Feel like you missed out on some of the top news this Memorial Day Weekend? Here’s what trended last week:

Mississippi Sued, Accused of Not Providing Equal Education to Black Students

A federal lawsuit has been filed by the Southern Poverty Law Center against the state of Mississippi, arguing that the state is violating a 150-year-old law that requires it to provide a “uniform system of free public schools” for all students. The SPLC lawsuit, which was filed on behalf of the parents of four minor children, claims that Mississippi has deprived black students of the “school rights and privileges” guaranteed in its 1868 constitution.

PayPal Sues Pandora for Trademark Infringement

PayPal is suing music streaming service Pandora, accusing it of copying its signature “P” logo, according to a lawsuit filed Friday in Manhattan federal court. The digital payment company alleges that Pandora’s new logo intentionally confuses customers into mistakenly opening the wrong app on their phones.

Arrests of Undocumented Immigrants Jump 38 Percent in Trump’s First Three Months

According to figures released by Immigration and Customs Enforcement on Wednesday, arrests of undocumented immigrants rose by 38 percent in the first three months of the Trump Administration, compared to the same time period last year.

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

Revenge porn–the non-consensual posting of someone’s explicit photos or videos, usually by an ex–is deeply problematic. And as our technology evolves, we need lawyers willing to help out those, often women, who fall victim to this kind of online harassment. Brooklyn attorney Carrie Goldberg specializes in sexual privacy and focuses on fighting revenge porn, and recently made headlines after being featured in a New Yorker profile. She was once the victim of online sexual harassment, and basically had to start her own law firm in order to become the kind of lawyer that was needed. She mainly represents young women who are trying to get photos off the internet, are being extorted, or have endured sexual abuse.

ACTIVIST SPOTLIGHT (USA): Carrie Goldberg is a Brooklyn attorney with a practice specialising in sexual privacy,… https://t.co/jNGmstSmH2

— The Pixel Project (@PixelProject) December 12, 2016

Many of her clients feel shame, even though they didn’t do anything wrong. One of the youngest is an African-American girl who is only 15 years old. When she was 13, she was raped by a classmate who filmed it and spread the video around the school. Instead of punishing the boy, the school sent the girl home and later transferred her to another school. She was in effect punished for being raped and harassed. Most other clients are women in their twenties who have ex-boyfriends or husbands who have spread or threatened to spread photos or videos online.

Goldberg has, sadly, seen a steady uptick in the number of clients seeking her help since the emergence of Donald Trump as a serious political contender. By this summer she had 35 active clients and had to hire a colleague. She said that many people seem to believe that a Trump presidency might mean a “license to be cruel.” And it’s not all revenge porn–for example she represents a family whose kids’ pictures were used in memes about the Pizzagate conspiracy.

Abuse on the internet flourishes easily, as it is hard to punish. In the case where someone just sends verbal threats it’s basically impossible to find the perpetrator. But we’re making progress. According to the New York Daily News, Goldberg has already done a lot:

She estimates she’s removed more than 900 pieces of revenge porn from the internet, protecting 72 victims. She’s also lobbied for legislation across the country and 34 states now have it — though not New York.

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 How One Lawyer is Fighting Revenge Porn and Why that Fight Matters Now appeared first on Law Street.

Legal Battles over the Mirena IUD: What’s Next?

Image courtesy of Daniel Lobo; License: (CC BY 2.0)

In 2011, a personal injury complaint was filed in regards to Mirena, an intrauterine device (IUD) manufactured by Bayer Healthcare, one of the largest pharmaceutical companies worldwide. Since then, over a thousand lawsuits have been filed against the manufacturers of Mirena. Some Mirena users have suffered from uterine perforation, inflammation, organ damage, and a host of other medical complications. The Mirena IUD is Bayer’s most popular model worldwide, and the company markets the product as safe and efficient. Yet as the number of lawsuits continues to rise, Mirena’s reputation may take a hit. Read the full issue brief 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 ICYMI: Top 10 Issue Briefs of 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Friday marked the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment’s enactment, the provision that blocks federal money from being used for abortions for women who are covered by Medicaid. The provision, named after Republican Henry Hyde, makes it financially impossible for many low-income women to have an abortion. This leaves them with the options of having an illegal, dangerous procedure, using money that was meant for something else such as rent or food, or carrying on with an unwanted pregnancy.

According to pro-life activists, the policy has saved the lives of “millions of Americans.” The director of National Right to Life, Douglas Johnson, has said it “has proven itself to be the greatest domestic abortion reduction law ever enacted by Congress.”

On Friday social media was filled with conservative opinions saying the Hyde Amendment saved American lives.

Because of the #HydeAmendment, over 2 million people did not lose their lives to abortion. #HelloHyde #HydeSavesLives

— Liberty Pike (@Liberty_Pike) September 30, 2016

Republican Vice Presidential candidate Mike Pence wants to make the Hyde Amendment a permanent law.

40 years ago, the #HydeAmendment was enacted—a milestone in the fight for life. We need a leader who will protect the rights of the unborn.

— Mike Pence (@mike_pence) September 30, 2016

But recently more support for abandoning the policy has developed. Hillary Clinton–who also received Planned Parenthood’s first-ever presidential primary endorsement–has spoken out against the provision and made repealing it part of her campaign, saying that abortion is a fundamental human right.

Today is the 40th anniversary of the Hyde Amendment. @HillaryClinton agrees – it’s time to #BeBoldEndHyde: https://t.co/R9Jh68Xdz5 pic.twitter.com/GMtrBeBMEy

— Madam President (@Madam_President) September 30, 2016

Planned Parenthood released a statement Friday calling for an end to the provision.

Every woman—no matter how much money she makes or who provides her insurance—should be able to access the full-range of reproductive health care, including abortion. Every woman should be able to make her own decisions about pregnancy based on her own unique circumstances, and have the resources she needs to exercise that decision with autonomy and dignity.

And many opinions were voiced on Twitter.

Thank you @RepDianaDeGette for sponsoring the EACH Woman Act to repeal the Hyde Amendment. #copolitics #BeBoldEndHyde pic.twitter.com/HF5Dt4J6KN

— Gena Ozols (@genaozols) September 30, 2016

Learning how Hyde amendment hurts low-income communities #WeWontWait2016 @fullfrontalfem @KierraDC @jgonzalez_rojas pic.twitter.com/LPp3MjCDTP

— Luna Ranjit (@LunaRanjit) September 20, 2016

The women affected by the Hyde Amendment are also the ones who are most likely to experience an unwanted or unplanned pregnancy. Ending it would mean increased equality and access to reproductive care for all women.

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 Hyde Amendment Turns 40–Is it Time to Let it Go? appeared first on Law Street.

With today’s constant access to news and commentary on law, policy, and legislation, voters expect candidates to be “policy wonks.” Bernie Sanders was commended during his presidential bid for his strong socio-economic policy reform proposals. Speaker Paul Ryan is lauded for squeezing out a laborious policy plan while a loud presidential election overshadows congressional action. Yet somehow Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, is running a nearly policy-free campaign.

Now, let’s give this a fair appraisal; Donald Trump has seven published platform points. This pales in comparison to Hillary Clinton’s 32 published platform points. Trump has even published less than libertarian candidate Gary Johnson’s 13 points.

While this might be excusable if his policy proposals were comprehensive and diligently crafted, they are not. Point for point, Donald Trump offers contradictory opinions, fosters disdain for Obama-era policies without offering alternatives, and proposes costly measures without revenue-building measures to offset them. Here are two of the most jarringly unrefined “policies”:

Immigration Reform/The Wall

While Donald Trump claims that his infamous wall along the Mexican-U.S. border will cost $8 billion, construction economists estimate that it will cost at least $25 billion, not including maintenance and surveillance.

Though this won’t be a superfluous expense because Trump promises that Mexico will pay for it. Trump proposes banning undocumented immigrants from being able to wire money to Mexico (an estimated $24 billion per year.) He will then tell Mexico that in order to resume wire payments, that it has to pay for the wall.

However there are two jarring flaws in this plan. Firstly, individuals wiring money to Mexico are not funding the government, but rather family still living in Mexico. Secondly, Mexico–a deeply fragile state currently–would not prioritize $24 billion in diffused money to families over a $25+ billion state-funded project.

Though this isn’t Trump’s only strikingly expensive proposal without a funding plan. Trump also proposes we triple the number of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, each with an annual salary of $30,000-$50,000.

Many of Trump’s immigration reform tactics are rooted in isolationist sentiments and labor practices, disguised as job creation. He proposes a temporary bar on granting green cards to force employers to hire authorized citizens, expresses persistent anti-trade sentiments, and falsely cites illegal immigrants as a large source of unemployment for authorized citizens.

To be clear, according to Pew Research unauthorized immigrants only comprise about 5.1 percent of the workforce and work predominantly in occupations like farming, maintenance, and construction. Even if these were widely desirable and growing occupations in the U.S.–which they are not–authorized citizens reclaiming these jobs would not significantly revitalize the middle class as Trump claims it could.

Healthcare Reform

Donald Trump’s ideas on healthcare are some of his most un-established and contradictory. The system which Trump describes is most similar to a single-payer healthcare system. Trump ensures that everybody will have insurance and that the government will pay for it. However he also promises a large, competitive private market.

Above all else, he promises the repeal of Obamacare. However, consider that the Affordable Care Act, a comprehensive multi-thousand page bill, extends healthcare coverage to more than 12 million people. Trump’s healthcare platform contrarily offers little more than supporting the sale 0f health insurance across state lines, support for health savings accounts, and a move to block-granting Medicaid to states.

He also suggests that those who cannot afford private health insurance plans should enroll in Medicaid. However, presently a family of four must make an average of $20-$35k to qualify. Further, in many states income alone doesn’t qualify a family.

Trump would have to support Medicaid expansion to bridge the gap between the current low income Medicaid threshold and the income level families who would strain to afford private insurance. This is contrary to his proposition to block-grant the program to states.

Trump acts as though by scapegoating immigrants and Obama-era policy, he can ignore how glaringly debt-inducing his proposals are. Holding executive power inevitably means holding vision for your party and country. It means planning to renovate, innovate, spend, and save all in future-minded consciousness. Ending each of your thoughts with “Make America Great Again” doesn’t invoke greatness from your policies, vision, or lack thereof.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Sorry Trump, but “Make America Great Again” Isn’t a Platform appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last July, the Obama Administration selected 67 colleges to participate in an experimental pilot program through the Department of Education (DOE) to extend Pell Grants to certain incarcerated individuals. The experimental program will impact up to 12,000 inmates working to earn a post-secondary degree. 141 correctional institutions will take part in the Second Chance Pell Grant program. 

This monumental move in criminal justice policy marks the first time inmates will be eligible for Pell Grants in over 20 years, when the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 explicitly banned grants to any incarcerated individuals. Though that bill is still in place, the new pilot program is granted through experimentation under the Higher Education Act.

As for the grants, they function in the same way as grants for non-incarcerated students. Federal Pell Grants are available to students seeking a college degree with demonstrated financial need. The grant is proportional to the student’s income with a maximum amount of $5,815 for the 2016-2017 academic year.

The initiative follows a slew of research in recent years showing that educational rehabilitation for inmates sharply decreases recidivism, increases social capital, and aids re-entry into society. One such 2013 study found that individuals who participated in correctional education were 43 percent less likely to recidivate in the three years after release than individuals who didn’t participate in education. Further, the program serves individuals marked for release within the next five years, the demographic educational programming will benefit most.

But the program has been met with some public disapproval, largely because some believe that confronting the student debt epidemic in the U.S. and extending grant programs for traditional students should receive higher priority than funding education for incarcerated students.

Nevertheless, the DOE has made their priorities and intentions clear with regards to the intersection of criminal justice and education. In a report released this month, the DOE pointed out that in the last 25 years average spending on PK-12 education has increased around 100 percent, whereas correctional spending has increased around 300 percent. That figure is even higher in states like Texas, where correctional spending has increased by 850 percent during the same time period. 

Investing in education is a cost effective method for reducing crime. The DOE report points to a study which found that a 10 percent increase in high school graduation rates could result in an approximately nine percent decrease in arrest rates leading to drastically fewer inmates and prison costs.

As a snapshot example, it cost the city of New York an average $167,731 for each inmate held in a correctional institution in 2013. By reducing arrests and thus incarceration, correctional institutions can re-allocate greater funds towards rehabilitative services like vocational training and higher education aided by Pell Grants.

For now, the Pell Grant extension to inmates is experimental, but marks an important shift away toward rehabilitative approach to inmates within the U.S. criminal justice system. A grant program that was created to allow students to go to college who otherwise could not has a clear purpose in correctional institutions where inmates may have their only chance to pursue a college degree.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Obama Administration to Extend Pell Grants to 12,000 Inmates appeared first on Law Street.

Last Tuesday, Hillary Clinton released a technology and innovation policy platform with a myriad of initiatives to expand internet accessibility, support STEM entrepreneurs, and more. The brief is full of bold ideas to revitalize the American economy through the outlet of technological innovation and proposes initiatives like deferring student loans for periods of 3 years for young entrepreneurs and expanding broadband internet access to every American household by 2020.

This is in stark contrast to Donald Trump who only has seven published platform points, none of which focus on technology and only one—tax reform—which really discusses American economy. In fact, some of Trump’s only comments on the topic of technology  have been calling to “close up parts of the internet.”

#DonaldTrump advocates closing up the Internet 2 stop the process of thought/free speech. So Communist China-like. pic.twitter.com/hRab3xpVcK

— NotBuffytheVMPslayer (@NotBUFFY_VS) December 8, 2015

Obama’s attack on the internet is another top down power grab. Net neutrality is the Fairness Doctrine. Will target conservative media.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2014

This paired with his opposition to net neutrality has pretty clearly put tech and open-internet advocates in Clinton’s court.

Hillary Clinton’s plan for innovation and technology is more than a favorable political contrast; it is a comprehensive plan for expanding technology, internet access and quality, and the culture of innovation in the U.S.

The plan consists of five core points;

• Investing in technology to create jobs
• Investing in digital infrastructure
• Advancing America’s global technology leadership
• Promoting innovation while protecting privacy
• Engineering a more innovative government

Within these points are many specific proposals that tech advocates are fawning over such as defending net neutrality, engaging the private sector to create 50,000 computer science educators, and expanding internet access to more public places.

Despite having so many specific policy proposals, Clinton’s plan retains an overarching message to appeal to all voters; technology should not be exclusive but should act as an equalizer to allow anybody to become an entrepreneur and innovator.

The plan invests equally in industry and communities through proposals like offering loan forgiveness up to $17,500 to entrepreneurs who start businesses in “distressed areas,” improving copyright and patent systems, and offering grants to cities to expand low cost, high quality internet.

Though the plan is more far-reaching than a defense of net neutrality and goals to extend computer science education, it truly is a full economic policy agenda with initiatives to create jobs, reduce college debt, closing corporate loopholes and more. The fact that Hillary Clinton’s avenue to achieve these goals is technological innovation is emblematic of her commitment to the future and to opportunity.

While the plan has been met with some skepticism that Clinton is pandering to Silicon Valley-ites and concerns that the plan is too far-reaching to be achieved without a completely cooperative Congress abound, the plan is at the least evidence that Hillary Clinton and her team have a fantastic understanding of creating complex, cohesive policy that promotes progressive economic goals.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hillary Clinton Releases Tech Agenda Aiming to Equalize the Internet appeared first on Law Street.

Californians will have the opportunity to vote to legalize recreational marijuana in November now that the proposed ballot measure officially meets the state’s signature requirement. California was the first state in the country to legalize medical use of the drug in 1996. If Californians vote to allow recreational use it could have a big impact on the rest of the country, considering the size of the state and the existing momentum behind legalization.

Six years ago, Californians voted against Proposition 19, a similar initiative that would have made California the first state to legalize recreation marijuana use. But since then, more states have opened up to marijuana use and California recently enacted new rules to regulate medicinal marijuana. This time around, the campaign to legalize has several prominent backers such as Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, billionaire Sean Parker, the California Democratic Party, and the California Medical Association.

To put the issue on the November ballot, pro-Marijuana groups needed over 365,000 signatures, but the campaign collected over 606,000.

Dr. Jill Stein, the Green Party’s presidential candidate, voiced her support for the measure on Twitter:

https://twitter.com/DrJillStein/status/748202943170682884

What Would This Mean?

If the Adult Use of Marijuana Act is passed, it would basically mean that anyone over 21 would be allowed to buy, use, and possess up to one ounce of marijuana and grow up to six plants.

It would also entail huge savings for the state considering all the marijuana related offenses and incarceration of users that no longer would have to be enforced. The savings could be as big as over $100 million per year according to a statement from California Secretary of State Alex Padilla.

Jason Kinney, a spokesperson for the campaign behind the Adult Use of Marijuana Act, said in a statement:

Today marks a fresh start for California, as we prepare to replace the costly, harmful and ineffective system of prohibition with a safe, legal and responsible adult-use marijuana system that gets it right and completely pays for itself.

The anti-Marijuana bloc consists of the California Republican Party and representatives from police and hospitals. Opponents argue that legalization would not change the black market or criminal activity, such as driving under the influence.

But if the ballot measure passes, marijuana businesses would have to be 600 feet away from any school. Related advertising would not be allowed to target kids and marijuana products could not be easily confused with candy or other products that to not contain the dr.

The ballot measure currently has a broad base of support. A recent poll conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California found that 60 percent of California voters favor of legalization.

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 Californians to Vote on Recreational Marijuana in November appeared first on Law Street.

It is no large secret that Speaker of the House Paul Ryan has had a tumultuous relationship with the issues of poverty and welfare: referring to the “culture problem” of “inner cities,” claiming America is divided into “makers” and “takers,” and making more controversial statements within the last few years.

But following a speech in March 2016 where he apologized for the hateful rhetoric, poverty has become one of his premier issues, especially as he revealed the first part of the House Republican policy brief A Better Way on Tuesday.

The 35-page brief has a simple and not particularly harmful premise; by embracing community-oriented solutions, encouraging work, and customizing welfare services, more individuals in poverty will be able to achieve social mobility. However, in these 35 pages, Ryan offers few policy solutions, poor research, and repackages Republican cut-back proposals under the guise of being “good” for impoverished people in America.

While the proposal includes what is expected of a House Republican brief on poverty–cutting and consolidating welfare programs, blocking grants to states, and tightening work requirements for welfare recipients–the sheer lack of quality research and policy proposals is underwhelming.

Though Ryan has no problem citing sources and statistics on such imperative topics as whether or not Americans believe welfare recipients should have to work, the brief states–without statistics or sources–that “recent data suggests many (SNAP recipients) are not working or preparing for work” and that “recent reports from independent government watchdogs reveal that welfare benefits are often paid to people who are not eligible.”

Poor research aside, let us not forget that House Republicans abhor bureaucracy, but only when it’s inconvenient to their goals. The brief relies heavily on the Work Participation Rate (WPR) as the measurement of TANF success. This is innately unsuccessful because it doesn’t differentiate between states with low WPRs and states where social service workers do not accurately and attentively track WPR. Thus, Ryan’s recommendation to require states to “engage TANF recipients in work” is largely a move to better document and regulate work involvement, despite persistent anti-bureaucracy sentiments throughout the brief.  

While this may be one of the most jarring contradictions Ryan offers, rest assured that it is not the only one. In a paragraph on strengthening higher education, he criticizes the strict academic-year timeline Pell Grant recipients are forced to take and proceeds to call the Pell Grant program unsustainable due to expansion.

Despite Ryan’s vague language, his attempts to criticize efforts such as the fiduciary rule–a Department of Labor proposal which would require retirement advisers to prioritize their clients’ best interests over profit–as well as the CFPB’s regulation of payday loans which have historically placed impoverished people in long-term debt traps, are quickly revealed as partisan interests snuck into a brief on “opportunity” for impoverished people in America.

In a more holistic way, the entirety of this brief is contradictory. Ryan espouses at one point that “this ‘spend more’ approach invests taxpayer dollars in bureaucratic programs without addressing the root cause of poverty.” However, in the brief, Ryan never assesses the root cause of poverty; to do so would invalidate his proposals to cut programs that help vulnerable people receive food and housing, and meet other basic human needs.

Ryan does seem to acknowledge that poverty extends beyond income poverty–that poverty is a culmination of societal forces suppressing social mobility. He is misled, though, in suggesting that services and work requirements can replace financial assistance. Strong community services and work enforcements alone do not feed people, do not pay the rent for their apartments, and to deny cash assistance is to be in denial of what poverty comes down to: not having the money and bargaining power in society to protect and empower oneself.

Ashlee Smith

Ashlee Smith is a Law Street Intern from San Antonio, TX. She is a sophomore at American University, pursuing a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Journalism. Her passions include social policy, coffee, and watching West Wing. Contact Ashlee at ASmith@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post An Ode to Paul Ryan’s Anti-Poverty Brief Mishap appeared first on Law Street.

Like most topics in law school, child support is discussed first by talking about the theoretical reasoning behind it and then with a series of very dry formulas for how it actually works in practice. In theory, child support payments from the non-custodial parent are not meant for the other parent, rather it is money for the child. The custodial parent can’t bargain it away, he or she is supposed to be acting in the child’s best interest and spending the money to support the child. It is more like a responsibility that both the parents have to the child than a debt owed to the custodial parent.

Also, like most topics in law school, the real world application of the law has very little to do with supporting the rationales behind it. The goal of the collection of benefits we call “welfare” as well as child support is to provide basic necessities for children and help lift them out of poverty. But does the current system actually accomplish the goals that it is set up to accomplish?

Magical Thinking: Calculating and Collecting Child Support

For parents who want to receive welfare benefits, there may be a perverse incentive involved with seeking the child support that is owed to their children. Receiving child support, Social Security assistance, or having a job may leave you ineligible to receive welfare assistance. A recent feature story from the Washington Post about poverty, particularly in the deep South, illustrates the challenges faced by people who are in deep poverty but are unable to get help for their basic needs. The article’s main subject, Lauren Scott, is a single mother looking for work. Although she was not receiving child support from the father, she was deemed ineligible for welfare benefits. The other women featured, who were seeking benefits with Scott, were told not to apply for benefits if they were receiving child support payments for their children. In this particular county in Georgia, the eligibility criteria did not take into account the possibility that a person receiving child support could also still need welfare benefits–it’s one or the other.

A parent who needs benefits, typically the mother, may choose to not seek child support payments from the non-custodial parent, typically the father. If the parent thinks they are eligible for welfare benefits as long as they don’t receive child support payments they may actually be better off foregoing the child support, or they believe they would be.

If the non-custodial parent is able to be located, they may be “judgment proof,” which is the legal term for a situation where there is no income or property to pay off a judgment against you, regardless of how justified the creditor may be in trying to collect. If the parent lives in a state that garnishes wages for unpaid child support but doesn’t have a job in the first place, the custodial parent won’t be able to collect, even though the child is owed that support.

Many of the non-custodial parents who owe child support are, in effect, judgment proof. As of late 2015, unpaid child support in the United States was $113 billion. Most of that debt, about 76 percent of it in 2013, is owed by individuals who earn less than $10,000 a year. In her comments to NPR, Vicki Turetsky, the head of the federal Office of Child Support Enforcement, refers to the current structure for the calculation and attempted collection of child support payments as “magical thinking.” Even if a non-custodial parent declares no income when the child support order is being issued, the court will calculate what they owe based on a fictitious job–often full-time minimum wage work. Incarceration is also considered “voluntary employment” in terms of calculating child support.

Take a listen to the report here which explains how child support is calculated and some of its consequences.

Perverse Incentives

Calculating child support payments based on income that does not exist and then punishing individuals for non-payment doesn’t lead to an increase in collected payments. The way that child support payments are distributed to custodial parents who receive welfare benefits may also provide a perverse incentive to those beneficiaries to not seek child support. A perverse incentive is a policy that is meant to encourage a certain positive behavior but actually provides an incentive for a negative behavior, often the opposite of the original intention. In the case of child support payments, we want children to benefit from the support they are entitled to, and when that is not enough, to supplement that with the social safety net. But by not allowing custodial parents access to both–by eliminating welfare assistance when they receive child support–we cut potential revenue streams available to that child and even encourage parents not to try to collect child support.

Many states garnish wages for unpaid child support payments. In Illinois, the state can use some of the money from the garnished wages to offset the TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) payments made to custodial parents. No more than $50 of the child support payments were actually given to the child if their parent was receiving welfare. States can use garnished wages to replenish their TANF funds, which are used for the custodial parents welfare assistance. This occurs even though, in theory, that child support is owed to that individual child from that individual parent.

The federal government allows states to pass on up to $200 dollars for two children through child support payments that are received from garnished wages, allowing that money to make it to the custodial parents. But it does not give them the discretion to give the entirety of the child support payment to a parent on welfare. So even if the state wanted to encourage a parent to seek child support while they were also receiving TANF payments, they are only able to collect some of what they are owed.

Reform Attempts

States have tried other ways to incentivize parents to make child support payments and to engage in other positive behaviors by dealing with the debt they find themselves in for missed payments. As NPR explains, Maryland is implementing programs to help forgive child support debt  and clarifying the difference between child support and state-owed child support. State-owed child support is a child support payment that will go back to the state to reimburse taxpayers for the welfare payments they made to the custodial parent.

For example, Maryland is trying to forgive 10 percent of the parent’s child support debt in exchange for the completion of a month-long employment training program and then getting a job. It’s a win-win for both the state and the parent because the state has no ability to collect the outstanding debt from an unemployed person. Put simply, forgiving the 10 percent is a smart way to make collecting the outstanding 90 percent possible. It also benefits the parents who finish the program because their debt burdens are lowered and they now have a job.

Completing a Responsible Fatherhood Programs will get you another 15 percent and you can then eliminate 50 percent of your outstanding debt if you keep up to date with payments for a year. So an unemployed father in Maryland who owes $10,000 in child support debt, which he is completely unable to pay, may be able to eliminate 75 percent of that debt by participating in an employment program, a parenting class, and by showing that he can, when employed, consistently be relied upon to pay what they owe. The state did lose that $7,500 that it forgave. But going forward, the child is now receiving the support to which they are entitled. If that parent had remained unemployed, the state would have still been owed $10,000 and the debt would continue to grow. These experiments in Maryland have yielded positive results, collecting twice as much as state forgave.

Conclusion

The idea that parents should be financially responsible for their children is deeply ingrained in the way that our child support system is set up. The policy is designed to make sure parents are held accountable for their children The image of the “dead-beat dad” also indicates that parents who don’t pay child support do so because they choose not to, not because they can’t afford it. However, the data indicates that individuals who owe child support are typically men who make less than $10,000 a year. These are men who are unable to make the payments as they are initially calculated, especially if they are currently or have previously been incarcerated.

The system also forces many people to choose not to seek child support. When forced to choose between a potential welfare payment and a potential child support payment, many parents would choose the welfare payment. A system that reduces payments, but does not eliminate them completely, would provide an incentive for parents to seek support. Moreover, the children can only benefit if the parent is able to pay the support in the first place.

States that have begun to experiment with debt relief measures have found that they can increase the payments they receive. Other states have sought to stop the accrual of child support debt for individuals while they are incarcerated. Both of these measures have had positive results because they allow parents who owe child support to at least pay part of their debt

The underlying goal should be to help raise children out of poverty and provide for their basic necessities. By structuring systems that incentivize parents to seek–and enable the other parent to make–payments, states can increase the amount of support that children receive and lift them out of poverty.

Resources

NY Times: Poverty and Perverse Incentives

The Washington Post: Lost Opportunity In the Deep South Part 4

Scientific American: Magical Thinking

NPR: Some States Are Cutting Dad’s A Deal On Unpaid Child Support

NPR: From Deadbeat To Dead-broke: The Why Behind Unpaid Child Support

NPR: How U.S. Parents Racked Up $113 Billion In Child Support Debt

Chicago Tribune: Welfare Law Formula Doesn’t Support The Family

Mary Kate Leahy

Mary Kate Leahy (@marykate_leahy) has a J.D. from William and Mary and a Bachelor’s in Political Science from Manhattanville College. She is also a proud graduate of Woodlands Academy of the Sacred Heart. She enjoys spending her time with her kuvasz, Finn, and tackling a never-ending list of projects. Contact Mary Kate at staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Blood From A Stone: Child Support’s Perverse Incentives appeared first on Law Street.

This is the second article in a two-part series about Lee Drutman’s plan for political reform. Click here to read the introduction. The first part looks at the debate between realism and reform and why Drutman sees his vision as the most practical approach. 

In his recent paper, Lee Drutman outlines three specific areas of the government that are in dire need of reform–namely, elections, lobbying, and Congressional structure. While Drutman acknowledges that his reforms may not solve all of America’s problems, they provide an important starting point to help make the government more dynamic and capable of responding to new challenges. Read on to see an overview of his plans to fix government dysfunction and empower public interest policymaking.

Click here to read Lee Drutman’s paper, “Political Dynamism: A New Approach to Making Government Work Again”

Reforming Elections

Drutman’s most ambitious reforms focus on Congressional elections and policies that can help increase voter participation and decrease the barriers for new viewpoints to enter the mainstream. To do so, he calls for two specific changes: creating multimember districts and a small donor matching program.

Most campaign finance reform agendas focus on either overturning the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, which allowed unlimited political spending from corporations and interests groups in the form of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, or passing a constitutional amendment with the same goal, both of which are unlikely. Instead, Drutman argues that we shouldn’t focus on restricting influence, rather we should seek to make it more equal with donor matching. Not only will matching promote more contact between candidates and voters, it will lower the barriers for new candidates to run for office, no longer restricted to people with fundraising connections.

Drutman’s plan for small donor matching is based on a program implemented in New York City, where donations under a certain amount receive a 6-to-1 match using public funds. The goal of the program is to put the influence of small donors on the same level as wealthy donors and increase candidates’ communication with voters. In his paper, Drutman provides a powerful illustration of how matching could lead to change:

Under the current system, members of Congress know if they go to a lobbyist-hosted fundraiser, they can pull in $10,000—enough to make it worth their time. By contrast, under the matching proposal, if a constituent can get 30 friends to each pledge $50, that’s $1,500. Then, with the 6-to-1 match, that’s another $9,000, bringing the total up to $10,500—better than the D.C. fundraiser.

In doing so, candidates would be much more interested in actually spending time with voters rather than big donors, as the financial benefits would be much more similar. In fact, existing donor matching and public financing projects have had that effect. In research on New York’s matching program, the Brennan Center for Justice concluded,

The city’s public financing system gives candidates an incentive to reach out to a broader and more diverse array of constituents to fund their campaigns. In so doing, the city’s public financing system appears to have achieved one of its key goals—strengthening the connections between public officials and their constituents.

While it is fair to criticize Drutman’s plan for not changing the role of Super Pacs and independent expenditures, which can take even larger donations, his plan would significantly impact campaign level fundraising.

The change to multimember districts is probably the most significant of Drutman’s proposed changes, but it could have a profound impact on political polarization. One of the biggest issues Drutman sees with our current electoral system is the fact that it has become largely uncompetitive–very few districts are contested in House elections and Senate elections, which involve voters across a state, are only marginally better. This leads him to conclude, “The United States is increasingly becoming two one-party nations, instead of a two-party nation,” meaning that both parties are largely safe within the areas that they currently control based on the natural placement of voters. There is little geographic overlap between voters in both parties.

Drutman’s idea of multimember districts is largely based on work from FairVote, a nonpartisan group seeking to increase the representativeness and fairness in American elections. According to FairVote, ranked choice voting for multi-winner elections would be an American form of proportional representation where any candidates who earn a minimum number of votes is elected. For voters, ranked choice voting is pretty simple–they rank as many candidates as they want in terms of their preference. Counting votes is a little more complicated, but it essentially ensures that all votes are properly distributed to pick the winners, eliminated wasted votes. For more details on the process behind it, you can watch Minnesota Public Radio’s explanatory video.

With a multimember district system that uses ranked choice voting, existing districts would expand to elect multiple representatives at once. When combined with small donor matching, multimember districts could allow a much wider range of potential candidates. The change may also allow for the rise of third party candidates who could not win in a winner-take-all style election, but could reach a vote threshold in larger, multimember districts.

Reforming Influence

Much like his plans to help alleviate issues with campaign finance, Drutman argues that in order to reform lobbying and influence in politics, we need to empower citizens and general welfare organizations. He focuses on expanding the role and resources of these general-interest welfare groups by creating a similar 6-to-1 matching program for “citizen lobbying” organizations. Drutman cites the balance of spending on lobbying, which overwhelmingly comes from businesses and their trade associations. In fact, there are very few groups that represent a wide range of public interest issues.

Drutman’s matching program would help direct money to rebalance lobbying spending and ensure that businesses aren’t the only interests represented on certain issues. Drutman also calls public defender style system for lobbying where public lobbyists would lobby on behalf of underrepresented constituencies in order to ensure that multiple viewpoints are always heard. While his reforms to the lobbying system are arguably his vaguest proposals, the general goal of ensuring that business interests are not the only people at the table when it comes to lobbying could have a notable impact on public policy and, importantly, the public’s perception of political influence.

Reforming Congressional Staffing and Organization

When it comes to Congress, Drutman sees two changes that would empower representatives to create new coalitions and develop better policies that serve the general welfare. First, Drutman would increase the funding available to Congressmen to pay their staff. On its face, this might seem like a ridiculous position–why would we simply want to pay staffers more money? But upon further review, Drutman argues that providing more resources to Congress is the best way to make it resist outside influence.

Drutman and Steve Teles wrote an article in Washington Monthly last year in which they introduced a new way to think about lobbying reform. The central idea behind this vision is, “Instead of trying to weaken the pressure of corporate money in Washington, let’s try strengthening Congress’s capacity to resist it.” By increasing staff salaries, Congress will lessen the influence of the so-called “revolving door,” where staffers work on Capitol Hill for a couple years and then move on to the more lucrative lobbying sector. As Drutman puts it, “Congress has become a farm league for K st.” But if staffers are able to earn more while working for Congress they will be less interested in going to work for big business.

Moreover, by limiting staff turnover and providing additional resources to policymakers, expert lobbyists will have less importance in the policy drafting process. Drutman, an expert on lobbying who wrote a book on the subject, argues that business of lobbying can often be misunderstood. Rather than simply providing campaign donations to Congressmen in order to get their desired policies enacted into law, the role of a lobbyist is more about providing expert advice to Congress. If Congress had more expertise of its own, the need for help from lobbyists would decrease significantly, particularly on arcane issues that directly impact big businesses. In a Q&A with Melinda Henneberger, the Editor-in-Cheif of Roll Call, Drutman laid out the alternatives:

Look, policy is going to get written–do you want it to be written by lobbiests who mostly represent the biggest companies and the wealtheist industries who are not particularly interested in the general welfare. Or do you want it written by staffers who work for democratically accountable members.

A prime example might be the case of financial regulation, where in certain cases lobbyists are essentially writing some of the legislation used the regulation the interests they represent.

Finally, Drutman says that Congress needs to be reorganized in order to prevent the top-down influence of the party leadership. He proposes a new way to decentralize power in Congress by empowering committees and subcommittees. Doing so would create new space for dealmaking and new crosscutting coalitions based on policy goals rather than partisanship. It will also encourage participation from a much wider range of representatives who could bring new viewpoints.

Will it work?

The major policy proposals endorsed by Drutman will clearly change the current state of politics, but it’s still worth questioning whether they will meet his ambitious goals of reducing political polarization and inequality. It is impossible to say for sure whether these policies will solve all of our problems in terms of equity and representation, and Drutman himself concedes that reforms are needed in other areas of the political system, but these policies make those goals more approachable. The underlying objective in each of Drutman’s reform proposals is to increase what he calls “political dynamism,” or the ability of Congress to effectively respond to new challenges with policies that promote the public interest.

Rather than espousing a utopian vision of politics or a narrowly tailored set of policy goals to restrict the outside influence, Drutman wants to realign policymaking to support common goals. He seeks to make government more accountable to each and every citizen while ensuring that Congress has the necessary expertise to govern effectively. So yes, it’s fair to question whether this will fix everything, but if the status quo is the alternative, taking steps to bring experts and the public into the policy process is certainly a laudable goal.

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 A Bold Plan to Fix Government Dysfunction appeared first on Law Street.

Update: We Have Winners

The three winning tickets announced so far were sold in California, Tennessee, and Florida. In these states, the winners will be asked to reveal their name to the public, meaning they are most likely planning out how to escape the country and ensuing media blitz. All three winners will have the luxury of paying no additional state taxes on their jackpot, so they’ll have more money to put towards their great escape.

The Powerball lottery has worked the country’s ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaires‘ into a frenzy with an unprecedented jackpot that estimates put at around $1.5 billion. The next closest jackpot, from a Mega Millions lottery in 2013, lags behind at a measly $590 million.

So how did we reach this astronomical number? It turns out to be more than just pure luck: Powerball actually reduced the already minuscule chance of winning by about 40 percent last summer (from 1 in 175 million to 1 in 292 million). By lowering the chance of a winner in each individual drawing, the jackpot rolls over to the next drawing leading to unprecedented windfalls.

Han Solo won’t let the Powerball changes stop him from his chance at fortune

1. #NotAllStates

Still, even if you refuse to be daunted by how slim the chance of a win is, you’re not going to have the same Powerball experience in every state or even all states–six states do not participate in the national lottery. In many states such as Utah, gambling is illegal, which bars stores from even selling tickets. For others, like Nevada and Mississippi, the lottery is seen as competition for the states’ well-established casinos. Residents of those states, plus Alabama, must visit neighboring states to purchase their tickets. For the remaining residents without access to Powerball–Hawaiians and Alaskans–a visit to another state isn’t an easy option.

So, if you’re in one of the remaining 47 states and territories (including D.C. and the Virgin Islands) you’re able to buy a ticket. The trouble is, even then you’ll have a different lottery experience depending on where you purchase your ticket.

2. Staying Anonymous

One much-heralded piece of advice from former winners is “Don’t tell anyone you’ve won. Anyone.” While a brief moment of celebrity may seem appealing, the intense media scrutiny as well as relatives, friends, and acquaintances coming out of the woodwork for their piece of the pie are enough to drive any winner crazy. Only six of the participating states and territories allow winners to remain anonymous: Delaware, Kansas, Maryland, North Dakota, Ohio, and South Carolina. For other states, winners’ names and hometowns are a matter of public record.

Importantly, these rules apply to the place where you purchase your ticket, not your state of residence. That means that if you really do believe in your lucky numbers, it may be worth visiting another state to buy your tickets, lest you become an unwitting overnight sensation.

3. The Money

A representation of the winner’s first day with their money, even after taxes.

Lottery winners have the choice between a lump-sum payment, or an annuity paid out over 30 years. The lump-sum is cut down from the advertised billion-plus to $930 million, and that’s before taxes. Factor in the two taxes you’ll have to pay on this total–a federal tax of 25 percent and additional state taxes.

Your winnings will also look a lot different depending on where you live because state tax laws on lottery winnings vary widely. Your lump-sum total could wind up anywhere from $615,474,000 in New York to $697,500,000 in California (New York taxes 8.82 percent while California has no tax on lottery winnings). If you decide to take the annuity a ticket purchased in a high-tax area like Washington, D.C. would net you a yearly payment of $33,250,000, while a ticket from a tax-free lottery haven like Texas earns you $37,500,000 each year. California and Texas are joined by Wyoming, Washington, Tennessee, South Dakota, Puerto Rico, Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Florida, and Delaware.

This means that if you’re looking to maximize profits while staying anonymous, buying your lottery tickets in Delaware is your best bet. However, if you’re really looking to be smart about it, the best option is to not buy a lottery ticket in the first place.

Sean Simon

Sean Simon is an Editorial News Senior Fellow at Law Street, and a senior at The George Washington University, studying Communications and Psychology. In his spare time, he loves exploring D.C. restaurants, solving crossword puzzles, and watching sad foreign films. Contact Sean at SSimon@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Billion Dollar Powerball? It Depends On Your State appeared first on Law Street.

Sponsored Content

Portland, Oregon, has long been heralded as one of the hottest cities for millennials. Home to Lewis & Clark Law School, it’s also a great city for young lawyers, as well as young aspiring lawyers. If you fit into one of those categories, and are considering a move, check out some of the top reasons to give Portland a look.

The Economy

Things are looking relatively good for Portland’s economy. It’s been dubbed a hub of entrepreneurship, with a hot startup scene. In addition, major corporations including Nike, Wieden+Kennedy, and Intel have their largest campuses in the Portland metro area. Portland’s major industries–software, athletic and outdoor products, advanced manufacturing, and green building and technology–promise to be consistently strong fields in the years to come.

Portland also boasts a lower unemployment rate than the rest of the United States, a higher median household income, and a very well-educated population.

Food Scene

Portland’s food scene is consistently ranked as one of the best in the U.S. The city has also been ranked as one of the most affordable U.S. cities when it comes to good cuisines–great news for any aspiring foodies who are in law school or pre-law and don’t want to break the bank. There’s lots of great niche food there too–from great local craft brews to vegetarian and vegan selections.

Check out this feature below on Portland’s innovative food carts for a snapshot of the city’s food scene:

The Population

Portland has seen a huge increase in population growth over the last few years. Portland had the 15th largest metro-area population growth in 2013-2014 (out of the top 50 largest metro areas.) With a population now at 2.35 million, Portland saw 33,500 new residents move into its metro area borders from 2013-2014 alone. Nearly half of those new residents came from different areas of the country, and another 15 percent are international transplants. That kind of wide breadth of transplants is sure to lead to a mix of cultures and voices.

Ted Reid, who works on Metro Planning in the area, explained:

This population growth speaks to the attractiveness of our region’s communities as places to live and work. With two-thirds of the growth coming from people moving here from elsewhere, this is right in line with our long-term forecast. The challenge that we have is to improve people’s quality of life as the population grows. More than ever, there’s a need to plan ahead.

Sustainability and Focus on the Environment

Portland is all about sustainability. Take, for example, the commuting scene in Portland. Portland has a fantastic public transit system, and it’s one of the most bike-friendly cities in the nation. From 2000-2014, the number of workers in Portland who commute by bike jumped from 1.8 percent to 6.1 percent. According to the League of American Bicyclists, Portland was the city with the highest number of bike commuters in 2013.

Portland also extends its focus on sustainability to the food scene, which in addition to being fantastic (see above) has a big commitment to using locally-sourced ingredients. Portland has standout green policies and follow-through: the city’s recycling rate is almost 60 percent, which is pretty impressive compared to the nationwide rate of 34.1 percent. The city-wide composting program is also unique and shows commitment to environmental responsibility.

And if you’re rolling your eyes about the fact that you already knew about Portland’s sustainability track record from the show “Portlandia,” that’s alright, because Portland’s sustainability chief Susan Anderson admits that the show draws some inspiration from real life. She said about Portlandia:

I always say it’s less of a parody and more of a biography. Our [former] mayor is the mayor’s assistant [on the show]. What’s interesting are the parts that [make] people in other cities think, ‘Aw, I wish we were that place.’ It’s not the over-the-top, goofy parts, but the human-scale part of Portland. It’s really walkable and there are restaurants on the corners and there are food carts everywhere. The air and water are generally very clean. You can recycle everything. Portlandia is a parody but a lot of those things are actually normal here.

The Legal Field

Portland’s legal scene will see new challenges in coming years–including an attempt to regulate the burgeoning marijuana market, now that Oregon has legalized it. While the legal market in Portland isn’t necessarily as robust as other parts of the U.S., a large pool of practical training opportunities are available for law school students while they’re still studying. For example, there’s the Oregon Justice Resource Center, which worked to start a new branch of the Innocence Project. The Innocence Project works to free those who have been wrongfully convicted. The OJRC allows law students to provide attorneys with research and assistance on death penalty cases.

Portland is also a center of change and growth in business that may be reflected in the legal field in years to come. There’s been a rise in IP and patent work, probably tied to the fact that Portland is a leading tech hub–its tech talent growth has outpaced Silicon Valley’s. Other of Portland niches, such as sustainability and food ethics, have also found a way to shine within Portland’s legal market. For example, Lewis & Clark Law recently hosted a forum to discuss food law. It’s a revolutionary and developing facet of law that promises to grow as Americans become concerned about the ethics of eating. Another field being pioneered in Portland is Animal Law, as the Center for Animal Law Studies is located there. Its annual Animal Law Conference  tasks itself to take on “cutting-edge global animal law issues including protecting animals in their native countries; international marine mammal challenges; animal testing outside the US; factory farming worldwide; animals in constitutions; litigation and legislation updates; and much more.”

So, if you’re thinking about a change, why not check out Portland? There’s a lot it can offer.

Lewis & Clark Law School

With robust practical skills options, flexible scheduling, and a faculty invested in your success, Lewis & Clark Law School is an ideal place to start a legal career. The school’s innovative programs, such as the NCVLI, CJRC, and the criminal law certificate program, offer students the opportunity to learn and work in a rigorous, collegial environment in scenic Portland, Oregon. Learn more at law.lclark.edu. Lewis & Clark Law School is a partner of Law Street Creative. The opinions expressed in this author’s articles do not necessarily reflect the views of Law Street.

https://law.lclark.edu/

The post Top Five Reasons Young Law and Policy Minds Should Check Out Portland, Oregon appeared first on Law Street.

A relatively minor case in Boise, Idaho may have some significant implications for many cities across the United States. Last week, the Justice Department (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest in a Boise lawsuit against the city’s ordinances that ban sleeping and camping in public space. According to the Justice Department, rendering it illegal for people to sleep outside when there is not enough room in homeless shelters constitutes a violation of the Eighth Amendment, which protects people from cruel and unusual punishment. Not only does the DOJ claim that having these laws when no other option exists is unconstitutional, it also notes that they are largely ineffective–making matters worse for both homeless people and the communities that they live in.

The case that the DOJ is addressing is Bell v. City of Boise, which was filed by several homeless people in 2009 after they were convicted under ordinances that make public camping and sleeping illegal. Ordinances like the one in Boise are actually quite common–a study by the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty, which surveyed 187 U.S. cities, found that 34 percent of the cities had citywide bans on camping in public and 18 percent ban sleeping in public. The report also notes that there are frequently not enough beds in many cities to provide shelter for all of the city’s homeless. This is the problem that the Department of Justice addresses directly in its Statement of Interest–arguing that when beds are unavailable, homeless people should not be arrested for doing something required for survival.

Shortly after the DOJ filed its Statement of Interest,  Mike Journee, a spokesman for the mayor, fired back claiming, “the premise of the filing is incorrect.” Journee argued that homeless people in the city almost always have resources available to them, and in extreme situations, like severe weather, the city’s ordinances prevent police from issuing tickets.

But Journee’s response largely misses the point of the filing. The DOJ’s statement was not intended to weigh in on the facts of the case, rather it urged the court to evaluate the law using a particular logic. The statement referenced a Los Angeles case from 2006, which called a similar law into question. That case, Jones v. The City of Los Angeles, focused on whether the city’s homeless had alternatives to sleeping in public spaces. The DOJ is not arguing that the ordinance in Bosie is unconstitutional on its face, rather it is saying that it should be considered unconstitutional if people are convicted for sleeping outside when that is the only available option–effectively criminalizing the condition of homelessness.

Beyond recommending the appropriate logic to evaluate the Bell case, the Department of Justice’s statement highlights many of the potential issues related to laws that tend to punish homeless people. Arresting people for sleeping outside, when no alternatives exist, simply serves to further perpetuate the condition of homelessness. Having a criminal record makes it very difficult for someone to get a job or participate in a public housing program. Even more to the point, in many cases criminalizing homelessness actually costs cities more money than simply providing housing. The Statement of Interest concludes,

Thus, criminalizing homelessness is both unconstitutional and misguided public policy, leading to worse outcomes for people who are homeless and for their communities.

Alternatives to punishing homelessness do exist, and in many cases they have been effective. In Utah, the government started providing housing, counseling, and treatment to the homeless population in 2005. Since then, the number of chronically homeless people in the state has decreased by more than 70 percent. Not only has this effort changed a significant number of lives, it also saved the state a considerable amount of money. Between hospitalization, medical treatment, incarceration, and shelters, governments end up spending a lot of money on the homeless each year, but that spending typically does not address the underlying issues. A similar “housing first” program in Seattle, found that providing houses to the homeless saved the city 53 percent per person. In Los Angeles, placing just four homeless people in permanent supportive housing saved the city $80,000 per year.

The Department of Justice’s recent statement may cause governments to question whether policies that punish the homeless are worthwhile. Although the DOJ did not weigh in on the specific facts of the Boise case, it did recommend a better way of evaluating laws that ban camping and sleeping in public. The Statement of Interest argues that criminalizing the condition of homelessness is unconstitutional and a violation of the Eight Amendment and future cases should be evaluated with that logic. In light of this argument and the availability of successful alternatives, governments may want to focus their money and policies on alleviating homelessness, not punishing it.

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 Justice Department Pushes Against Criminalizing Homelessness appeared first on Law Street.

Since 1949, China and Taiwan have been considered by various parties either part of a single nation or two distinct countries. In this confusing existing dynamic, Washington has often acted as a go between. The United States has mainly balanced the two actors by maintaining its military dominance and deterring Beijing, while simultaneously boosting Taipei’s defense capabilities. Read on to learn about the history between China and Taiwan, the conflict that separates them, the United States’ role, and the current status.

Origin of the Conflict

It all started with two political parties and one civil war.

Chiang Kai-Shek was the leader of the Kuomintang (KMT) party of Chinese Nationalists. In 1927, he led an exploration to the north of China in the hope of dismantling the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). The nationalist KMT almost defeated the CCP altogether, but ten years later Japan, desiring more power leading up to World War II, derailed KMT forces and completely disrupted the Chinese civil war. Japan was fighting both the KMT and the CCP, but the KMT took harder hits.

Upon Japan’s loss in WWII, the United States forced Japan to surrender Chinese land back to the KMT, including the island Japan had taken over. It was called Fermosa, and is the land that later became Taiwan.

Even with the support of the U.S. post-World War II, the KMT had suffered too many casualties against Japan. Using grassroots support, rising leader Mao Zedong strengthened communist ideologies, recruited soldiers from the countryside, and formed the People’s Liberation Army (PLA). Eventually with the rallied forces, the CCP took the KMT capital of Nanjing. Finally KMT leadership fled to Taiwan in 1949 and founded the Republic of China (ROC), or Taiwan.

With the KMT off the mainland, Mao Zedong declared the People’s Republic of China (PRC), naming Beijing the capital. Still led by Chiang Kai Shek, the KMT declared Taipei its capital, but still held its claim to mainland China.

The Taiwan Strait Crises and Major Developments

In 1955 when the first Taiwan Strait Crisis took place, the United States sent troops to the strait because it was against the mainland Chinese communist regime taking over Taiwan.

The U.S respected the ROC because of its similarities with the U.S. political regime. At the time, ROC was represented at the United Nations and had a permanent seat on the Security Council. It was during this time that Congress agreed the U.S should provide Taiwan defense and support if Taiwan-China relations ever erupted violently.

But tensions remained high between Taiwain and mainland China. The two groups even came to an arrangement in which they would bomb each other’s garrisons on alternate dates. This continued for 20 years until the United States assisted in creating more normalized relations.

In 1971, the PRC procured the “China” seat at the United Nations through rallied power, replacing Taiwan. The United States declared that it “acknowledges that all Chinese on either side of the Taiwan Strait maintain there is but one China and that Taiwan is a part of China,” in what is known as the Shanghai Communiqué of 1972. In the communiqué, finding language that both mainland China and the U.S. could accept was crucial to establishing diplomatic relations. The United States agreed that it would henceforth have only “unofficial” relations with Taiwan.

This left the United States with a problem–many believed that the U.S., as the guarantor of peace in Asia, had a moral obligation to provide some protection to Taiwan. To remedy this, Congress in March 1979 passed the Taiwan Relations Act (TRA). The TRA declared that it is U.S. policy “to maintain the capacity of the United States to resist any resort to force or other forms of coercion that would jeopardize the security, or the social or economic system, of the people of Taiwan.” The TRA also mandated that the United States would sell Taiwan defense items “in such quantity as may be necessary to enable Taiwan to maintain a sufficient self-defense capability.”

In a subsequent 1982 communiqué, the United States said it intended “gradually to reduce its sale of arms to Taiwan.” The Reagan Administration conveyed to Taiwan “The Six Assurances.” The six assurances were that the United States,

1. Had not set a date for ending arms sales to Taiwan;
2. Had not agreed to consult with Beijing prior to making arms sales to Taiwan;
3. Would not play a mediation role between Taipei and Beijing;
4. Had not agreed to revise the Taiwan Relations Act;
5. Had not altered its position regarding sovereignty of Taiwan; and,
6. Would not exert pressure on Taiwan to negotiate with the PRC.

Washington continues to sell arms to Taiwan over strenuous Chinese objections, and both Washington and Beijing continue to plan for the possibility that they could one day find themselves involved in a military confrontation over Taiwan’s fate.

Current Status of the Conflict

China has repeatedly threatened to invade Taiwan if the island declares independence, encouraging Taiwan to keep improving its forces and conducting regular military drills. To simulate a Chinese air attack, Taiwan’s navy launched its premier surface-to-air missile from the deck of a warship very recently, its first test of the weapon in six years, destroying a drone.

Another point of contention comes from the fact that Taiwan wants a larger role in international organizations exclusively held for nations. Since Taiwan is not its own nation, compromises have sometimes been made to include Taiwanese leaders. Taiwan wants a bigger U.N. role–it lost its seat when the body recognized China in 1971. China was opposed to the U.S. idea that Taiwan be invited to the International Civil Aviation Organization Assembly as an observer; and suggested that Taiwan participate as a guest. That was a great example of a compromise, and a move toward peace.

Currently, China is setting up an organization with a similar format to the World Bank, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. Taiwan requested membership, but the Chinese government will only allow membership under a different name–Chinese Taipei. This is another perfect example of the redundancy and tedious diplomatic ties between China and Taiwan.

Society and Culture in Taiwan 

One of the major changes affecting the balance between China and Taiwan has been the empowerment of the Taiwanese identity. Previously, Taiwanese people considered themselves both Taiwanese and Chinese, but people are starting to exclusively claim Taiwanese as their ethnicity. This is a problem for China, because that means fewer people are in support of Taiwan’s relationship with the mainland. Although many policymakers propose a joint or unified government between mainland China and Taiwan, this is threatened by the development of the Taiwanese identity.

Prospects for Future

America’s sale of arms to Taiwan often triggers a cyclical reaction: Washington and Beijing consistently fight back and forth over these sales before business returns to normal. This approach has worked reasonably well for more than 30 years, despite the occasional flare up in the strait, and has created an expectation that it will continue to be followed. However, there are some concerns about the sustainability of this relationship. China is steadily building up its military, and soon the U.S. may have a harder time matching the sophistication of weapons it sells to Taiwan. China’s ability to retaliate against the United States for arms sales to Taiwan is increasing. So, things may change soon, but for now the status quo appears to be holding relatively strong.

Conclusion

Ultimately the United States’ main interest in the Chinese-Taiwanese relationship appears to be peacekeeping, not peacemaking. In the present dynamic, Washington is a stabilizer, emboldening cross-strait interchange, warning both sides that it will counter any unilateral actions that may risk peace, and deterring Beijing by providing its military predominance, while supporting Taiwan’s security forces. In this complicated three-party relationship, none of that seems likely to change anytime soon.

Resources

Primary

Congressional Research Service: China/Taiwan: Evolution of the “One China” Policy—Key Statements from Washington, Beijing, and Taipei

Congressional Research Service: Democratic Reforms in Taiwan: Issues For Congress

Congressional Research Service: U.S.-Taiwan Relationship: Overview of Policy Issues

Additional

Carnegie Endowment For Peace: China, Taiwan, U.S.: Status Quo Challenged

George Washington University: Balancing Acts: The U.S. Rebalance and Asia-Pacific Stability

Council on Foreign Relations: If Taiwan Declares Independence and China Reacts With Force, on Whom Should the U.S. Lean Harder, China or Taiwan?

BBC News: Taiwan Rejected From China-Led Asia Bank ‘Due to Name’

Brookings Institution: Thoughts on the Taiwan Relations Act 

CSIS: Taiwan’s Quest for Greater Participation in the International Community

Jasmine Shelton

Jasmine Shelton is an American University Alumna, Alabamian at heart, and Washington D.C. city girl for now. She loves hiking, second-hand clothes, and flying far away. Contact Jasmine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post China and Taiwan: A Balancing Act For the United States appeared first on Law Street.

Professor Jon Hanson of Harvard Law School has set out to change the way law is taught. This spring, the professor welcomed roughly 50 students into the inaugural Systemic Justice class at Harvard Law. The class will teach students to examine the common causes of injustice in history and explore ways to use law and activism to make positive changes.

From the first day of the term, it became clear to students that the new class was unique. Referring to the students in the class as a “community,” Professor Hanson came across lighthearted and funny, cracking jokes and even asking the class to come up with a name for said “community.” He said to students on the first day of class: “None of us really knows what ‘systemic justice’ is—yet you’re all here.”

Traditionally, law students enter law school expecting to master existing law and to learn how to apply those laws to jobs as attorneys. However, a survey revealed that students are actually most concerned with big, unsolved social issues–which is where this class comes in. Students believe that law is part of the issue when looking at social problems such as climate change, income inequality, and racial bias in policing. The goal of this class is to introduce a new approach to examining and dealing with these issues.

This class is just one facet of a new Systemic Justice Project at Harvard, which is led by Professor Hanson and recent law school graduate Jacob Lipton. The project arose out of a growing recognition that law students need to be trained to be problem solvers and policy makers. Another part of the program is a class called the Justice Lab, which is a think tank style class designed to ask students to analyze systemic societal problems and propose solutions from a legal perspective. In April, students from both classes will attend a conference alongside experts to discuss their findings.

In some ways, this project is part of a widespread effort to introduce a greater policy focus into law schools. For example, Stanford Law School recently launched a Law and Policy Lab that tasks students with finding policy solutions to real-world problems. After graduation, many former law students will go on to become policy makers, judges, politicians, and organizational leaders. According to Sergio Campos, a law professor at the University of Miami and a visiting professor at Harvard, those lawyers could be in trouble if they do not develop a background on policy during their time in law school. He worries that for those students,  “when you get to a position where you can change the law, you don’t have a background on policy and what it should be.”

The program has already gained popularity with students at Harvard who are, or desire to be, active in fighting for social causes. However, not all law students are interested in learning about policy–some just want to learn about existing law, and that’s fine too. This project is designed to be a way to extend a traditional legal education, not replace it. Even so, participating in a class such as the Systemic Justice class can give law students a new and valuable perspective that will strengthen their overall legal education.

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 School Launches New Systemic Justice Project 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.

The Social Security program was enacted in 1935 to provide post-retirement income security for workers and their families. Since then, it has grown to become the world’s largest government program with a total expenditure of $768 billion in fiscal year 2012. Americans are seriously concerned about the sustainability of Social Security, which has led to questions about whether privatizing the system could be wise. Read on to learn about Social Security privatization efforts, and the arguments for and against such a move.

The Current Status of Social Security

Social Security isn’t in great shape right now. Various reports have estimated different dates at which the entitlement program may have difficulty paying out full benefits to those who should receive them, but the current most cited year is 2033. One of the big reasons for why Social Security is in big trouble is because of our changing demographics and health statistics. When Social Security was first introduced pre-World War II, people did not live nearly as long as they do today. In addition, the post-World War II Baby Boom led to a glut in our population size. Social Security’s forecasting methods weren’t able to accurately predict the situation we’re in now, where there are many healthy people retiring who will live longer than ever before. To put this into context, in 1960, there were about 5.1 workers paying into the system for every retiree; now the ratio has shifted to under 3:1.

What does “privatizing” Social Security mean?

Given Social Security’s current state, there have been solutions suggested to try to fix it. One of the most popular is privatizing the system. That would most likely mean creating individual private accounts for the workers. Those private accounts will be subject to more control by those who are paying in, and would be able to interact with the private market. The funds could be invested in things like private stocks, which advocates point out would boost workers’ rate of return.

The proposition of its privatization came into the limelight when George W. Bush proposed the Growing Real Ownership of Workers Act of 2005. The bill aimed at replacing the mandatory payouts from workers’ checks with voluntary personal retirement accounts. In 2010, Paul Ryan, a major supporter of privatization, attempted unsuccessfully to reignite interest in the idea in his Roadmap for America’s Future budget plan.

What are the arguments for privatization?

Proponents of privatization argue that the current program significantly burdens fiscal debt and will lead to increased debt and taxes for future generations. They claim that privatizing it will keep the program from collapsing in the future. It would actually lead to higher post-retirement earnings for workers or, at the very least, keep earnings at a relatively stable rate. Additionally, it would empower workers to be responsible for their own future.

Advocates for privatizing social security also point out that in the past, funds in Social Security have been diverted to pay for other things the government has needed to pay for, and then replaced in time. If Social Security was privatized into individual accounts, the government wouldn’t be able to take such actions. According those who want to privatize Social Security, doing so would also help minimize the bureaucracy involved in the process.

Case Study: Chile

Chile’s post-privatization success is used as an example that the United States can learn from. Chile transferred to a new program in which  workers put 10-20 percent of their incomes into private pension funds. When the worker retires, an insurance company gets involved to help with the dispensation of money, but even at that step the Chilean worker has a lot of choice and flexibility. Although long term effects of the plan have yet to be discovered, the short term effects are positive.

What’s the argument against privatizing the Social Security system?

Opponents worry that privatizing social security will lead to risk and instability in post-retirement earnings and cause significant reductions in the same. They argue that privatization can also potentially place minorities at a disadvantage, as well as anyone who doesn’t have the time, knowledge, or desire to effectively manage their account. Many also claim that the media has exaggerated the program’s financial demise and that its balance is currently in surplus with most Baby Boomers currently in the workforce.

Those who argue against Social Security privatization have also expressed concern about the financial and logistical resources that would be needed to start a privatized Social Security program. They also believe that a move toward privatization would create more, not less bureaucracy, because of the complexity of private markets. Several groups and individuals, such as the Center for American Progress and economist Robert Barro oppose the idea.

Conclusion

It’s no secret that Social Security is currently struggling, and if something is not done, it will continue only get worse. There’s no easy answer, but privatization is one frequently suggested option in the public debate. Exactly how privatization would occur, what its benefits and downsides would be, and its overall effectiveness are still up for debate, but for now it’s definitely an idea that we can expect to see on the list of possible solutions for the foreseeable future.

Resources

Primary 

Social Security Administration: A Program and Policy History

Social Security Administration: The Social Security Act of 1935

Social Security Administration: Fast Facts & Figures About Social Security, 2012

Social Security Administration: The 2013 Annual Report of the Broad of Trustees of the Federal Old-Age and Survivors Insurance and Federal Disability Insurance Trust Funds

Social Security Association: Privatizing Social Security: The Chilean Experience

Additional 

Daily Signal: Social Security’s Unfunded Obligation Rises by $1 Trillion

CATO: Still a Better Deal: Private Investment vs. Social Security

Safe Haven: Privatize Social Security Before I Spend Your Pension

Sun Sentinal: Privatization Would Help But Liberals Resist Changes

Independent: Privatizing Social Security the Right Way

Freedom Works: Chilean Model of Social Security

NCPSSM: The Truth About Privatization and Social Security

Economic Policy Institute Report: Saving Social Security With Stocks: The Promises Don’t Add Up

Fortune: Privatizing Social Security: Still a Dumb Idea

Center on Budget and Policy Priorities: What the 2013 Trustees’ Report Shows About Social Security

CATO: Speaking the Truth About Social Security Reform

AARP: In Brief: Social Security Privatization Around the World

National Bureau of Economic Research: Social Security Privatization: A Structure for Analysis

NEA: Social Security Privatization: A Bad Deal for Women

Salome Vakharia

Salome Vakharia is a Mumbai native who now calls New York and New Jersey her home. She attended New York School of Law, and she is a founding member of Law Street Media. Contact Salome at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Social Security Privatization Debate 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.

Right on the heels of  the Ray Rice domestic violence incident, NFL star Adrian Peterson was charged with negligent injury to a child. Known for being the best running back for the Minnesota Vikings, Peterson allegedly punished his 4-year-old son by whipping him with a tree branch, leaving cuts and bruises on the boy’s legs, backs, buttocks, hand and scrotum.

This subject is something I am really passionate about, and I was in absolute shock when Peterson gave a statement to the police following the incident claiming he felt confident in his actions, and is thankful for what spanking has done to him in his life. Each parent is responsible for choosing the way he or she disciplines his or her child, but if we start to say spanking is acceptable, how will we ever be able to set boundaries and limits? In typical NFL handling of these cases, Peterson was suspended from a game and no further action is being taken until the official police investigation is complete.

Last week I referenced the punishment for the father of a child who died as a result of being left in a hot car. That father was charged with murder. In the case of Adrian Peterson, I ask you what would happen if Peterson gave one more hit as opposed to the 10-15 lashes his poor child received, and that final hit resulted in the child’s death? Would he be let off because he didn’t intend to hurt the child? Would it be accepted like it is now, because that’s the way he grew up and spanking does “good”? I find it appalling that excuses are being made to justify what allows parents to discipline their children in this way.

Legislation is proposed all the time to stop acts of abuse toward children, and yet this incident has the potential to make parents think it’s OK to discipline their children in this way. I do not doubt that Peterson is telling the truth when he claims his intentions were harmless, but I do doubt that he feels any kind of remorse or is aware that his actions were wrong. In 2013, Peterson’s other two-year-old son was killed by his ex-girlfriend’s partner. Although Peterson had only found out about the child three months prior to his tragic death, one would have thought it would make him change his own actions.

All it takes is one hit in the wrong area, or with a certain amount of force, to cause serious harm and fall under the realm of child abuse. NFL players have the responsibility not only to be great athletes but also to be good role models. With the influx of recent incidents involving NFL players and their mistreatment of the law, I worry what effect this will have on the general public. Yes people make mistakes, yes people can change, but we should not be encouraging this behavior by making excuses. Each article I read about Rice and Peterson is drenched in excuse after excuse, each justifying the simple fact that these acts are wrong. In my opinion, if these acts of abuse were done by anyone else not in the public eye, I can guarantee the punishment would be a lot different.

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 There Is No Excuse for Child Abuse, Not Even for Adrian Peterson appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week from members of Law Street’s #300Voices, the top voices in law and policy. Make sure to head over to #300Voices to discover the top Twitter accounts you should be following.

If any #SCOTUS justice ever does the #IceBucketChallenge we’ll have to depend on someone else’s description because there will be no video.

— Supreme Court Haiku (@SupremeHaiku) August 25, 2014

Now that we have a good classroom rhythm going, let’s have a holiday to stop it.

— lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg) August 28, 2014

You should totally judge me by my retweets. A joke about burritos followed by a tweet about a 7th circuit argument. I’m well rounded. — Mirriam Seddiq (@mirriam71) August 27, 2014

Lawyer Tips: The practice of law can be stressful. Schedule time for yourself each day for quiet sobbing and reflection on your life choice.

— Adrian Baron (@lawbaron) August 29, 2014

Who are the five people you’ll meet in law school? It’s like heaven, but way worse. http://t.co/zAoeFxThfM — Bitter Lawyer (@BitterLawyer) August 26, 2014

Scheme: 1. Find wrongdoing 2. Tell supervisor 3. Supervisor sits on it 4. Tell SEC 5. Split reward with supervisor. http://t.co/jo2cmc3TxE

— Matt Levine (@matt_levine) August 29, 2014

slacker Millenials @TPM: Report: Sen Landrieu lists parents’ home as LA residence http://t.co/PVywDkornM pic.twitter.com/HxZE388zOB

— John Harwood (@JohnJHarwood) August 28, 2014

But did anyone call him “porky”? https://t.co/g0dAUorwPO

— Molly Ball (@mollyesque) August 28, 2014

Does the FCC get a say in the horizontal integration that is the Brad Pitt- Angelina Jolie merger?

— Eriq Gardner (@eriqgardner) August 28, 2014

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Check out the best legal tweets of the week from some of Law Street’s #300Voices, the top voices in law and policy, then head over to #300Voices discover the top Twitter accounts you should be following.

Tips for recent #law grads: Doesn’t matter what practice area you pursue, your relatives will now assume you can help with any legal problem

— Adrian Baron (@lawbaron) August 22, 2014

“Based on my training and experience” transforms speculative cop bullshit into admissible evidence only because the courts allow it to. — Norm DeGuerre (@NormDeGuerreEsq) July 19, 2014

1Ls, don’t assume those who speak are the smart ones. Amazing how who speaks changes after grades post. #lawschool

— lawprofblawg (@lawprofblawg) August 21, 2014

If you were born in 1976, there is no reason your mother should be calling me, or anyone, about legal matters on your behalf. — Not an Elle (@NotanElle) August 18, 2014

My parents understanding of my career is limited to how lawyers are portrayed on suits

— Alice, Esquire (@alicequire) August 21, 2014

Should you interfere with or resist a cop? No. Can you “challenge” or question or talk back? What else is the First Amendment for? — Kevin Underhill (@loweringthebar) August 19, 2014

Stop giving new lawyers grief for their career choice. Joblessness isn’t a personal failing: http://t.co/q0wMy8hMkN via @MikePMoffatt

— Jordan Furlong (@jordan_law21) August 21, 2014

And today we learned you can’t assign copyright to a monkey’s selfie…. #law http://t.co/FCT211yDCf #TIL pic.twitter.com/rVZCgJibJD — Lee Rosen (@LeeRosen) August 22, 2014

“Someone handed me their business card. Can I add them to my email list?” In Canada & Europe, no. In the U.S. yes, but they will hate you.

— Elizabeth Weinstein (@ElizabethPW) August 20, 2014

—

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

Featured image courtesy of [Maryland GovPics via Flickr]

Chelsey D. Goff

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

The post The Best Legal Tweets of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I like to keep an open mind about our government and how different states run differently, but there are some things that I feel like would make more sense if every state did them the same way. Maine’s Governor, Paul LePage (R), has reinstated a policy that would make people have to work for food stamps. No more sitting around on your ass waiting for that welfare check to come in, nope, you have to actually work for the money.

“People who are in need deserve a hand up, but we should not be giving able-bodied individuals a handout,” LePage said in a statement. “We must continue to do all that we can to eliminate generational poverty and get people back to work. We must protect our limited resources for those who are truly in need and who are doing all they can to be self-sufficient.”

I think that this is one of the greatest ideas ever, but I also wonder why they have to reinstate such an idea, and why aren’t other states doing the same thing? Wasn’t the original idea of food stamps and welfare just to help people who are down on their luck and trying to find a job? When did we allow welfare to become a way of life? In fact, when did we start allowing people on welfare to become lazy and just accept a handout without having to work for it? I can’t say  that I remember a time when everyone understood the value of a dollar and what a good work ethic is because I’ve never lived in a time where that held true, but I know that at one point in this country our citizens knew what they had to do in order to get by. Nowadays you can pop out a couple of kids, get on welfare, and just sit around waiting for that money to be deposited in your account. You don’t have to actively look for a job, volunteer, or commit to attend a workforce program. You can just say you need the money and the government will hand it on over, the more kids you have the more money you get.

I am no stranger to the ways in which some people have found to manipulate the system. I’ve heard stories of people who will get on food stamps or welfare, take the government’s money, and buy themselves a brand new iPhone or a new pair of Jordans or any other material thing that you don’t need when you are living off of welfare. Do you know where that “government money” is coming from? That money is coming from my pocket. That money is coming from the guy who works a 50-hour work week on minimum wage trying to make ends meet because he understands what hard work and supporting his family are really all about.

Do people not realize that when it comes from the government it’s actually coming from the people!? That’s why we pay taxes, so our government can supplement the many things that we need as a nation, and part of that goes to supporting those who are on welfare. If you are an able-bodied person who can work and is on welfare then there should be a stipulation that says you have to be doing something rather than sitting at home watching Real Housewives of New Jersey or hanging out with your friends. Why not volunteer or participate in a skills training program? Be an active member of society, be a part of your community in a positive way, and teach your kids that a handout is something to be ashamed of. Teach your kids good work ethic and respect for our government.

Under Maine’s new policy people capable of working would be limited to three months of food stamp benefits over a three-year period unless they work a minimum of 20 hours a week, volunteer a certain number of hours for a community agency, or participate in a state skills-training program. This was the point of welfare: to help you out until you can get back on your feet and support yourself and your own family again. Reinstating this policy is something that all states should think about doing (if they aren’t already)!

Way to go Governor LePage and good luck to the people of Maine!

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Steve Hopson via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post You Actually Have to Work for Food Stamps in Maine appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

I was just doing my normal internet surfing, riding the news wave and trying to find something that hasn’t bombarded your TV or social media outlets yet. What I stumbled upon is so ridiculous and infuriating I just could not let it go.

So, the University of Wisconsin – Madison has come up with a new policy that states good grades should be distributed equally among different races. Known as the “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence,” this policy calls for “proportional participation of historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups at all levels of an institution, including high status special programs, high-demand majors, and in the distribution of grades.”

I’m sorry, WHAT!?! Obviously colleges like the idea of diversity — they promote it every chance they get — but if you go back and actually read what the policy calls for then you’ll see that while they may be promoting diversity, they are also promoting racial oppression. “Historically underrepresented racial-ethnic groups” — it is stated right there. In most cases white people have not been historically underrepresented. So what UW-Madison is saying is let’s give out free grades to students who are not white and who may not have worked as hard as other students. What about those students who are “historically underrepresented” who work their asses off to get those good grades? Why should they have to work so hard for their grades but their peers simply get handed the same grade because of their race or ethnicity?

By all means please promote diversity at a university, it is one of the best ways for people to learn from one another. But handing out grades based on race is a slap in the face to every student and professor at any university.

W. Lee Hansen, professor of economics at UW-Madison, was outraged by this policy and shared his opinion. “Suppose there were a surge of interest in a high demand field such as computer science. Under the ‘equity’ policy, it seems that some of those who want to study this field would be told that they’ll have to choose another major because computer science already has “enough” students from their ‘difference’ group.” Professor Hansen goes on to say, “Especially shocking is the language about “equity” in the distribution of grades. Professors, instead of just awarding the grade that each student earns, would apparently have to adjust them so that academically weaker, ‘historically underrepresented racial/ethnic’ students perform at the same level and receive the same grades as academically stronger students.”

How would any professor or student be okay with even the idea of this policy? How did UW-Madison get away with putting this policy into effect! Each student had to work hard to get into the university but now all of a sudden the school is saying that no matter what you did in the past if you are considered “historically underrepresented” you can simply show up to class and still get a good grade.

What’s the point of going to college if this is how it is going to be? These kids are going to end up with a four-year degree that they did not earn but simply purchased. If that’s the case why not just close down all institutions and require people to write a check for $80,000 – $125,000 to the government and have them hand out degrees.

Instead of promoting hard work, dedication, and real education, UW-Madison has basically said, “Come to UW-Madison where you pay tuition and we will give you the grades.” Is this really the kind of reputation that a university wants to have? Is this the kind of reputation that any student graduating from this institution wants to have? I know if I were ever in a situation where I was going to hire someone I would never want to hire the graduate from UW-Madison because he may not have understood the purpose of college and may not have learned anything except that things can apparently just be handed to you.

Life does not work that way. Life is not easy or fair and part of that statement includes the idea that school is not easy. You get the grade you worked for, not the grade that was assigned to you because of your race.

Too many of today’s youth are just expecting a hand out. They aren’t being taught the value of a dollar or a strong work ethic. Here comes the reference again, Idiocracy at its finest.

I also find it very interesting how hard generations before us fought for equality but here we are creating more separation than ever before. Is it not obvious to the world that subtle lines are being drawn in the sand? No one is created equal anymore. We might as well throw out the Declaration of Independence and forget about our past because nothing has really changed. People talk about how racism and sexism are still very alive in our world and how things need to change for the better. But how can anything change when universities are promoting policies that demonstrate separation over equality? Equality is not being promoted in this “Framework for Diversity and Inclusive Excellence” policy at all.

You want to be equal? Take the same classes as your peers, work as hard as you can and get the grade you deserve. That makes you equal with your peers, not waiting around for a professor to give you an A for a class that you probably barely attended, never studied for and possibly slept through.

Shame on you University of Wisconsin – Madison for not only promoting racial and ethnic oppression but for also basically telling your students that they aren’t smart enough to get the grades on their own. Not to mention telling the world that handing out grades because of race or ethnicity is okay, thanks for basically showing the world that the fight for desegregation in all aspects meant nothing. I’m sure Medgar Evers, Betty Friedan, Susan B. Anthony and Martin Luther King, Jr. are all turning in their graves.

 —

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Okandasan via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post University of Wisconsin Policy Calls for Grade Distribution by Race and Ethnicity appeared first on Law Street.

Mental health and suicide prevention advocates are working to increase awareness of America’s suicide epidemic. In 2011, the most recent year for which there are relevant statistics, more than 39,000 Americans reportedly committed suicide. Suicide by veterans and members of the armed forces have been on the rise since 2001. Although safety nets and other deterrent mechanisms are used to discourage people from taking their lives, it has been proven that the first and most effective step to prevent suicide is recognizing and responding to the signs that signify someone is suffering from depression or mental illness. Advocates and mental health professionals emphasize recognition of trigger behaviors and attempt to provide better services to individuals struggling with depression and mental illness by working with federal, state, and local governments to provide access to essential services.

Click here to see some of the warning signs of suicide.

Here is everything  you need to know about suicide: the causes, policies, and legislation that are used to curb the growing epidemic.

Who is at the highest risk of suicide?

Suicide used to be reported as predominantly affecting teens and much older people, yet according to The New York Times, “from 1999 to 2010, the suicide rate among Americans ages 35 to 64 rose by nearly 30 percent.” Click here to see the most at-risk populations. Suicide also tends to be brought on by life trauma, such as abuse or childhood neglect. People who suffer from depression, mental illness, eating disorders, or have a history of drug use also have an increased chance of suicide.

Suicide Prevention Policies and Legislation

Case Study: Duke Ellington and Taft Bridges in Washington, DC 

Similar to the Golden Gate Bridge, the Duke Ellington Bridge in Northwest Washington, DC is an infamous location for suicides. On average about four suicides a year occur on the bridge, and in 1985, three people jumped off of it within a 10-day period. The busy Rock Creek Park below is a daunting 125-foot plunge. Half of all suicides in the District of Columbia occur on this notorious bridge.

In 1987, the National Trust for Historic Preservation brought a lawsuit against the efforts to build a suicide barrier at the Duke Ellington bridge. The organization claimed that the project was not protected by the Department of Transportation Act and that ultimately the erection of a barrier would ruin the historical and aesthetic appeal of the well-known bridge. The Trust also argued that the barrier served no purpose as people intent on committing suicide would simply migrate to the nearby Taft Bridge. In 1990, Congress vetoed the case to remove the barriers, and they still remain in tact today. A study conducted five years after the barrier construction showed that there were no suicides committed from the Duke Ellington bridge, and the count on the Taft Bridge remained virtually unchanged. In this case, the suicide barrier seems to be effective in the nation’s capital, once again proving suicide to be impulsive in nature.

Duke Ellington Bridge in Washington D.C. [Michiel 1972 via Wikipedia]

Suicide Barrier on the Duke Ellington Bridge [Alyson Hurt via Flickr]

Bullying and Suicide

Case Study: Rebecca Ann Sedwick

In September 2013, Florida resident Rebecca Ann Sedwick committed suicide after being repeatedly bullied throughout her time at Crystal Lake Middle School. Sedwick’s mother, Tricia Norman, pulled her from the school after Sedwick had been attacked by a group of peers. Norman also discovered harassing text messages on her daughter’s phone, and even more shockingly Sedwick had self-inflicted cuts up and down her legs.

After Norman became aware of her daughter’s torment, she moved her to Lawton Chiles Middle Academy to attend the seventh grade. Despite the change in schools, the bullying continued. Most of it came from social media websites such as Kik Messenger, Instagram, and Ask.fm, all of which can be used anonymously. Some of these messages included: “You should die” and “why don’t you go kill yourself?”

Twelve-year-old Katelyn Roman and 14-year-old Guadalupe Shaw were charged with aggravated stalking and arrested as juveniles. Just one month later, the charges were dropped, and the war between Norman and the authorities began. According to CNN, Norman’s attorney said in a statement that he plans to sue both the  Polk County School Board and one or both of the girls who were arrested in the case.

Bullying: Social Media

The main reason that the charges against Roman and Shaw were dropped is because of the lack of available evidence. Many of the sites that Sedwick was bullied on were “disappearing apps,” meaning that the messages would automatically be deleted after a short period of time. In an attempt to gain justice for Sedwick and prevent future online bullying cases from going unidentified, Norman continues to work to develop a safer social media environment. Recently one the websites that Sedwick used, Ask.fm, added a “Safety Tools” page that details its anti-bully safety features.

Click here to read more about bullying and social media.

Rebecca’s Law

In response to Sedwick’s suicide as a result of bulling, Florida is considering Rebecca’s Law, which would punish bullying as a  misdemeanor and aggravated bullying as a third-degree felony. In Florida where Sedwick was a resident, there is no legislation that can punish an individual legally solely based on the loosely defined term “bullying.” If the bill passes, alleged bullies could face fines or in more severe consequences jail time.

This is not the only case that has resulted in the suicide of a school-aged child or teen. In response to the tragedy, the Safe Schools Improvement Act of 2013  was proposed to crack down on bullying in schools. Its main purpose is to outline anti-bullying policies, which include creating a comfortable and safe environment at school for every child. The bill calls for the state to submit an annual report evaluating the programs being used to end bullying in secondary and elementary schools. The bill calls for evaluation of training programs for professionals, as well as a survey of parent involvement.

Case Study: Grace’s Law

Fifteen-year-old Grace McComas of Howard County, Maryland committed suicide on Easter Sunday 2012. Similar to Sedwick, McComas was repeatedly harassed on online social media sites, which ultimately drove her to suicide.

In response to the death of McComas, Grace’s Law  was passed in 2013 to end cyber bullying through the banning and regulation of electronic harassment. The law prohibits “a person from using a computer or computer network to disseminate certain data with the malicious intent to psychologically torment or harass a minor.” Anyone who chooses to violate this and bully someone under the age of 18 could be punished with a misdemeanor charge.

Suicide on College Campuses

Suicide at Universities

College is a stressful time for many students; they are in a new environment, have to make new friends, and are under the pressure of maintaining both good grades and the responsibility of extracurricular activity. College can be a balancing act, and often stress, depression, and loneliness can affect and overwhelm students. In extreme cases they resort to what they feel to be the last option, suicide. According to the National Alliance on Mental Illness, “Suicide is the third leading cause of death on college campuses” and the Jed Foundation reports that, “half of all college students have had suicidal thoughts.”

Not only does suicide affect the friends and family members if the deceased, it also puts universities at risk for lawsuit.

University Responsibility

Many schools adhere to the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule; however, there have been cases in which families of students who committed suicide sue the school based on its mental health policy. One such case, Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County occurred in Maryland. The parents of Nicole Eisel sued the School Board for the middle-school counselor’s failure to report Eisel’s expression of suicidal preoccupation. This case set a standard for both counselors and schools: “School counselors have a duty to use reasonable means to attempt to prevent a suicide when they are placed on notice of a student’s suicidal intent.” A school will not necessarily be convicted in the case of a student suicide, yet if the student expresses obvious signs and the school fails to intervene, it may be held liable. In contrasting cases such as White v. University of Wyoming, Jain v. State, and Bogust v. Iverson, the No-Duty-to-Prevent-Suicide rule held and the schools were ultimately exempt from accountability for student suicides.

Organizations to Prevent Suicide at Universities

The most recognized organization in suicide reform is the organization started by Alison Malmon, Active Minds. It was founded in Washington DC in 2003, three years after Malmon’s brother committed suicide due to mental health issues. Active Mind’s main mission is to eliminate the stigma associated with mental illness and urge students to seek help.

One parent, whose college-aged son committed suicide created the Jason Foundation, which works to prevent youth suicide through awareness and education. The organization is working to create a smartphone app that will connect people contemplating suicide directly to a hotline to receive support and immediate intervention.

There are also organizations such as the Jed Foundation that focus on student mental health and work to end suicide in the college population through campus counseling and programs. The Jed Foundation is fighting to have congress include a mental health screening within its health reform bills.

The National Alliance on Mental Illness offers several education and support services for mental health crises, as well as support the battle to end suicide on campuses.

The Campus Suicide Prevention Grants program targets students with mental illness and substance abuse issues. It aims to improve services and expand access to services for students who are at a higher risk of suicide. Both private and public institutions of higher learning can apply for the grant 

Suicide Prevention: National Innovation

Surgeon General Regina Benjamin is a strong backer of the national initiative to decrease suicide in the United States. A National Strategy containing four main pillars has been proposed:

1. Direct a focus to the family, the individual, and the community.
2. Develop better preventative techniques.
3. Provide efficient and easily accessible treatment for mental health.
4. Improve the surveillance of data and enact appropriate and timely methods based on the analysis.

Medicaid has already started to cover depression screenings. According to USA TODAY, “physicians will be rewarded by Medicare and Medicaid for screening depressed patients for suicide risk.” This is an incentive for doctors to follow through with care, and highlights the importance of mental healthcare.

Two bills currently being considered by the House of Representatives are aimed at mental healthcare improvements. HR 3717, the “Helping Families in Mental Health Crisis Act,” covers psychiatric support for families and patients that have the most crucial needs. HR 4574, the “Strengthening Mental Health in our Communities Act of 2014″ includes offering more community-based services accessible to individuals with mental health needs. Organizations such as The National Alliance on Mental Illness, are strong supports of this legislation and are petitioning to have it enacted into law. 

Suicide Prevention: State Level

Case Study: The Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act of 2012

Lawyer Matt Adler committed suicide in February 2011 due to extreme depression and anxiety. In response to her husband’s death, Adler’s wife Jennifer Stuber worked with the state of Washington to take legislative action to prevent future suicides. One year later in March 2012, the Matt Adler Suicide Assessment, Treatment, and Management Act was signed into law. The Act requires “mental health professionals, social workers, and occupational therapists to receive six hours of training every six years, as part of their continuing education requirement.“ This mandatory training ensures that professionals are better equipped to identify and handle signs of suicide. 

Click here to see Washington State Bill that requires mandatory training for clinical professionals on suicide prevention.

Almost every state has a plan to prevent suicide, including similar tactics to combat the issue, such as education, suicide-awareness initiatives, survey and analysis of statistical evidence, and improvement of medical and support services are all strategies to fight the epidemic. To see a few of these suicide prevention plans, click on the state link: Colorado , Indiana, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, California, Texas, and Idaho.

Methods of Action

Zero Suicide Academy

Although suicide barriers and hotline support can stop the act of suicide, they do not address the underlying issues at hand — the victim’s mental health. Even if someone is deterred from suicide once, it does not guarantee that the thoughts will be permanently eliminated. People who contemplate suicide tend to have a suicidal tendency based on mental or environmental causes.

In response to the nationwide epidemic, the Alliance for Suicide Prevention held a conference in Washington, DC in June 2014. Participants discussed several methods of identifying risk factors and methods of action to reduce suicide rates. The discussion revolved around the “Zero Suicide Toolkit” that includes six components:

1. Creating the Zero Suicide Culture. This consists of creating efficient and reliable care for people at risk, while also ensuring that the clinicians themselves receive care and compassion in order to maintain a healthy and effective environment for both the patient and the professional.

2. Ensuring Every Person Has a Pathway to Care is an important element in identifying suicidal behaviors and preventing the patient taking action based on their specific risk level and needs. Follow-up care is also an important component in ensuring every patient receives the most effective care.

3. Developing a Competent Workforce  is key to keeping employees mentally healthy. This consists of developing a system where there is “collaboration, team approaches, and effective communication” in place. Employees and behavioral health staff should be aware of suicidal signs and react in a supportive manner. The behavioral staff, should be trained and able to provide the mental health needs of staff at risk. 

4. Identifying and Assessing Suicide Risk Level is important in understanding each individual’s specific situation and reacting based on a plan tailored to that person’s specialized treatment needs.

5. Using Effective, Evidence-based Care  focuses on keeping the individual out of a hospital setting if possible. This consists of collaborative therapy with a focus on behavioral and problem-solving strategies.

6. Continuing contact after care is a vital component in ensuring that the patient will remain healthy. Follow-up services and support groups are a key element in maintaining an individual’s well being after initial care.

Click here to see the conference framework in its entirety.

Conclusion

There is progress being made toward slowing the suicide epidemic in this country, including action at the local, state, and federal levels to decrease the rate of suicide. Education, awareness, and supportive services for families, communities, and mental health professionals are all part of broad framework to combat suicide. Suicide is a mental health issue with subjective impulses, so it is to completely eliminate, yet as a society we have started to recognize the signs and are taking policy and legislative action to combat this epidemic.

Resources

Healthy Children: Help Stop Teen Suicide 

American Foundation for Suicide Prevention: Preventing Suicide 

UCLA Center: School Interventions to Prevent Youth Suicide

ABC: Mom of Suicide Tween Rebecca Sedwick to Sue ‘Those Responsible’

Crimesider: “Rebecca’s Law” aims to punish bullying in Fla.

SPRC: Success and Inspiration at the Zero Suicide Academy 

The New York Times: The Urge to end it all 

Action Alliance: Zero Suicide in Health and Behavioral Health Care

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges new Focus on Suicide Prevention 

USA Today: Suicide Prevention the Focus of new Government , Campus Programs 

Huffington Post: How to Prevent Your Ivy League Student From Becoming Suicidal 

USA Today: Recent has University Reflecting on College Stress 

CNN: Police file raises questions about bullying in Rebecca Sedwick’s suicide

Baltimore Sun: Grace’s Law, a cyberbullying bill, called ‘landmark legislation’

Fordham Law Review: Keeping Students Alive: Mandating On-Campus Counseling Saves Suicidal College Students’ Livesand Limits Liability

UNC Law: Student Suicides and School System Liability

Ledger: Lakeland Girl Commits Suicide After 1½ Years of Being Bullied

CNN: Sheriff: Taunting post leads to arrests in Rebecca Sedwick bullying death

USA Today: Surgeon General Urges New Focus Prevention on Suicide Prevention

Madeleine Stern

Madeleine Stern attended George Mason University majoring in Journalism and minoring in Theater. Her writing on solitary confinement inspired her to pursue a graduate degree in clinical counseling after graduation. Madeleine is an avid runner, dedicated animal lover, and a children’s ballet instructor. Contact Madeleine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Suicide Prevention Policies Aim to Curb Epidemic appeared first on Law Street.

“Spray a square around the tag and then fill it in.”

This is a new anti-graffiti tactic described in the latest NYPD internal directive issued May 2, 2014. Police officers now carry black, red, and white aerosol spray paint with orders to photograph graffiti, then “box it out” and paint it over “in a professional manner.” According to the directive, officers should target “identifiable tags, not large murals” such as those produced legally by the Bushwick Collective in areas such as Williamsburg and Long Island City, where the internationally famous graffiti mecca 5 Pointz was recently white-washed by developers. Graffiti patrols are currently stalking Bushwick, Brownsville, and Bedford-Stuyvesant, and the policy will be under way in all five boroughs this summer. “It’s supposed to discredit their work,” an officer said to the New York Post, “and break their manhood.” The May 2 directive is only one part of a new anti-graffiti campaign, as Police Commissioner Bill Bratton alluded to on Wednesday while speaking to reporters. “The issue of graffiti is something we will be addressing more significantly…We can’t just keep doing the same old thing all over again,” said Bratton, rationalizing the new tactic. “We need find new ways to basically make the arrest.”

Commissioner Bratton, perhaps, misinterprets graffiti though, and in doing so, his re-ignition of the “Graffiti Wars” between artists and police will cost the city millions of dollars, not to mention destroy the lives of artists whose “crime” is victimless, while diverting valuable police resources in a city where shootings have spiked seven percent over the last year.

We should read graffiti instead as political statements; or as a response to the inequities of urban development, as criminologist Jeff Ferrell argued in his 1993 landmark study of the indigenous urban art form. Ferrel saw graffiti as an “anarchistic resistance to cultural domination, a streetwise counterpoint to the increasing authority of corporate advertisers and city governments over the environments of daily life.” Moreover, graffiti was a protest against the “aggressive disenfranchisement of city kids, poor folks, and people of color from the practice of everyday life; and finally, the careful and continuous centralization of political and economic authority.” Aesthetically, it attempts to break the “hegemonic hold of corporate/government style over the urban environment.” This interpretation of graffiti is quite convincing, especially considering the rampant gentrification of Brooklyn and Queens — indeed the very neighborhoods the NYPD has chosen to deploy its new campaign.

In order to understand the antagonism between graffiti artists and police today, however, we must revisit the genesis of contemporary graffiti in the hip hop movement during the 1960s in the South Bronx, and the evolution of the city’s response to graffiti developing as cultural and political force. During the mid-1960s — at the outset of urban crisis — graffiti taggers, or writers, began signing urban surfaces such as park benches, buildings, and subway trains with marks distinct to each artist. The practice grew through the 1970s as the marks became more elaborate. New York graffiti was subsequently met with strict public policy, and police directed anti-graffiti campaigns to eradicate graffiti from the urban environment, especially on subway trains where it was particularly noticeable. Mayor John Lindsay outlawed the sale of graffiti paraphernalia in 1972; Mayor Koch militarized train yards with razor wire and attack dogs in the early 1980s and  declared vandalism a felony, sentencing offenders to community service or jailing graffiti artists at Rikers Island. The “Graffiti Wars” between artists and police persisted till the 1990s when graffiti crime tapered under the Giuliani and Bloomberg administrations due to increased police enforcement of “quality of life offenses” such as the ubiquitous squeegee-men, and homelessness — a trend that paralleled the exponential gentrification of Manhattan and surrounding boroughs of the City.

If the NYPD’s May 2 directive is indicative of a new “Graffiti War,” as Bratton’s comments suggest, it will come at a great cost to the city. “This whole graffiti program is ridiculous,” one officer said. “Some of these neighborhoods are really dangerous. There should be more of a focus on serious crime.” A high-ranking officer commented to the New York Post: “Summer is right around the corner. Shootings always go up in the warmer months. This year is no exception. You can’t have officers wasting their time on graffiti taggers.” If one thing is clear from these statements, it’s that police are not happy with their new duties, and citizens should not be complacent either. The May 2 directive will divert police resources away from crime and problems that actually affect the city, and thus will cause more harm than good.

But much larger issues are at stake here. Instead of experimenting with new ways to eradicate graffiti, New York City government should spend more time addressing systemic problems that cause graffiti in the first place. If we accept Jeff Ferrel’s assertion that graffiti is a response to inequitable conditions of urban life, as I believe has been the case in New York since the 1980s, then the real problem facing the city today is not graffiti, but the structural inequities of urban development such as the alienation of lower-middle and working-class communities displaced from the rising cost of city living.

If graffiti is on the rise in New York, as Bratton would have us believe, then we should read this trend as a sign that something is terribly wrong. “We’ll be dealing with that graffiti as far as the vandalism aspect, the gangs or crews, if you will, use that to spread messages,” said Commissioner Bratton, “as a way to mark their territory.” This is a dated view of graffiti, based on unfounded analyses from the 1970s that border on racism. Do graffiti writers really “mark their territory,” as would a dog or a wild animal? Of course not. Perhaps the real problem at stake here is with the leadership of the NYPD, and the obsolete ideology that informs their tactics.

—

Ryan D. Purcell (@RyanDPurcell) holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York.

Featured image courtesy of [Youngking11 via Wikipedia]

Ryan Purcell

Ryan D. Purcell holds an MA in American History from Rutgers University where he explored the intersection between hip hop graffiti writers and art collectives on the Lower East Side. His research is based on experience working with the Newark Public Arts Project and from tagging independently throughout New Jersey and New York. Contact Ryan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post NYPD Reigniting the Graffiti Wars appeared first on Law Street.

Law Street launched a new feature today — get excited, everyone! We’ve added #300Voices to the site, which is a curated hub of the top voices in law and policy. This Tweet Central brings together the best and brightest in the legal industry from the media, law schools and firms, and independent bloggers.

We did something very unique: Instead of focusing on institutions, businesses, and media outlets, we turned our attention to the people whose voices make up the dynamic legal industry. You can enjoy scrolling through up-to-the minute tweets about the most important legal news of the day from your favorite contributors.

#300Voices is as ever evolving as the topics we cover and we’re offering a unique chance for our readers and followers to contribute to this list. We want you to nominate your favorite media contributors, professors, and bloggers on Twitter — all the legal voices that are essential to your daily life. Tweet us your nominations @LawStreetMedia using the hashtag #300Voices and we will choose new contributors as their influence and relevance grow. Click here to view full nomination details and instructions.

—

Alexandra Saville (@CapitalistaBlog) is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

Alexandra Saville

Alexandra Saville is the Media and Writing Specialist at Law Street Media. She has experience in the publishing and marketing worlds and started her own publishing company right out of college. Her blogs, The Capitalista and Capitalista Careers, focus on the young and the entrepreneurial.

The post Introducing #300Voices, the Top Voices in Law and Policy appeared first on Law Street.

A new idea is being proposed that could dramatically change education requirements in United States public schools. In New Mexico, State Senator Jacob Canderlaria, a democrat, has proposed a bill that would allow computer programming to count towards student’s foreign language requirements. Candelaria claims this measure would help promote the teaching of computer coding since its inclusion in a school’s curriculum would be funded by the state. Schools would still be able to choose which languages they offer to their students, as they currently do, but also would provide any computer programming language to students as an alternative to a traditional foreign language. New Mexico is not alone in offering this intriguing suggestion; Kentucky has had a similar bill mentioned in its own state legislature. State Senator David Givens, a republican, sponsored the Kentucky bill, and stated that the measure would make it easier for students to begin studying computer science.

It is true that state sponsorship of computer programming classes could have many benefits. The salaries for computer programming jobs are much higher than the national average, and students pursuing computer science could expect to receive a good income. In addition, there is evidently a greater need for understanding computer code in this digital age, and incentivizing early learning of computer programming could boost the number of college students who choose to major in the field. The National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) found that in 2010, only 2.4 percent of graduates received degrees related to computer science. With a low number of college graduates receiving education in this lucrative field of study, it is evident that the nation could benefit from some kind of incentive for schools to teach computer programming.

But is the answer to increasing the computer programming skills of students to count them as foreign language classes? Deeming computer programming as a foreign language would have negative implications: the measure would hurt the already struggling foreign language program in the United States when the need for fluency in languages other than English has only increased.

There are a multitude of reasons why learning foreign languages is extremely important.  As globalization increasingly links countries together in business, foreign relations, trade and other areas, knowledge of other languages can be the deciding factor when choosing candidates for higher level jobs. In addition, the United States is already way behind other countries in terms of the percentage of their population who understand multiple languages. According to data from 2010, while 53 percent of Europeans know at least one other language besides their native tongue, just 18 percent of Americans speak an additional language. Most European schools begin instructing their pupils in different languages in elementary school, while only a third of US elementary schools include this vital component of education. This is especially troubling as studies have shown that people are better able to master languages when they start at young ages.

And yet, foreign language education was among the budget cuts made in 2012. The Department of Education had bequeathed 27 million dollars in foreign language education funding before the program was cut in the budget deal. Adding computer programming to the list of ‘languages’ a school offers would only further detract from the weakened language programs. If the United States is so worried about global competitiveness, why are foreign language programs not given their needed attention and funding?

The United States is still very much in the mindset of an English centered world in which English is the lingua franca. Many Americans know that English, for the time being, remains an extremely important language that citizens of many other countries are learning. However, the comfort of only needing to speak English could be challenged as the years go by. As China continues to increase its economic power, many other countries are starting to focus on Mandarin as well as English. Additionally, other areas of the world that speak languages like Arabic, Russian, Hindi and others are becoming increasing important for business and diplomacy. And even closer to home, the English dominance of America will soon be challenged: it is projected that by 2050, Spanish will replace English as the most widely spoken language in the country. It is crucial that Americans begin to learn other languages to prepare for the future, and the first step should be to focus on strengthening foreign language programs in schools.

This is not to say that schools should not offer computer programming at all. There are obviously many benefits to having tech savvy students, and computer programming should be included in the push to promote STEM education. But foreign languages should not be deemphasized to promote computer coding. It is true that not all students would take the option of switch to a computer programming language, but offering a choice between the two only weakens foreign language education and would deplete the attention and resources devoted to traditional languages learning. The US is already very behind in the amount of students who learn multiple languages, and computer programming as an alternative could decrease the percentages of students enrolled in languages even further.

Schools should not be opposed to finding more ways for computer programming to enter their curriculums but not at the expense of foreign language.

[Washington Post] [ABQ Journal] [NCES] [Forbes] [Language Magazine] [Huffington Post] [US News]

—

Sarah Helden (@shelden430)

Featured image courtesy of [Erre 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 Computer Programming as a Foreign Language? appeared first on Law Street.

The world we live in today makes it hard for any twenty-something to find a decent-paying, full-time job. Although we may search and search, many of us retreat back to school, taking on more debt while seeking higher education.

Even so, we have all accepted unpaid internships with the hope that there is a sliver of a chance that we may be hired as a full-time employee. Despite working for free, we expect to be treated along the same lines as any other employee, entitled to certain rights such as lunch breaks, vacation days, and freedom from sexual harassment, right? WRONG!

David Yamada reported that a New York Federal District Court held that an unpaid intern could not bring a sexual harassment claim against her employer, Phoenix Satellite Television US, Inc., under NYC Human Rights Law. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff, Liuhuan Wang sustained injuries as a result of quid pro quo sexual harassment and sexual harassment in the form of a hostile work environment created by her supervisor Zhengzhu Liu.

As a 22-year-old student at Syracuse University, Ms. Lihuan claims that during her four weeks at Phoenix Satellite US, Mr. Liu had almost complete supervisory authority in the New York and D.C. bureaus. Ms. Lihuan’s complaint alleges that Mr. Liu had a history of sexual harassment throughout his employment with Phoenix Satellite and he would prey on female employees just starting their career in America and lure them to his hotel room where he would grope and kiss them, and attempt to have sex with them. He is accused of insinuating that in order to have a successful career, female employees and interns at Phoenix would have to submit to his unwanted sexual desires.

Ms. Lihuan claimed that Mr. Liu had similarly invited her back to his hotel after treating her and several co-workers to lunch when he was in town. After asking her to stay behind to “talk about her job performance,” Mr. Liu guided Ms. Lihuan back to his hotel room, under the guise of an work-related issue, and attempted to grope and kiss her, forcing Ms. Lihuan to push him back and leave the room immediately.

Her grievance is due to the fact that she believes her refusal of Mr. Liu’s sexual advances is the reason she was denied full-time employment. The complaint also mentions that a fellow Syracuse student, Qian Chen, worked for Phoenix and was also sexually propositioned by Mr. Liu. Perhaps Mr. Liu and the people over at Phoenix Satellite need a visit from this guy.

The U.S. District Court judge, Judge Kevin P. Castel, ruled that Ms. Lihuan could not bring a valid claim of sexual harassment under New York City Human Rights Law against her employer because her lack of compensation rendered her unable to meet the employee status required by the statute.

Using federal and NY case law, the district court determine that unpaid interns are not employees as defined under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act or NYC Human Rights Law. The district court stated that remuneration or the absence of remuneration is an essential element to determining the existence of “the employer-employee relationship.”

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) supports the U.S. District Court’s position that sexual harassment laws don’t cover interns unless they receive “significant remuneration,” according to an EEOC spokesperson, Joseph Olivares.

According to Bloomberg Businessweek, Phoenix denies that Ms. Lihuan ever applied for a position and Mr. Liu is no longer with the company. This wasn’t the first case, and it surely will not be the last. Although the workplace dynamic for unpaid interns is already changing, maybe it’s time to take another look at the rights unpaid interns are entitled to while working. Perhaps something slightly more than a video at orientation.

And no live demonstrations are necessary.

And remember, its not just women who suffer from sexual harassment in the workplace.

—

Rob Anthony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. In the words of Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas, “We need to be bold and adventurous in our thinking in order to survive.” Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Melissa Gira via Flickr]

Robbin Antony

Rob Antony is a founding member of Law Street Media. He is a New Yorker, born and raised, and a graduate of New York Law School. Contact Rob at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Tragedy of the Unpaid Intern: No Money – No Rights appeared first on Law Street.