Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 The RantCrush News Quiz appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 The Ultimate News Quiz appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 Do You Know the News? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 Are You an Expert on This Week’s News? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 Do You Know What’s Happening in the World of Politics? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 Do You Remember All the Top Stories from This Week? appeared first on Law Street.

Do you think you have a good handle on this week’s top news stories? Are you a regular RantCrush reader? Well, it’s time to test yourself and figure it out with our weekly news quiz! Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 The Ultimate News Quiz: June 16, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Welcome back to our RantCrush weekly news quiz! We launched this new feature last week and you can check it out here if you missed it last go around. Can you spot the correct answers to these questions? Check out the quiz below, and if you’re not already signed up to receive RantCrush each work day, click here.

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 Are You on Top of the News?: May 26, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday everyone, and welcome to a new feature on Law Street! Every day we bring you the top five controversial stories in law and policy, with our RantCrush Daily newsletter. But in today’s age of fake news and alternative facts we feel like news literacy is more important than ever. So check out our RantCrush quiz to see how much attention you paid to the news this week, and sign up for RantCrush to make sure that you get the breaking stories in your inbox every single day.

Check out the quiz below!

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 Can You Keep Up With This Week’s News?: May 19, 2017 appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Friday, readers. It’s time for another weekly installment of Law Street’s weird arrests of the week. Check them out in the slideshow below.

This One Will Bug You

Image courtesy of Rosana Prada via Flickr

Lorenzo Adan Ramirez of Tavares, Florida, was arrested after he exposed himself to women in the ladies’ bathroom. His explanation for the incident? He was trying to get a bug out of his clothes. Police didn’t buy it, and he’s been booked on charges of voyeurism.

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 Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Clothing company Abercrombie & Fitch is no stranger to legal trouble due to its alleged discriminatory practices against both workers and customers. The brand came under fire for its refusal to hire a young woman in Oklahoma because she wore a religious head covering. On June 1, after much deliberation, the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 in favor of Samantha Elauf, the prospective employee who was denied a job because of her hijab.

Court rules in favour of Muslim woman who failed to get job after wearing scarf to interview http://t.co/wSiVAgsGvL pic.twitter.com/zagHX1Usdv

— The Independent (@Independent) June 2, 2015

Abercrombie is known for making clothing marketed toward young, preppy, attractive people. Many past employees have claimed that the company discriminated against them for their body type, religious practices, or race. The company has also been known to only market its clothing toward thinner people, as it refuses to make clothing for plus-sized women.

According to Politico, the company paid $50 million to Latino, African American, and Asian job applicants who claimed that there was a lack of diversity in the company. Elauf’s victory in this case has set a precedent for all future employers to follow, which will greatly benefit all potential employees.

In 2008, 17-year-old Elauf applied to Abercrombie & Fitch to work as a salesperson. She did not ask the company to make a religious accommodation for her headscarf during her interview with assistant manager Heather Cooke, and so she was not given the job for two reasons. Firstly, Abercrombie claims that Elauf’s headscarf violated its “look policy,” due to the fact that it was black and considered prohibited headwear, although Elauf claims that she was never informed of this exact policy during her interview. Secondly, Abercrombie also claims that it had no liability since Elauf never identified her headscarf as a religious garment and also because the company did not want to automatically assume that it was being worn for religious reasons so that it doesn’t stereotype any potential employees.

On behalf of Elauf, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, a federal law enforcement agency, sued Abercrombie for discrimination. It was determined that the company did not actually discriminate against Elauf, although her rights were violated under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Abercrombie also has since changed its policies, as now it allows its workers to wear headscarves if they choose to do so.

According to Justice Scalia who wrote the majority opinion in the ruling, “an employer may not make an applicant’s religious practice, confirmed or otherwise, a factor in employment decisions.” The Guardian  also reports that multiple other religious groups were in support of Elauf’s case.

This ruling is a major step forward in terms of workplace equality, as it helps to protect the rights of not only minorities, but all people. Companies now cannot deny employment to any potential worker due to his or her religious observances, which will in turn increase the amount of opportunities available for religious minorities. This court decision also has the potential to completely change how American society views equal opportunity, religious freedom, and workplace discrimination.

Toni Keddell

Toni Keddell is a member of the University of Maryland Class of 2017 and a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Toni at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Muslim Women Against Abercrombie over Hijab appeared first on Law Street.

With the end of the Colbert Report, so ended an era. Facebook and Twitter were full of people lamenting the end of Stephen Colbert and his late night character, saying things like, “Where am I going to get the news now?” and “Who can I trust to tell the truth once he’s gone?” Surely, it’s a good mix of people who understood the characters Colbert played and those who honestly felt like his show was reality. Where exactly are Americans getting their news, and what impact does it have?

When it comes to politics, Americans watch CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News more often than they watch traditional or local news. But what does it mean for the future of comedy news, news in general, and the way we react to it?

Where do we get our news?

Even at a time when television viewing numbers are falling due to an increase in streaming sites and a general lack of traditional watchers, most Americans get their news from television or television-backed news sites.  Pew Research Center analyzed Nielson data and its findings showed a lot about the television landscape, but even more about the people who watched it. These are the findings:

Almost three out of four U.S. adults (71 percent) watch local television news and 65 percent view network newscasts over the course of a month, according to Nielsen data from February 2013. While 38 percent of adults watch some cable news during the month, cable viewers—particularly the most engaged viewers—spend far more time with that platform than broadcast viewers do with local or network news.

While it is interesting to note how many people watch the news, it is more poignant to look at what news people watch, as simply watching news doesn’t mean too much in the age of bias and deep-pocketed politicians. Take a look at that study for a more in-depth view of what exactly people are watching.

Cable

Fox News

Fox News has been getting a great deal of negative publicity in the last few years, even more so than before with the growing popularity of internet memes and altered videos. As such, Fox News attracted an average of 264,000 primetime viewers in that key 25-54-year-old demographic, a number so low that the network hasn’t seen it since 2001. One of the biggest draws to the station is Bill O’Reilly, host of The O’Reilly Factor as well as an author, syndicated columnist, and political commentator. His audience remains at over 2.1 million viewers per episode, but once again, the number skews toward the older crowd.  Still, the Daily Kos points out that, “every Fox program in primetime dropped by double-digits, with Bill O’Reilly taking the deepest dive. Sean Hannity posted some of his lowest numbers ever in his new 10:00 pm time slot.” Things are not looking good for the company unless it can swing in some newer, fresher hosts and programming.

According to the Daily Mail, the average viewers at MSNBC and CNN are 60, and the average is 62-64 for the broadcast networks; however, the average viewer of Fox News is not quite the rich, white, Rush-Limbaugh loving man that the liberal bias would have many believe. In Frank Rich’s New York Magazine article, he paints a clearer picture of the typical Fox News viewer:

The million or so viewers who remain fiercely loyal to the network are not, for the most part, and as some liberals still imagine, naïve swing voters who stumble onto Fox News under the delusion it’s a bona fide news channel and then are brainwashed by Ailes’s talking points into becoming climate-change deniers. They arrive at the channel as proud, self-selected citizens of Fox Nation and are unlikely to defect from the channel or its politics until death do them part.

So what does watching Fox News say about you? You lean conservative, you are probably older, and you are typically from a middle-to-upper class household. Still, the station has an audience–maybe not entirely from that coveted advertising swath, but it has one, which is more than some other stations can boast.

CNN

If Fox News is drowning, CNN is already dead in the water when it comes to that key demographic, with only 99,000 viewers in the 25-54 sector in May 2014, according to Politico. Anderson Cooper 360 is still the top program on CNN with an average of 452,000 total viewers, and 145,000 in the key range.

The average CNN viewer, however, isn’t the type of person who will tune in for nightly news broadcasts or scheduled programming. Instead, it is becoming the go-to for hot topics and current events that interest people, such as the recent social justice protests, Ferguson special reports, Ebola, weather emergencies, and presidential addresses.

Still, the station has been doing some reshaping lately to help its numbers and push forward into the next era of broadcast. Brian Stetler explained:

Now, there is some overall shrinking going on. But the better word for what’s happening in media today is “reshaping.” Through layoffs, through cuts, through new investments, “reshaping” for the digital future that really feels more like the digital present. It’s already here. None of this context makes it any easier to say goodbye to our colleagues. In fact, it may make it even harder, because the fact of media, THE fact of media in 2014, is that reshaping of all kinds is going to continue.

So the viewership of CNN is changing, but it’s typical audience remains the same. Mostly liberal, younger but not too young, and transient people who don’t often sit and watch the news on a nightly basis. Still, take a walk around your local mall, sit at the dentist, or walk through an airport, and it is the station you are most likely to see.

MSNBC

MSNBC is one of the newer news channels, founded in 1996, and dedicated to broadcasting news programs 24 hours a day. It is owned by NBC Universal (82 percent) and Microsoft (18 percent), and its sister channels range from CNBC to The Weather Channel. What you see on MSNBC, however, is very different from what you see on the other stations.

One of the more famous programs, The Rachel Maddow Show, is seeing some pretty low ratings this season. The push now is to bring in younger viewers to round out the audience that is growing older fairly quickly. Still, it is considered the go-to network for those who consider themselves politically progressive.

MSNBC is constantly changing, more so than many of the other news stations. It works with viewers, though stays pretty close to its ideals, which many critics say lean too left. Some say that the network is setting itself up as the antithesis of Fox. Most recently, the network has taken a bit of a tumble in the ratings. According to the Huffington Post, MSNBC was down across the board, including declines in the key viewing demographic of nearly 20 percent, and president Phil Griffin vowed to make changes in 2015.

Still, shows like Morning Joe and Hardball with Chris Matthews finished ahead of their time slot competitors on CNN.

News Competitions

Another interesting revelation from Pew:

In one finding that may seem counterintuitive in an era of profound political polarization, significant portions of the Fox News and MSNBC audiences spend time watching both channels. More than a third (34%) of those who watch the liberal MSNBC in their homes also tune in to the conservative Fox News Channel. The reverse is true for roughly a quarter (28%) of Fox News viewers. Even larger proportions of Fox News and MSNBC viewers, roughly half, also spend time watching CNN, which tends to be more ideologically balanced in prime time.

So what does this viewing mean? Here are just a few more statistics from that study to keep in mind as we delve deeper into the individual stations:

• “More than one-quarter (28 percent) of the people who watch Fox News also tune in to MSNBC. An even higher number (34 percent) of MSNBC viewers turn on Fox News.”
• “There is even more crossover viewing when it comes to CNN. Slightly more than half (54 percent) of MSNBC viewers watch CNN, while 44 percent of Fox News viewers tune in to CNN. Healthy segments of the CNN audience also watch Fox News (39 percent) and MSNBC (38 percent).”
• “Overall, five percent of the adult American population watches both MSNBC and Fox News. That is slightly lower than the percentage that watches both CNN and Fox (8 percent) or CNN and MSNBC (also 8 percent).”
• “Despite some crossover, there are also viewers who watch only one of the three cable channels: Fox News Channel narrowly has the largest singularly dedicated audience. About one-quarter of American adults (24 percent) watch only Fox News, 23 percent watch only CNN and 15 percent watch only MSNBC.”

What about local news?

Local news, whether it is for a region or a smaller community, has also taken the backseat when it comes to key viewers. Airtime is a big factor in these problems–local news is often shown when people are coming home from work or sitting down to eat dinner. Fewer people are tuning into these broadcasts–even entertainment ones–choosing instead to watch reruns of other popular shows that air at the same time. Local news, as a rule, reports more on local activities and not just big political events, so those who are tuning in to see that information will go to bigger channels.

News Through Comedy: The Daily Show and Beyond

It may seem obvious that a “replacement” news source for Stephen Colbert would come from his “rival” and the person who preceded his time slot. In fact, he needs no introduction, as Jon Stewart is one of the most trusted faces in media, and his program, The Daily Show, is where Stephen Colbert got his start in the genre. His style takes a bit of getting used to, but give him a second chance before leaving Comedy Central. His ratings are higher than most of the other news outlets, and he does it all with a little bit of humor that “real” news stations cannot get away with. According to the Daily Mail, his show averages 2.3 million viewers per episode, putting him far ahead of others news outlets in not only viewers, but also in that 25-54 range. In fact, The Daily Show is consistently ranked the top late-night news show among the key demographic.

In 2012, a study even found that people who watch The Daily Show are more informed than people who watch Fox News. This could be because the face of The Daily Show isn’t the only person who reports on the show–there are a bevy of people who do humorous investigations. The Daily Show viewers tend also to be more educated, younger, and far more liberal than the audiences of other news sources.

There are other similar shows that have been picking up momentum lately. Most notably, Last Week with John Oliver on HBO has been breaking boundaries and bringing in more and more viewers. Of course, Oliver was a correspondent on The Daily Show, so his segments sometimes emulate Stewart’s, somewhat like Stephen Colbert’s did. In fact, Matthew Jacobs of the Huffington Post named Oliver’s program as 2014’s best television show, stating: “The year’s most surprising contribution to television is a show that bucked conventional formats, left us buzzing and paved the way for a burgeoning dynasty.” Gawker’s Jordan Sargent claimed Last Week Tonight is “the new Daily Show,“ while simultaneously criticizing The Daily Show for abandoning those “who have moved on from caring about Fox [News] and Republicans.”

So what can take the place of Stephen Colbert? Not much. When Stephen signed off, he wasn’t just leaving Comedy Central and satirical news behind, he was leaving behind a character that informed us while making us laugh. Time will only tell; so few thought that Jay Leno could be replaced, but his successor, Jimmy Fallon, has hit his stride to great success.

Conclusion

To get a well-rounded view of any political or social topic, it pays to do the research, find the facts from a variety of sources, and make your own decisions. Don’t shy away from Fox News, but also tune in to The Daily Show. The most important thing is that we consume news and current events through some medium. Sure, we have to understand the biases and we have to contemplate the “spin” on each story; however, it’s important to tune into news on television, as it is often the best way for us to visually learn about any given topic. How we receive our news has changed drastically, but now you can get it at the drop of a hat from many different sources.

Resources

Primary

Pew: How Americans Get TV at Home

Additional

New York Magazine: Stop Beating a Dead Fox

Daily Kos: Fox News Suffers Worst Ratings In Thirteen Years – And That’s Not Their Big Problem

CNN: Reshaping at Major Companies

The Wire: Fox Viewership is Getting Even Older

Politico: May Cable Ratings Spare No One

Media Bistro: October 2014 Ratings

Daily Mail: The average age of Fox News Viewers is 68 and a Majority of Them are Politically Conservative and White

Editor’s Note: This post has been revised to credit select information to Pew. 

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Comedy or Cable: Where Do Americans Get Their News? appeared first on Law Street.

To blog about such a controversial topic like the use and possession of guns in the United States is something I want to tread carefully with. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion surrounding the debate, but this week I could not help but question the legality of guns when coming across two particular cases.

On Thursday, Don Spirit killed his six grandchildren, aged from three months to 10 years old, and his daughter before turning the gun on himself. Spirit, whose case has been described as a murder-suicide, was someone who had already been involved in the criminal justice system. According to Fox:

In 2001, Spirit pleaded guilty to a charge of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, after he fatally shot his 8-year-old son in the head in a hunting accident. Spirit, who also was convicted in 1998 for felony possession of marijuana, was sentenced to three years in prison for the shooting.

The details of the investigation are still in the very early stages, so it is hard to understand the motive — if there was one — the facts surrounding Spirit’s mental health, and his relationship with the victims. Aside from knowing these facts, I cannot help but wonder how Spirit even managed to have a gun after being convicted of a shooting in 2001? Gun accessibility legislation for ex-convicts really needs to be reconsidered in light of this case.

What I feel a lot of people fail to recognize is that the most common method of suicide in the United States is through the use of guns. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in 2011 there were 39,518 deaths by suicide. An overwhelming amount of these deaths (19,990) were the result of firearms.  If we are a country that aims to protect our citizens and the rights of others, surely we should look out for ourselves just as much? If we have such easy accessibility to the weapons of our choice that could end our lives, should we not reconsider the laws surrounding them? Do not get me wrong, I am more than aware that the black market for firearms is an ever-growing underground business, but if we cannot efficiently manage the legal selling and keeping of licensed handguns, we have no hope to stop the illegal sales and handlings.

My point needs to be extended to the safety of those living with others who have access to guns. On the same day as the tragic deaths resulting from Spirit’s heinous act, a fifth grade boy was arrested in Michigan after being found to have stolen his grandfather’s pistol. Not only was the boy found with the gun, but he had also created a list of names in the back of his homework book of people he allegedly planned to harm. As a result of this discovery, the boy has been suspended from school for ten days, and could face possible expulsion. Again, this could be my criminological thinking coming out, but I cannot help but wonder whether this punishment will actually solve the problem of what the boy intended to do? I certainly do not think he should be given jail time, or any formal sentence, but I do think that he needs to be aware of just how serious his actions were. Why? Because if he is not aware of it, what is to stop him doing it all over again, and just being more careful.

I fear that in a culture where are part of normality, when conflict arises in such intense situations, sometimes the only resolution seems to be in the form of violence via the use of weapons. I personally do not think this reflects on the attitudes and actions of those involved in this violence, I think it is the instinct that they have been taught their entire lives, to protect themselves in an extremely lethal way. In order to enact firmer laws that protect our safety, we have to start working on understanding the reason for such laws. As someone who is British, and not used to the debate on the use of guns, one of the main things I have come to realize is that it is a right for US citizens to own a gun, and by restricting this right through legislation, essentially the country contradicts all it stands for. As hard as it is to stand back from what an entire population believes in, more awareness needs to be raised toward the consequences of guns, not just for now, but for the future.

—

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 [Auraelius 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 Two More Disturbing Gun Cases Beg the Question When Will We Change? appeared first on Law Street.

Justin Ross Harris was indicted on September 4 by a grand jury on eight counts for the murder of his 22-month-old son, who was left in a hot car. The public anxiously waited for this verdict after Harris became public enemy number one after the incident in June. Cobb County District Attorney Vic Reynolds stated that he will decide over the next three weeks whether to seek a mandatory life sentence or the death penalty in this case. If Reynolds does seek the death penalty, it will be for the malice murder charge, which alleges that Harris, who has claimed his son’s death was an accident, premeditated the child’s killing.

There has been much debate over the outcome and potential sentence of punishment that Mr. Harris will receive. Some believe these charges are way too severe, considering there may still be a possibility that the death of Harris’ young son was in fact an accident. In my opinion, this all comes down to just how ethical the death penalty really is? The death of a 22-month-old baby is tragic, and what is even more heartbreaking is that this seems to be becoming the norm. I was reading the news today, and several newspapers have created sections in which ‘hot car baby deaths’ are featured. It is clear that enforcing the death penalty as a deterrent just does not work.

In the twenty-first century, I honestly believe if we were to live by the saying ‘an eye for an eye’ we would be living in chaos. In order to lead by example, as a country that punishes individuals who commit heinous crimes, we should rise above just killing them off by an injection. It costs more money to keep an individual on death row than it does to place them in prison on a life sentence. An eye for an eye means that equal amount of suffering should be received, and I ask you, do you really think a quick lethal injection can compare to some of the horrific murders and rapes these victims suffer? Would it not make more sense to sentence these individuals to life sentences in prison, forcing them to acknowledge what they have done, while being punished by depriving them of any normal life they once had? What I think a lot of people fail to understand is that although these individuals can be sentenced to death row, they will spend years awaiting their actual death while money is wasted on them sitting in a cell.

With ironic timing, after three decades on death row, this week 50-year-old Henry McCollum and his brother were released from prison in North Carolina due to DNA evidence after serving a sentence for the rape and murder of a female in 1983. As expected, social media jumped at the chance to voice their opinions on this case, and the death penalty in general. Many believe that if someone commits such a heinous crime they should also suffer, whereas others argue that killing them via the death penalty is the easy way out. I have done a lot of research in the use of DNA to exonerate individuals. The Innocence Project is an organization that dedicates itself to cases exactly like this in the hope of overturning wrongful convictions. The flaw with the death penalty is the fact that in most cases, with an absence of evidence or lack of investigative material, it is close to impossible to be 100 percent sure of conviction. The risk that an individual can be sentenced to death, and then be proven innocent is way too high to warrant any ethical justification for this form of punishment.

As a country that bases itself on a constitution that protects the rights of the people and forbids cruel and unusual punishment, I struggle to see how sentencing someone to die by lethal injection for a crime that cannot be supported with 100 percent guaranteed proof is not in itself a contradiction of what we stand for. By sentencing Harris to death, I do not see how that can compare to the suffering of a young baby in a hot car. It is controversial to compare the suffering of ways to die for both the victim and the perpetrator, but I actually think the death penalty can sometimes be an easy way out.

Justice for victims who have lost their lives due to crime demands that their perpetrators be punished and made to understand and take responsibility for their actions. I am still unsure about where I stand in terms of rehabilitation for these types of criminals, but I genuinely feel like (and for this you can blame my criminology background and psycho analytic personality) if we do not try to understand why these things happen and why people do the things they do, we will not be able to prevent any harm done to us in the future, and more importantly to the next generation that will live in this exact same era of punishment.

—

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 [Luigi Caterino 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 The Death Penalty is the Easy Way Out appeared first on Law Street.

By most accounts, the rollout of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) has been incredibly rocky. Even as problems with Healthcare.gov have stabilized and enrollment numbers have increased across the nation, the law, alternatively called ‘Obamacare,’ is being hit with numerous lawsuits challenging its various provisions. One such notable lawsuit is Sebelius v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., and it has arrived at the Supreme Court.

The case pits Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius against arts and crafts giant Hobby Lobby, and it underscores the fierce resistance by some companies to the 2010 law. The heart of the case lies in the issue of whether or not the ACA’s provision forcing employers to cover contraception as a part of employee-based health care is an attack on religious freedom. Hobby Lobby Stores filed a suit against the United States in September 2012 citing the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, as well as the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, signed by President Clinton in 1993.

The Free Exercise Clause, if anyone needs reminding, states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” As for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the gist of the bill is that it prevents the government from passing legislation that would make it extremely hard for someone to exercise their religion. In this case, Hobby Lobby claims that the ACA  makes it too difficult for the family of ownership (the Greens) to exercise their religion due to the provision of contraceptive medication in employee’s healthcare premiums. It is important to note here that there is no explicit mention of contraception coverage in the wording of the healthcare bill.

The arts and crafts chain store only took their case to the next level after the Supreme Court refused to grant an injunction excusing Hobby Lobby from providing contraception coverage, saying simply, “Applicants do not satisfy the demanding standard for the extraordinary relief they seek.” Then, in July 2013, U.S. District Judge Joe Heaton provided the Green family an exemption from the “contraceptive mandate.” In his ruling, Judge Heaton said:

Given the importance of the interests at stake in this case, the fact that the ACA’s requirements raise new and substantial questions of law and public policy, and that substantial litigation as to the mandate at issue here is ongoing around the country, the court concludes there is an overriding public interest in the resolution of the legal issues raised by the mandate before Hobby Lobby and Mardel are exposed to the substantial penalties that are potentially applicable. The public interest therefore lies in preserving the status quo until the issues raised by plaintiffs’ claims are resolved.

The tables were turned on Hobby Lobby when the Center for Inquiry filed its own amicus curiae brief with the Supreme Court in January 2014. In the brief, the Center cited the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the same basis of argument used by Hobby Lobby, stating that the government cannot make an exception on religious grounds for one company. With the Supreme Court granting certiorari since November 2013, many are eager to see the result of this massively influential case, and the next arguments are scheduled for March 25.

—

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 [DangApricot via Wikipedia]

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 The Craft of Contraception Rights: SCOTUS to Hear Sebelius vs. Hobby Lobby appeared first on Law Street.

So, apparently Dexter might be a real thing.

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

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

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

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

And this Miranda Barbour story is fucking hemorrhaging.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What do you think of the developing Miranda Barbour story?

—

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

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

Hannah R. Winsten

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

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