or political sway than for the nurturing of caring, thoughtful students. Opponents point to a commonality that most character education programs share called the “fix the kids” orientation, which attempts to teach children morality on the basis that all people are inherently bad in nature and must be taught how to live among one another. Many experts argue that this negative view of humanity is harmful to children’s conception of morality and ethics, and that instead these programs should encourage students to reflect upon what causes people to make bad decisions, and how they themselves could make a better decision in that same situation.

Similarly, many of these programs are conducted through the use of extrinsic rewards such as candy or a pizza party for good behavior, which experts say teaches students to do what they are told simply for a reward, and not to behave morally because it is the right thing to do. In addition to criticizing the methods by which character education programs work, many opponents also criticize their underlying foundations and purpose. While these programs teach “universal values,” opponents point out that there is still bias upon deciding just which universal values to teach to children.

Many argue that these programs have political undercurrents, often teaching children traditional, conservative values that lean toward the political right. In the end, opponents say, these programs are designed to create malleable, robotic students who do not question authority and will grow up to become benign citizens uninterested in questioning or changing the current power structures. These findings were corroborated in a 2010 study conducted by The Institute of Education Sciences that found the benefits of character education to be negligible. In a study of 84 school districts around the country, researchers found that there was no difference in academic improvement between schools with character education programs and those without. Opponents argue that this federal report provides statistical evidence to their claims that character education is used merely as a form of crowd control and does not make students inherently more moral. Instead, many would prefer to implement programs that promote thoughtful reflection on social issues and inter-personal communication in order to teach students concepts such as empathy, critical thinking, and understanding.

Conclusion

It’s important that we teach our children to be responsible and good citizens, but for a long time we’ve been questioning how exactly to do that. Some people argue that it’s a matter best taken on by parents and communities, while others think that schools can play an important role. Don’t be surprised if character education shows up on your child’s curriculum soon.

Resources

Primary

U.S Department of Education: Efficacy of Schoolwide Programs to Promote Social and Character Development and Reduce Problem Behavior in Elementary School Children

Additional

NC Public Schools: Character Education

Atlantic: The Benefits of Character Education

National Character Education Center: Character Education Should Be Taught

The Genius in Children: Should Schools Teach Values or is That the Parents’ Responsibility?

Alfie Kohn: How Not to Teach Values: A Critical Look at Character Education

Education Week: Character Education Found to Fall Short in a Federal Study

Boston Review: Whose Character? Why Character Education is Inherently Flawed

Patriotism For All: The Problem With Character Education

The New York Times: Should Character Be Taught? Students Weigh In

Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development: A Common Goal

Red Orbit: Character Education in America’s Public Schools

Education Week: Should We Teach “Character” In Schools? If So, How?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Character Education on the Public School Agenda appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As most of you know, I hail from the great state of Texas! I wasn’t born here but my parents made sure I got here as fast as possible. I’ve been here long enough to experience both governors George W. Bush and Rick Perry, two men I have a great amount of respect for.

I was flabbergasted the moment I read that Governor Rick Perry is being indicted for alleged abuse of power in a veto dispute. First, I must have been hiding under a rock for a few weeks because I had no idea that they were even considering indicting Governor Perry. But let’s be really honest, someone is always trying to sue or indict a lawmaker, even the President. We do live in a world of frivolous lawsuits so I really shouldn’t be surprised.

Let’s jump in to the most ridiculous of the ridiculous: The person who made the decision to convene a grand jury to indict Governor Perry is Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg. The same woman who was arrested for drunk driving. No one is above the law, but she clearly thought she was. The cops even had to put a spit guard on her and strap her to a chair. What does that say about her decisionmaking skills? I find her almost as laughable as the crack-smoking Toronto Mayor.

To make things even worse, after Lehmberg plead guilty to drunk driving, she refused to leave her position as District Attorney. How shocking, one poor choice on top of another. It puts the whole Perry indictment into question. Actually, for me it makes me question her whole career. Forget her political affiliation, consider the decisions she has made and think, how that one decision ruined her life, and think about how many other decisions that she has made that have had the same impact on others. You have to question her ability to reason — or at least I do.

An indictment would kill a presidential bid for most political careers of this magnitude, but it seems to be making Perry’s stronger. So many people have come out in support of him it is like a blessing of endorsements for the future run.

Part of what Perry is being indicted for is “misusing government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant’s custody or possession by virtue of the public servant’s office or employment.” Perry threatened to veto funding for the state’s public integrity unit last summer. This veto threat is more specifically about $7.5 million in funding for the state’s public integrity unit, the ethics watchdog unit housed under Travis County District Attorney Rosemary Lehmberg’s office.

I think that this whole thing is a game of cat and mouse. It also seems to me that today’s government officials are more stubborn and selfish than ever. What about that is good for the people? Rosemary Lehmberg is a joke and has turned the Travis County District Office into a joke as well. Governor Perry may not be perfect but at least he knows how to conduct himself in a manner that doesn’t lead to a spit mask, being arrested, putting people’s lives at risk, and being strapped to a chair.

Fellow Law Streeter Anneliese Mahoney wrote a really great piece about the Rick Perry indictment with a bit different point of view that you should check out!

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Rick Perry Indictment is a Joke appeared first on Law Street.

Many prisons use solitary confinement as a mechanism to control their prison populations and minimize the threat of danger to other inmates and prison staff. Yet extreme isolation is an unnatural punishment and can cause severe psychological, or sometimes even physical, damage. The effectiveness and methods of solitary confinement has been debated since its modern day inception as a form of punishment in the 1800s, yet it was not until recent years that states began to question the constitutionality of the matter. As convicts, prisoners have little sympathy from the general population; yet there are arguments for the release of prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement for indefinite amounts of time and for non-violent reasons. The argument in favor of regulating or eliminating the age old method is that these people are being placed under “cruel and unusual” circumstances, and are being released back into society in an even worse condition than before they were incarcerated. As of 2013, the United States holds roughly 2.3 million inmates in federal, state, and local jails, 80,000 of which are in solitary confinement.

What is Solitary Confinement?

There are two main types of solitary confinement that are primarily used in the United States. Disciplinary solitary confinement is used to punish an inmate for a violation of minor jail rules or protocol; administrative solitary confinement is used to isolate dangerous prisoners from the rest of the prison population and staff. Often prisoners who are placed in the latter group will remain in Supermax cells for months to years, sometimes for an undetermined length of time.

Typically solitary confinement is reserved for the most threatening and aggressive inmates, so the conditions are not cozy. Cells are typically “80 feet [10 by 8 feet], not much larger than a king-size bed,”  and sometimes even smaller; they do not have any windows and the floors are hard concrete. The door is typically heavy metal and locks with massive bolts.  Prisoners are isolated for 23 hours out of the day, and receive one hour of heavily monitored recreational activity in another slightly larger cell. Meals are slid through a small space in the door so prisoners remain completely isolated even during meal times.The cell is left bare, so prisoners often resort to habitual pacing and sometimes create routines to mimic life outside of prison. Prisoners may receive an early release from the designated amount of time if they practice “good behavior” and attend classes to improve themselves.

 History of Solitary Confinement

Solitary Confinement is thought to have started in a Philadelphia jail in the 1800s. The Quakers felt that by placing criminals in isolation they would have time to read the Bible and repent for their sins. The original idea behind solitary confinement was to reform inmates, as opposed to violently punishing them.

The Invention of Solitary Confinement — The Eastern State Penitentiary:

Another early prison that used a form of solitary confinement was the New York jail, Auburn. There, the “Auburn System,” a method of punishment in which prisoners were required to do manual labor all day in silence before being sent off to solitary confinement for the remainder of the night, was developed. This system gained popularity in prisons across the country. During this time, Auburn and other prisons also used forms of torture as a punishment. One popular method was the “shower bath.” This consisted of placing a prisoner under a constant flow of an excessive and painful amount of water. The flood would beat them over the head, getting into their eyes and mouths, nearly drowning them. Sometimes the shock would cause prisoners to fall dead moments later.

Psychological Effects and Ethics

It is hard to think of people who have committed heinous crimes as actual people, yet putting them under such harsh conditions can be embarrassing, alarming, and disgusting. Many times inmates display suicidal tendencies and harm themselves with makeshift weapons. Others resort to odd and erratic behaviors such as rubbing feces on themselves, pacing mindlessly, or cutting themselves. If solitary confinement is supposed to teach a lesson, it may be counterintuitive to its original purpose. Prisoners who are placed in solitary confinement will experience several psychological and physical effects of being in isolation for an extended period of time. According to Frontiers in Psychology, “One’s own existence is something that one experiences in the kinds of pragmatic projects that one shares with others.” When deprived of the basic human need of socialization for long enough, people begin to display mentally unstable and even insane behaviors.

Prisoners in solitary confinement may begin experiencing:

Visual and auditory hallucinations

Hypersensitivity to noise and touch

Insomnia and paranoia

Uncontrollable feelings of rage and fear

Distortions of time and perception

Increased risk of suicide

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

The development of crippling obsessions

When prisoners do not experience any interactions with other people they begin to lose a sense of reality. Their internal thoughts become a blur with the external world, which they have ceased to experience. Not only is this inhumane, but it also defeats the purpose of punishing the guilty. Integrating the prisoner back into society becomes more challenging, and they become a product of isolation. This is not only detrimental to the individual, but also society.

According to International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, in 1890 the United States Supreme Court  began to note the inhumane and damaging effects that solitary confinement has on the prisoners:

“A considerable number of prisoners […] became violently insane;  other still, committed suicide, while those who stood the ordeal better were not generally reformed and in most cases did not recover sufficient mental activity to be any subsequent service to the community.”

ABCNews personality Dan Harris voluntarily spends 48 hours in solitary confinement:

Prisoners’ Rights

The Eighth Amendment includes the cruel and unusual punishment clause and serves as the basis for civil rights advocates’ arguments against the use of solitary confinement in American prisons. The fact that prisoners have little to no human contact, let alone see daylight for months to years, could be considered cruel and unusual. The argument that solitary confinement violates a prisoner’s constitutional rights prevails as the center controversy for advocates and courts. While incarcerated, prisoners are provided with medical and mental services, although whether they are adequate or not is debatable, and many cases regarding health care and general prison conditions have been brought to the forefront within the last 20 years.

To view the document outlining prisoner’s medical, dental, and mental health rights click here.

Case Study: Pelican State Bay Prison  (Ashker v. Brown)

The case Ashker v. Brown was sparked by a  2011 hunger strike led by prisoners at Pelican State Bay Prison in Crescent City, California. The strike drew attention to the unpalatable conditions that prisoners in solitary confinement experience. In an extended effort in May 2012, the  Center for Constitutional Rights filed a lawsuit against Pelican State Bay Prison for allegedly violating the Eighth Amendment as well as the Due Process Clause in the Fourteenth Amendment.  Many prisons lack adequate medical care, and prisoners are denied an in-depth review of their cases before being placed in solitary confinement.

Case Study: Nicole Guerrero v. Wichita County

Pregnant inmate Nicole Guerrero was placed in solitary confinement in a Texas jail in 2012. While in ‘the hole’ she began to experience excruciating pain and intense cramps due to labor. The medical staff at the prison reportedly ignored her for hours. She was forced to give birth alone, and when the prison medical staff finally came to the scene the baby was dead due to the umbilical cord being wrapped around its neck. This case supports the argument noting the lack of medical attention prisoners in solitary confinement receive, and brings states closer to regulating the controversial practice.

Peoples v. Fischer

In June 2012, the New York City Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit on behalf of prisoner Leroy Peoples. Peoples spent three years in solitary confinement for filing false legal documents. Violating any of the codes that the prison regards as against protocol has the potential to send a prisoner into solitary. According to the Civil Liberty Union, “only 16 percent of isolation sentences from 2007 to 2011 were for assault or weapons.” Solitary confinement served the original purpose of protecting staff and other inmates from potentially dangerous prisoners; now prison systems are abusing the extreme form of punishment, and overusing solitary confinement for reasons other than violence. Another issue that the NYCLU addresses is the fact that solitary confinement is used as a source of punishment for juveniles, pregnant inmates, and the mentally ill. The Union argues that this is inhumane and more permanently damaging to these more vulnerable groups of inmates. Currently, the outcome of the case is in reconsideration, and “if the process fails, the NYCLU will resume litigation.”

Click here to see the Institutional Laws of Conduct.

Innovation in the Prison System

Recently Colorado signed into legislation a law that bans prisons from placing mentally ill inmates in long-term solitary confinement. According to the Wall Street Journal, “Maine and New Mexico have taken steps to reduce their use of solitary confinement, and Nevada and Texas are studying the issue.” Similarly in a document, New York has decided to “remove  youth, pregnant inmates and developmentally disabled and intellectually from extreme isolation.”

Click here to see New York’s agreement to reform solitary confinement in the prison system.

Some opponents of the practice suggest alternative methods; instead of placing inmates in solitary confinement,  they could be sent to a mental-health care unit within prison where the individual can be treated instead of punished. Of course, this idea receives strong opposition, yet New York has decided to enact a version of it.

Resources

Journal of Constitutional Law: Prolonged Solitary Confinement and the Constitution

NYCLU: Peoples v. Fischer

Correctional Association of New York: Shining Our Spotlight on Auburn Correctional Facility

CNN: Solitary Confinement: 29 Years in a Box

PBS: Solitary Confinement and the U.S. Prison System

Pennsylvania Prison Society: Violence in the Supermax: A Self-Fulfilling Prophecy

Washington Post: Va. Prisons’ Use of Solitary Confinement is Scrutinized

The New York Times: New York State in Deal to Limit Solitary Confinement

Center for Constitutional Rights: Ashker v. Brown

NYCLU: Lawsuit Secures Historic Reforms to Solitary Confinement

CNN: Texas Wom Claims She Gave Birth Alone in Jail, Baby Died

Wall Street Journal: Colorado Becomes Latest to Back Ban on Solitary Confinement of Mentally Ill

—

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Evolution of Solitary Confinement in the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Judges are supposed to be the good guys, the gatekeepers of justice, and the people that we turn to make sure that justice is served. But sometimes judges deserve some judgment themselves. They act inappropriately and do really stupid stuff. So here are the top nine biggest WTF things judges have done in recent years.

[wooslider autoslide=”false” smoothheight=”true” slide_page=”disorder-in-the-court-nine-times-judges-acted-innappropriately” slider_type=”slides” limit=”10″ thumbnails=”default” order=”ASC” order_by=”menu”]
—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Andy Pixel via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Top WTF Moments By Judges appeared first on Law Street.

Shame on me. I only just stumbled upon the paper published in the Journal of Legal Education by University of Michigan law professor Sherman J. Clark last month, arguing that one of the perks of law school is that it helps each student “to thrive, to live a full and satisfying and meaningful life.” Through the Socratic method of lecturing, by training students to look at legal issues from the viewpoints of both parties in each case, by forcing them to confront the reality of uncertainty in both legal doctrines and empirical knowledge, and by teaching students certain ethics, law school helps students “explore the range of possible ways in which one might find meaning in or give meaning to life.”

I agree with Professor Sherman’s basic point, but I would have made the case for it rather differently. An otherwise well-written piece is riddled with highfalutin’, mealymouthed abstractions like, “Thinking well about what people care about and what things mean to them calls upon us to imagine more broadly what might matter and what it is possible for things to mean.” Upon closer inspection, these passages actually do seem to mean something, but they’ll probably strike the average prospective law school student as pretentious gobbledygook.

Nonetheless, I do find that my legal education comes in handy, and not only in, say, knowing my constitutional rights in case I get hassled by the police or knowing that oral contracts are legally binding, too. Mind you, I actually learned that last tidbit on TV when I was a child:

I think that doctrinal and practical legal knowledge proves useful in philosophical contexts, such as in discussions about what is the morally right thing to do in a particular situation. Certainly, the ability to navigate these often treacherous waters — the better to inform one’s ethical choices— is a skill that can help people to live life more meaningfully.

For example, among the basic doctrines that all first-year law students learn are the four elements of a negligence tort. In order to sue someone who’s harmed you through careless behavior, you, the plaintiff, have to prove that the defendant had a “duty of care” — i.e. that the defendant was legally required to take steps to avoid harming others. You also have to prove that the defendant breached that legal duty; that you suffered some form of harm that the law can correct; and that the defendant’s carelessness caused that harm. In later conversations and arguments with my fellow politics and philosophy geeks, the knowledge of those elements has served me in good stead. It’s a very philosophically sound way for the legal system to provide redress for people’s private grievances against each other.

Consider, for example, the duty of care requirement. It makes sense for the courts to require a plaintiff to establish that the defendant had such a responsibility before even proceeding with the lawsuit. Not every situation in life in which your behavior could affect others adversely should require you to spend resources guarding against such harm. Some situations in which people can get hurt are unforeseeable to everyone involved; sometimes it’s not within the alleged wrongdoer’s power to prevent them; sometimes the wrongdoer’s carelessness was only one factor that helped do the damage. The breach of duty criterion makes sense, too; if you’ve done everything the law requires you to do to avoiding hurting anyone, and someone gets hurt anyway, you arguably shouldn’t be liable. Similarly, if you’ve breached your duty of care, but there was miraculously no harm done, or if some harm occurred, but it isn’t clear that your carelessness actually made it happen, then the government shouldn’t force you to compensate the defendant.

The same can be said for the doctrine of “consideration,” which helps determine whether a contract will hold up in court. It basically means that courts can generally enforce agreements that involve some exchange of favors or benefits. Each party to the deal has to give up something of value to the other(s), be it money, products, services or what have you, or the court may not provide satisfaction in the event that one party doesn’t hold up his/her end. This general rule makes sense in light of nineteenth-century English philosopher John Stuart Mill’s “harm principle,” which essentially holds that the government should only restrict personal freedom when it’s necessary to prevent individuals from harming others. In the contractual context, if I make a deal with you that doesn’t require me to sacrifice anything to you in order for you to fulfill your obligations, you probably won’t make me any worse off if you break the agreement. In that case, the government has no business forcing you to pay me back.

These underpinnings of legal doctrines can be helpful in larger philosophical exchanges. In arguments over when government intervention can and cannot be justified, I often refer to certain aspects of tort law to bolster my position that Mill’s harm principle, as I understand it, is a better general rule than the more dogmatically libertarian non-aggression principle. Aggression, as I understand it, involves inflicting harm on others on purpose, whereas negligence entails mere carelessness rather than intentional harm. Yet people can do a world of damage to each other without going out of their way in order to do it. In my view, government has a role to play in trying to prevent negligent as well as deliberate harm.

It’s not only legal rules and doctrines that can serve useful purposes outside of a purely legal context. The nitty-gritty realities of legal practice offer their own useful insights to non-lawyers. My 1L Civil Procedure professor had the whole class read the novel A Civil Action, about a 1980s toxic tort lawsuit in Massachusetts gone tragically awry. One point that the novel drove home for me was the fact that personal-injury lawyers like the protagonist in the book are not charity workers. They’re profit-seeking businesspeople who earn their bread and butter by suing defendants with deep pockets, ones who can actually afford to cough up large sums of money in damages. This issue came up in a recent Facebook discussion, when I threw cold water on an intriguing proposal to abolish criminal law and leave the righting of interpersonal wrongs to civil courts. I pointed out that many heinous acts are perpetrated by low-income people whom ambulance chasers are not exactly in a hurry to sue. And anyway, what restitution could even willing lawyers hope to extract from poor defendants?

Of course, it’s no secret that legal knowledge and training can be helpful in any number of obvious public policy-related ways; Professor Sherman seems to have had a different set of advantages in mind. Nonetheless, although lawyers aren’t exactly known to the general public for being great philosophers, legal education does teach certain ways of thinking that should be appealing to anyone seeking to live a rational as well as a moral life.

Featured image courtesy of [Pedro Szekely via Flickr]

Akil Alleyne

Akil Alleyne, a native of Montreal, is a graduate of Princeton University and the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. His major areas of study are constitutional and international law, with focus on federalism, foreign policy, separation of powers and property rights. Akil is also a member of Young Voices Advocates, which connects students and young professionals with media outlets worldwide to facilitate youth participation in political and social discourse. Contact Akil at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Law School and the Unexamined Life appeared first on Law Street.