The Chicago Cubs broke a 108-year dry spell on Wednesday night when they won the World Series for the first time since 1908, beating the Cleveland Indians in a 10-inning thriller 8-7. It was an epic end to a long drought. When the Cubs last won the World Series, a Hershey’s chocolate bar cost two cents (51 cents when adjusting for inflation), Franz Ferdinand was alive and presumably well, women in the U.S. were barred from voting, and Wilbur Wright brought the first manned aircraft to France.

Today, a Hershey’s chocolate bar is more than $1.50, World War I is a century old, the U.S. might elect its first female president, and over 100,000 aircrafts fly through the skies every day. What else was happening the last time the Cubbies won it all, and how are things different in the law and policy world 108 years later?

For one, just a few weeks after the Cubs beat the Detroit Tigers on October 14, William Howard Taft was elected the 27th president of the U.S. on November 3. The New York Times lede the following morning read: “William H. Taft will be the twenty-seventh President of the United States, having swept the country by a vote which will give him 314 ballots in the Electoral College against Mr. Bryan’s 169, or only 22 less than Mr. Roosevelt had in 1904. His majority will be 145.” Also on the front page that day was a crudely drawn map showing how the U.S. voted. The paper cost one cent.

Seventeen presidents later, the U.S. will be voting for its 45th commander in chief next Tuesday. While Taft beat his opponent, Democrat William Jennings Bryan in a landslide, the 2016 election is primed to be a much tighter race. Thursday’s front-page consists of a glossy photo of the Cubs whooping in victory, the FBI’s probe of Hillary Clinton’s emails, and the brutal murder of two police officers in Iowa. The paper costs $2.50.

Away from politics and the baseball diamond, another momentous occasion took place in 1908: Henry Ford’s first Model T was completed, sparking an automobile (and supply line) revolution, making them more accessible, and lifting cars from an elite luxury to a mainstream necessity. Before the Model T, there were less than 200,000 cars on America’s roads. Between 1908 and 1927, nearly 15 million cars crept along the country’s throughways and city streets. As of 2014, there were over 250 million cars in America.

And then there is this: not only were there no black (or Latino) baseball players in the MLB in 1908 (including the World Series champion Cubs), Jackie Robinson, the first black player to play in the modern configuration of the MLB, had not even been born. In contrast, according to a census taken by the Institute for Diversity and Ethics in Sport, 8.3 percent of the league is black (62 players), and 28.5 percent is Latino (214 players). The demographic shifts in the MLB largely mirror the shifts in America’s population as a whole.

In 1910, the nearest census to 1908, there were over 92 million people living in America, with African-Americans making up less than ten percent of the population (or a bit less than eight million). As of 2010, the latest census, there were more than 300 million people in America. More than 12 percent (or over 37.5 million) registered as “Non-Hispanic Black,” and 16.3 percent (or nearly 50.5 million) registered as “Hispanic or Latino.”

So what will the world look like in 2124, when, if history is any indication, the Cubs are slated to win their next World Series? Will our cars hover above the pavement? Will the White House have a gilded “Trump” sign plastered to its Northern facade? It’s impossible to forecast that far in advance. Then again, there’s always the chance the Cubs repeat in 2017. Stay tuned.

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post What was America Like the Last Time the Cubs Won the World Series? 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.

Many alarms have sounded over the last half century with regard to expanding population and potential consequences to planetary and human health. Recently, some have argued for the converse: population is actually on the verge of a decline, and this is in fact the true threat to our well being. So what is actually happening, what are the dangers, and what do we do about it?

In Outgrowing the Earth, Lester R. Brown argues that the problem is a combination of expanding populations, increasing demands, and decreasing agricultural productivity. In what he calls “The Japan Syndrome,” industrializing countries experience an increase in grain consumption, especially via indirect means such as meat, while simultaneously the land that can produce the grain is converted into industrial and residential space, thereby limiting the amount of grain the nation can produce.

An additional point herein, Brown argues, is that as average incomes rise, so does the overall desire to consume meat, the production of which is more grain and water intensive; there are economic and social identity factors tied into natural resource use. As a result, self sufficiency is lost as the country becomes heavily dependent on imports. Furthermore, globally pervasive damage to cropland quality by way of issues such as desertification, falling water tables, and rising temperatures exponentially contribute to the declining productivity of agricultural lands.

Desertification of previously arable land, courtesy of Bert van Dijk via Flickr

Brown proposes some solutions to maintain farming productivity, such as increased use of soybeans. This crop is nitrogen fixing, and therefore would be effectively paired with the nitrogen-hungry corn in a biennial rotation. This would result in sustained high yields without substantially depleting the nutrients of the soil. He also suggests a method of farming that does not involve tilling, which would decrease erosion. Some actions must be taken, Brown declares, as he is convinced that increasing population and development will result in “food insecurity [that] may soon eclipse terrorism as the overriding concern of national governments.”

Brown’s analysis focuses on the threats of population increase, with regard to food and water security. On the flip side, in The Empty Cradle, Philip Longman addresses threats of population decrease, particularly with regard to economics and capitalism. He feels that these things are fueled by ever increasing populations. A diminishing worker base would require “pushing more people into the workforce and getting more out of them everyday” in a system reminiscent of serfdom. He goes on to argue that entrepreneurship and innovation depend on the presence of many young people. Rather, partly as a result of the Baby Boom, the general population is aging and older people outnumber the young, straining the financial system due to Social Security and Medicare needs.

So who is correct? Brown paints a picture in which humanity is headed to destruction because it will grow too large to sustain itself, while Longman feels that it will fizzle out and collapse. In reality, some countries are experiencing declining populations, while others are rising. The trend may be nearing peak, to be followed by a general decline, but many of the problems in Longman’s assessment arise due to the spike resulting from aging Baby Boomers; once their demands as elders drop off, the situation might stabilize.

One point on which Brown and Longman agree is that one of the primary problems with population and access to natural resources is not necessarily shortage, but maldistribution. There are geographic regions and social classes that are well supplied, while, particularly due to political and social injustices, others decline into famine. The latter rightfully receives extensive media coverage, but consequently our perceptions as to the situation are skewed. Similarly, population geographies are not evenly distributed; more and more people are moving into the cities.

China’s population geographies (darker colors are more densely populated areas), courtesy of TastyCakes via Wikipedia

Looking at a map of the United States or China, one will see the populations very densely concentrated at the coasts, while land at the center remains sparsely populated. Whether populations in general are increasing or decreasing, urban populations are on the rise and sustaining them is a challenge.

The Fall 2013 issue of the NYU Alumni Magazine offered some theories regarding innovations in urbanization. The author of the headline article, “Earth Goes Urban,” views these dynamics not as an alarmist’s theme, but as “…a moment of enormous promise, an opportunity to actually spread the blessings of modernity while ushering in an era of sustainable, smart growth.” The author, Jennifer Bleyer, spoke to Neil Kleinman of the NYU Wagner public policy school, who discussed building innovation into the infrastructure. That is to say, rather than do things as they’ve always been done and face the consequences of change, accommodate for the inevitability of change so that it can be absorbed. This idea applies broadly to Longman’s concerns as well; he is afraid that the economic infrastructure, which is predicated on increasing populations, will suffer. Instead, we can make adjustments so that shifting population dynamics will still interact harmoniously with our financial and social needs.

One of the ways in which innovation can be included in infrastructure, Bleyer details, is with carefully calculated sprawl. Sprawl is one of the causes of Brown’s Japan Syndrome, consuming productive land with pavement and construction, while damaging ecosystems and reducing the health of the country. Shlomo Angel, a professor at NYU Wagner, explains that since growth is inevitable, we should prepare for it instead of trying to contain cities or let them grow haphazardly. By planning in advance where and in what manner a city will grow, we can reduce the negative impacts addressed by Brown, while producing a healthy and thriving urban center.

The Innovative Designs of Dubai, courtesy of Eugene Kaspersky via Flickr

It does not matter whether human population is increasing or decreasing; as long as we plan responsibly, we can answer either threat. Bleyer got it right when she called the search for answers an opportunity; it is not just about trying to save ourselves and reduce our impact, but by way of this quest we can actually thrive.

—

Franklin R. Halprin (@FHalprin) holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Moyan Brenn via Flickr]

Franklin R. Halprin

Franklin R. Halprin holds an MA in History & Environmental Politics from Rutgers University where he studied human-environmental relationships and settlement patterns in the nineteenth century Southwest. His research focuses on the influences of social and cultural factors on the development of environmental policy. Contact Frank at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Urban Expansion and Population Pressures Strain Natural Resources appeared first on Law Street.

Prior to this week Alaska remained the only state without its own law school, but thanks to the Seattle University School of Law that is no longer true. After six months of planning and negotiating, it’s official: Anchorage will be home to a satellite campus of the Washington state law school. This is potentially a positive symbiotic relationship. The goal of this move is to improve the legal industry in both states, and if the intended outcome becomes reality, there may be hope for our nation’s legal industry. Let’s look at how.

Alaska’s Benefits

Of all 736,399 Alaskan residents, approximately 4,000 are lawyers, but very few of those lawyers are Alaskan natives. According to the American Bar Association, the total number of active lawyers in 2013 who are U.S. residents was 1,268,011. That means that only .003 percent of American lawyers reside in Alaska. The reason for such a small legal industry in the state is accessibility. Alaskans are deterred from moving to other states to go to law school because of high expenses and complicated logistics. This deal with Seattle University will help change that trend.

It’s  important to note that Alaskans will finally be granted an easily accessible legal education. Why this hasn’t happened sooner I cannot understand. But I think the partnership with Seattle is a great step forward for the legal education industry and I hope Alaskan students dive right in.

Seattle’s Benefits

In an attempt to fight the rapidly decreasing law school enrollment rates, SU Law is implementing several creative methods. In addition to offering a two-year law program and in-state tuition to top out-of-state students, SU Law is planning this satellite campus in Alaska.

According to the Seattle Times, law school enrollment has declined by about 23 percent over the last three years; in Washington, it’s dropped by a third. Simultaneously, the need for representation is at an all-time high, so what solution could be better than making law school more accessible across the nation?

Beginning of a Trend?

I’ve done some scouring and it seems SU Law is not alone in the implementation of a satellite campus. But the other institutions merely implement satellite centers or the satellite campus is in a different city, not a different state. For example, the main campus of Stetson Law is located in St. Petersburg, Florida, but the school hosts a satellite center in Tampa Bay. The Tampa Law Center is located in an upcoming hub for legal activity and shares its law library and courtroom with Florida’s Second District Court of Appeals. Similarly, the University of Oregon School of Law is located in Eugene but has a satellite in Portland. Like the Seattle-Alaska program, students will be able to complete their third years at the satellite campus.

Could satellite campuses that reduce tuition be the best way to increase law school enrollment?

The United States is home to more than 200 law schools. Seems a bit excessive, but I guess it fits with our unofficial national motto of “Go big or go home.” If more states begin implementing methods similar to those of Seattle, more students would be inclined to enroll.

Even better, schools with specialized areas of study could offer program-specific courses at satellite campuses. The need for more accessible law schools paired with a new approach to provide highly specialized studies could fix the downturn in law school enrollment. Alaska lacks lawyers who practice in specific disciplines, including same-sex issues, civil rights, and drug crimes.

Offering specialized programs like business, civil rights, healthcare, and intellectual property law allows students to graduate with a fuller knowledge of those fields. Plus they get to focus on what interests them most, in an environment that is even more accessible than ever before for remote areas like Alaska.

I commend Seattle University for making a noble attempt to create real change in the legal industry.

—

Natasha Paulmeno (@natashapaulmeno)

Featured image courtesy of [Christian Meichtry via Flickr]

Natasha Paulmeno

Natasha Paulmeno is an aspiring PR professional studying at the University of Maryland. She is learning to speak Spanish fluently through travel, music, and school. In her spare time she enjoys Bachata music, playing with her dog, and exploring social media trends. Contact Natasha at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law School Disruptor of the Week: Seattle Satellite Campus appeared first on Law Street.