People in Oregon who are arrested while in the possession of small amounts of drugs will no longer face felony charges. Oregon Governor Kate Brown signed HB 2355 into law on Tuesday, reducing the classification of possession of certain quantities of drugs from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Individuals convicted of the misdemeanor now face up to one year in prison. Prior to this move, those same individuals faced up to five years in prison for possession of any amount of cocaine and methamphetamine, and up to 10 years for heroin and MDMA, according to the Huffington Post.

Per the new law, individuals may be charged with a misdemeanor if they are found to be in the possession of less than two grams of cocaine or methamphetamine, less than one gram of heroin, less than 40 pills of oxycodone, less than one gram or five pills of MDMA (also known as ecstasy), or less than 40 units of LSD. Individuals possessing larger amounts of those drugs can still face felony charges.

The law also contains a provision to combat profiling of people “based solely on the individual’s real or perceived age, race, ethnicity, color, national origin, language, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religion, homelessness or disability.”

In 2014, California became the first state to defelonize minor drug crimes after voters approved Proposition 47. The ballot measure also included the reclassification of other felonies such as certain theft and fraud charges as misdemeanors.

In recent years, the U.S. federal government has begun to rethink sentences for some drug-related crimes. CBS reported in 2016 that more than 26,000 federal drug offenders had received shortened prison terms as a result of sentencing guidelines changes that the U.S. Sentencing Commission approved in 2014. The reevaluation of drug penalties is not just occurring in the U.S., but has become a global effort. Countries are working to lessen the power of organized crime and promote rehabilitative treatments for drug users.

Changes to federal drug policies in the U.S. may be slow to progress under Attorney General Jeff Sessions. But states like Oregon could play a significant role in ending the “war on drugs” through drug defelonization and rehabilitating drug users rather than imposing harsh penalties on them.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Possession of Small Amount of Drugs No Longer a Felony Offense in Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

Some convicts in California who have been charged with marijuana-related felonies are seeing their fortunes change with the state’s passage of Prop 64 last November. According to partial state data, since the ballot measure passed legalizing recreational marijuana in California, thousands of people charged with felonies for marijuana-related crimes filed requests to reduce their sentences from a felony to a misdemeanor.

Many have been granted a sentence reduction–and some first-time offenders have seen their records expunged.

California voters overwhelmingly backed Prop 64 in the November election, with 57 percent, or nearly eight million people, supporting it. While its main purpose was to legalize recreational marijuana in California, the first state to legalize medical marijuana in 1996, Prop 64 contained an equally impactful clause for people who had been charged with marijuana-related felonies under the previous sentencing laws.

Prop 64, according to the measure’s language, “authorizes resentencing and destruction of records for prior marijuana convictions.” People have been taking advantage of that overlooked part of the measure. Through March, 2,500 requests were filed to reduce sentences from felony charges to misdemeanors, according to the partial state data.

Bruce Margolin, an attorney that has worked with a number of people seeking to reduce their marijuana-related charges, told an NBC affiliate in Los Angeles that judges and prosecutors “were totally unprepared” for the flood of reduction requests since Prop 64 passed. “It’s amazing,” he added. “You would have thought they should have had seminars to get them up to speed so we don’t have to go through the process of arguing things that are obvious, but we’re still getting that.”

Prop 64 is not the only ballot measure in California that allows nonviolent offenders with marijuana-related felony charges to seek a reduced–or completely expunged–sentence.

In November 2014, California passed Prop 47, which “allows people who are already serving a felony conviction for [a marijuana crime] to petition in the court for resentencing.” For convicts who have already completed their sentence, Prop 47 permitted them “to file an application before the trial court to have the felony conviction reduced to a misdemeanor.”

San Diego County is leading the charge in reducing marijuana-related sentences, according to Rachel Solov, who works in the district attorney’s office in San Diego. She told NBC that 400 people in San Diego have already had their sentences reduced, which she said is “the right thing to do.” Solov added: “If someone’s in custody and they shouldn’t be in custody anymore, we have an obligation to address that.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California’s Prop 64 Will Reduce Sentences for Some Nonviolent Offenders appeared first on Law Street.

The two anti-abortion activists who secretly filmed conversations with staff members and doctors from Planned Parenthood are now facing felony charges in California. David Daleiden and Sandra Merritt recorded their conversations with various people associated with the organization in 2014 and 2015, using a hidden camera, to expose what they claimed to be a plot by Planned Parenthood to sell fetal material.

Now California Attorney General Xavier Becerra has announced that the two activists violated state law by filming people without their consent. Daleiden expectedly called the charges “bogus” and “fake news” in a statement on his organization’s website, the Center for Medical Progress. But his theory that Planned Parenthood is “harvesting” and selling fetal tissue for profit has been debunked in more than a dozen states where investigations have been conducted.

Back in 2015, Daleiden and Merritt tried to prove that Planned Parenthood was committing a crime by selling fetal tissue. But representatives from the organization said that the videos were heavily edited and taken out of context. Also, the organization only donates tissue for scientific research–always with the patients’ full consent–and gets reimbursements for expenses.

#PlannedParenthood

Anti-abortion propagandist filmmakers @daviddaleiden, Sandra Merritt charged with 15 felonieshttps://t.co/DLFiG5CH0Q pic.twitter.com/MpRniSu7dq

— WarOnWomen (@WarAgainstWomen) March 29, 2017

A Texas grand jury found that Planned Parenthood had done nothing wrong, but found that Daleiden and Merritt used fake drivers licenses to gain access to a Planned Parenthood meeting. Daleiden was also charged with a misdemeanor for trying to buy human tissue, which is ironic since that was the crime he was trying to accuse Planned Parenthood of. Those charges were dismissed. But the California felony charges are related to the secret filming and total 15 each–one count per person they secretly filmed, and one count of conspiracy.

And there’s more bad news for the two–on Wednesday, a federal appeals court blocked the release of more videos by their group. Daleiden called that decision an attack on the First Amendment. “CMP will continue to fight this unconstitutional abuse of power and vindicate our First Amendment rights and those of all citizen journalists to speak and publish on matters of urgent public concern,” Daleiden said.

But the National Abortion Federation said that the release of the videos would put its members at risk, which is not far-fetched to think. Last January, Planned Parenthood sued the Center for Medical Progress, claiming that the release of the heavily edited and misleading videos caused a dangerous environment for its employees. Many Planned Parenthood employees have received threats, and in 2015 there was a shooting at a Planned Parenthood clinic in Colorado that left three people dead.

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 Anti-Abortion Activists Who Secretly Filmed Planned Parenthood Charged with Felonies appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Yet again I have to question what is wrong with the female teachers in this country. Back in January, two teachers were arrested for allegedly having a beach sex party with five male students in California. Yesterday these two sick, sad teachers were hit with new charges. Melody Lippert, 38, and Michelle Ghirelli, 30, are both charged with a felony count of unlawful sexual intercourse and a felony count of giving a controlled substance to a minor. Ghirelli has also been charged with a felony count of oral copulation of a minor.

According to Ghirelli’s attorney, Stephen DeSales:

We intend to plead not guilty and intend to vigorously defend this case. What you will get from the district attorney is what they think they can prove. There’s two sides to every story.

I’m sorry, how is there a second side to this story that would make sense? These two women had sex with young boys at a beach and supplied the booze and drugs to go along with it.

I’m a few months shy of 30 and the idea of sex with a teenager is just repulsive, not to mention wrong. How do teachers and administrators at schools expect parents to feel comfortable sending their kids there when there is the possibility that their child is being preyed upon by the very people who are supposed to be protecting and teaching them?

I hope these women are convicted swiftly and thrown in jail. Registered sex offenders immediately!

I’m so disgusted by the number of female school teachers who have been arrested and convicted of sexual encounters of some kind with their students. It is unreal. I used to always suspect male teachers more than anyone, wrong I know but true. Nowadays you can’t go a month without hearing about some female teacher having some kind of sexual encounter with a student. Something is fundamentally wrong with these women and clearly the punishment is not strict enough to deter any of them from doing what they are doing. Perhaps the laws need to be revisited and a harsher punishment should be considered. These women are predators. These women are pedophiles. Desperate, pathetic disgusting pedophiles.

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 Felony Charges For Teachers Involved in Cocaine & Sex Trip appeared first on Law Street.

Just a few short months ago there were some very serious rape allegations being thrown around based on a Rolling Stone article about a student at the University of Virginia. It was a very traumatic account of a young woman being raped by several young men at a frat party, and that she didn’t report it until telling the story to a Rolling Stone writer several years later. When the administrators at UVA found out about these allegations they shut down the greek community and launched a full investigation only to discover that the story was falsified. Aside from the false accusation, UVA’s response seemed to be a little too late–only after this story got massive amounts of media attention did the school attempt to do anything.

That is not the case in regard to a student at Stanford University. Every news report I have seen calls this accused rapist a “former student,” but that status came about after the school found out about what he had done. Brock Allen Turner was charged with five felony counts of suspicion of attempted rape and penetration with a foreign object.

According to prosecutors, the attack occurred on January 18 when two young men riding their bikes on campus came across the scene of the crime. Turner was seen on top of an unconscious young woman; when confronted by the bikers he tried to run away, but luckily these guys were able to catch him and hold him until the police arrived.

A spokeswoman for Stanford University, Lisa Lapin, stated that Turner voluntarily withdrew from the university and is never allowed to re-enroll. I have a feeling that the school gave him an option and he took it, maybe to save face especially since he pleaded not guilty to the charges just yesterday morning.

Stanford did the right thing by shutting down what could have been a massively negative mark against the school. The best part in my opinion? The school had a resolution before the news even broke and was able to release a statement to news outlets immediately, letting people know that it knew what was going on and already had a resolution from an academic standpoint. Universities everywhere, take note!

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 Stanford Sets the Standard for How Colleges Should Handle Campus Rape appeared first on Law Street.

Our nation has adopted a new habit of charging parents with felonies for teaching their children independence. From Florida to South Carolina to Ohio to Tennessee, parents of elementary age children are being carted off to jail for allowing their children to play in parks by themselves. There is no federal legislation that designates what age is too young to leave children unsupervised. Most states merely adhere to the guideline that leaving a child unattended in imminent danger is a criminal offense. But it’s absolutely ludicrous to charge parents, who sometimes have no other options, with child abuse or maltreatment for merely allowing their children to experience the world on their own.

If this were the trend 10 years ago, both my parents would have landed themselves a nice cozy cot in our local jailhouse. And 50 years ago, their parents would have been sentenced to life. We all played by ourselves in local parks and pools, rode our bikes through the streets freely, and walked around town with our friends. No one thought this was strange or dangerous, it was simply the norm. But now parents must question when it is and is not appropriate to let their children play and roam independently, for fear of felony charges. Let’s look at a few of the recent cases.

In Florida, Nicole Gainey was arrested for allowing her 7-year-old son to walk to the park–cellphone in hand–to play by himself. She was charged with a felony for child neglect and arrested on a $3,750 bond. In South Carolina, Debra Harrell was charged with unlawful conduct toward a child because she let her 9-year-old daughter play at a park while she worked. The felony Harrell was charged with is punishable by up to 10 years in jail, and she lost her job at McDonalds after this incident. In Ohio, Jefferey Williamson was arrested for child endangerment after his 8-year-old son skipped church to take a solo walk to the dollar store half a mile away from his home. In Tennessee, April Lawson spent the night in jail for letting her 5-year-old and 8-year-old play at an elementary park a block and a half away from her home. Lawson now faces felony charges for child abuse and neglect.

Child Self-Care Trends

It’s important to understand the different situations that parents face. Some parents have to make the decision between putting food on the table for their children and letting them play in the park alone. Not everyone seems to understand the difficulties many low-income, single parents face in providing care for their children. Child care arrangements depend on each family’s unique circumstance. US News broke down a 2011 Census report on child care arrangement statistics:

In general, the percentage of school-age children in self-care has ticked down during the last 10 or so years, but when those numbers are broken down by a family’s marital status, employment and parental presence, that decline is less consistent.

There’s a misconception that children face more danger today than they did in the past. However, Mark O’Mara, a family law attorney, wrote that today’s crime rates are much lower than they were during his childhood in the ‘60s. Additionally, people’s reactions are much different today than they were back then. Instead of delivering the child safely home, bystanders are calling police and child services to have the parents arrested. This often has a more harmful effect on children than safely returning them to their families.

Impact of Parental Arrests on Children

Some families are probably better off letting their children play alone. Unless these children are in the heart of a dangerous city where it’s plausible that they will be abducted or harmed, busybodies should mind their own business. If they are not actually in harm’s way, why cause them pain and grief? Many people don’t realize the effect experiencing a parent’s arrest can have on a child. According to Family to Family California, parental arrest and separation from a parent are traumatic events for children.

Furthermore, separation can cause children to feel angry, rejected, or depressed. After separation from their parents, children may perform worse in school, experience developmental delays, and lack adequate social skills. The report goes on to explain the detrimental effects trauma has on children, including their increased likeliness to become substance abusers or end up in prison.

Time for Helicopter Parents to Fly Away

In all of the above cases, the children were not in any serious danger. They were only victims to busybody helicopter parents who lacked better things to do. In the case of Harrell, one by-standing mother made the following comments about Harrell’s situation:

I understand the mom may have been in a difficult situation, not having someone to watch the child, but at the same time, you’ve got to find somebody.

It’s not always that simple. O’Mara pointed out that many parents in these situations cannot afford childcare, therefore we as a society are “criminalizing poverty.” The media isn’t helping the situation either. Cases from low-income neighborhoods that are thought to be less safe are emphasized in the media. This only furthers the public’s distrust of their fellow Americans, making parents hover.

I’m not saying parents should start letting their 5-year-olds roam the streets of New York City alone, but I think those helicopter parents need to relax a bit. Loosen up the reins. Helicopter parenting is not beneficial to anyone–the children often lack independence and have a harder time adjusting to life on their own and parents miss their individuality and freedom. Furthermore, when helicopter parents take this madness as far as imposing these ideals on other families, they only hurt those families. Parents get thrown in jail, children lose their homes and families become burdened with legal bills they probably can’t afford.

My parents’ generation roamed freely and played without 24/7 parental supervision, and they were able to survive and succeed. Helicopter parents, get the message: you’re not helping anyone, except for possibly your own ego.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Guian Bolisay via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Unsupervised Children: Independent or Against the Law? appeared first on Law Street.

Army dismissal, felony conviction, homelessness, law degree? While certainly unconventional, that is the path that Desmond Meade took to obtain his law degree from Florida International University. After graduating high school in 1985, Meade pursued a career in the United States Army, which ended after he was caught stealing liquor while stationed in Hawaii. He returned to Miami, and was convicted of several drug charges as a result of living the fast-paced life of a celebrity bodyguard. In 1995, his mother passed away and shortly after, his family home was foreclosed. In 2001, Meade was sentenced and served 15 years in prison for possession of a firearm as a felon. After his early release, he found himself homeless on the streets of Miami. According to Mead in an interview The Miami Times, “when you’re homeless, there’s a harsh emotional aspect, no one really cared one way or another if you lived or if you died.” It was at this point that he realized that he needed to do something drastic to make positive changes in his life.

Meade turned his life around and completed the Chapman Partnership drug treatment program, a program specifically designed to help the homeless through their recovery. After he successfully completed the program, he graduated summa cum laude in paralegal studies from Miami-Dade Community College’s North Campus in 2010. He then took the next step, and enrolled in Florida International University Law School, from which he just graduated this past May.

Now, at the age of 46, Meade stands proud and with a newfound purpose in life. He is using his personal experiences to drive him in his work. He said, “I realized all the pain and suffering I went through all my life became worthwhile when I used it to help someone else, I realized that was my purpose — to help those less fortunate.” Meade is now the director of Lifelines to Healing Campaign, a PICO United program that aims to address and end the root causes of violence in cities across the country. In addition, Meade is working with the program to end mass incarceration in Florida.

However, there is still one thing standing in his way: Florida state law prohibits convicted felons from practicing law. So while Meade spent the past three years taking classes to prepare him for practicing law in Florida, he is unable to do so. Rather than move to another state where convicted felons are free to practice law, Meade is prepared to stay and fight for change in his home state. He says, “I’m going to stay here. I’m going to fight. What I went through to get where I am today, I have no choice but to have faith.”

This raises an interesting question–should convicted felons be allowed to practice law? Nearly every state has rules about getting a license to practice law, most of which make it nearly impossible for convicted felons to get their license. According to James Hirby at The Law Dictionary, “the person to be licensed must have objective evidence that he or she is a person of good moral character, complete rehabilitation, and a member of the community” in order to get their license to practice law. Many feel that a felony conviction is a direct contradiction to these qualities, which is why in most states–such as Florida, where Meade resides–convicted felons are barred from getting their license to practice.

While there is certainly a strong argument for this rule, not every convicted felon has bad moral character. States like Florida should have processes that make it possible for convicted felons to redeem themselves in a way and be allowed to practice law so long as they can pass the bar and follow the guidelines like everybody else. For example, in the state of Washington, convicted felons that wish to take the bar exam must go before the state bar’s ethics and morality committee and argue why they are fit to practice law. While there is certainly a high standard when arguing before the committee, this process makes it possible for convicted felons to get a second chance. People do change, and like Meade, they grow and learn from the mistakes that they have made.  While it is too soon to say whether or not Meade’s actions will have any effect on Florida law, he has already been an inspiration to people everywhere. He has shown that no matter where you come from, you can accomplish your goals with hard work and perseverance.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [ACLU of Southern California via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post From Felon to Lawyer: The Inspiring Story of Desmond Meade appeared first on Law Street.

The effect of crime on society is often — and justifiably so — more victim-focused than offender-focused. We tend to think of someone breaking the law as an affront to society at large. That’s why in some states criminal cases are titled “The People v. ______.” To be sure, in many ways our criminal justice system is retributive. We are meant to feel some form of solace when someone is punished for offending the morals and values of society in the form of breaking the law. But I ask, when has our justice system gone too far? When do the  consequences on the offender far outstrip the damage that person did to society?

Two words: Felony Disenfranchisement.

Felony disenfranchisement is a so-called collateral consequence — the impediments to normal life and reintegration convicted persons suffer beyond their actual sentence of incarceration or supervision — and is often seen as part-and-parcel of our criminal justice system. While some may feel having been incarcerated is enough for an individual to pay their debt to society, still many others think that when you choose to break the law, you do so with the implicit acknowledgement that because you have deviated from the norms of our culture, you must take all the bad that comes from that deviation. A cold look at the facts, particularly in the area of felons who have been released from their conditions of custody being permanently denied their fundamental right to vote, might convince some to change their minds.

The Sentencing Project estimates that about 5.8 million Americans are denied their right to vote due to laws that prohibit voting by convicted felons. As a matter of perspective, that’s like the entire population of the State of Wisconsin not being allowed to vote.

The disparate impact these laws have on minority communities is quite telling. These draconian laws lead to 1 in every 13 African Americans not being able to vote due to felony conviction. According to Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent statements on this issue at Georgetown University Law Center, 1 in 10 people in the state of Florida may no longer vote due to its laws restricting felony voting. Did I mention that 38 percent of those nearly six million Americans are Black? The Attorney General is now leading the charge to help push policy reform in this area, and for that he should be applauded. In his own words:

“These restrictions are not only unnecessary and unjust, they are also counterproductive”

I would venture to add that these laws are not only counterproductive, but oppressive. In a nation that considers voting so fundamental to the democratic process that  we have an entire amendment to the Constitution dedicated to it, one might think these laws would have been struck down by now. Alas, the Supreme Court in Richardon v. Ramirez, 418 U.S. 24 (1974) upheld the California law disenfranchising felons by pointing to the lesser known section 2 of the 14th amendment which states:

“But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States, or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime . . . .”

That last line, according to both the text of the Constitution and the debate history around the provision, allows states to prevent certain classes of convicted individuals from voting.

Yet more important than the historical practice of disenfranchising those convicted of a crime is the modern impact of the practice today. What does it say about a system that prides itself on the democratic process that nearly 6 million American are essentially left out in the cold? Sure, they could lobby their respective state legislatures to get these laws repealed, but they don’t have access to the most potent form of lobbying imaginable: the ability to disapprove of a legislator with one’s ballot. They must do indirectly what the rest of us can do directly.

We must ask ourselves what goals are being advanced withholding the ballot from millions of citizens. Is disenfranchisement really the deterrent to crime some hope it to be, or is it just another major impediment to the reintegration of people who should have already “paid their debt to society.”

Without a doubt, crime is crime is crime, and those who commit crime should be punished. It is not the fact of punishment but rather the nature and extent that motivates this analysis. Must we continue to isolate individuals from our society even after they have been released from confinement? When will it ever end?

Felony disenfranchisement is just one more badge on the permanent underclass our society is creating with many of its criminal laws. It’s time we move forward.

—

Dominic Jones (@DomPerinyon) is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films.

Featured image courtesy of [Rama via Wikipedia]

Click here for additional Law Street coverage on felony disenfranchisement.

Dominic Jones

Dominic Jones is originally from Atlantic City, NJ. He attended Morehouse College in Atlanta, Ga. followed by law school at the Washington College of Law at American University in Washington, DC. In his spare time he enjoys art, photography, and documentary films. Contact Dominic at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Felony Disenfranchisement: Collateral Consequences appeared first on Law Street.

So, apparently Dexter might be a real thing.

This week, 19-year-old Miranda Barbour confessed to killing at least 22 people in Alaska, California, Texas, and North Carolina, all as a result of her involvement in an Alaskan satanic cult.

She was arrested in Sunbury, Pa., for the November homicide of a man she met through Craigslist. Allegedly, Miranda lured 42-year-old Troy LaFerrera into her Honda CR-V through a “companionship” ad on Craigslist. She agreed to have sex with him for $100, but wound up stabbing him 20 times instead.

Barbour’s described herself as akin to Dexter — a fictional, vigilante serial killer who murdered other criminals — because she only killed “bad” people, who “didn’t deserve to be here anymore.”

Folks, this story is crazy pants. If you thought the Amanda Knox or Jodie Arias cases were big, just wait for this one to gain some more traction. True insanity is about to descend upon the news-reading American population. And that’s because we’re fascinated with all that’s fucked up. We love a good serial killer. It’s literally the first thing you learn in journalism school — if it bleeds, it leads.

And this Miranda Barbour story is fucking hemorrhaging.

Here’s the inside scoop on her background. If you can, try to refrain from imagining the accompanying Lifetime movie that’s most definitely in pre-production as we speak. According to her own accounts, Miranda Barbour grew up in Alaska — the coldest, darkest, most mysterious state in this gigantic nation. AKA, the perfect setting for a truly fucked up story.

At age four, Miranda was molested by a family member. (Presumably, we’re supposed to consider this the root cause of all her later transgressions.) By age 13, she’d gotten her first taste of murder. Accompanying the leader of the satanic cult she would subsequently join, Miranda went to a dark alley to meet a man who owed the cult leader money.

Then, according to Miranda, “[H]e said to me that it was my turn to shoot him. I hate guns. I don’t use guns. I couldn’t do it, so he came behind me and he took his hands and put them on top of mine and we pulled the trigger. And then from there I just continued to kill.”

During her years in the cult, Miranda climbed to the top of the ranks, and even married another cult official, who was later murdered. At one point, she became pregnant, and the group drugged her, tied her to a bed, and performed an “in-house” abortion.

When she got pregnant for the second time, she decided to leave the cult — and Alaska — behind, moving to North Carolina.

“I wanted to start over and forget everything I did,” said Miranda.

Apparently, though, that didn’t really work out for her, seeing as she claims her killing streak continued after she left Alaska, dropping bodies across several states.

Her daughter is now a year and a half old, and is currently being held in protective custody. Miranda is allowed to visit.

Now, the details about the Satanic cult are interesting, for sure. This story reads like the juiciest of true crime novels. But, what’s really interesting about this story, is how completely batshit crazy it has the potential to get.

Here’s why: there is absolutely no corroborating evidence of Miranda’s involvement in a Satanic cult, or in any previous killings.

“Thorough investigation will likely demonstrate that this cult story is fiction,” said Peter Gilmore, the New York-based head of the Church of Satan, who confirmed that his church does not condone murder. Likewise, Monica Caison, the founder of a missing persons center in North Carolina, is skeptical about Miranda’s serial killer claims.

“That’s a lot of people to kill in such a short time, and being so young and never making a mistake, I’m hard pressed to believe that amount,” said Caison, referring to Miranda’s claim that she’d killed somewhere between 22 and 100 people over the last six years.

Not to mention, she doesn’t fit the profile. Women serial killers are typically older and don’t use knives, and serial killers in general are exponentially better at stashing bodies. Miranda’s latest Craigslist victim? Dumped in a backyard, with intact cell phone and identification, right in the same town that the murder took place.

That doesn’t look like the work of a pro.

But, despite the doubtful nature of her claims, Miranda’s story didn’t sound rehearsed. According to Francis Scarcella, the reporter who broke this story, she never hesitated once as she recounted her dark life into his audio recorder. Scarcella described her as meek, mild, and generally unintimidating.

But of course, “Looks can be deceiving,” as Barbour quickly pointed out, destroying the sexist assumptions that paint women — even serial killer women — as harmless victims or benign liars.

But what shocked Scarcella the most? When asked if she felt any remorse for her killings, Miranda replied with, “None.” And further, she unequivocally stated that if she was ever released from prison, she would kill again.

And therein lies the crazy. While Miranda’s story is perhaps implausible, her delivery is incredibly convincing. Whether or not her claims are true, she seems to believe them wholeheartedly, and she’s got the rest of us scratching our heads, trying to make sense of the nonsensical web she’s spun with her words.

That’s the hallmark of a true, psychopathic manipulator, and she’s got every one of us on the hook.

What do you think of the developing Miranda Barbour story?

—

Hannah R. Winsten (@HannahRWinsten) is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow.

Featured image courtesy of [The Bay Harbor Butcher via Flickr]

Hannah R. Winsten

Hannah R. Winsten is a freelance copywriter, marketing consultant, and blogger living in New York’s sixth borough. She hates tweeting but does it anyway. She aspires to be the next Rachel Maddow. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post BREAKING: Real Life Lady Dexter Confesses to Between 22 & 100 Murders appeared first on Law Street.

Attorney General Eric Holder shined a spotlight on state voting laws this week when he spoke out against voting bans for felons. The laws vary across states, with the harshest in Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, and Virginia where felons are banned from voting for life, with the exception of individual permissions granted by the governor. Other states require ex-convicts to abide by a waiting period prior to regaining the vote, and others still have long and complicated re-registration procedures. To prove the severity of these laws, Holder pointed to Florida where anti-felon suffrage regulations ban 10 percent of the citizens from voting.

While a significant portion of the country is barred from voting, even after they finish their time in prison, these laws also disproportionately affect minorities. African-Americans encompass a third of the approximately 5.8 million Americans who are barred from exercising their voting rights. Holder emphasized the large number of minorities affected by these restrictive laws, stating that they are remnants of the discriminatory policies enacted after the Civil War in order to keep minorities from going to the polls. And unfortunately their efforts were successful: 1 in 13 African-Americans are disenfranchised due to anti-felon voting bans.

Due to these, and other, restrictive policies, any attempt to protect minority voting rights is important, especially after key provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 were declared unconstitutional in a 2013 Supreme Court Ruling. The decision deemed Section 4 unconstitutional, which determined states with histories of voting discrimination would have to submit any changes to their voting laws to be pre-approved by the Attorney General. Without the coverage formula, states are able to pass discriminatory voting laws and the federal government cannot prevent the laws from going into effect.

In this context, the Voting Rights Act’s power is minimized, and any legislation that could help restore some minority voting rights would be welcome. Senator Rand Paul is currently drafting a bill that, if passed by Congress, would give many felons the right to vote in federal elections. However, Paul’s bill still contains restrictions: the proposed legislation restores the vote specifically to non-violent felons, which is a compromise with other legislators who are hesitant to restore these rights in the first place.

Holder also noted that the laws preventing ex-convicts from voting only enhances the stereotype and social stigma surrounding felons. Laws affecting felons, such as these restrictive voting ban, increase the feeling of separation from the rest of the community and increase the likelihood that felons will commit further crimes. Treating ex-convicts as second-class citizens is neither the proper nor the most successful way to reintegrate them into their communities.

These laws teach others that there are no second chances in American justice: once a convict, always a convict. Some may think that this is a good message to send, and that such laws could dissuade citizens from committing crimes in the first place. However, this philosophy mistakenly precludes the possibility that once felons finish their time, they could serve some benefit to the community. If societal attitudes continue to influence felons to go back to jail, states miss out on the potential for these people’s efforts to contribute to the workforce and other communal needs. By getting rid of some of the restrictive laws on felons after they return to normal life, they can better return as contributing citizens.

While Mr. Holder has no authority to enact changes to the laws himself, congressmen and state legislatures should listen up.

[Washington Post] [New York Times] [SCOTUS Blog] [The Hill] [Politico]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Daniel Lobo via Flickr]

Sarah Helden

Sarah Helden is a graduate of The George Washington University and a student at the London School of Economics. She was formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Sarah at staff@LawStreetmedia.com.

The post Holder Speaks Out Against Felon Voting Ban appeared first on Law Street.

In my search for a news story today, I came across what looked like an interesting topic. A trial is set to begin in Fort Hood, TX, regarding a prostitution ring that was supposedly set up by a Fort Hood sergeant who has yet to be charged. On trial is Master Sergeant Brad Grimes, a veteran of Iraq and Afghanistan. He is accused of participating in the prostitution ring.

Conspiring to pay for sex is without a doubt a crime, and if Grimes did so, he deserves to be punished as the court sees fit. But what sparked my interest, and a bit of surprise, was that Grimes was also charged with adultery.

That got me thinking: am I woefully ignorant of current laws, or do I just not see adultery charges that often?

So, I looked it up, and what I found was an incredibly wide-ranging set of laws, and a number of strange cases. Let’s start with the most extreme derivations. In Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, adultery is a felony. Technically speaking, in Michigan, you could be sentenced to life in prison for cheating on your spouse, as Judge William Murphy in the Michigan Court of Appeals noted in 2007.

Then there are states that are not nearly as harsh. Of the 23 states that still have adultery laws on the books (Colorado abolished theirs earlier this year), most classify it as some type of misdemeanor. This means that in most of these states, an adultery conviction would result in a fine.

A slim majority of states don’t have any adultery laws on the books at all. And it’s important to note that in those that do, actual trials or charges rarely develop. In Massachusetts, one of the states that does classify adultery as a felony, no one has been convicted of it since 1983. Even in that case, the punishment was only two $50 fines, one for the woman who committing adultery and one for the man with whom she was sleeping. If anything, adultery comes up during custody or divorce battles.

In the military, adultery laws are taken more seriously. The Uniform Code of Military Justice does not specifically contain adultery as a crime, but does have Article 134, which “prohibits conduct which is of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, or conduct which is prejudicial to good order and discipline”. The Manual for Court Martial expands Article 134 to include examples of specific offenses, and does contain adultery. The penalty for adultery can include up to a year in confinement, and/or dishonorable discharge.

According to this Slate article, standalone charges for adultery are rare. They’re usually piled on with other misconduct charges, such as lying to a superior. That doesn’t mean that it can’t be damaging—in 1997, Lt. Kelly Flynn made headlines when she was dishonorably discharged after lying about sleeping with the husband of one of her coworkers.

That brings us back to Grimes. He was charged with adultery in conjunction with other charges, and really, my point here is not to diminish the conspiracy to pay for sex charges he is also facing. My point is that I was shocked to see an adultery charge listed at all. Off the top of my head, I don’t think I can think of a popular prime-time drama in which adultery does not incur. In fact, there have been entire shows that pretty much revolve around it—Desperate Housewives, anyone? Maybe I’m just cynical, but I’ve always seen adultery as a personal act in which a decent proportion of our population engages—not a potential felony. Now I’m not trying to say that adultery is an ok thing to do, or morally acceptable. But the truth of the matter is that it happens. The percentage of married women reporting affairs in the last two decades was around 15% in 2013, for men it was around 21%. Grimes probably deserves the sentence he will receive. But our archaic adultery laws also deserve a look.

—

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 [Harsh Agrawal/www.chromoz.com 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 Adultery in the US: Do You Know the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.