Welcome to RantCrush Top 5, where we take you through today’s top five controversial stories in the world of law and policy. Who’s ranting and raving right now? Check it out below:

Republican House Candidate Body-Slams Reporter

A Republican candidate running for Congress in a Montana special election has been charged with misdemeanor assault for body-slamming a reporter from the Guardian. He also broke the reporter’s glasses and shouted, “Get the hell out of here.” Greg Gianforte, a millionaire who was endorsed by President Donald Trump, seems to have lost his temper when political reporter Ben Jacobs asked him about the Republican health care plan. There is an audio recording of the incident, but no video. However, three Fox News journalists also witnessed the assault. “Faith, Keith, and I watched in disbelief as Gianforte then began punching the man, as he moved on top the reporter and began yelling something to the effect of ‘I’m sick and tired of this!’” said reporter Alicia Acuna, adding that Jacobs had not shown any form of aggression.

Montana GOP candidate Greg Gianforte allegedly “body slammed” a reporter, according to audio and witness accounts https://t.co/Y3hQofhQ8C pic.twitter.com/l0ZfXAfw3p

— CNN (@CNN) May 25, 2017

Gianforte’s campaign spokesman blamed Jacobs and said that he was the aggressive one, contrary to the Fox News account. In a statement, the campaign claimed that Jacobs grabbed Gianforte’s wrist and spun away, “pushing them both to the ground.” “It’s unfortunate that this aggressive behavior from a liberal journalist created this scene at our campaign volunteer BBQ,” the statement read. But this account was contradicted by eyewitnesses and the audio recording, in which Gianforte is heard asking whether Jacobs is with the Guardian, and saying, “The last guy did the same damn thing.” Voting for the special election is today, and we’ll have to see if this incident has any impact on Gianforte’s chances.

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 RantCrush Top 5: May 25, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Terminal illnesses are a heartbreaking reality of life–in many cases, doctors can only provide care to help patients feel less pain in their remaining days. But, some activists believe that it doesn’t have to be that way, and that patients with terminal illnesses should be able to have control over their deaths. Physician-assisted suicide is legal in six states in the United States, and multiple states have weighed whether or not to allow it in the last few years. Read on to learn what physician-assisted suicide is, where it’s legal, and the arguments for and against the controversial practice.

What is Physician-Assisted Suicide?

Physician-assisted suicide is the prescribing of some sort of life-ending drug to a patient by a doctor. The patient then takes the steps to end their own life. Physician-assisted suicide should not be confused with euthanasia–in euthanasia, the physician physically performs the death-causing act. There are other names for physician-assisted suicide, including “physician-assisted death,” “aid-in-dying,” “right to die,” and “death with dignity.”

Across states that have legalized the practice of physician-assisted suicide, the process varies. But there are some consistent elements–only licensed medical doctors (M.D.s) or doctors of osteopathy (D.O.s) can issue the prescription. Additionally, doctors must be willing to issue the prescriptions–by no means are they obligated to do so. Many of the states that have legalized physician-assisted suicide also require that there’s some sort of waiting period between when a patient requests the procedure and when it’s granted, and that multiple doctors are consulted in the decision.

Where is Physician-Assisted Suicide Legal?

Currently, there are six states where physician-assisted suicide is legal: Oregon, Washington, Vermont, California, Colorado, and Montana. It is also legal in Washington D.C.

Oregon legalized physician-assisted suicide in 1994, with 51 percent of Oregon voters voting for it. However it wasn’t enacted until 1997. That was just a few months after the Supreme Court decided in Washington v. Glucksberg that state laws banning physician-assisted suicide are not unconstitutional. This meant that the decision of whether or not to legalize physician-assisted suicide would be left up to each state to determine; other Supreme Court rulings have since continued to validate that it’s a matter for states to decide.

In 2008, Washington became the second state to legalize physician-assisted suicide, via a voter referendum. In Washington, terminally ill residents who have less than six months to live may request drugs that would end their lives.

In 2009, the Montana Supreme Court ruled on Baxter v. Montana, and became the first case to essentially legalize physician-assisted suicide through a court case. Although there was no regulatory framework for physician-assisted suicide set up in the state, it ensured that a doctor cannot be prosecuted for the act.

In 2013, Vermont became the first state to legalize physician-assisted suicide through its state legislature. Like many of the other laws, it includes caveats, including that terminally ill patients need to make multiple requests and wait 15 days after their initial request.

Then, in 2015, the California legislature passed the End of Life Option Act. Like the other states, California put certain restrictions on physician-assisted suicide. The patient must be at least 18, must have a diagnosis that will–within reasonable medical judgment–result in death within six months, and be deemed competent to make medical decisions, among other restrictions.

On November 8, 2016, Colorado voters voted in favor of Proposition 106, which legalized physician-assisted suicide in the state. Almost two-thirds of Coloradans voted in favor of the proposition, which like other states’ legalization measures, requires that the patient has less than six months to live, and is deemed competent to make a decision to end their life.

In late 2016, Washington DC’s council approved a Death with Dignity law, and Mayor Muriel Bowser signed it into law. However, based on the way that DC is set up, Congress has the ability to block laws enacted by the district. While Congress did not succeed in blocking this particular law, it has been known to prevent the city from setting up successful regulatory frameworks through budgetary measures, which could still happen.

Have Other States Tried to Legalize Physician Assisted Suicide?

Many states have introduced some sort of law or measure to legalize physician-assisted suicide recently, with most floundering. Michigan lawmakers proposed a physician-assisted suicide bill in late March 2017. Hawaii’s House of Representatives “deferred” a physician-assisted suicide bill, essentially killing it for now. New Mexico’s Senate just voted down a physician-assisted suicide bill. Other states have considered or may consider bills soon, including Maine, while others, like Kansas, are considering resolutions that would ban physician-assisted suicide. For many of the states considering legalizing physician-assisted suicide, it’s not the first time. In the mid-1990s, when the debate about physician-assisted suicide first began to heat up, measures failed in many states.

Arguments in Favor of Physician-Assisted Suicide

Most arguments in favor of physician-assisted suicide cite humanitarian arguments. Advocates of physician-assisted suicide argue that if an individual knows he’s going to die within the next six months, it’s cruel to force him to suffer through it. Instead, physician-assisted suicide allows him to end his life on his own terms, humanely and peacefully. Currently, mentally-competent people have the ability to refuse potentially life-saving treatments. Those in favor of legalizing physician-assisted suicide argue that it’s a similar concept.

Real Life Example: Brittany Maynard

In 2014, the story of Brittany Maynard captivated the nation. Maynard, a 29-year-old California woman, was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer. After trying treatments, none of which were successful in the long term, Maynard decided to end her own life. She became an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, and in many ways, a modern face of the movement. Maynard and her family moved to Oregon from California, as this was before California had legalized the practice. Maynard wrote an op-ed about her decision, explaining why she believed that physician-assisted suicide was the right choice for her, and explaining that her decision wasn’t about being “suicidal,” but about having an option at the end of her life:

I’ve had the medication for weeks. I am not suicidal. If I were, I would have consumed that medication long ago. I do not want to die. But I am dying. And I want to die on my own terms.

I would not tell anyone else that he or she should choose death with dignity. My question is: Who has the right to tell me that I don’t deserve this choice? That I deserve to suffer for weeks or months in tremendous amounts of physical and emotional pain? Why should anyone have the right to make that choice for me?

Now that I’ve had the prescription filled and it’s in my possession, I have experienced a tremendous sense of relief. And if I decide to change my mind about taking the medication, I will not take it.

Maynard did take her own life, in November of 2014, and remains a face of the movement to extend physician-assisted suicide.

Arguments Against Physician-Assisted Suicide

Those who disagree with the legalization of physician-assisted suicide argue that suicide, regardless of the reasons, is immoral and should not be condoned by the government in any way, shape, or form. Many religious institutions argue against physician-assisted suicide; in some ways, it’s become linked to the pro-life movement. Others argue that physician-assisted suicide inherently creates issues for doctors, as the Hippocratic Oath essentially prescribes that doctors are not supposed to harm their patients. There are also concerns about a slippery slope–if we make any sort of physician-assisted suicide legal, we may open up the door to euthanasia or other harmful practices. Some who advocate against physician-assisted suicide argue that there’s no way to definitively guarantee that it’s completely a patient’s choice to request medicine that would end his life–they worry that a doctor or family member could pressure a patient.

Real Life Example: Dr. Jack Kevorkian

Dr. Jack Kevorkian was known as an advocate for physician-assisted suicide, but was found guilty of second-degree murder for actually administering drugs to one patient himself, and served eight years in prison. Dr. Kevorkian, nicknamed Dr. Death, was believed to have assisted in over 130 suicides throughout his career. He used multiple methods, including setting up ways for patients to inject drugs into themselves, carbon monoxide poisoning, and his infamous “suicide machine,” which was built into the back of a van.

There were claims that Dr. Kevorkian crossed serious ethical lines with his practices. An analysis conducted by a team at the University of South Florida at Tampa of 69 assisted suicides supervised by Dr. Kevorkian claimed that 75 percent of his patients were not terminally ill.

While some defend Dr. Kevorkian as a pioneer, his methods remain controversial, and are often cited as an argument against physician-assisted suicide.

Conclusion

In addition to ethical and moral arguments, there are many other concerns that come to mind when considering physician-assisted suicide. For one, the drugs that are used for physician-assisted suicide are very expensive, and not necessarily easy to get. A patient looking to move forward with physician-assisted suicide must find a doctor willing to help, which can pose challenges, even in states that have legalized the practice. And while the publicity surrounding Brittany Maynard certainly garnered attention for the physician-assisted suicide movement, she died in 2014, and momentum for state laws may be waning. But one thing is certain: the debate over physician-assisted suicide is very far from over.

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 A Right to Die?: The Argument Over Physician-Assisted Suicide appeared first on Law Street.

About once a week, I head to my local store to pick up some things that I’ll need for the week, including some milk. Milk is always one of those tricky purchases, because you have such a short amount of time to use all of it before it expires. Thats why, whenever I go to buy milk, the first thing I do is look at the “sell by” date printed on the carton. But if I were buying milk in Montana, this is something that I would not need to worry about. That’s because in Montana, there is a law stating that milk cannot be sold or donated 12 days after pasteurization. This unusually strict law has forced grocers across Montana to dump thousands of gallons of what most would consider perfectly good milk each week. It’s for this reason that a documentary film crew from Harvard Law School’s Food Law and Policy Clinic recently travelled to Missoula, Montana to get the inside scoop on the state’s milk law.

Montana has by far the stricted law in the United States governing the “sell by” date of milk, and is only one of two states to even have a law that has a requirement for the number of days that milk can sit on a retailer’s shelf. That other state is Pennsylvania, where milk is allowed to sit on shelves for 17 days. Other states either just require that a date is printed without actually specifying any guidelines for that date, or, do not have a law at all.

Harvard Food and Law Policy Clinic director Emily Broad Leib stated that “this has been part of a long-running interest of ours that’s around how we’re wasting so much of the food we produce in the U.S. We’re looking at how these laws–like the law we’re looking at in Montana–are the cause of that waste.” One of goals of the documentary crew to use this case to illustrate the issue of food waste and how food expiration and “sell by” dates contribute to that problem.

Emily Deddensm, a law student working on the documentary, explained that they “went through a bunch of big ideas throughout the semester and finally settled on this law in Montana, which requires milk to be thrown out 12 days after pasteurization” because they “just thought this is good because it’s such an extreme example of the bigger problem.” To them, this was a perfect example of food being thrown out and wasted far before it needs to be.

This Montana law was established in 1980 by the Montana Livestock Board, and despite people’s countless attempts to change it, has remained firmly in place since then. Since studies show that the milk is actually just as fresh after 28 days, the documentary team set out to try and figure out what consumers actually think that arbitrary “sell by” date means.

According to Broad Lieb:

This law makes no sense. It’s really bad for consumers. But even though Montana is the strictest on milk, other states are strict on other things. Again, it’s not just milk. With all of these foods, it’s a quality date. It’s when the manufacturer thinks you get the peak quality on that food. And yet, 90 percent of consumers think it’s about safety, and they throw perfectly good food away.

While being interviewed, Missoula grocer Jim Edwards explained that dairies are the ones that do not want this rule to change. That’s because it means that grocers like him have to buy more milk to fill up their shelves. In addition, it keeps milk prices higher in Montana than in surrounding states.

He also explained that this law makes no sense when actually considering how long it takes a gallon of milk to go bad. According to Edwards:

Little cartons of milk, they go bad quick. But they’re dated for 30 days or something like that. But the gallons never go bad. Half gallons go bad before gallons because anything in a bigger container will last longer. It’s just like wine. A great big huge bottle of wine will age better than a small bottle of wine.

Yet it is the larger gallons that have the sooner expiration dates while the smaller, half gallons have later dates.

According to the documentary crew, most people are unaware that they are throwing away perfectly good milk. Broad Lieb explained that “most people think that if they eat that food after the date, they are going to get sick.” From personal experience, I can say that this is something that I have thought–and have never chanced. I’ve always thrown away food or milk that has reached the date printed on the container.

This is why another goal of the documentary is to raise consumer awareness about the actual meanings of expiration and “sell by” dates. So far, they are already doing a decent job just by sharing information about the documentary. Next time I’ll think twice about throwing away my “spoiled” milk.

Brittany Alzfan

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

The post Harvard Law Documentary Uncovers the Truth About Expiration Dates appeared first on Law Street.

A proposed bill that would ban yoga pants in Montana has been tabled, eliciting joy from practitioners, women who like to be comfy, and rational human beings everywhere.

If you’ve never worn yoga pants before (or their closely related cousin the leggings) they’re basically like wearing a hug on your legs. But not everyone is that happy with yoga pants, because they tend to conform to our bodies, apparently rendering them a scourge to society that needs to be outlawed.

At least, they’re that scourge according to one Montana lawmaker. Rep. David Moore, a legislator from Missoula, proposed a bill that would redefine indecent exposure laws, making it illegal to wear in public:

any device, costume, or covering that gives the appearance of or simulates the genitals, pubic hair, anus region, or pubic hair region.

Moore explained that “Yoga pants should be illegal in public anyway” during a hearing on the bill. He also cited that tight-fitting beige clothing would be something included under the new bill as indecent exposure.

So, the bill didn’t really actually ban yoga pants–but it did leave determining indecent exposure up to the discretion of police officers, and yoga pants could certainly have been included.

One of the most concerning things this about this bill is that it didn’t amend the penalties for breaking indecent exposure laws. According to the Billings Gazette:

A first offense for violating Montana’s indecent exposure law carries a fine of no more than $500 and six months in jail. A second offense carries up to $1,000 or one year in jail.

That seems incredibly extreme for pants that don’t even show skin. A year in jail for yoga pants, really?

In addition, there are many worries that Moore’s legislation is sexist in nature–after all, it mentions only the “female nipple” and based on societal norms alone, women are more likely to wear tight-fitting clothing. One of Moore’s female colleagues, Rep. Virginia Court, even attempted to point that out to him, to seemingly no avail.

The debate over yoga pants in our public spaces is nothing new–the fight over whether to ban them in schools has been waging for a couple years now. Read fellow Law Streeter Noel Diem’s breakdown of the subject here.

The applicability of a ban of yoga pants in school is debatable–those who believe in instituting one argue that the tight-fitting garments are distracting to students, while those who disagree with a ban argue that young men should be taught not to objectify women for their clothing choices. Either way, schools are somewhat different; they usually have stricter dress codes than the real world, and they do have to take special considerations into account, such as bullying, and developmental differences between students.

To ban yoga pants and other tight clothing for adults, however, would most likely be both significantly more difficult, and receive even more ire than a similar move inside a school. Expression concerns aside, it’s important to take into account that yoga pants, spandex, and other forms of tight-fitting clothing are often used by athletes, as they provide minimal interference to physical performance.

The entire move on Moore’s part paints him as outdated and puritanical. While there’s certainly many, many times and places where yoga pants shouldn’t be worn–and private businesses are more than welcome to institute dress codes that exclude them–outlawing them for all of public society is extreme to the point of being laughable. Moore’s bill has been tabled–which means that nothing will really come of it. Meanwhile, people of Montana, relax easily tonight in your comfy, form-fitting clothes.

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 Just Relax: Montana Lawmaker Attempts to Ban Yoga Pants 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.

Freedom of the Press has always, of course, applied to traditional journalists. If someone accuses a journalist in say, The Washington Post, or the New York Times, or even a small town newspaper of defamation, and the issue is of public concern, the plaintiffs have to prove that there was negligence or worse in order to win damages. Essentially a plaintiff would have to prove that a journalist wrote their story without properly checking out their sources, or some other negligent behavior. If they cannot prove that a reporter didn’t do their due diligence, they cannot be found guilty. This was established by a 1974 Supreme Court case, Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.

For years, this 1974 case sufficed as protecting journalists, because official media was really the only kind of media that existed. There was radio, newspapers, and TV, and all of those were mostly composed of people who had journalistic training and were part of a larger company. But with the advent of the internet, everyone can have a blog. In fact, if I so decided, I could go get a free WordPress blog right now and start writing just a few minutes later. And out of that prevalence of individual-driven media came the question: does this freedom of the press also apply to the informal and individual press?

Last week, the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the same standards that apply to journalists in print media also apply to bloggers and anyone else. The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press member Gregg Leslie said, “it’s not a special right to the news media. So it’s a good thing for bloggers and citizen journalists and others.”

The case came from a Montana blogger named Crystal L. Cox. In a blog post a few years ago, Cox stated that Obsidian Finance Group and its founder had committed fraud. So Obsidian Finance Group’s co-founder Kevin Padrick sued Cox. During the first trial, Cox lost the case and was ordered to pay the plaintiffs $2.5 million in damages. Cox did not deny that what she reported may have been false, just that she did not do it out of negligence, the same standard that a print reporter would have been held to. With this latest appeal, the 9th District Court agreed with Cox.

The Court stated,

The protections of the First Amendment do not turn on whether the defendant was a trained journalist, formally affiliated with traditional news entities, engaged in conflict-of-interest disclosure, went beyond just assembling others’ writings, or tried to get both sides of a story. As the Supreme Court has accurately warned, a First Amendment distinction between the institutional press and other speakers is unworkable.” They went on to cite cases in which individual speakers have been granted First Amendment rights, despite not being a part of the established press. For example, the First Amendment rights of authors have often been protected, regardless of their training, background, or affiliations.

This is very good news for anyone who has a blog or even a desire to post things in an individual capacity on their social network. It could also go a far way for advocacy groups that work unofficially for candidates and their rights to create media alleging things against candidates. It could also have important ramifications for blogging in other lawsuits. For example, if a blogger is treated as a journalist for the purposes of the First Amendment, they could also be treated as a journalist in a matter like protection of sources.

[LA Times]

—

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 [Jorge Quinteros 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 Court Says Bloggers are Journalists Too appeared first on Law Street.

The world heard about Judge G. Todd Baugh earlier this year when he sentenced a 47-year-old teacher to 31 days in prison for the rape of Cherise Morales. At the time of the assault, Morales was fourteen. She committed suicide before the trial. The sentence was controversial, to say the least. The Montana Attorney General’s office appealed it because it did not meet the state’s mandatory minimum sentencing laws.

Now, Judge Baugh is back in the news for another inappropriate sentence. He was presiding in the sentencing of a man named Pacer Anthony Ferguson. Ferguson is a former felon who has been in and out of jail since he was a teenager. When he was thirteen, he released the emergency brake on a train that rolled down the tracks and killed a man. He had once appeared before Judge Baugh in a felony robbery charge previously in 2003.

The 27-year-old Montana resident beat up his girlfriend in 2012. He punched her repeatedly in the face, fracturing her skull in three places. Her injuries were so severe that a surgeon had to implant a permanent mesh titanium plate in her face. She racked up about $3500 in medical bills. She testified that she is still in pain from the incident, and still has double vision in some instances.

The case was a jury trial, and the jury believed her. Ferguson was found guilty of misdemeanor assault. The prosecution had also charged him of felony aggravated assault, and felony witness tampering, although he was acquitted on those charges.

So the case fell before the embattled Judge G. Todd Baugh for sentencing. Unlike in his last controversial case, he did take advantage of the maximum possible sentencing. He gave Ferguson six months in jail. He also ordered that Ferguson pay for his victim’s hefty medical bills.

And then Judge Baugh added something else to the sentence. He required that Ferguson write out the phrase “boys do not hit girls” 5000 times. He also asked that Ferguson mail the assignment to him once he had finished, but no later than May 23rd, 2014.

Now technically it is a judge’s discretion to choose the punishment, as long as it doesn’t qualify as cruel and unusual, or break any minimum or maximum sentences dictated by the state. For example, in 2008, a Cleveland judge had to sentence a slumlord who had been convicted of breaking multiple building codes. He sentenced the man to live in his own dilapidated house for six-months.

But I think we can all agree that this was a very weird sentence. I’ve never heard of anyone over the age of 13 who has been required to write lines as a punishment. I also don’t know that I’ve ever heard of anyone asked to write lines in real life–the example that comes most quickly to mind is Bart Simpson from “The Simpsons”.

There is a sick kind of beauty to Judge Baugh’s punishment. Every day that he works on writing out those lines, Ferguson will be forced to remember what he did to his girlfriend. Judge Baugh is a controversial judge, no doubt. And I slammed him for the rape case earlier this year as much as anyone else. But I do have to give him credit for the punishment he gave to Ferguson. It’s unusual, but it’s certainly not cruel. It’s a good sentence for a horrible crime.

—

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 [Chris Potter/StockMonkeys.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 Montana Judge Gets Creative in Sentencing appeared first on Law Street.