An Associated Press report released in September revealed that the Department of Homeland Security had “erroneously” granted at least 858 immigrants American citizenship. Typically, in any presidential election season, political parties would seize on a report like this, and would try to spin it to win the election. An issue concerning immigration is a political match to be lit, and the reactions could be explosive. Considering immigration reform has been one of the top priorities for legislators, the report may be especially relevant.

Pundits are asking questions about whether this report showed the Obama administration attempting to streamline citizenship applications to get more Democratic voters. Republican officials are seizing on an email asking Homeland Security employees to work overtime in order to process more applications. Then again, this may be a case of an honest mistake, one where overworked bureaucrats may have overlooked a key step in admitting immigrants into our country.

In large bureaucracies like the U.S. federal government, administrative errors do occur, but the scope of this issue has raised concerns about who was granted citizenship, where we went wrong, and asking what can we do to make sure this doesn’t happen again.

The Inspector General Report

The Associated Press highlights an Inspector General’s report, titled “Potentially Ineligible Individuals Have Been Granted U.S. Citizenship Because of Incomplete Fingerprint Records,” regarding a review on whether the United States Citizenship and Immigration Services successfully uses its fingerprint record database to access any applicant’s information. The 24-page report showed that Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, is still grappling with digitizing its old records, and this lag in information can spread to other agencies in the attempt to legitimately do background checks on immigrant applicants.

When considering an immigrant from a “special interest country,” places that pose a risk to U.S. national security or have high rates of immigration fraud, applies for citizenship, it becomes very important to conduct a background check. The check makes sure that the immigration applicant does not misrepresent who they are for the sake of admission into the country. Additionally, a background check is a reliable tool for apprehending criminals who are trying to enter the contract for intentionally unlawful purposes. The fingerprint database can be accessed either before or after an interview with an ICE officer. The check into the database allows a verification into the identity of the applicant, and any lapse in consistent ‘digital bookkeeping’ can undermine that responsibility.

This lapse is what allowed the more than 800 immigrant applicants to be granted citizenship (and avoid deportation) because the Department of Homeland Security did not have reliable digital archiving, rendering the appearance that these applicants had clean backgrounds.

While the 858 immigrants that were granted citizenship do not appear to be an imminent threat to the United States, most come from “special interest countries.” Although the report does not define which countries fall under the “special interest” category, countries that are currently in conflicts or have high rates of immigration fraud such as Syria, Iran, or Yemen can be considered to be some of those in question. Applicants may use different names and birthdays, and without cross-checking fingerprint information, it becomes hard to weed out those who are illegally attempting to enter the country.

Once anyone receives their citizenship, they receive the corresponding American rights and privileges. The report shows that three applicants had gone on to receive jobs handling classified information. One received a Transportation Worker Identification Credential, allowing access onto secure naval bases or ships. The other two received Aviation Worker credentials, granting access to secure areas in airports. Another immigrant went into law enforcement. Ever since the Inspector General’s report, all credentials have been revoked.

Apart from the staggering number of immigrants that were admitted wrongfully, the report sheds light on America’s information gap between its federal agencies. Fingerprint records were not consistently acquired in the same way. One agency may have fingerprint files that are not digitized at all, while another may have an entire online archive. This makes it difficult for agencies that need to coordinate with each other in order to successfully perform their operations.

The Agency Info-Gap

In order to talk about what information is needed to successfully complete an immigration application into the United States, it is necessary to point out the steps people need to take to get past the review process in general.

The video below outlines initial actions an applicant needs to take before an interview with an ICE official:

The sample video from ICE below shows how an interview usually happens, including what questions are asked and how to answer them:

Throughout the citizenship process, ICE has to conduct background checks, which includes searching fingerprint information. If you are from a “special interest country,” there are some additional steps necessary to complete the process, such as cross-referencing your information with the FBI fingerprint database.

The problem is that agencies have inconsistent information acquisition, which means that everyone has a different way of receiving and storing their information. The Department of Homeland Security only started to consistently digitally archive its fingerprint bank in 2010. The act of digitally uploading and archiving fingerprints is a tedious process, which may not catch up with the stream of citizenship applications. According to an email that urges DHS employees to speed up their application review process, the end of the year is a time when applications are at an especially high volume. When the priority is to successfully process applications, certain security protocols can slow the down the process, especially if agency cross-referencing is necessary.

The Inspector General’s report points out that 148,000 immigrants who have final deportation orders or who are criminals or fugitives do not have their fingerprints digitized. If these immigrants have any criminal record, it becomes difficult to proceed with a case against them if there is no way to confirm their identity. The FBI can only do so much if there is no digitized record of an individual in its system.

In a statement regarding his report, DHS Inspector General John Roth said:

This situation created opportunities for individuals to gain the rights and privileges of U.S. citizenship through fraud. To prevent fraud and ensure thorough review of naturalization applications, USCIS needs access to these fingerprint records. DHS agreed with our recommendations. ICE has plans to digitize and upload all available fingerprint records, and the Department has told us it plans to review the eligibility of each naturalized citizen whose fingerprint records reveal a deportation order under a different identity. We will continue to monitor DHS’ progress.

Why This Is So Important

Immigration is consistently ranked as one of the top concerns for American voters every election year. After the failed Gang of Eight immigration reform bill, the attempt at reaching consensus on immigration has fizzled. Both sides of the debate have become more partisan in nature, making it very difficult to strike a deal and get a bill passed through Congress. Donald Trump started off his presidential race with a pitch accusing Mexican immigrants of bringing drugs into the country, whereas Democrats are pointing out that illegal immigration amounts to millions of individuals just overstaying their visas.

No matter the root cause of a broken immigration system, one thing that can always streamline the process of admitting new immigrants is by having a uniform background check system that is archived online for easy access. Currently, ICE checks fingerprints through two systems: the FBI’s Integrated Automatic Fingerprint Identification System (IAFIS) and the DHS Automated Biometric Identification System (IDENT). Although an agency may have different reasons for checking a fingerprint file, the archive has to be universal so as to make a search as efficient as possible.

Immigrants make up 13 percent of the total U.S. population as of 2014, according to the Migration Policy Institute, and that percentage only continues to grow. Critics point out that if the issue with immigration is that there are too many people who are here illegally, and that is due to overstayed visas, it may be an administrative issue on the federal government’s end that needs to be resolved. One example is a gap in digitized information that the government needs to archive so that it is easier to catch immigrants that may be of higher concern for the country.

Dennis Futoryan

Dennis Futoryan is a 23-year old New York Law School student who has his sights set on constitutional and public interest law. Whenever he gets a chance to breathe from his law school work, Dennis can be found scouring social media and examining current events to educate others about what’s going on in our world. Contact Dennis at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post How Did the DHS Mistakenly Grant Citizenship to 858 Immigrants? appeared first on Law Street.

Research and analysis done by Law Street’s Law School Rankings team: Alexis Evans, Anneliese Mahoney, Sean Simon, Alex Simone, Inez Nicholson, Ashlee Smith, Sam Reilly, Julia Bryant.

Click here for detailed ranking information for each of the Top 10 Law Schools for Labor Law.

Click here to see all the 2016 specialty rankings.

Click here for information on rankings methodology.

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 10 Law Schools for Labor Law: #3 University of Chicago Law School appeared first on Law Street.

Does society perpetuate rape culture? Sadly, this idea has been proven over and over again. We keep asking the question and receiving the same answer: Yes. We saw it in the case of Bill Cosby. It took evidence of Bill Cosby blatantly admitting his crimes before a majority of the public believed he was guilty of raping and drugging women. For some people, it was just easier to believe the victims wanted their 15 minutes of fame than admit that the previously beloved actor committed such crimes. We saw it again in the protection of reality TV personality Josh Duggar it was revealed that he had a history of molesting girls including his sisters, and in the December retraction of Rolling Stone’s UVA campus gang rape story. The latest news brings us another story involving an alleged rape accusation: the Daily Beast reported on July 27 that Ivana Trump, ex-wife of  Donald Trump, accused him of rape during their marriage over 30 years ago. The controversy brings light to a highly controversial issue: marital rape. Even today there are still those who deny you can rape a spouse. So exactly what is the history and legality of marital rape in the United States?

Marital Rape in the News

According to the Daily Beast,  during the Trumps’ divorce proceedings Ivana claimed Donald raped her. She later clarified that she felt “violated” by the incident, rather than raped “in the criminal sense.” She further elaborated, “[O]n one occasion during 1989, Mr. Trump and I had marital relations in which he behaved very differently toward me than he had during our marriage. As a woman, I felt violated, as the love and tenderness, which he normally exhibited towards me, was absent. I referred to this as a ‘rape…’” Terms of the couple’s divorce agreement prohibit her from speaking on the marriage unless authorized by Donald himself. The Daily Beast cites a 1990 deposition from the Trumps’ divorce as well as the book “Lost Tycoon: The Many Lives of Donald J. Trump.”

After becoming aware of the report, Ivana labeled the story “totally without merit” in a statement to CNN. She also called her ex-husband and her “best friends” and remarked that Trump would make “an incredible president.” The authenticity of the story is in question. Ivana is denying it. The Daily Beast calls her recent statements ironic as the story is written “based on her own words.”

Regardless if Ivana’s words were misinterpreted or she is dishonestly recanting a story, the means by which Donald’s lawyer Michael Cohen responded to the allegations is appalling and shocking. Cohen threatened Daily Beast reporter Tim Mask and denied the existence of marital rape itself.

You write a story that has Mr. Trump’s name in it with the word ‘rape,’ and I’m going to mess your life up … for as long as you’re on this frickin’ planet … you’re going to have judgments against you, so much money, you’ll never know how to get out from underneath it…You’re talking about the front-runner for the GOP, presidential candidate, as well as a private individual who never raped anybody. And, of course, understand that by the very definition, you can’t rape your spouse.

Contrary to Trump’s lawyer’s statement, one can rape a spouse. All 50 states and the District of Columbia have laws barring nonconsensual sex with a spouse.

What is Marital Rape?

While rape is all non-consensual sexual intercourse, marital rape is specifically between spouses. It has been illegal in all 50 states and Washington D.C. since 1993. Before then, “marital exemption” allowed a person to a rape a spouse without fear of legal repercussions. Every state had a “marital exemption” law until 1975 when South Dakota became the first state to drop it. North Carolina was the last.  Its elimination is chiefly thanks to the women’s rights and equality movement. However, it is still significantly harder to prove marital rape than rape by any other.

Statistics

According to HealthResearchFunding.org, 30 percent of adult rape cases were committed by a husband, common-law partner, or boyfriend, while 29 percent of all sexual assaults were perpetrated by a husband or lover. When there is a precedent of domestic violence in a marriage, the chance for marital rape increases by 70 percent. Only around 3.2 percent of victimized women report the crime when it is committed by someone they know. An alarming 69 percent of women who’ve endured spousal rape will be raped more than once. Lastly, 18 percent of spousal victims claim their children saw the incident.

Cases of Opposition to Marital Rape

You would think, at least since 1993, that the door is closed on the validity of the existence of marital rape, but somehow, it still seems to be a gray area where it should be black and white: non-consensual sex is always wrong. Trump’s lawyer’s remarks are just the latest in a history of disturbing events.

Michigan 1987

Michigan resident Rosanna Hawkins was attacked and raped by her estranged husband, armed with a six-inch knife. She filed for divorce a month before the incident and had been staying with her sister. The attacker, Eugene, was sentenced by Oceana County Circuit Court to 27 to 92 years in prison. However, in a 3 to 0 vote, the Michigan Court of Appeals overturned the verdict in 1987.

Why? At the time, Michigan only recognized marital rape as a crime if the husband and wife were living apart and one member had filed for divorce. The court also required that a person live in the state for at least six months before filing for divorce. In Hawking’s case, she had only returned to Michigan a week before she filed, deeming it invalid.

Virginia 2002

In a 2002 legislative debate, Virginia delegate Dick Black stated,

I don’t know how on earth you could validly get a conviction in a husband-wife rape when they’re living together, sleeping in the same bed, she’s in a nightie and so forth. There’s no injury, there’s no separation, or anything.

If she says no, it doesn’t matter where she is sleeping or what she is wearing. This is the same man who called birth control “baby pesticides” in 2004.

Indiana 2014

Fast forward to the current day. David Wise repeatedly drugged and raped his wife, Mandy Boardman, for years during their marriage. Boardman’s suspicions were confirmed when she found video on Wise’s cellphone. She went to the police in May 2011. After the ensuing trial, a jury convicted Wise of six felony sexual assault charges. He had told the jury that, “She was snippy and it made her nicer when he drugged her.” The prosecutor asked for a 40-year prison sentence.

Wise will not spend one day in jail. Marion Superior County Judge Kurt Eisgruber sentenced Wise to 20 years, with eight years suspended and 12 years spent in home confinement. It only gets worse. Boardman told The Times “[The judge] told me I needed to forgive my attacker and I needed to let my attacker walk. It was a punch to the gut from the justice system …”

What are the Laws Regarding Marital Rape?

As previously stated, marital rape is illegal in all 50 states and the District of Columbia. Generally speaking, marital rape is penalized like a rape committed by any other person. Fines can range between several thousand dollars to over $50,000. Prison terms also range from several years to life in prison without parole. Often, sentences are based on the violence of the crime. Surprisingly enough, there are still certain states that have variances in the law regarding spousal rape compared to other types of rape. In some states, marital rape is charged under a different section of criminal code, given shorter reporting periods, held to stricter degrees of force/threat, and penalized differently.

Ohio and Oklahoma

Ohio state law has two distinct subsections for rape. Outside the confines of marriage, sex is non-consensual if the offender uses a “drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance” to alter the “mental or physical condition” of the victim; however, this circumstance does not apply to spouses living together. There must be “force or threat of force.” Essentially, it is legal for a husband to drug and take advantage of his wife. Oklahoma has similar legislation, requiring “force or violence” to be considered marital rape. Oklahoma also defines sexual intercourse as rape when the victim is unconscious, so long as it is not the spouse.

South Carolina and Idaho

South Carolina has even stricter laws. Sexual intercourse between spouses is non-consensual when “the threat of use of a weapon” and/or “physical violence of a high and aggravated nature” exists. In contrast, a weapon isn’t required in prosecuting “criminal sexual misconduct” outside the confines of marriage in South Carolina. Furthermore, the crime must be reported to law enforcement within 30 days of the event in order to investigate. In Idaho, “[n]o person shall be convicted of rape for any act or acts with that person’s spouse” except if the spouse struggled and was “overcome by force or violence,” threatened with violence, or drugged.

Virginia

In Virginia, court-approved marital and/or personal counseling can be substituted for fines and prison time in marital rape cases. The victim must agree and the option is available only once. This leaves the door open, however, for the offender to pressure the victim into approving the alternative. This option is not open to other cases of rape.

 Conclusion

Just last month, state legislators in Ohio embarked on a mission to remove the archaic word usage of their marital rape laws. Hopefully this is a sign of good things to come for the rest of the states that still believe spousal rape is different from any other rape. No is no. Regardless, there are still hurdles to be overcome and it’s wrong to be complacent with mediocre law writing.

Resources

Daily Beast: Marital Rape is Semi-Legal in Eight States

WomenLaw.org: Marital/Partner Rape

Daily Beast: Ex Wife: Donald Trump Made Me Feel ‘Violated’ During Sex

HealthResearchFunding.org: 21 Amazing Spousal Rape Statistics

Jezebel: A Brief Overview of Dudes Who Are Pretty Sure You Can’t Rape Your Wife

Jezebel: Wife Can’t Be Raped if She Wears a Nightie, Says Politician Named Dick

LA Times: No Prison Time For Indiana Man Convicted of Drugging, Raping Wife

The New York Times: Marital Rape

NOLO: Marital Rape Laws

Politico: Ivana Trump Denies Accusing Donald Trump of Rape

Jessica McLaughlin

Jessica McLaughlin is a graduate of the University of Maryland with a degree in English Literature and Spanish. She works in the publishing industry and recently moved back to the DC area after living in NYC. Contact Jessica at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Marital Rape in the U.S.: What Are the Laws? appeared first on Law Street.

Two sisters from Overton, Texas are receiving an outpouring of support after local police shut down their roadside lemonade stand. (Ex-squeeze me?)

Zoey and Andria Green, 7 and 8 years old respectively, were trying to raise money to buy their dad a Father’s Day present. They harnessed their entrepreneurial energies and decided to sell lemonade and kettle corn to drivers and passers-by until they earned enough money to take their dad to a nearby water park for his special day.

Overton Police Chief Clyde Carter told the girls they could not continue operating their stand. He said they needed to pay $150 for a peddler’s permit, noting that they were also in violation of certain health codes since they prepared the kettle corn themselves.

(Just a reminder: these were kids…in a residential area in Eastern Texas…selling snacks).

Aren’t there bigger issues that a Police Chief should be focusing on? Couldn’t the fees or permit be waived at the discretion of the commanding officer? I guess Police Chief Carter never saw this video from 2010, wherein a county official in Oregon apologized to a little girl for the closure of her lemonade stand.

The Green sisters have since received tons of support from their community, and have discovered how to use one of America’s most sacred tools: the loophole. As long as the girls “give away” their snacks and ask for donations, they are not breaking any laws–and do not require any permits.

Hundreds of East Texans have pledged their support and plan to visit the sisters’ stand this Saturday. The girls were given (free) water park tickets to both Six Flags and Splash Kingdom after their story broke.

Mom Sandi Green Evans told reporters that additional donations collected on Saturday will be given to the Deana Rinehart and Felicia Roach Overton High School Sports Scholarship Fund.

Any police officers in the area won’t be doling out tickets–they’ll be directing traffic.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kids’ Lemonade Stand Shut Down by Texas Police For a Ridiculous Reason appeared first on Law Street.

Ah, Missouri, the Show Me state. Let me just jump right into this edition of The Dumbest Laws in the United States. In Missouri, you can’t honk the horn of a car that’s not yours unless you have the owner’s permission. Be sure to ask if it’s okay to honk the driver’s horn if you are the passenger in a car and feel offended by something another driver did. Furthermore, one may not “attempt to manipulate any of the levers, starting device, brakes, or machinery thereof, or set the machinery in motion” if you do not own said machinery. Also while on the topic of cars, Missouri has a law simply stating that it is illegal to speed. In case anyone wasn’t aware.

I can’t honk the driver’s horn? I can’t SPEED? WHAT?

In Colombia, Missouri, drinking in a bar between the hours of 2:00am and 6:00am is strictly prohibited. It would be a difficult task seeing as how most bars close at 2:00am. Perhaps it’d make more sense to ban breaking into closed bars and drinking inside. In University City, owning a PVC pipe is illegal as it is considered drug paraphernalia. Perhaps too many students were converting the pipes into bongs. In University City, yard sales located in one’s front yard are also banned. The law does not mention sales in back yards, however, so perhaps doing so is permitted?

It frightens me to think of what instances prompted Illinois to create such a law, but the state has one banning sex with a corpse. Sex offenders there are prohibited from taking part in holiday festivities such as passing out candy to children or acting as Santa Claus. I mean, makes sense sort of, especially for registered sex offenders who are pedophiles.

Both those laws up there? Messed up.

One law listed as “stupid” actually makes a lot of sense to me. Individuals younger than 21 may drink alcohol if they are enrolled in a culinary program. I mean, if this weren’t allowed, how else would aspiring chefs know about wine pairings or using alcohol in cooking?

In my oh-so-humble opinion, another “dumb law” that is actually very sensible is one that prohibits hanging dangling objects from rear-view mirrors. I find them personally distracting while driving but maybe that’s  just me.

In Illinois’ famous capitol city, Chicago, citizens with an expired city sticker on their cars can receive a fine of $120. Also, all businesses “entering into contracts with the city must sift through their records and report any business they had dealing with slaves during the era of slavery.”

Citizens of Collinsville, Illinois must have gotten sick of seeing young men whose boxers peek over their pants while walking around. Or perhaps they got sick of seeing a few too many plumber cracks. Yes, in Collinsville, wearing sagging pants is illegal, so tighten up those belts!

Watch those pants, Gramps!

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Missouri and Illinois appeared first on Law Street.

The number one article of the week at Law Street comes from writer Frank Halprin who shared the news that we may be on the brink of running out of precious metals such as gold; number two, from Worldwide Orphans, is an excellent explainer on the world’s orphan population; and the third most popular article of the week, from Ashley Shaw, details proposed legislation in France that would prohibit looking like a prostitute. ICYMI: Check out the best of the week from Law Street.

#1 Is the World Running Out of Precious Metals and Gems?

Goldman Sachs suggests that there are only twenty more years worth of mineable gold, diamonds, and zinc, and forty years of platinum, copper, and nickel. The quality of the metals and the yields per ore discovery have also declined significantly in the last half century. So what might some consequences be? The gold mining industry will be hard pressed to maintain its profit margins if there is less and less to find, and there may be increased competition to find what does remain. Naturally, the prices of gold could rise exorbitantly. Read full article here.

#2 Defining Orphans: The World’s Most Vulnerable Children

According to UNICEF, there are 153 million children across the globe who are defined as orphans. These children, and others, are at risk for poverty, health concerns, neglect, and abuse. They are the world’s orphans. Read on to learn about how children can become orphans, what it means to be an orphan, and how underlying social problems lead to children being orphaned. Read full article here.

#3 France Considers Law Banning ‘Looking Like a Prostitute’

Ladies, imagine you are all dressed up and ready to hit the town. You’ve got on your short skirt, your stilettos, and your low cut top. You’re looking good. Now, you can’t just sit around when you look this nice, so you have to decide: where are you going to go? Do you know yet? Good! (I really, really hope that nobody said France. Please don’t have said France.) Read full article here.

Chelsey D. Goff

Chelsey D. Goff was formerly Chief People Officer at Law Street. She is a Granite State Native who holds a Master of Public Policy in Urban Policy from the George Washington University. She’s passionate about social justice issues, politics — especially those in First in the Nation New Hampshire — and all things Bravo. Contact Chelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Nevada is home to legal prostitution and Sin City. Yet, it is surprisingly not home to many stupid laws. However, its neighbor Utah makes up for that with a whole long list of weird laws on the books.

Let’s start with Nevada. In Reno, sex toys are outlawed, and it is illegal to lie down on the sidewalk, no matter how drunk and tired you are. Apparently, at some point in the past, Reno also had issues with benches in the middle of the street, as lawmakers felt the need to ban putting them there. Other than that, most of the laws in Nevada are pretty reasonable.

Utah, however, is another story entirely. They take stupid laws to a completely new level. Many sites claim that in Utah, it is illegal NOT to drink milk. However, Utah’s Criminal Code actually states that “‘unfair discrimination’ of sections, communities, localities, cities or towns by buyers of milk, cream or butterfat constitutes an offense against public health, safety, welfare and morals.”

In Utah, animals have many laws that concern them specifically. For example, animals better be careful while on the road as they are considered traffic. Furthermore, it is legal to consume roadkill in Utah. Some sites wrongfully claim that it is illegal to fish from horseback, which is apparently not true. Utah does, however, have laws pertaining to fishing with a crossbow.

Also, if you are looking to change the weather in Utah, you’d better read into the laws there, where you need a permit to perform services as a “weather modifier.” Specifically, according to the Utah Administrative Code, this refers to “all acts undertaken to artificially distribute or create nuclei in cloud masses for the purposes of altering precipitation, cloud forms or other meteorological parameters.”

Many sites also claim that Utah outlaws whale hunting, which sounds like a perfectly reasonable law, except when you consider that Utah is a landlocked state. However, according to an article on Deseret News, Utah’s state law says no such thing. However, according to federal law, “it is unlawful for any person or vessel or other conveyance to take any species of whale incident to commercial whaling in waters subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.” So, okay, technically it IS illegal to whale hunt in Utah.

Sorry, Mike Tyson. Boxers must keep their technique in check in Utah matches, where biting is prohibited. If it saves the ears of other boxers from the likes of Tyson, I say that one is a reasonable law.

But not in Utah…

Despite not being allowed to swear, women have it relatively easy in Utah. If married women commit a crime in the presence of their husbands, the husbands can be held responsible for their wives’ actions.

One Utah law frequently listed as dumb bans individuals from causing a catastrophe. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me! This world could use a few less catastrophes. On that same note, it is illegal to detonate a nuclear weapon there. Makes sense, because doing so would almost certainly cause a catastrophe.

Due primarily to its Mormon population, the state has concocted a number of laws related to its inhabitants imbibing. In Utah, alcohol may not be sold during an emergency, and only retailers may possess beer in containers of two liters or more.

So to summarize, in Utah you’d better not try to cause a catastrophe by detonating a nuclear weapon and then try to purchase alcohol. But remember, in Reno, don’t put a bench in the middle of the road or sleep on the sidewalk.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Utah and Nevada appeared first on Law Street.

I initially planned to dedicate this post to the dumb laws of Idaho and Montana exclusively, thinking that each state alone would probably have enough to constitute an entire addition to my series; however, I was shocked to find that both states have very few moronic laws on the books. Therefore, after much internal deliberation, Wyoming has been included in today’s post.

Let’s start with Montana. Not only is prostitution illegal, but  it is also considered a “crime against the family” there. So, don’t try to sell your body unless you plan to bring shame to your kin.

It’s a hard knock life for wives in Montana, too. It is a felony there for them to open their husband’s mail, and illegal for wives to go fishing alone on Sundays; however, that is a privilege considering that unmarried women are banned from fishing alone on any day of the week. And if you’re feeling like trying out something kinky in the bedroom, think again. In Montana, it is illegal for a man and woman to have sex in any position other than missionary.

A far as state laws, Idaho has shockingly few stupid ones, despite there being many illogical laws specific to certain cities. One state law that could qualify as stupid may actually make sense to women. There, it is illegal for men to give their “sweetheart” a box of candy weighing less than fifty pounds. Sounds fair to me! Who wants candy if it weighs any less than 50 pounds? That’s right, no one.

Also, you’d better be ready to flash those pearly whites at all times in Pocatello, Idaho, despite whether you feel cheerful or not. There, it is illegal not to smile in public.

I’m not sure how fishing from the backs of various animals, especially those not native to North America, ever became a problem; however, there Idaho specifically prohibits fishing from a camel’s back. Animals surely must have caused a lot of trouble at some point in Boise, as leading an animal on sidewalks is banned as well.

Eagle, Idaho is quite strict. Lawmakers in the city have banned taking bicycles into tennis courts. Additionally, one cannot sweep dirt from his house into the street. Gotta keep those streets clean!

Keep it inside, buddy!

Wyoming has quite the slew of atypical laws related to alcohol. For one, being drunk in a mine could land you in jail, and so can skiing while drunk. I certainly see the validity behind both of these as doing either thing seems dangerous to me. Also, salespeople or corporations that deal with buying or selling junk metal are banned from making business transactions with intoxicated individuals. Makes sense–we wouldn’t want drunk people to sell beloved junk materials and completely regret it once they sober up. That would be tragic.

Women have it rough when going out for drinks in Wyoming, where a law prevents them from standing within five feet of a bar while drinking.

Although many consider the law that prohibits wearing hats that obstruct peoples’ view in theaters or other places of amusement to be stupid, I think it’s downright innovative. I personally can’t stand when I can’t see the stage at a theater because of someone sitting in front of me.

Wyoming lawmakers want their citizens to EARN their fish by using a good ol’ fashioned rod and reel. Using a firearm to fish is strictly forbidden. Speaking of animals, you may not take a photo of a rabbit without a permit from January to April. Perhaps that is when they feel the most camera shy.

My particular favorite? Neglecting to close a fence in Wyoming could earn you a $750 fine.

So there you have it, the dumb laws of Idaho, Montana and, Wyoming. Next up: Utah and Nevada.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

As you probably know, marijuana is now legal for recreational use in Colorado and Washington, and soon it will be legal in Alaska and Oregon, along with possibly Washington, D.C. pending Congressional approval.

I was surprised to see recently that the University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law will be offering a class on the laws of marijuana beginning in January 2015. Created by professor Sam Kamin, the course is called “Representing the Marijuana Client” and it intended to instruct law students on how to represent parties in cases involving marijuana as a result of the wave of state legalizations. According to Kamin, “topics covered will include regulatory compliance, criminal defense, contract, banking, tax, real estate, and multidisciplinary practice. It’s not going to be a joke.”

I don’t think that this class is a joke at all. In fact, I love the idea! Obviously it is legal now in several places and people will need to know their rights–or really their lawyers will need to know their rights. It’s what they are paid to do!

I am in the process of applying to law schools, and before applying I took a very long time to see what various schools had to offer. I love a program that can separate itself from others and really show that it cares about the future lawyers it’s teaching. The University of Denver’s Sturm College of Law is able to recognize times are changing and so should some of its courses. Taking a class on the legalization of marijuana is vital to the lawyers and citizens of the states where it is legalized. Knowing your rights is the best way to stay out of trouble!

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 Sturm College of Law Changes With Times, Offers Marijuana Class appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome, readers, to a new series focused solely on sharing the most ridiculous laws that actually exist in our country. From banning women from parachuting on Sundays to making swearing loudly unlawful, the 50 United States are chock full of laws that really make you wonder how they ever came to be.

To kick start this series I will focus on one of the largest states, which has no shortage of bizarre laws on the books.

As you all know, California is home to Hollywood and major film and television production companies. If you are a parent wishing to take advantage of this to live vicariously through your child’s film career, beware. In the Golden State, film producers must have permission from a pediatrician before filming a child younger than one month.

Also, if you wish to include a scene with a dog pursuing a bear or bobcat in your film, you will have to change the plot. In California, it is unlawful to allow a dog to pursue either of the two aforementioned animals at any time.

Speaking of animals, while it is illegal to shoot at them from a moving vehicle, there is an exception for anyone wishing to play out a Moby Dick scenario: shooting at a whale from a moving vehicle is completely fine. So go ahead and release your inner Ishmael!

I’m sure you are all aware that some cities nationwide charge customers for plastic bags. San Jose and Sunnyvale, California take this to the next level, however; in those two cities, it is illegal for grocery stores to provide plastic bags at all.

Horny animals better control their natural instincts in Cali. Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern, school, or place of worship. This law in particular is a major head-scratcher for me. How is it enforced? Who would be arrested in such a case? Would two dogs getting it on next to a church be sent to the pound? Oh, the confusion of it all… I have so many hilarious visuals playing out in my mind of cops leading handcuffed dogs to the holding cell.

The final law worth mentioning is one specific to the city of Fresno, where it is illegal to sell permanent markers within city limits.

Thus concludes this week’s edition in the series “The Dumbest Laws in the United States.” Tune in next week when we will explore the illogical laws throughout the rest of the West Coast.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Dumbest Laws in the United States: California Edition appeared first on Law Street.

On September 13 2014, 18-year-old University of Virginia student Hannah Graham went missing, and recently authorities arrested and charged 32-year-old Jesse L. Matthew Jr. in relation to the incident. His current charge is described as abduction with intent to defile in the case of Graham. (Intent to defile meaning he intended to sexually assault the victim.) Matthew is currently being held without bond and is scheduled for a hearing in early December. Unfortunately, after two weeks of searching, Graham has still not been found, but authorities are doing all they can to locate her.

This case is a tragedy and my heart goes out to Graham’s family and friends. One of the hardest things to understand in this case is recently surfaced reports alleging that Matthew has a history of sexual assault accusations, none of which ended in conviction. According to The Washington Post,

The alleged assaults occurred within an 11-month span from 2002 to 2003 as Jesse L. “LJ” Matthew Jr. moved from Liberty University in Lynchburg to Christopher Newport University in Newport News. Police investigated each report, but neither resulted in a criminal case, according to the Lynchburg prosecutor and a review of online court records in Newport News.

If the allegations of these cases from over a decade ago are true, and with minimal knowledge of the reasoning surrounding the dropped charges, it is hard not to wonder why Matthew got away with such crimes not once, but twice before harming another innocent young girl? These alleged incidents occurred while Matthew was a student attending university, and although legislation and public discourse surrounding campus sexual assault has been under the miscroscope in recent months, I cannot help but wonder how we can act to prevent this loophole?

This case is reminiscent of another sexual assault case with similar characteristics.  In 1996 Amie Zyla, an 8-year-old girl, was sexually molested and victimized by family friend Joshua Wade who was 14 years old at the time. Wade was adjudicated for a misdemeanor in juvenile court. Nine years later, Wade was convicted and sentenced to 25 years in prison for a series of sexual molestation cases involving the abuse of young children. This case caused huge controversy, and was the driving force behind expansions in the definition of sexual assault.

These two cases indicate the importance of people’s histories and backgrounds. We all make mistakes, and sometimes it is wrong for our privacy to be intruded upon, but with something like sexual assault cases — regardless of whether there has been a conviction — something about this needs to be mentioned. It doesn’t take a lot of common sense to understand how hard it can be to convict a perpetrator of sexual assault. There is often a lack of witnesses on top of fear and upset from the victim; with a case dependent on DNA testing, the odds are very slim. Just because cases may not be tried in court — like Matthew’s two alleged college incidents — it does not mean that they didn’t happen and are not warning signs for things to come.

The media has spent its energy publicizing Matthew’s past. This runs a risk of setting off stricter registration laws for sexual offenders, which have proven to do more harm than good. By broadcasting the background of a perpetrator who was in society seemingly living normally until his arrest for the disappearance of a young girl, I question whether the media is supporting the need to find Graham and bring her home safely, or whether it is striking the ‘stranger danger’ rape myth back into society?

Hannah Kaye

Hannah Kaye is originally from London, now living in New York. Recently graduated with an MA in criminal justice from John Jay College. Strong contenders for things she is most passionate about are bagels and cupcakes. Contact Hannah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Case of Hannah Graham and the Myth of Stranger Danger appeared first on Law Street.

It seems as though the fake tanning trend is finally nearing its expiration date. Or at the very least, its legal limits. In recent months, multiple states have moved to restrict the ability of minors to access tanning beds. Teens under 18 in the states that have moved to legislate may need parents’ permission before indulging in the fake-UV rays, or be banned altogether.

Just a few years ago, tanning beds seemed ubiquitous for high school students looking to get a little more orange, despite that the dangers of tanning beds have been well known for years. Laws have always varied, but more states are moving toward banning minors outright, or requiring parental consent for those under 18. The American Cancer Society (ACS) tends to recommend the latter, highlighting the danger of tanning beds for young people. ACS South Dakota’s grassroots manager Carmyn Egge recently pointed out, “what we have found is that a person under the age of 35, who uses an indoor tanning device, their likelihood of getting a melanoma diagnosis [increases] by 59 percent.” Cindy Caneveri, of the American Cancer Society’s Cancer Action Network has cited similar statistics to the press, explaining:

Melanoma is now the second most common cancer for ages 15 to 29, and most common for ages 25 to 29. Melanoma is cumulative, so if you start out using a tanning bed [in your teens], you’re not seeing cancer until your late 20s.

States that have banned tanning completely for those under 18 include: California, Texas, Vermont, Illinois, Oregon, Nevada, Washington, Minnesota, Hawaii, and Louisiana. Delaware just recently passed a bill as well, although it won’t go into effect until 2015.

While the states above have banned teen tanning outright, some states are settling for restricting the ways in which teens can tan. This summer, a new law went into effect in Pennsylvania making tanning tougher on minors. The Indoor Tanning Regulation Act took place last month, and banned anyone under 16 years old from using a tanning bed. It also required that 17 year olds have parental consent. A recently passed Missouri law is also cracking down on the ways in which teenagers can tan indoors. The state now requires that anyone under the age of 17 provide written permission from a parent before using tanning facilities.

The Indoor Tanning Association disagrees with the bans on younger people, pointing out that 16 year olds can drive, own guns, and in certain cases get married, so they should not be limited in their choices to engage in indoor tanning.

The laws, however, do make a lot of sense. Tanning can be a harmful alteration to your body, and it’s logical to leave the ability to consent up to adults. Cigarettes, for example, are illegal until an individual turns 18 and is no longer a minor. Skin cancer is actually more frequent at this point than lung cancer. Each year in the United States, approximately 420,000 new cases of skin cancer are diagnosed that can be traced back to indoor tanning. In comparison, a total of about 225,000 new lung cancer diagnoses were expected in the U.S. in 2014. While cigarettes and tanning beds carry very different types of carcinogens, the move toward restricting harmful activities for those underage is a traditional practice.

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 States Saying No to Teen Tanning appeared first on Law Street.

Fewer burglars and robbers lurk in the streets of Colorado, and not because of a Batman-style, crime-fighting vigilante. After Colorado’s legalization of recreational marijuana, skeptics believed the rate of crime would elevate if not skyrocket; however, the opposite appears to be true. Since January 2014, when recreational marijuana sales began, robberies and burglaries have decreased in Colorado.

Although a causal link between legalized recreational marijuana and the decrease in crime cannot be determined, the correlation remains. Other factors such as weather and the economy most likely influenced the lower crime rate. One of the main reasons it is important to observe these rates is that they can act as a crystal ball for other states hoping to follow Colorado’s lead. As the first state to legalize recreational marijuana, it became a guinea pig for demonstrating the effects of this legislation.

Many lawmakers and analysts predicted that the legalization of marijuana would lead to increased crime rates. For example, prior to its legalization Denver District Attorney Mitch Morrissey made the case that robbers would prey on marijuana businesses and their customers because they carry lots of cash and pot. This is because they are unable to open bank accounts and therefore need to keep their income in cash.

None of these fears have panned out, at least not yet.

Have we forgotten about Washington, the other state in which citizens voted to allow the purchase and use of recreational marijuana? Has the new law in the Evergreen state (potential for plenty of jokes there, along with the Mile-High city of Denver) mirrored a decrease in crime as well? The simple answer is no, because despite its new legal standing, not one Washingtonian has purchased a joint nor lone bud of Mary Jane.

For more than a year, the sale and use of recreational marijuana in Washington has been legal under Initiative 502; however, Washington residents still wait with bated breath to purchase recreational pot. Colorado residents have spoken: they voted to get high legally, and now they can. Perhaps the encouraging statistics demonstrating its decrease in crime will finally cause Washington lawmakers to speed up the enactment their law.

Why the difference between the two states? Whereas Colorado simply opened up the state’s existing medical cannabis system to recreational customers, the initiative passed in Washington required that the recreational pot business start from scratch. Although marijuana is legal to possess, there’s no way to acquire it until the state issues licenses for what the state calls its “seed-to-sale” system. Currently, this system does not exist. Would-be marijuana sellers filled out and handed in applications to acquire these licenses last November. The Washington State Liquor Control Board, the legal authority in charge of distributing these licenses, has not handed out a single one.

If and when the aspiring pot shop owners finally do get their licenses, they still must go through the tedious process of securing business permits from local authorities who are often against legal pot. Good luck to them.

If they decide to take a page from Colorado’s legislative notebook, Washington may be able to get the sale of legal marijuana up and running. Sometimes it is hard for lawmakers to move past the fear that naturally comes with enacting a new law, especially when they are the first to do so. The lower crime rate in Colorado since the legalization of marijuana should hopefully put them at ease.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured Image Courtesy of [United States Fish and Wildlife Service via Wikipedia]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Colorado Crime Down Since Pot Legalization; is Washington to Follow? appeared first on Law Street.

There is a new danger posing a massive threat to the health and longevity of young people. It holds the potential to be more lethal than MDMA, Heroin, tobacco, and every other street drug combined. The name of this new terror? Electronic cigarettes, designed to help the smokers of the real thing quit. DUN, DUN, DUN! Everybody start homeschooling your kids lest they pick up this atrocious habit and head down a lifelong path of recklessness. The scents of fruits and baked goods that encompass the flavors of electronic cigarette juice will surround the nation’s youth like an ominous black thunder cloud. Inhale vapor, exhale Satan’s breath.

The above paragraph is what is called hyperbole, a dramatic exaggeration for added emphasis. Recently, New York state passed a ban on electronic cigarettes in Central Park. I understand banning them indoors, where it makes complete sense that someone in a place like a restaurant would not want to eat his entree in a cloud of someone else’s electronic cigarette vapor. But in an enormous, unenclosed space? If it is between someone vaping e-cigarettes and smoking traditional ones, what would you choose?

Nicotine: Save our Children from this Toxic, Relentless Horror

A 2011 federal court case gives the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate electronic cigarettes under existing tobacco laws presumably because they deliver nicotine, which is derived from tobacco. This broad generalization that all electronic cigarettes “deliver nicotine” is not even true, since the flavored juices that turn to vapor via the use of devices often contain less nicotine than cigarettes and sometimes none whatsoever. Most articles stressing the health risks associated with nicotine delivered via e-cigarettes conveniently leave out this fact. Thankfully, an article on HowStuffWorks correctly points out that “there are also cartridges available that contain flavored liquid without nicotine, for users who want the sensory experience of smoking a cigarette without the harmful effects.”

According to an article bashing electronic cigarettes as a horrific danger to us all, the juice “poses a significant poisoning risk.” The article cites that, according to the CDC, “The number of calls to poison centers involving e-cigarette liquids containing nicotine rose from one per month in September 2010 to 215 per month in February 2014.” More than half of those calls involved children under age five.” How does this differ in any way from children getting into their parents’ medicine cabinets and overdosing on some candy-flavored medication? Here’s how you solve the issue of children getting a hold of electronic cigarette juice — put it on a higher shelf. There. I just solved one of the greatest concerns associated with e-cigs. Additionally, now that the good ol’ FDA is involved, they will probably make the juices childproof.

But of course, the concerns don’t stop there. The FDA claims that e-cigarette use can “increase nicotine addiction among young people and may lead kids to try other tobacco products.” First of all, please see my above comment about the nicotine-free juices. Additionally, in most states, minors are not allowed to purchase e-cigarettes or their accessories. Louisiana, one of the few exceptions previously, now prohibits the sale of e-cigarettes to minors. That law I get, because minors have underdeveloped brains that make rash decisions just to piss off their parents and the authorities. They are not trying to stop blackening their lungs and potentially giving themselves cancer by switching to a healthier method of getting their nicotine fix. Huge difference.Third, in response to leading kids to try other tobacco products, who wants to go from inhaling a smooth vapor flavored like delicious baked goods or refreshing fruits to choking down repulsive, chemical-laden and bitter tobacco smoke? No one, that’s who.

Toxic Vapor

Those adamantly calling for the banning of e-cigarettes argue that their juice has a high chemical content; however, the substance that is inhaled when vaping typically has four ingredients: propylene glycol, vegetable glycerin, nicotine, and food-grade flavors, whereas cigarette smoke contains substances such as carbon monoxide, tar, arsenic, ammonia, cyanide and acetone among many others. The Boston University School of Public Health has gone on record saying that “few, if any, chemicals at levels detected in electronic cigarettes raise serious health concerns.”

The FDA is more anxious than a preteen girl at a high school dance to regulate the heck out of e-cigarettes. Mitchell Zeller, director of the FDA’s Center for Tobacco Products, said the agency is exploring potential product standards in the areas of addiction, toxicity, and product appeal as it prepares to gain regulatory authority over electronic cigarettes and other nicotine-delivery devices. One of the positive aspects that would go hand in hand with these regulations would be the increased public education by the FDA.

It’s not the nicotine that kills half of all long-term smokers, its the delivery mechanism.
-Mitchell Zeller

Well said Zeller, well said.

Exploding E-Cigs

Another oft-cited criticism of e-cigarettes is that they have exploded in the mouths of their users. I’m not sure which punch I want to throw at this absurdity first. Let’s start with all of the explosions our beloved friends cigarettes have caused in their long reign. The fact that there are signs at gas stations warning smokers to smother their cancer-causers prior to fueling clearly started as a result of an explosion caused by the proximity of a cigarette to the flammable substance gasoline. Search “cigarette gas station explosion” on any search engine and the page will instantly bombard you with a string of news stories. Electronic cigarettes that explode generally have been tampered with in some way or another by their owner. Before you decide to label all e-cigarettes as potentially causing your face to burn off, remember that quality electronic cigarettes come with safeguards like automatic battery shutoffs or smart chargers that prevent overheating, and are properly tested prior to sale. According to manufacturers, regular e-cigarette batteries can’t do much damage even in the extremely unlikely event of their explosion.

My Lungs Hurt!

Let me cite and mercilessly rip apart another anti-electronic-cigarette argument. According to a scholarly article, “despite the marketing claims that e-cigarettes are safer than smoking tobacco, researchers are finding e-cig users experience diminished lung function, airway resistance and cellular changes, regardless of whether or not they currently (or ever) smoke cigarettes. Users who vape nicotine-free e-cigs can’t escape the effects, either; they also experience airway resistance and other signs of inflammation as side effects of e-cigarette use.” However, all tests done with e-cigarettes are short term studies, as in what happens ten minutes after you inhale their vapor. Additionally, nicotine isn’t the culprit of airway resistance and inflammation. Tobacco has thousands of carcinogens and causes 90 percent of lung cancer, while short term studies indicate some minor inflammation after vaping on an electronic cigarette. Which would you choose? A painful, lingering and potentially lethal disease or about ten minutes of smaller airwaves?

While one study performed by Greek researchers at The European Respiratory Center found that “E-cigarettes, electronic tubes that simulate the effect of smoking by producing nicotine vapor, caused an immediate increase in airway resistance, lasting for ten minutes, making it harder for participants to breathe,” another study by Greek researchers published in February 2013 found that e-cig use did not affect short term lung function in comparison to both mainstream and sidestream tobacco smoke. The important aspect to note in the first study’s findings is that it increased airway resistance for “ten minutes.” Oh Heaven forbid, TEN whole minutes! I guess in this ADD era of short attention spans, that is basically a lifetime…

E-Cigarettes Already Making a Difference

Yet there is success story following success story of musicians, athletes, and other individuals who push their lungs to the physical limits as part of their jobs switching from traditional cigarettes to electronic ones.

Playing a wind instrument requires an incredible amount of lung capacity and physical endurance. I used to smoke analog cigarettes and my lungs hurt every day, and playing upwards of 8 hours a day in college with painful lungs was absolutely miserable. As soon as my friend brought the earliest version of the now much more advanced electronic cigarette to rehearsal, I knew there was hope and I had to make the switch. I vape almost constantly every single day and ever since I switched from cigarettes to electronic cigarettes my lungs haven’t hurt once. I can’t remember the last cigarette I smoked, and I have no plans to start again.

-Alex Cazet, freelance saxophone musician

Switching from traditional to electronic cigarettes also makes a huge difference for athletes. Online forum after online forum feature athletes relaying statements about the huge difference e-cigs made in their athletic performance, health, and lives overall. With the potential of e-cigarettes providing extreme health benefits for previous cigarette smokers, it only makes sense to make their use completely legal. Yet state after state is imposing ridiculous bans on the devices. At the moment, North Carolina is considering adding a tax to e-cigarettes. Okay, let’s take a long, hard look at what this will cause. One of the reasons cigarette smokers want to quit: it costs a ton, especially with the jacked-up tax rates on each pack they buy. So, if saving money by switching to electronic cigarettes is no longer a draw, then a good number of smokers destroying their health will just shrug their shoulders and stick with their nasty habit. There are also a vast amount of laws banning the use of electronic cigarettes which are, rightfully so, pissing off their dedicated users. In New York, electronic cigarette users took part in a “vape-in” to protest the New York City ban on the devices. New Jersey, Utah, and North Dakota already have similar bans and more states are considering following suit.

These over-the-top laws, regulations and the seemingly sudden backlash against electronic cigarettes are completely befuddling to me. I admit that, due to their relatively recent popularity and invention, the effects of electronic cigarette use ought to continue being studied. Although the e-cig juices found to contain toxins are often poorly made, cheap options while there are myriad options on the market that are comprised of organic materials. Tobacco cigarettes, on the other hand, contain thousands of toxins including arsenic, a deadly poison.

So, aside from “grossing out” Rachael Ray and giving kids a new device to covet and try to obtain from their older friends, e-cigarettes hardly pose a more pertinent threat than that of their toxin-laden tobacco predecessors. Well, now that I feel I have educated the public, I’m off to go vape. Peace.

—

Marisa Mostek (@MarisaJ44) loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Joseph Morris via Flickr]

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Vaporizing E-Cigarette Myths appeared first on Law Street.

The United States will be able to report a lower number of executions in 2013. Thirty-nine people were executed in nine different states, a 10% reduction from 2012. Twenty-three of those executions took place in just two states–Florida and Texas. To put this in context, in 1999, there were 98 people executed for their crimes. In addition, eighty new death sentences were handed out, which is a dramatic shift from 315 just 19 years ago.

There has also been a slow but perceptible trend of death penalty abolition on the state level. There are now 18 states and the District of Columbia that have abolished the death penalty. Six of these states have done so since 2007.

So, why? Why are we seeing a reduction in executions?

There a few different viable answers. The first is a declining availability of the drugs used in lethal injection. The vast majority of executions in the United States are done by lethal injection, although there are occasionally exceptions, and some states still allow methods such as firing squads or hanging.

But the states that intend to carry out death penalty sentences by lethal injection have run into a problem. Most of the drugs used come from European-based companies, and in 2011, the European Commission put extremely tight regulations on the import of those drugs. Some European drug companies, such as Danish-based Lundbeck which produces one of the most efficient and popular drugs for use during a lethal injection, flat out banned its use during executions. The death penalty has been abolished in all European states with the exception of Belarus.

As a result, states are scrambling to find a way to carry out lethal injections. Some states have experienced with drug cocktails, and others use untested drugs. According to Richard Dieter, Executive Director of the Death Penalty Information Center, “the states are scrambling to find the drugs. They want to carry out these executions that they have scheduled, but they don’t have the drugs and they’re changing and trying new procedures never used before in the history of executions”. Some lawsuits have alleged that this experimentation could be considered cruel and unusual punishment and has led to stays on executions in the state of California, among others.

Another proposed reason for the drop in executions is the discovery of evidence that proves the innocence of many people who had been previously executed. Improved forensic technology and DNA testing show that trials do not always result in justice. Groups such as the Innocence Project attempt to exonerate people who have been convicted of crimes, and since 1989, there have been 311 post-conviction exonerations based on DNA evidence alone. Eighteen of those people were awaiting their executions on death row.

Finally, the trend may be attributed to a number of other reasons. Part of it may be moral–the US stands essentially alone among its allies in its use of the death penalty. Another reason may be that most violent offenders die in prison anyways, which makes prosecutors and judges less likely to push for it.

Whatever the reason for the diminished use of the death penalty over the last few years, it will be interesting to see if it sticks. If those who attribute the shift to the inability to get the appropriate medications are correct, we should see an uptick in executions as that issue is resolved. If it’s more about the moral constraints, maybe executions will continue to lessen. Either way, capital punishment in the US will change.

—

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 [CACorrections via Wikipedia]

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 Is the US Done With the Death Penalty? 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.

The state of Wisconsin has a law that has been dubbed the “cocaine mom” law. The idea, in theory, is supposed to protect fetuses from mothers who have drug or alcohol problems and may harm their unborn children. The law contains specific language that the provisions in this law are only supposed to be used in a situation in which a mother may harm her child to a severe degree. In addition to Wisconsin, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and South Dakota have these laws in place, while 20 other states have tried and failed to pass them.

A New York Times article by Erik Eckholm published earlier this week explored the horrifying implications of this law. The editorial focused on the story of a twenty-eight year old woman named Alicia Beltran. Fourteen weeks into her pregnancy she went in for a prenatal checkup. She was honest with her doctor about an addiction to Percoset, a prescription painkiller. She had kicked that addiction a few months before. She had also briefly taken a medication called Suboxone, which is intended to help addicts kick their addictions. It is safe even for pregnant women. She borrowed it from a friend, and did not have a prescription for it, because she could not afford one. But she waned herself off of it a few days before she even went in for pre-natal care.

After explaining her situation to her doctor, she took a urine test that showed only traces of Suboxone, which she had disclosed to her doctor. Later tests showed no drugs in her system. The physician’s assistant she had seen for her check-up report told her that if she wanted to continue to take Suboxine, that she should get a prescription. That decision was backed up by the OBGYN Beltran had also briefly seen at the clinic. Beltran explained that she no longer intended to take the drug, and that a prescription would not be necessary.

The physician’s assistant was concerned about the patient, and reported Beltran. A few days after her check-up appointment, a social worker showed up at her door. For Beltran, that was when the real nightmare began. The social worker said that she needed to restart Suboxine to prevent her from taking any other drugs, or be court-ordered to do so. Beltran explained that she did not want to restart Suboxine, and that she was not at risk for restarting her Percoset addiction. She admits that the social worker upset her deeply, and when she slammed the door, she said something about considering an abortion.

A few days after this incident, a sheriff showed up at Beltran’s door and placed her under arrest. She was brought to court, and the terrified young woman was introduced to a lawyer that had been assigned to her unborn fetus. She asked for a lawyer for herself, but wasn’t given one. She was then remanded to a 78-day stay at a drug addiction facility to treat a problem that, as later urine tests showed, she simply did not have. She reports that she was given an option between the treatment facility and jail.

Now, Beltran is fighting back. She is part of a federal suit that aims to declare the Wisconsin “cocaine mom” unconstitutional. Lynn M. Paltrow, Executive Director of National Advocates for Pregnant Women told the New York times about the ramifications of these types of laws, saying “this is what happens when laws give officials the authority to treat fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as if they are already completely separate from the pregnant woman.”

The future of this case in court may have interesting effects on the large and vast fetal personhood argument that has been occurring for the past few years all across the United States. If the Federal Court decides that a woman can be held against her will in the name of protecting a fetus; namely that the life of a fetus supersedes the rights of a mother—that decision could have an important effect on the forward movement of fetal personhood cases nationwide. On the flip-side, if they rule that the law is unconstitutional, that precedent could be used as an argument to block fetal personhood efforts in some states.

—

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 [alenka_getman 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 “Cocaine Mom” Law’s Horrifying Effects appeared first on Law Street.