Republican Governor Rick Scott of Florida used an executive order on Monday to remove the first black elected prosecutor in the state, Orange County State Attorney Aramis Ayala, from 21 murder cases. The conflict between Ayala and Scott started last month after Ayala, a Democrat, announced that she wouldn’t be seeking the death penalty in a murder case. Scott reacted by taking the case, in which a man is accused of killing a pregnant woman and a police officer, away from Ayala.

Scott called the decision “unacceptable,” and said “that she is not interested in considering every available option in the fight for justice.” According to Ayala’s spokesperson Eryka Washington, she didn’t know about the reassignments until they were reported in the media. Washington said that Ayala believes Scott is abusing his authority and “has compromised the independence and integrity of the criminal justice system.”

The news created a lot of mixed feelings on social media, with a lot of people criticizing the governor for overreach.

does an elected prosecutor have right to decide against seeking death? – ongoing legal battle worth following in FL https://t.co/9pLaX7yYJQ

— Wesley Lowery (@WesleyLowery) April 3, 2017

Many also pointed out concerns about the death penalty:

Thank you to Aramis Ayala. The death penalty is an ineffective deterrent, racially discriminatory and morally wrong. https://t.co/LiFtodFqat

— Keith Boykin (@keithboykin) April 4, 2017

Also on Monday, State Representative Bob Cortes urged Scott to go even further and remove Ayala from office. He argued that she is trying to change the law–he said that “she is elected there to follow it,” and not change it. He claimed that Ayala is neglecting her responsibility to those who elected her by not considering the death penalty. According to the Florida state constitution, a governor can remove any elected official who isn’t fulfilling her duty.

But it’s hard to determine whether or not she is fulfilling her duty, given that prosecutorial discretion allows Ayala to decide how to best pursue her cases. And it’s worth noting that opinions on the death penalty differ in the United States. Research has repeatedly shown that it’s not effective in deterring people from committing crimes. There is also the risk of executing an innocent person, and examples of botched executions where the prisoner doesn’t die right away but has to endure a slow, torturous death. The drugs that are used are increasingly expensive and hard to access, as many medical companies don’t want to contribute to executing people. And the trials where prosecutors seek the death penalty involve an additional phase for sentencing, which makes the whole ordeal more expensive than a regular trial.

Back in March, when Ayala made it clear that she wouldn’t be seeking the death penalty for the rest of her term, she also mentioned the downside of instilling hope in victims’ families about an execution that might take months or years before being carried out–if ever. “I have determined that doing so is not in the best interests of this community or in the best interests of justice,” she said.

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 Florida Prosecutor Won’t Seek Death Penalty, Governor Yanks Her Cases appeared first on Law Street.

According to a calculation by the Associated Press, the disputed “bathroom bill”–HB2–would cost North Carolina about $3.76 billion in lost business over twelve years. Over the past year, several companies have left the state. For example PayPal, which pulled out of North Carolina last year, would have contributed an estimated $2.66 billion to the local economy.

Artists like Bruce Springsteen and Ringo Starr have cancelled concerts in North Carolina and the NCAA is also avoiding the state–it is about to announce the locations of various championships through 2022 and has said that North Carolina will not be included as long as the controversial law is in place. This could result in losses of hundreds of millions more.

‘Bathroom bill’ to cost North Carolina $3.76B, AP analysis finds https://t.co/3vyxKpSHJT #HB2 #LGBTQ pic.twitter.com/tIKfCz4DNm

— NBC Out (@NBCOUT) March 27, 2017

The bathroom bill prohibits transgender people from using the public bathroom that corresponds with the gender they identify with. It used the argument that allowing transgender women–who were born male–into the women’s bathroom, would result in an increase in sexual assaults. As there is absolutely no evidence for this, and male predators don’t typically identify as women or care whether they are allowed in the women’s bathroom or not before attacking, that argument understandably caused a lot of criticism and outrage.

Former Governor Pat McCrory, who was very supportive of the bill, failed to win re-election in November and revealed in a recent interview that he has had trouble finding a new job. “People are reluctant to hire me, because, ‘oh my gosh, he’s a bigot’–which is the last thing I am,” he said.

-Gov signs anti-trans bathroom bill
-State loses $600M, reputation hurt
-Gov voted out, can’t get job https://t.co/ByEk5EWbTs #ncpol #hb2 pic.twitter.com/yPpGVodCGq

— Alex Kotch (@alexkotch) March 13, 2017

The AP put together its analysis through interviews and public records, but also said that the numbers probably are an underestimation. The data only includes businesses that the AP could confirm were relocating or canceling their business in the state because of the bill. That means there could be more that the AP couldn’t confirm and therefore didn’t include. There were also likely cancelled endeavors from other companies that the AP had no way to measure.

“Companies are moving to other places because they don’t face an issue that they face here,” said Brian Moynihan, CEO of Bank of America, which is based in North Carolina. He said he has talked to many business leaders who had spoken out about their choice to relocate, but that others are probably moving quietly. McCrory’s statement after signing the bill into law that it wouldn’t affect the state’s position as “one of the top states to do business in the country” seems to have been proven wrong.

But supporters of the bill have not admitted to any defeat; rather they are saying that the costs are worth it, as long as it keeps sexual predators out of women’s bathrooms, which is the main argument in favor of the bill. Lt. Gov. Dan Forest accused the media of creating a false image of the economic impact of the bill. “The effect is minimal to the state. Our economy is doing well. Don’t be fooled by the media,” he said when addressing Texas legislators who are considering adopting a similar law.

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 Looks Like the Bathroom Bill Will Cost North Carolina Billions appeared first on Law Street.

As humans create smarter and more advanced robots, and they start to take over human jobs, maybe it’s about time to think about their legal status. The European Union is currently considering giving robots the rights of “electronic persons,” based on a draft report. But it’s not quite as sci-fi as it sounds. Robots won’t start thinking all by themselves and demanding equal rights anytime soon. This legal definition is instead a way to hold companies accountable for things their robots do. And it’s not law yet, only a draft of a series of recommendations for EU lawmakers. Member of European Parliament Mady Delvaux, from Luxembourg, who wrote the draft report said:

A growing number of areas of our daily lives are increasingly affected by robotics. In order to address this reality and to ensure that robots are and will remain in the service of humans, we urgently need to create a robust European legal framework.

As robots become advanced enough to make decisions without a human’s input, they can be considered to be more than simple tools. But it’s hard to say just what they are. Legislation would help define that, as well as ensure that someone is liable, for example, if a driverless car has an accident.

EU MEPs endorse Robot rights proposal: “electronic persons” status, kill switches https://t.co/HzmM9yXyMx#Legal #status #EU #robotics #AI pic.twitter.com/zcTIweoxgv

— Ian Hannigan (@IanHannigan) January 12, 2017

Delvaux and other MEPs are campaigning to create a new European agency for robotics and artificial intelligence. In such a new and quickly developing area, experts are needed to ensure that public authorities can easily get access to technical and ethical information. They also suggest streamlined rules for robot appliances and an ethical code of conduct to determine who, in case of a conflict, is to be held accountable for any social, environmental, or health impacts caused by robots. The guidelines would include the recommendation of a kill switch for all AI machines, in case of emergency.

If a robot were to be seen as an “electronic person,” it would “clarify responsibility in cases of damage,” a press release for the draft report said. So it’s not really about making a robot into a person. “Robots are not humans and will never be humans,” Delvaux said to The Verge. Legally, it just makes things less complicated. Legislation like this would ensure that companies can’t just say “it’s not our fault” if a self-driving car crashes and kills whoever is traveling in it.

The next step is for the draft to be passed on to the European Commission, the EU body that makes the laws. An actual decision on the matter could take years.

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 The EU May Legally Define Robots as “Electronic Persons” appeared first on Law Street.

On Friday President Obama signed the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights; the most comprehensive sexual assault legislation to date. The new bill is a combination of existing laws from different states and will help make sure that rape survivors always know where their evidence is located, whether it has been tested, and the results. Previously, the legislation around rape and the handling of rape kits–the kit with materials and instructions for gathering evidence following a rape–has been unclear and repeatedly criticized.

Rape victims are sometimes even charged for their exam following a sexual assault, which is not supposed to happen. According to federal law, rape victims should not be billed for a forensic exam and necessary medical care. However, sometimes the medical guidelines go beyond what the law covers, and who pays for that part varies between different states. This will be resolved by the new law.

Thank you @glamourmag for reporting this historic day!https://t.co/vSsZpraYcF

— Amanda (@nguyen_amanda) October 7, 2016

.@POTUS just signed the sexual assault survivor bill of rights. Congrats @risenowus & all who work to end sexual assault every day! #ItsOnUs

— Valerie Jarrett (@vj44) October 7, 2016

The driving force behind the new law was 24-year-old Amanda Nguyen, who is a rape survivor herself and took action after her own rape kit was about to be destroyed. After being raped in 2013, she submitted a rape kit to the state of Massachusetts. According to the law she had 15 years to decide whether she wanted to pursue legal action, but the state threatened to destroy her evidence after only six months unless she filed a request for an extension. To ask this of a rape victim so that existing evidence is not destroyed sounds pretty bizarre.

“A global movement is happening & our most powerful tool is our voice.” Amanda Nguyen on Sexual Assault Survivor’s Bill of Rights #2030NOW

— FAWCO (@FAWCO) September 19, 2016

“The system essentially makes me live my life by date of rape,” Nguyen said to the Guardian. It was also impossible to get a straight answer when she tried to find out where her evidence was located. On top of it all, she had to physically return to Massachusetts every six months to make sure the kit wasn’t destroyed.

In a press release on the bill, Nguyen said:

We want to thank President Obama for signing the Sexual Assault Survivors’ Bill of Rights into law today. This historic piece of legislation codifies the federal rights of the 25 million rape survivors in America and serves as a model for Statehouses to adopt.

Here are some of the rights that victims will be guaranteed under the new law:

• The right to have a sexual assault evidence collection kit preserved for duration of the statute of limitations;
• The right to be notified in writing 60 days before the destruction of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to request further preservation of a sexual assault evidence collection kit;
• The right to be informed of important results of a sexual assault forensic examination;
• A grant for attorneys general to provide survivors with written notice of what rights and policies they have in that state.

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 President Obama Signs Historic Sexual Assault Bill into Law appeared first on Law Street.

In a rare show of bipartisanship, the Senate managed to pass a bill that would create new block grants for states and government agencies to fund prevention, education, and treatment for opioid addiction. These efforts come as drug overdose deaths reached the highest level in history in 2014, surpassing traffic and gun-related deaths. Opioid overdoses, which involve drugs like prescription painkillers and heroin, make up the majority of drug overdoses and were involved in 28,647 deaths in 2014 based on data from the CDC.

The increase in drug deaths has been driven by a rise in painkiller and heroin overdoses, which were the cause of six in 10 overdose deaths in 2014. Opioid-related deaths have been steadily increasing for over a decade, going up 200 percent since 2000. Heroin overdoses alone tripled between 2010 and 2014.

In light of the epidemic, Congress may now be taking important steps to prevent these deaths. The Comprehensive Addition Recovery Act (CARA) passed the Senate on Thursday with a 94-1 vote. The bill aims to help fund education, treatment, and prevention programs to combat overdose deaths. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse and Rob Portman have done much of the work to push the bill through the Senate and make drug addiction a national priority.

A central goal of CARA is to increase the availability of Naloxone, a life-saving medication that can counter the effects of an overdose. Expanding law enforcement and first responders’ access to Naloxone can have significant effects on efforts to combat overdoses. Based on the CDC’s analysis of Naloxone training programs, between 1996 and 2010 about 53,000 people were trained to use the drug, resulting in over 10,000 overdose reversals.

The bill also prioritizes aid to states with laws that reduce liability for people administering Naloxone, which may encourage states to adopt similar laws in order to encourage responders to use the drug without fear of a lawsuit in the event of complications.

Provisions in CARA also seek to reduce misuse and overprescription of painkillers, which is a large contributor to drug overdoses. The bill would create a task force to issue new standards for painkiller prescription as well as implement safeguards to ensure proper disposal of unused medications to prevent children from accessing them.

One of the most important aspects of the bill is its focus on treatment. Not only would it help increase funding for evidence-based treatment programs, it would also reinforce the idea that drug addiction should be viewed as a disease that should be treated rather than punished. By funding treatment alternatives to incarceration, the bill could help shift drug policy toward efforts that reduce dependency rather than merely penalizing it.

While CARA has broad-based bipartisan support, it still has some challenges. It initially faced difficulty in the Senate after New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen attempted to add a Democratic-backed amendment calling for $600 million in additional emergency funding. The Republican leadership in the Senate holds that sufficient funding already exists for the legislation. The bill will also need to pass the House, where an identical piece of legislation is currently in committee. Relative to most bills, CARA has a decent chance of passing as it has been well received by both parties and the White House, but election year politics could end up derailing these efforts.

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Senate Passes Bill to Fight Opioid Addiction and Abuse appeared first on Law Street.

As mass shootings become the focus of public attention after two high-profile incidents in the span of  a couple of days, more and more people are demanding a response from Congress. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan recently faced a question about how to address mass shootings to which he responded saying that the focus needs to be on mental illness. Ryan then pointed to a bill from Representative Tim Murphy, a Republican from Pennsylvania, which seeks to overhaul the American mental health system. While nearly everyone agrees that the United States needs a better approach to mental health, the connection between mental illness and mass shootings is much more complicated than it may seem.

Before we get into the validity behind associating mental health with mass shootings, it is important to acknowledge the fact that most Americans see it as an important underlying problem. According to an ABC/Washington Post poll from October, Americans are nearly split on whether the government should prioritize passing new gun laws or protecting gun rights, but nearly two-thirds believe that improving mental health treatment is necessary to address mass shootings. When asked whether mass shootings are a reflection of problems with identifying and treating people with mental health issues or inadequate gun control laws, 63 percent believe mental health is the issue. There is a partisan difference in opinions–Republicans overwhelmingly focus on mental health while only 46 percent of Democrats focus on mental health alone. But despite those differences, only 23 percent of respondents said inadequate gun control laws were more concerning than mental health issues.

While Democrats often criticize Republicans’ reluctance to talk about gun control after mass shootings, it’s fair to say that addressing mental health problems is a greater concern for their constituents than stronger gun laws are. So in the wake of the tragic Sandy Hook shooting in 2012, the Republican Party looked to Rep. Tim Murphy, the only psychiatrist in Congress, to come up with a response. Murphy traveled across the country to speak with communities and mental health experts to determine the best way to fix the current system. While Murphy’s bill, the Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act, marks the most comprehensive approach to overhauling the U.S. mental health system, it’s important to ask how doing so will affect mass gun violence.

In a review of research on mental health and gun violence, Vanderbilt University professors Jonathan M. Metzl and Kenneth T. MacLeish find that there is little evidence to suggest that mental illness causes gun violence. While it is true that in the aftermath of mass shootings reports often indicate that the perpetrator experienced some sort of paranoia, delusion, or depression prior to the attack, suggesting that mental illness caused the shooting is another matter. Metzl and MacLeish cite the finding that less than 3 to 5 percent of crimes in the United States are committed by people with mental illness, and that proportion may be lower in terms of gun crime.

In fact, people with mental illness are far more likely to be the victim of a crime than the perpetrator. For example, one study found that people diagnosed with schizophrenia are victimized at rates 65 to 130 percent higher than the general public. The authors concluded, “In general, the risk associated with being in the community was higher than the risk these individuals posed to the community.” Saying that all people diagnosed with mental illnesses are likely to commit mass shootings is about as useful as saying we should take away the gun rights of white men because most mass shooters also fit that demographic. In reality, the vast majority of white men and people diagnosed with mental illness will not commit mass violence.

Metzl and MacLeish also question the claim that mental health professionals can predict and prevent gun crime. While efforts to prevent the next mass shooting are well intentioned, basing that off of psychiatric diagnosis is remarkably difficult. The authors argue that psychiatric diagnosis is primarily a matter of observation, and they note that for that reason “research dating back to the 1970s suggests that psychiatrists using clinical judgment are not much better than laypersons at predicting which individual patients will commit violent crimes and which will not.”

In some ways, the difficulty in using psychiatric diagnosis to predict mass violence is a matter of math. Public health research can be used to determine a person’s risk of heart attack based on large-scale studies and randomized trials, but when it comes to mass shootings and mental health, the data is limited. As Jeffery Swanson, a professor in Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at Duke University School of Medicine, notes in his research on predicting rare acts of violence:

In a U.S. city the size of San Jose, California, (population about 1,000,000), about 4,000 people every year will have a heart attack; perhaps one or two will be killed by someone with mental illness wielding a gun. Treatment evidence for preventing death from myocardial infarction has piled up from hundreds of clinical investigations over several decades, involving more than 50,000 patients in randomized trials by the early 1980s . When it comes to persons with mental disorders who kill strangers, there is nothing remotely resembling such an empirical evidence base.

The Republican mental health bill marks an ambitious effort to address a growing problem in the United States, but saying that it is a plan to prevent future mass shootings is misleading. According to the Treatment Advocacy Center, there are 350,000 Americans in state jails and prisons who have been diagnosed with a severe mental illness–that, among other things, is what Rep. Murphy’s bill seeks to address. The bill would restructure the funding for mental health care and change health privacy rules to allow family members to get information about a loved one’s treatment. On the other hand, the bill does not address whether or not someone with a mental illness should have access to guns.

Instead of advertising Murphy’s bill as a means to solve mass shootings, Congress should focus on the need for mental health reform by itself. The Helping Families in Mental Health Crises Act does have controversial provisions, notably whether states should be encouraged to develop Assisted Outpatient Treatment programs, which allows courts to compel treatment for individuals before he or she has a mental health crisis. And whether Murphy’s plan to move funding from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration–which he views as wasteful and ineffective–to a create an Assistant Secretary for Mental Health is the best way to spend money on mental health treatment.

Murphy’s bill is certainly ambitious and he already has some bipartisan support and backing from important mental health groups, but it also has some controversial provisions. For this reason, the debate on its passage should focus on whether or not it will improve and expand treatment for the 10 million Americans who experience severe mental illness in a given year–not whether it will prevent mass shootings.

Read More: Police Brutality and the Mentally Ill in America

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Fixing Mental Health Care Will Not Stop Mass Shootings, But That’s Okay appeared first on Law Street.

Imagine this: you hire a contractor to install new hardwood floors. After the job is done, you discover that the floors weren’t built to code, multiple doors no longer fully open, and boot prints were visible in the varnish. So, you go on Yelp and submit a scathing review, “Absolutely horrible experience… The quality of the work is deplorable. Be warned!” Six months later, the company sues you for civil theft, intentional interference, and defamation, claiming that your online reviews had caused it to lose $625,000 worth of business, or $250,000 in profits; The company demands $125,000 in compensation. $60,000 in legal fees later, you settle for $15,000.

Unfortunately, this story is not a mere hypothetical. This is the story of Matthew White, a Denver-area resident who has become one of countless victims of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP). In today’s online environment, a few bad reviews on Yelp can derail a fledgling company. SLAPP is the term used to describe legal claims made with the intention of silencing critics, despite having little chance of prevailing in court.

In response, consumer, media, and activist groups have lobbied for anti-SLAPP laws, and 28 states and Washington D.C. have passed laws intended to discourage SLAPP suits. There is no federal law yet, however.

Yelp, the $3 billion San Francisco company that publishes crowd-sourced reviews about local businesses, opened a political office in Washington last year to push for anti-SLAPP laws. In May, the Free Speech Act was introduced to a Congressional committee. According to Laurent Crenshaw, who handles national policy for Yelp, “This issue is really one that hits close to the heart for Yelp… The concern is that these types of lawsuits, even if not incredibly common, will have a chilling effect on people’s engagement online.”

The Free Speech Act aims to curb SLAPP suits by requiring a plaintiff in a speech-related case pertaining to matters of public concern to prove that he is likely to prevail. If he is unable to, the case would be automatically dismissed “with prejudice,” allowing the defendant to recover legal fees.

Yelp has built an impressive anti-SLAPP coalition, with endorsements from two major tech industry groups, the Internet Association and the Consumer Electronics Association, and has consulted with the likes of Facebook and Google. “Yelp’s involvement has been huge… It has really been tremendous for the cause” said Evan Mascagni, policy director for the Public Participation Project, a coalition pushing for anti-SLAPP laws.

Still, the road to a federal anti-SLAPP law will be long and arduous. Government transparency website GovTrack.us gives the Free Speech Act a 13 percent chance of being enacted, and accusations against Yelp claiming that the website solicited money for removing negative comments certainly does not help. Yelp is going to need to step up its game if it wants users to leave unfettered reviews without the fear of losing thousands in SLAPP lawsuits.

Hyunjae Ham

Hyunjae Ham is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2015 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Hyunjae at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Yelp Pushes for Anti-SLAPP Legislation appeared first on Law Street.

There are two primary lens through which the American public views lobbying. On one side you have those who favor lobbying and believe that a lobbyist’s expertise might grant a policymaker a different outlook on an issue. However, there also exists a group who views lobbying as unethical, and believes the pressure exerted by interest groups on politicians is enough to gain votes in favor of their corporate interests. This could create an issue granted that the interest group may not be lined up with constituents’ viewpoints. Moreover, lobbyists are often accused of using bribery and monetary threats to guide government actions. However a larger issue is imminent–many Americans are unaware of the full scope of these back room practices.

The American Legislative Exchange Council, known as ALEC for short, is a non-profit organization founded in 1973 under close scrutiny not only by the IRS, but by the American public. ALEC identifies itself as a group of conservative state legislators and private sector representatives that draft and share model state-level legislation for distribution among state governments in the United States. As noted by the company’s mission statement, ALEC “works to advance limited government, free markets, and federalism at the state level through a nonpartisan public-private partnership of America’s state legislators, members of the private sector and the general public.” While non-profit organizations such as the ACLU generally use their revenue to further enhance their mission or purpose with the benefit of not being federally taxed, ALEC has been accused by the IRS of taking advantage and abusing its tax-exempt status.

In April of 2012, Common Cause accused ALEC of being a lobbying organization, while objecting to ALEC’s tax status as a nonprofit organization, alleging that lobbying accounted for more than 60 percent of its expenditures.

Although ALEC formally denied lobbying, previous ALEC chairwoman Dolores Mertz expressed in the Daily Beast that  she was “concerned about the lobbying that’s going on, especially with [ALEC’s] 501(c)3 status.” Former Republican state senator and current vice chairman of the New Jersey Ethics Commission William Schluter, has also criticized ALEC in the past for its lobbying practices, telling nj.com,

When you get right down to it, this is not different from lobbying. It is lobbying… Any kind of large organization that adds to public policy or has initiatives involving public policy should be disclosed—not only their name, but who is backing them.

In fact, 2012 was not the only year ALEC was accused of taking advantage of its non-profit status. Most recently the organization has been discovered collecting money from lobbyists and corporations, and using the capital to subsidize costs for legislators to attend private “educational” meetings. Media Matters produced a video exposé on ALEC’s back room dealings and its results were truly outstanding. Not only did they find that legislators are wined, dined, and taken on golf outings; they are also given substantial wads of cash for miscellaneous purposes. What’s even more shocking are the decisions being made in the closed rooms, which the general public is denied access to.

During its investigation, Media Matters interviewed Georgia Senator Nan Orrock, a former ALEC member, who called ALEC a “corporate bill mill which cranks out legislation.” Moreover she divulged alarming information on the proceedings of the meetings wherein corporations and legislators have equal say on a piece of legislation.

The investigation  also uncovered that there are bills which need only initials by legislators and have been entirely drafted by corporations. One example is the Asbestos Claim Priority Act, which prevents asbestos victims from suing corporations. Noteworthy is the fact that although the bill passed in Georgia’s capital, it was first approved in Las Vegas, according to the video. Media Matters uncovered records indicating that three Georgia senators who sponsored the bill received over $22,000 in the year before, during, and after the bill was passed in “scholarship money” to attend resort meetings by ALEC.

For more detailed information on ALEC conferences please refer to this video.

In this context, the question arises of whether ALEC is complying with legal standards or not. Certainly the notion of filtering money between corporations and legislators through ALEC is not ethical, however do they breach any sort of law? It is tough to say granted that each state differs in terms of ethical rules and laws. Some states such as Wisconsin require legislators to fund their own trips to events. Other states, however, permit organizations such as ALEC to sponsor or grant “scholarships,” to legislators for said trips.

Regardless of whether any actual laws are being violated or not is yet to be determined, however it is clear that the operating system of the supposed NPO is being further observed not only by the general public concerned with fair legislative practices, but also larger actors. Mega corporations who once played a prominent role in ALEC, such as Coca-Cola, are showing their concern with the way ALEC handles legislative practices, as seen by Coca-Cola’s recent disaffiliation from the organization. It is only a matter of time before the continued allegations turn into large disputes, potentially leading to a landmark legal case.

Symon Rowlands

Symon Rowlands is a member of the University of Miami Class of 2016 and was a Law Street Media Fellow during the Summer of 2015. Symon now blogs for Law Street, focusing mostly on politics. Contact Symon at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ALEC: The True Indicator of Legislative Decisions? 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.

Early last week the Bureau of Justice Statistics revealed that for the first time since 1980 the federal prison population in the United States has dropped. In the last year alone, the federal prison population decreased by roughly 4,800. With new counts projecting the number of federal inmates to continue to fall by just over 2,000 in the next 12 months and by nearly 10,000 the year after, I ask the questions how, why, and what effect will this change have?

Over the past few years the Justice Department has revealed that crime rates have been dropping. Earlier this year, Attorney General Eric Holder aimed to change policies to reflect the belief that increasing the number of people behind bars does nothing to improve public safety. An example of such policies includes The Smarter Sentencing Act — which essentially seeks to eliminate mandatory minimum sentencing for defendants found guilty of first-time drug offenses — and the more recent Clemency Act, which seeks to release offenders from prison who were unfairly sentenced by mandatory sentencing guidelines. Holder has worked in the last year to reduce a prison population he says is costly and bloated. He was not wrong: in 2014 the country spent approximately $60 billion to incarcerate offenders.

Even as someone who has completed a masters in criminal justice, including a core required course in statistical management (which let’s be honest, was as horrific as it sounds), I still struggle to understand the relevance of the numbers the media is throwing at us. I agree that it is a real achievement that fewer people are being sentenced to time in prison, but I really want society to understand why it is such an achievement, and what this really means.

The decrease in prison population is certainly an incredible start to the potential success of community supervision and its benefits. The one thing these articles fail to point out is just how much further we have to go to protect us as a society, and those who enter into the system. You may be thinking at this point that I am out of my mind for considering the safety and well being of convicted offenders; however, the majority of individuals arrested and convicted are non-violent drug offenders. What the article praising the decrease in the prison population failed to acknowledge is that although certain convicted offenders will not be sentenced to prison, the conditions of their sentence lived in society carry a higher risk of future incarceration than if they were placed behind bars in the first place.

Just because these individuals are not physically locked behind bars does not mean they are not locked behind the transparent bars of social isolation. Rates of unemployment, difficulty securing housing, and loss of family are just some of the hurdles most of these individuals  contend with. Why? Because they have been stigmatized by society with their criminal label. Virtually everyone on community supervision is at risk of being detained or incarcerated upon failure to comply with the conditions of supervision. Would you be able to follow a list of conditions if you felt like no one supported you? In order to support alternatives to incarceration, we really need to welcome the culture of supervision and understand the positives it can bring us. Not only will we be spending less money on the safekeeping of these individuals, but intervention and supervision can be accurately given to each offender to prevent re-offenses, interrupt the cycle of crime in families, and shake up the social disorganization within communities.

Regardless of whether you believe crime is a choice, crime is inherited, or crime is learned, the solid facts are that crime happens. By locking individuals up without any guidance, or even attempting to work on understanding the cause, the likelihood of reoffending is just as high if not worse than it was before that person was put in jail. Legislators clearly have been able to understand the reality that sending people to prison does nothing for public safety, so now it is time they invest money into supervision agencies to aid offenders in the right way. In order for this to happen, well-trained staff, evidence-based programs, and support from others is essential.

It is essential we maintain a safe environment for everyone in our communities. The notable decrease in the overall American incarceration and crime rates is something that hasn’t happened in more than 40 years. This hopefully marks the start of a revolutionary change for the U.S. criminal justice system.

—

Hannah Kaye (@HannahSKaye) 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.

Featured image courtesy of [Viewminder via Flickr]

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 Incarceration Figures Drop, But Community Support is Essential to Public Safety appeared first on Law Street.

According to a statement released by the Department of Defense on August 27, 2014, United States Army General Officer Michael T. Harrison was forced to retire recently with a reduced rank after being found to have mishandled reports of sexual assault. As I read the article published by The New York Times, I was expecting to find that some form of criminal action had also been taken and that there would be some recognition of sympathy for those victims whose cases had been mishandled. Instead, the consequences of this general’s actions were to retire as a one star general, as opposed to a two star. No criminal action was taken, and no justice to the victims was given.

If you have seen the eye-opening documentary ‘The Invisible War,’ then you know that it raised awareness for the appalling number of victims who are involved in sexual assaults in military settings, but also that it spurred legislation ensuring investigations of abuse were handled efficiently, and justice was given to the victims. As can be seen with Harrison’s case, these incidents are still occurring and as a woman myself, I still do not feel like enough is being done.

Susan Brownmiller, an American journalist, describes sexual assault in military settings as an unfortunate but inevitable by-product of the necessary game called war. Quite frankly, the punishment Harrison received is nothing short of a joke. After the amendment of federal policies regarding sexual assault in the military two years ago, I question Congress as to why this is still happening? This game we call ‘sexual assault in war’ is unacceptable. According to “The Invisible War,”

‘Since 2006, more than 95,000 service members have been sexually assaulted in the U.S. military. More than 86 percent of service members do not report their assault, and less than five percent of all sexual assaults are put forward for prosecution, with less than a third of those cases resulting in imprisonment.’

These figures should be enough to not only change punishment for the mishandling of reports of sexual assault, but to help victims come forward and receive justice for their traumatic experiences. As of 2014, according to the Department of Veterans Affairs, federal law now defines Military Sexual Trauma (MST) as one of the most frequent diagnoses given to veterans of warfare. If we know that so many individuals suffer from such traumatic experiences, why isn’t policy being changed? Even more importantly, why aren’t those who are meant to protect us doing their jobs properly?

Each military force dominates the way reports and investigations of assault are handled. This ‘in house’ shambles of a system is essentially allowing officials to get away with their own wrongdoings. We are allowing individuals to commit acts without fear of punishment or consequence. In order to lower the rates of sexual assault in the military, the focus needs to be on controlling the environment, and providing an alternative system for report of misconduct. I am no expert in changing legislation, and I am no intellectual genius on the makings of policy, but I am certainly no fool to being aware that victims are suffering, and legislators need to wake up and realize that this type of consequence is normalizing military sexual assaults.

Our common coping mechanism for crime is imposing laws to regulate punishment to those who inflict pain and suffering. By imposing taking someone’s gold sparkly badge away and giving him or her a silver sparkly one instead because they essentially ignored someone’s suffering, is unacceptable. Sexual assault and abuse is not normal, regardless of the situation, regardless of the setting, and regardless of the perpetrator. In order to enable victims to report their abusers, and in order to protect future men and women from the pain and suffering so many veterans go through, something needs to change!

Now more than ever, I cannot wrap my head around the fact that our same country who is fighting to protect us from terrorism, our country who is fighting for the rights of the thousands of innocent individuals losing their lives in the Middle East, can also be the same country that contains individuals being sexually violated and then silenced by the same exact people who are meant to protect us.

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 Military Sexual Assault Remains a Major National Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

Mark Sobie, 43, was a convicted felon. In 2010, he turned himself in after robbing a bank in Michigan; he had used a fake gun for this operation. He served 30 months in a federal prison and this charge prevented him from buying or possessing a firearm. However, when it came to renting a gun, Sobie was never subjected to a background check. So, when he visited Silver Bullet Firearms in 2012, he was able to rent a gun, no problem. Sobie then took his own life at the shooting range in Michigan, with a blow to the face from the rental gun.

This was not a unique phenomenon. This was actually the second suicide at that particular range. There’s an interesting loophole in acquiring firearms; no thorough background check is completed for customers who rent guns. Over 12 years, more than 64 people have committed suicide at gun ranges in just three California counties. Reports of other similar incidents occurred in Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Virginia, Utah, Texas, and Oklahoma. If this is something plaguing our nation, why isn’t anyone talking about it? And why is there no federal legislation in place that requires background checks for gun rentals?

Initiating Action

The numbers are admittedly small. But every life is valued, and the family members of those who have taken their lives are speaking up. Sobie’s sister said his life could have been saved if the shooting range had conducted a background check.

There’s also a case where a woman killed her son, then committed suicide in front of other customers. Her name was Marie Moore, she had a history of mental illness, and according to police reports she had already attempted to commit suicide. A background check would have prevented her from access to a rental gun. But for lack of legislation, she was unstoppable and she murdered her son before taking her own life. Some gun ranges are responding to these violent outbursts by no longer renting firearms to their customers. Purchasing a firearm is a much more extensive process than simply walking into a shooting range, flashing an I.D. and signing a sheet of paper.

According to the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, “training and testing requirements in licensing laws are designed to ensure that gun owners understand relevant firearms laws, and know how to safely store and handle firearms.” Anyone who wants to buy a firearm must undergo a background check. Some states also require purchasers to receive a permit for owning a firearm. So why aren’t these same standards upheld for someone who wishes to rent a gun? It doesn’t matter where you are, if you have a gun in your hand, you should have to undergo some sort of screening to gain access to a lethal weapon.

Possible Solutions

This is no attack on the NRA or supporters of gun rights. It’s merely a call to action for some preventative action. The New Hampshire Firearms Safety Coalition has already started making some changes by focusing on suicide prevention rather than limiting gun rights. The first step NHFSC took was to unite people of all different interests including “gun store owners, shooting instructors, gun rights advocates and suicide prevention advocates to develop strategies to keep guns out of the hands of people who might use them to hurt themselves.”

They’ve used an informal and more personal process to take action. The NHFSC mailed suicide prevention posters to gun stores across New Hampshire. According to Politico Magazine, 48 percent of gun shops left the posters up for four to six months after they were mailed out. Some prevention groups in Las Vegas and Maryland have also adopted the practice of posting suicide prevention materials. So, could this informal process gain solid ground?

I have hope that it could. Gun control is a sore subject and many gun rights activists are hesitant to put further limitations on gun access. However, in this case, gun owners wouldn’t have to undergo further screening. People who are not knowledgable about gun control or familiar with responsible gun handling have easy access to guns through the gun rental loophole. Mandating a background check could take a step forward in suicide prevention and it wouldn’t encroach on gun owners’ rights. If more states adopted similar legislation, we could neutralize a bit of the debate surrounding guns.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Kevin Buelher 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 The Gun-Rental Loophole: Dangerous and Deadly appeared first on Law Street.

The FBI completed Operation Cross Country VIII last week, and it was definitely a success. Agents and officers rescued 168 children from sex trafficking, and arrested 281 pimps across the country. The operation spanned 106 cities and was part of the FBI’s Innocence Lost National Initiative. The FBI worked in conjunction with the National Center for Missing & Exploited Children (NCMEC) and local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies. This year’s mission was the most widespread yet; since 2003 Operation Cross Country has identified and recovered about 3,600 children from sexual exploitation.

In addition to the operation, the FBI and its partners are trying to increase awareness about child sex trafficking within our borders. John Ryan, president and CEO of NCMEC, called for better laws that would require child welfare services to report children missing. He said there is no federal legislation for agencies to report children missing from their care and only two states have such regulations. It’s clear that the children rescued in this year’s operation would not have been found without the valiant efforts of the FBI and NCMEC, because the laws just aren’t in place to protect them.

At the Operation Cross Country press conference, FBI Director James B. Comey stated,

The lesson of Operation Cross Country is that our children are not for sale; that we will respond and crush these pimps who would crush these children. […] We will do this by seeking jail terms of many, many years, to send two messages. One, you will never do this again. Two, to others who might be tempted to crush the souls of children—you do that, and you’re risking your freedom and your life.

The Need for Legislation

NCMEC is pushing for state welfare agencies to create mandatory reports of all children missing from foster care. Without regulations requiring welfare agencies to report missing children, no one is looking for them–no one even knows they’re gone. And with no one aware of their whereabouts, no one can track their activities. So, more and more children are sucked into the sex trafficking industry. Here’s a breakdown by NCMEC:

The Children Who Need Our Help  

In comparison to our nation’s total population, 3,600 children rescued may not seem like a lot, until you put a name or a face to the numbers. For me, that happened when Operation Cross Country took action nearby. This year’s operation rescued two girls from Montgomery County, Maryland–one of them was only 16 years old. But what really hit home were the arrests of four pimps in Prince George’s County, home to my college. To think the children I tutored last year, or the teenagers on the University of Maryland’s campus for summer sports camps could be coerced by pimps is horrific.

It’s a frightening reality. Take Nicole‘s story, for example. She was 17 years old when she met her pimp. He took her shopping, bought her nice things, and treated her to a life of luxury. He told her how she could make good money, quick; after her first day “on the job” she came home with $750. Then she got raped by a john and when she told her pimp he beat her and forced her to take an ice shower for three hours. She needed surgery to repair her broken ribs, wrist, nose, and head injuries. She had no family or friends. All of her assets were tied up in the pimp. She was trapped in the life of sex trafficking.

Then she met Dani Geissinger-Rodarte, an FBI Victim Specialist. With the help of Rodarte, Nicole was able to leave her pimp and build a case against him. Now, that pimp, Juan Alexander Vianez must serve 20 years in prison and pay $1.3 million in restitution for sex trafficking and interstate transportation of a minor in furtherance of prostitution, among other charges.

Nicole got justice, and thanks to Operation Cross Country, more than 3,000 other victims of human sex trafficking have as well. But the number of children who are coerced into the trade at young ages needs to be reduced, and our government should do more to protect them. Why are Florida and Illinois the only states that require social services and foster care providers to report missing children in their care to NCMEC? In just one year more than 4,000 children were reported missing to NCMEC from those two states. Adding the cases from the additional 48 states would up that number by a terrifying amount.

If legislation was passed mandating child care services across the nation report children missing from their care, Operation Cross Country could significantly increase the number of victims rescued. Kathryn Turman, Director of the FBI’s Office for Victim Assistance said more than six million children in the U.S. are involved in over three million reports of abuse each year. Turman said the victimization of these children severely affects healthy development and compromises their futures, which collectively comprises our nation’s future. She said the cost of not doing enough to protect and aid child victims of sex trafficking is colossal, stating:

“Doing all we can to bring these children with their often invisible wounds out of the shadows is our mission and our privilege. A hundred years ago a wise man stated, ‘If the children are safe, then everyone is safe.'”

The work that those involved in Operation Cross Country are doing to keep the children safe is incredibly admirable. They deserve the highest of praise.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno) 

Featured image courtesy of [Milliped via WikiMedia Commons]

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 Operation Cross Country: A New Way to Fight Child Sex Trafficking appeared first on Law Street.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is headed to the Supreme Court next term to defend Anthony D. Elonis, the New York man who posted rap lyrics to Facebook describing how he would kill his estranged wife. (If you’re not familiar with the case, click here to read my take on it.)

The main question in Elonis v. United States centers on First Amendment rights–when do threats made online become true threats, which aren’t protected by the First Amendment? Specifically in Elonis’s case, the court will be examining Facebook statuses in which he posted threatening “rap lyrics.” Select UVA Law students will take a stab at presenting Elonis’s defense.

The UVA Law Supreme Court Litigation Clinic is a one year program offered to third-year law students. Admitted students earn eight credits through participation, but even more valuable is the experience they gain. Once accepted to the clinic, students actively participate in live cases and must meet high expectations.

Working in teams, students handle actual cases from the seeking of Supreme Court review to briefing on the merits. Classes meet every week to discuss drafts of briefs and other papers students have prepared for submission to the court. Students will be expected to identify candidates for Supreme Court review; draft petitions for certiorari, amicus merits briefs and party merits briefs; and attend mootings and Supreme Court arguments.

In addition to providing invaluable experience to our nation’s future legal force, the UVA Law clinic grants students the opportunity to work on a pivotal case. The Supreme Court will debate whether Elonis’s Facebook posts can actually fall under the category of true threats–meaning that he intended to carry out the actions he wrote about. But Elonis’s lawyers artfully defended his case by stating he was rapping, therefore claiming First Amendment protection.

One of the clinic’s instructors, John P. Elwood, described the case as highly relevant because of our increased reliance on electronic communication. Furthermore, he made the point that electronically communicating with strangers may lead to miscommunication more often. Elwood says the ambiguity surrounding true threats has been a mess since the 2003 Virginia v. Black case, in which the Supreme Court attempted to create more specific guidelines for defining them.

I maintain my opinion, this guy is scary–if I were the ex-wife he had threatened I’d want a sense of security and protection too. There may be UVA students who also sympathize with her, but are defending Elonis with the clinic. Unfortunately for them, as a lawyer you don’t always get to choose who you defend. A lawyer’s duty is to defend her client to the fullest extent of the law, regardless of her personal beliefs. It will be valuable for those students to learn that lesson early, because sometimes it’s a hard pill to swallow. For example, when Hillary Clinton was a court-appointed attorney in 1975, she defended a 41-year-old man who was accused of raping 12-year-old girl. It must have been tough, and her political foes are now using it to attack her, but the important thing is that she did her job as a lawyer. The UVA students may have the opportunity to practice that kind of ethical dilemma when they argue on behalf of Elonis.

Elonis v. United States is the eleventh case the UVA clinic will defend in the Supreme Court since its establishment in 2006. And while the academic and legal experience is highly valuable, one other aspect should not be forgotten–legal ethics. That’s exactly what sets the Supreme Court Litigation Clinic apart from the rest–practicing legal ethics in a pivotal case. These twenty-somethings are in for quite a ride; their participation in our highest court could make history!

The University of Virginia School of Law staff did not comment as of press time.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Mmw3v via English Wikipedia]

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 UVA Law Clinic Takes on Controversial Anthony Elonis Case appeared first on Law Street.

Parents don’t have the luxury of choosing where they are when their babies drop the bomb. When nature calls, mothers and fathers alike run to restrooms to change dirty diapers, soothing both their babies and the ears of the public. But fathers across the nation have long been frustrated by the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms. Lawmakers across the country are finally starting to right this wrong.

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 90 percent of fathers who live with children under the age of five change diapers. When a father goes to change his baby’s diaper at the pizza place in town, he’s forced to either struggle on a dirty bathroom floor or balance the baby on his lap. He has a right to be frustrated, because if he was a she, it probably wouldn’t be such a struggle.

Currently there is no federal or state legislation mandating gender-based accessibility to changing tables. But as equality in parenting increases, we may need to make some changes. California State Senators Lois Wolk and Ricardo Lara support legislation to require adequate baby diaper changing stations in public restrooms, regardless of gender. Bills 1350 and 1358 recently passed out of the California Senate Transportation and Housing Committee with bipartisan support.

Bill Breakdown

If they pass the California Assembly, the bills would go into effect on January 1, 2015. Senate Bill 1350, backed by Lara, mandates that public accommodations that undertake substantial renovations (exceeding $10,000) or install new restrooms assure open access to baby changing stations regardless of restroom gender assignment.

Senator Wolk supports the more stringent bill, 1358. Under this legislation, all public accommodations would require “…mandatory building standards for the installation of baby diaper changing accommodations in restroom facilities…” This bill would create a ripple effect by making more baby changing stations available to modern families.

This isn’t the first time a region has tried to create equality for men on diaper-duty. Pittsburgh City Councilor Natalia Rudiak proposed a bill in July 2013 that would require all city-owned buildings and facilities to offer baby changing stations for both men and women. In response to those opposed to the bill, Rudiak said the stations were fairly low-cost and would not require extensive construction.

Likewise, in July 2013, Miami-Dade County, Florida passed the Baby-Diaper Changing Accommodations Ordinance, which requires all businesses to provide baby changing stations in men’s, women’s, and unisex restrooms. Businesses in violation of the ordinance must pay a Civil Penalty of $500. The efforts of these Pittsburgh and Miami-Dade legislators are just some of the first in an effort to make parenting easier for both moms and dads.

Diaper Dads

Fathers across the nation are pleased by these new efforts. Several daddy bloggers track restrooms with diaper changing stations in restaurants, movie theaters, businesses, and other public buildings. One blogger who calls himself  “daddydoinwork,” called on his fellow fathers to publicize the lack of changing tables in men’s restrooms in order to create change.

The Pew Research Center conducted a study in 2013 and discovered that there are more than 2.6 million single fathers in the United States. The number of fathers who act as primary caregivers is increasing–especially as our modern society becomes more accepting of single parenting and homosexual parenting. Furthermore, the trend of stay-at-home-dads is rising–they comprise a total 3.5 percent of married couples with children in which one parent works full-time.

Our ever-changing society requires complimentary progress in our public facilities. This is no grand task–baby changing tables are easily installed and low-cost. If fathers were given more opportunities to easily change their babies’ diapers, establishments would better fulfill their responsibilities to serve the public’s needs. Businesses should also follow the lead–help out our diaper duty dads, and maybe they’ll leave a nice tip.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Tex Batmart 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 A Good but Stinky Step for Parenting Equality appeared first on Law Street.

The Obama Administration once again announced an extension of an Affordable Care Act deadline this week. For anyone who’s counting, we’re up to at least 11. This time it’s late signups for people who have technical problems that prohibit them from signing up by the March 31 deadline. If that’s you, you can now apply for an extension to mid-April by checking a box on the application. The Administration is trusting that you’ll abide by the honor system and will really only ask for an extension if you need it.

The President has issued many delays since the healthcare law was implemented. Here’s a brief recap:

• Starting in November 2012, the Department of Health and Human Services delayed for a month the decision to set up a federal exchange.
• In July 2013, the employer mandate was delayed. The statute originally imposed fines on businesses with more than 50 employees that do not offer health insurance. Now, no fines will be enforced in 2014.
• November 2013 saw two different delays — one for open individual enrollment in 2015, and the other being open enrollment for small businesses. A month later, the deadline to apply on the individual exchange was delayed twice in a row — first on November 12, and then November 24.
• High-risk pools (groups of people with pre-existing conditions who were uninsured) were slated to end January 1, 2014, but they were extended to March. As soon as we reached that deadline, it was extended yet again.
• The deadline for employers with 50 to 100 employees to offer healthcare was again delayed in February 2014 — they are now allowed to wait until 2016 to offer health insurance.

There is predictably criticism from Republicans ranging from the need to fix key parts of the law to repealing it outright. One suggestion is to repeal the tax on medical devices, a main revenue source for the Affordable Care Act, while others have called for an investigation looking into the constitutionality of the delays. Michael McConnell, quoted in the Washington Post, has said that the continuing deadline delays are blatantly illegal. “Statute does provide broad discretion, but unless there’s some explicit statutory authorization they don’t have the right not to do it … That’s the difference. Suspending and dispensing with statutes are equally impermissible.”

When it comes to allowing the executive branch to implement delays in the law, the main concern is over Congress’ role. Congress, the main federal legislative body, is supposed to take up these delays. By allowing the President to give out executive orders delaying legal statues, legislative jurisdiction becomes confused. Who, in fact, has the right to make these delays?

—

Dennis Futoryan (@dfutoryan) is an undergrad with an eye on a bright future in the federal government. Living in New York, he seeks to understand how to solve the problematic issues plaguing Gothamites, as well as educating the youngest generations on the most important issues of the day.

Featured image courtesy of [Wikimedia]

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 Is it Legal for the President, and not Congress, to Implement ACA Delays? appeared first on Law Street.

The quick response of a state legislature to overcome a loophole in a law demonstrates the power of public action.

On Wednesday, March 5, 2014, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts ruled that taking ‘upskirt’ photos did not violate the right to privacy as guaranteed in the state’s voyeurism law. Upskirting is the practice of taking secret photos of an individual’s private area; they can be snapped, for example, of a woman’s private parts while she walks up stairs wearing a skirt.

The incident that prompted the case occurred in 2010 when a man took photos of women wearing skirts on a MBTA trolley on two separate occasions. In its ruling, the court noted that the state’s voyeurism law dealt only with taking pictures of naked or partially undressed individuals, but the upskirting photos were taken when they were fully clothed, therefore, the law did not apply. In addition, the court declared that the second part of the voyeurism law, a reasonable expectation of privacy, was not met. Because the MBTA trolley operates in a public environment and there were cameras, the victims of the photographs could not have expected their privacy to be upheld.

By ruling solely on a matter of law, the court’s decision did have some merit. The Supreme Judicial Court was ruling in the context of law on the books and so, the existing policy did not provide the court with legal reason to declare the upskirt photos illegal. However, the court’s deeming that the defendants did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy on mass transit is less understandable. Being in a public place with cameras should not justify the exposure of individuals’ private areas; in fact, because they were fully clothed, the women proved they had no intention of showcasing their bodies to the public eye.

While it was disappointing that the court declared upskirting legal according to existing law, the ruling highlighted the need to update the law. The court felt that the practice of upskirting should be illegal, but that they had no power to enforce that themselves. This was a legislative loophole that needed to be closed.

The court’s decision enraged the public, and their outcries prompted the Massachusetts legislature to quickly respond by drawing up a bill that would make upskirt photos illegal. The legislation passed both the state House and Senate, and on Friday, March 7, Governor Deval Patrick signed the bill into law. It took only two days from the time that the court ruled to the governor’s signing legislation outlawing upskirting.

The swift timeframe demonstrates that the case serves as a prime example of public reaction in creating an incentive for the efficient passage of legislation. 

Boston.com noted that the decisive action of the Massachusetts state legislature was a welcome change from its usual slow pace of work. But in the midst of such a strong outcry from the citizens over the court’s decision, lawmakers knew that swift action should be taken and would be appreciated. Commenting on the pace of the legislation, Speaker of the House Robert A. DeLeo stated, “we can send a message out there, to women especially, that this type of action will not be tolerated.” The legislature hastened to pass the legislation to demonstrate its commitment to citizens’ right to privacy.

Perhaps the last time the state government acted as quickly was in 2006 when a woman was killed after the collapse of a Big Dig ceiling. The amount of press attention and public outrage the incident caused allowed the government to quickly resolved the problem of the project’s oversight between the executive and legislative branches. Hopefully, the success of the rapid response to outlaw upskirting shows that there does not need to be an emergency to hasten legislative action, but that people’s voices and responses to a situation can influence legislatures to speed up the process of passing laws.

[Boston Herald] [Boston.com] [NY Daily News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Geneva Vanderzeil apairandasparediy.com 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 Down Vote on Upskirting: Why the Mass. Legislature Got it Right appeared first on Law Street.

Mass media essentially dropped it, yet it still affects millions of people around the word. The issue? You guessed it! Immigration.

President Barack Obama’s days are numbered. In a little less than two years, he will be irrelevant, a lame duck. Anything our president has to say about domestic policy will fall on deaf ears.

Obama told a Los Angeles affiliate of Spanish-language television network, Univision that after the government shutdown ends, “the day after, I’m going to be pushing to say, call a vote on immigration reform.”

It is great to see that immigration is back on the table, after the immigration legislation was derailed because of rampant gun violence pulsating throughout the nation.

What is important to note about immigration is not so much the changing regulations, but the legislation and politics behind it all.

The demographics in the United States are changing. The new wave of immigrants yields immense amounts of power.

Although this power is not immediately evident, in years to come, immigrants will have a huge impact on voting outcomes. The electorate will encounter new voters of different background, consequently pandering to the emerging majority

Like wise, public policy will have to account for demographic shift. As a result, policy decisions will evolve drastically.

In the most recent elections, immigrant votes were a major deciding factor in deterring which candidate would win a position, whether that be between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney running for presidency or Cory Booker and Steve Lonegan for a senate position.

And President Obama is thinking for his party as well. Immigrants have a significant impact on voter demographics. Immigration is affecting EVERYTHING around us including significant changes in demographics and cultures.

Most importantly, it is changing legislation as well as politics. Demographics are constantly changing.

[Reuters] [InternationalBusinessTimes]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Icars via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Immigration: The Journey is Just Beginning… appeared first on Law Street.

Senators Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Ron Wyden (D- Ore.) have co-authored a bill that would make the Medicare claims database available to the public, allowing for unprecedented transparency in medical costs.  If this bipartisan bill becomes law, the media, advocacy groups and consumers will be able to see how much the federal government pays for healthcare procedures for those on Medicare.  Doing so would give the American public the ability to compare the costs of different treatments, procedures and even the varying prices between hospitals.

Americans spent $2.7 trillion on healthcare last year, nearly $600 billion of which was paid for by Medicare alone.  Insight into the largest purchaser of health services in America would provide the public with an unprecedented amount of information about the healthcare market, and could potentially create a check on medical costs.  However, opponents of the proposed legislation claim that releasing this data to the public would reveal too much about the practicing patterns of individual doctors, hospitals and providers.  There is certainly a trade-off, but providing new information to consumers may be in the public’s best interest.

[Politico]

—

Featured image courtesy of [Sharyn Morrow via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

Kevin Rizzo is the Crime in America Editor at Law Street Media. An Ohio Native, the George Washington University graduate is a founding member of the company. Contact Kevin at krizzo@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Bipartisan Bill to Change Healthcare Market appeared first on Law Street.