Last Thursday, the Senate confirmed Robert “Woody” Johnson IV, the 70-year-old owner of the New York Jets, as ambassador to the United Kingdom. Now, Johnson will move to London and serve a three-year term as the United States’ main representative in a country struggling to navigate the complex negotiations related to Brexit.

Johnson’s friendship with President Donald Trump goes back to their times as businessmen in New York City. Trump considers Johnson one of his oldest friends, according to the New York Times. Johnson is a registered Republican who helped fundraise in 2012 for Mitt Romney and again in 2016 for Trump, despite initially supporting Jeb Bush.

Many expect the Jets owner to be a mediator between Trump and London Mayor Sadiq Khan, who Trump has repeatedly criticized, most notoriously after the June terrorist attack in London.

Trump had long wanted Johnson to serve as the ambassador to London, but he didn’t formally nominate him until June. Since then, the Senate has been holding hearings before his confirmation on Thursday. During one hearing last month, Florida Senator Marco Rubio brought some football into the conversation.

.@MiamiDolphins fan @marcorubio jokes to @nyjets owner Woody Johnson that Tom Brady should be made ambassador to Brazil #Patriots #WBZ pic.twitter.com/AMWQ2873hp

— Joe Giza (@JoeGiza) July 21, 2017

Before purchasing the football team in 2000 for $635 million, Johnson and his family were involved in a number of charities for lupus and juvenile diabetes, which his daughter Casey is affected by. While some NFL owners are self-made businessmen, Johnson is the heir to the Johnson & Johnson fortune, a company worth $65 billion, according to Celebrity Net Worth. Johnson himself is valued at $4.2 billion, according to Bloomberg, while the Jets’ estimated value is around $2.7 billion, according to Forbes.

Woody’s brother, Christopher Johnson, will take over operations of the Jets for the next few seasons. The confirmation of the Jets owner is another example of Trump’s penchant for placing businessmen with no political experience in positions of political power. Now it’s time for Johnson to move across the Atlantic Ocean and begin his work with the English government.

Josh Schmidt

Josh Schmidt is an editorial intern and is a native of the Washington D.C Metropolitan area. He is working towards a degree in multi-platform journalism with a minor in history at nearby University of Maryland. Contact Josh at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post New York Jets Owner Woody Johnson Confirmed as Ambassador to UK appeared first on Law Street.

Last week, Judge Nicholas Francis of the Family Division in the U.K.’s High Court of Justice ruled that Charlie Gard’s parents had 48 hours to present evidence that experimental treatment will improve their son’s condition. At a subsequent hearing on Thursday, the judge decided that Gard should be evaluated by an American doctor who claims that an experimental treatment may improve his condition.

“I have to decide this case not on the basis of tweets, not on the basis of what might be said in the press, or to the press,” Judge Francis said last week as he gave his initial ruling, alluding to the global interest in the case.

But how has this case garnered so much attention from people in the U.K., people across the world, and even world leaders? Read on to learn more about the Charlie Gard case and the controversy surrounding it.

Who is Charlie Gard?

Charlie Gard, born August 4, 2016, suffers from a rare genetic condition known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDDS). It is caused by a mutation in which the cells’ mitochondria stop functioning. More specifically, Charlie has RRM2B encephalomyopathic MDDS, which progresses rapidly and can lead to death within a few months. There is currently no known cure.

Gard developed normally for the first two months of his life, but by mid-October, he was on life support at the Great Ormond Street Hospital (GOSH) in London. Today, at eleven months old, Charlie is unable to breathe without a ventilator, open his eyes, hear, eat unassisted, or move his limbs. His heart and kidneys are failing, and he suffers from persistent severe seizures.

What Can Be Done?

His parents, Chris Gard and Connie Yates, want him to undergo an experimental treatment called nucleoside therapy, which has shown some success in treating mitochondrial disease in laboratory mice.

The therapy was used in Baltimore on Arturito Estopinan, a boy suffering from TK2-related mitochondrial depletion system. His father, Art Estopinan, met with Gard and Yates and discussed the treatment. According to him, while the treatment is by no means a cure, Arturito is “getting stronger every day.”

The video below goes into more detail about Estopinan’s treatment.

The treatment has never been used on mice or humans suffering from RRM2B MDDS and it is currently unavailable in the U.K.

According to the family’s GoFundMe page, a doctor in the U.S. accepted Charlie into the treatment program of their own hospital. So far, the family has received over 1.3 million euros in donations to get Charlie to the U.S. and pay for the treatment.

The Court Battle

The doctors at GOSH, however, are opposed to the idea. Although they applied for and received ethical permission to treat Charlie with nucleoside therapy, the baby’s condition had worsened so drastically by that time that they decided against moving forward with the treatment. The view is that his brain damage is too severe for treatment to be of any help, and that it would be kinder to let Charlie die with dignity. Against the parents’ wishes, they planned to take Charlie off life support, court documents show.

In the U.K., when parents and doctors disagree over the treatment of a sick child, the courts step in. Gard’s case went to the High Court, with Justice Francis presiding. On April 11, he ruled, “with the heaviest of hearts” that the hospital “may lawfully withdraw all treatment, save for palliative care,” and that it was in Charlie’s best interest not to undergo the experimental therapy. The Court of Appeals upheld the decision on May 25. The Supreme Court reviewed the case on June 8 but ultimately agreed with the lower court’s ruling. The family’s lawyers then petitioned the European Court of Human Rights, but on June 27, the court rejected the plea and ruled that Charlie’s life support would be turned off on June 30. GOSH later extended the deadline after Gard and Yates posted a video message blasting the hospital for not allowing them to take their son home to die.

The World Weighs In

Before the extension was announced, Pope Francis tweeted a message of support to the Gard family:

To defend human life, above all when it is wounded by illness, is a duty of love that God entrusts to all.

— Pope Francis (@Pontifex) June 30, 2017

There may not have been any names, but papal spokesperson Greg Burke clarified the pope’s meaning the next day by retweeting the message and adding #CharlieGard.

“The Holy Father follows with affection and commotion the situation of Charlie Gard, and expresses his own closeness to his parents,” Burke said in a statement. “He prays for them, wishing that their desire to accompany and care for their own child to the end will be respected.”

In addition, the Vatican-owned Bambino Gesu Hospital in Rome asked to have Charlie Gard transferred there, but representatives from GOSH refused due to legal reasons.

The pope’s tweet may have come as a response to the Pontifical Academy for Life, which put out its own statement three days prior. While supportive of Gard and Yates, the statement, signed by Archbishop Vincenzo Paglia, vacillates between middle-of-the-road and sympathetic to the decision of the European Court of Human Rights. “The proper question to be raised […] is this: what are the best interests of the patient? We must do what advances the health of the patient, but we must also…avoid aggressive medical procedures that are disproportionate to any expected results,” the statement reads. The Academy’s words raised eyebrows and ire across the board.

Whether rebuking his fellows or not, the pope is not alone in his support for the family’s efforts. Three days later, on July 3, President Donald Trump weighed in on the case:

If we can help little #CharlieGard, as per our friends in the U.K. and the Pope, we would be delighted to do so.

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 3, 2017

The tweet brought Gard’s case to America’s attention and raised support among the president’s fellow pro-life conservatives. An unnamed U.S. hospital offered Gard free treatment. Congressmen Brad Wenstrup (R-Ohio) and Trent Franks (R-Arizona) have promised to introduce a bill to give Charlie Gard lawful permanent resident status in the United States when Congress returns from recess. Rev. Patrick Mahoney–a pro-life evangelical preacher and president of the Christian Defense Coalition–flew to the U.K. last week as a self-appointed spokesperson for the Gard family. He claims to have met with a senior White House official beforehand and says he is currently keeping President Trump updated on the case.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister Theresa May voiced support for the hospital, saying, “I am confident that GOSH have and always will consider any offers of new information that has come forward for the well-being of a desperately ill child.” Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson agrees. In a conversation with his Italian counterpart, Johnson said it is “right that decisions continued to be led by expert medical opinion, supported by the courts.”

Vice President Mike Pence referred to Charlie’s case during an interview on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show on Monday, adding fuel to the fire in an entirely different way. “We hope and pray that little Charlie Gard gets every chance,” he said, “but the American people ought to reflect on the fact that for all the talk on the left about single-payer, that’s where it takes us.”

Back in Court

On July 7, GOSH applied to the High Court for a new hearing in light of other doctors’ claims that the treatment may help Gard. While not changing its views on the treatment or its effect on Charlie, the hospital acknowledged statements made by doctors in the United States and Vatican hospitals and is willing to explore the claims that the treatment would benefit Charlie.

The following Sunday, Gard and Yates presented a 350,000-signature petition urging the hospital to allow their son to travel to the U.S. for treatment.

The July 10 preliminary hearing, prior to Judge Francis’ above ruling, was fraught with emotion, including an outburst from Chris Gard. “When are you going to start telling the truth?” he screamed at the lawyer representing the hospital. At a different point, when his own lawyer reported that a U.S. doctor estimated a 10 percent chance of saving Charlie with the experimental treatment, Yates asked the judge, “You would if it was your son, wouldn’t you?” Judge Francis assured her that he would take that into account during Thursday’s hearing. “I don’t think there’s anyone involved who wouldn’t want to save Charlie,” he added.

Two hours into Thursday’s hearing, there was another altercation between the judge and the parents. When Judge Francis paraphrased the parents’ earlier comments about not wanting their son to live if there were no prospect of improvement, Yates shouted, “I never said that” and reiterated that she did not think Charlie was suffering. She and her husband then stormed out of the courtroom but returned an hour later.

On Friday, Judge Francis said that Dr. Michio Hirano, a specialist in neurology at the Columbia University Medical Center, will evaluate Gard before the court makes its decision. According to  The Mirror, a lawyer for GOSH stated the hospital invited Dr. Hirano to see Charlie back in January, but the visit never happened. In addition, Dr. Hirano reportedly never saw Charlie’s medical records or MRI scans, only summaries. He did, however, claim in his testimony (via video link) that Charlie has somewhere between an 11 and 56 percent chance of improving with the therapy. Judge Francis then determined that Dr. Hirano should travel to the U.K. and assess Charlie in person. He arrived early last week and met with several of Charlie’s GOSH caregivers and other specialists, including a doctor from the Vatican Children’s Hospital.

Judge Francis hopes to give his final verdict by July 25.

Conclusion

What started as one family’s tragedy has become a worldwide phenomenon. A combination of public appeals through social media and support from high-profile individuals has put Charlie and his family in the spotlight. It is difficult to say, though, whether or not this attention will help them in the end. Many cynical observers have wondered if politicians are taking advantage of the Gard family’s situation to push their own agendas. A variety of issues–from health care to government overreach to the right to life–will be shaken by the case’s final verdict. For now, though, Charlie remains on life support, and the world joins his parents in watching over him.

Delaney Cruickshank

Delaney Cruickshank is a Staff Writer at Law Street Media and a Maryland native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in History with minors in Creative Writing and British Studies from the College of Charleston. Contact Delaney at DCruickshank@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Breaking Down the Charlie Gard Treatment Controversy appeared first on Law Street.

Need to fill out legal forms but can’t afford a human lawyer? Well, there’s an app for that. DoNotPay, a chatbot that has been dubbed “The World’s First Robot Lawyer,” provides free legal aid to users on issues ranging from appealing parking tickets to landlord disputes. Don’t expect the robot lawyer to represent you in court any time soon, but it can arm you with some of the tools and knowledge to deal with your legal case.

The artificial intelligence asks the user a series of questions about their legal issue. Then, after learning about the user’s personal situation, the AI can help fill out necessary legal forms or provide links to other resources. Joshua Browder, the founder and CEO of DoNotPay, launched the bot in 2015 to help people appeal their parking tickets. According to The Telegraph, DoNotPay has helped beat an estimated 375,000 parking tickets worth around $10 million since its launch. But the bot hasn’t stopped there.

DoNotPay started out in London and was programmed with New York City laws soon after. Since the bot first went live two years ago, it has expanded its reach to the rest of the United Kingdom and United States and will be able to assist people with 1,000 areas of law. A Facebook Messenger portion of the app can even help refugees complete immigration applications for the U.S. and Canada, and apply for asylum support in the U.K.

Browder, who was named on multiple Forbes 30 Under 30 lists for Europe for 2017, hopes DoNotPay will provide better access to legal resources for lower income individuals. The 20-year-old Stanford student told VentureBeat that DoNotPay started as a tool to fight his own parking tickets, but ended up revealing to him “how lawyers are exploiting human misery.”

“From discrimination in Silicon Valley to the tragedy in London with an apartment building catching fire, it seems the only people benefitting from injustice are a handful of lawyers,” Browder said. “I hope that DoNotPay, by helping with these issues and many more, will ultimately give everyone the same legal power as the richest in society.”

With tools like DoNotPay, people may not have to pay a hefty price for a lawyer to help them fill out legal paperwork. But for more complex cases, a human touch might still be the better way to go.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Free Chatbot Lawyer Makes Legal Aid More Accessible appeared first on Law Street.

As Deryn Blackwell was dying of cancer, his mother, Callie, sought out something, anything, that could relieve his pain. Finally, after three excruciating years of watching Deryn suffer, she found a potential aid: marijuana.

Now, three years after illicitly providing marijuana to Deryn–his doctor would not prescribe him the drug–Callie claims it saved his life. She reveals Deryn’s story in a new tell-all book set for release next month in Britain titled “The Boy in 7 Billion.”

While Deryn’s story is indeed inspiring, researchers caution that it cannot be taken as evidence that marijuana can treat cancer. Anecdotal tales like Deryn’s exist, but clinical trials have not found concrete evidence that marijuana is an effective cancer treatment. It is also unclear if the cannabis tincture Deryn consumed was the direct cause of his recovery.

“It could have been a number of things,” Emma Smith, a science information manager for Cancer Research UK, told Britain’s online newspaper The Independent. “Perhaps cannabis did help, perhaps it didn’t.”

“Because it’s just one person’s story, without a doctor analyzing all the clinical evidence and comparing him to somebody that didn’t get cannabis, we still don’t know for certain it was the cannabis that helped him.”

Deryn’s ordeal began in 2010 when, at ten-years-old, he was diagnosed with leukemia. Eighteen months later he was diagnosed with a second rare form of cancer.

In an excerpt from Blackwell’s book printed in the Daily Mail, Callie writes:

By 2013, after nearly four years of hospital treatment, it seemed that the only thing left for him were opiate drugs to ease the pain as he reached the end of his life. Like any mother would be, I was desperate to find something to alleviate his suffering.

Marijuana has been shown to alleviate some side effects of cancer, including nausea. But according to the American Cancer Society, studies on cannabinoids have not shown that “they help control or cure the disease.”

Medical marijuana is still illegal in the United Kingdom. The only licensed marijuana-based medicine available is Sativex, which is used to treat patients with multiple sclerosis.

After conducting extensive research on the benefits of marijuana, Callie asked Deryn’s doctor if Bedrocan, a cannabis-based painkiller, would be a better alternative than her son’s “mind-numbing morphine.” The doctor said that while it was an effective painkiller, it had not been tested on children and she couldn’t prescribe it to him.

That’s when Callie and her husband, Simon, decided to take matters into their own hands. Simon traveled to a nearby service station and purchased cannabis illegally from a dealer. Back home, Callie whipped up a tincture that would be compatible for a vaporizer pen, which Deryn would later use when the doctors weren’t around.

“We felt like naughty schoolkids who were having a sneaky cigarette around the back of the bike sheds,” Callie wrote.

Devyn, now 17, made a gradual recovery and is currently attending school and working as a part-time chef of vegan food.

Callie said she’ll probably “never be totally free” of the fear that his cancer will return, but she is confident her son can endure. “I am reminded of my miracle boy every time I look at Deryn and I know deep in my heart that whatever the future may throw at us, we can cope,” she wrote. “We always do.”

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 UK Mom Credits Marijuana With Saving Son From Cancer appeared first on Law Street.

In the wake of Britain’s vote to leave the European Union, Scotland could be headed for a second independence referendum on its continued membership in the United Kingdom as early as next year, according to Scottish leader Nicola Sturgeon. During an impassioned speech Monday at Bute House, Sturgeon’s residence in Edinburgh, the First Minister announced plans for Scotland to chart its own path forward.

“At times like these, it is more important than ever to have a clear plan for the way ahead–to try, as far as is possible, to be in control of events and not just at the mercy of them,” she said.

Last June, while the majority of Britain voted to leave the EU, Scotland did not–62 percent of voters backed remaining in the 28-nation bloc. During its first independence referendum in September 2014, Scotland decisively voted (54.2 percent to 45.7 percent) to remain a part of the United Kingdom, a union that has been in place since 1707.

Sturgeon believes the time is ripe for a second referendum, as Britain’s future is uncertain and Scotland cannot simply tag along for the ride.

“As a result of the Brexit vote we face a future, not just outside the EU, but also outside the world’s biggest single market,” Sturgeon said, adding that her attempts to negotiate a special trading relationship for Scotland and the EU with British Prime Minister Theresa May have also failed.

“Our efforts at compromise have instead been met with a brick wall of intransigence,” she said.

Shortly after Sturgeon delivered her speech, May responded in an interview with the BBC, in which she said that a referendum would set Scotland “on a course for more uncertainty and division.”

“Instead of playing politics with the future of our country,” May said, “the Scottish government should focus on delivering good government and public services for the people of Scotland. Politics is not a game.”

The British Parliament would have to grant Scotland permission to hold an independence referendum–known as a Section 30 order. Sturgeon said she would seek the order next week. If the British Parliament agrees to the request, the Scottish Parliament would need to do the same before a vote date is set.

With the prospect of a “hard Brexit“–a clean break from the EU that would have Britain completely abandon the single-market of the EU–looming, Sturgeon believes Scotland cannot just hope for the best. It must act.

“By taking the steps I have set out today, I am ensuring that Scotland’s future will be decided not just by me, the Scottish Government or the SNP,” Sturgeon said using the initials for her Scottish National Party. “It will be decided by the people of Scotland.”

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 Is Scotland Headed for a Second Independence Referendum? appeared first on Law Street.

The desire to move away from liberal economic policies toward more protectionism partly drove the Brexit vote. However, a successful protectionist push to leave the European Union could very well now result in an entrenchment of economic liberalism in the United Kingdom.

Over the past several decades economic liberalism and neoliberalism became standard economic policy throughout the developed world. Free markets, free trade, and privatization of assets were valued above all other policy. As liberalism globalized, free trade agreements such as NAFTA and economic unions like the EU were formed. However, protectionist movements on both the right and left have formed in response to this economic standard and have quickly gained traction. Just as the U.S. saw Donald Trump’s and Bernie Sanders’ protectionist platforms gain huge momentum, the British shocked the world by opting to leave the liberalist EU, with many “leave” voters crying out for more protectionist economic policy.

The “leave” vote shook the center-right government to its core, prompting the resignation of Prime Minister David Cameron. However, the same pro-free-trade and pro-liberalism Conservative Party that was in power before the referendum remains in power today. Therefore, Prime Minister Theresa May’s economically liberal Conservative Party is charged with engineering the leave process. In spite of the fact that a protectionist movement established in part the mandate to begin the leave campaign, it is unlikely that May’s government will pick up the protectionist torch and reject liberal economic policy.

On Tuesday, May announced that the UK would commit to a “hard Brexit.” Under this plan, the UK would undergo a total uncoupling with EU economic infrastructure. Headlines of plans to sever ties with the EU would have pleased many protectionist “leave” voters who view the EU as an exemplar of liberalism and globalization. Yet, when considering May’s clearly stated devotion to liberal economics, it is unlikely that “hard Brexit” will produce the protectionist policy outcomes many leave voters would have hoped for.

The Sunday before May committed to “hard Brexit,” Chancellor of the Exchequer Phillip Hammond stated that the UK would do “whatever” in order to keep the economy afloat following “Brexit.” He said that under “hard Brexit,” they would have to “change [the economic] model to regain competitiveness.” Supporters and critics alike took this to mean that economic policy under “hard Brexit” would see deregulation reign supreme.

May’s speech to the World Economic Forum (WEF) on Thursday all but confirmed these assumptions of future liberal policy. The Prime Minister outlined her intention to develop a British economy at the forefront of liberal economic policy. Though she posed some criticisms of globalization, May was far more critical of Donald Trump and other populist movements’ protectionist ideologies. May capped off her speech to the congregation of world leaders and financial actors by declaring that Britain would become “a forceful advocate for business, free markets and free trade.”

While many in the “leave” camp hoped to move Britain away from liberalism, May has responded with a plan that satisfies her ideological devotion to liberalism. Many opposed to the EU found the organization to be one that epitomized liberal globalization. Though many in the Conservative Party might have wanted to “remain,” it seems they are taking the “leave” vote as an opportunity to advance liberalism. No longer shackled by outside economic regulatory powers like the European Central Bank (ECB), the Conservative Party feels free to act in accordance with its ideology.

The decision to leave the European Union transformed most every aspect of Britain’s political and economic life. However, the referendum did not change the fact that a political party faithful to liberal economics was in power. Though it is not exactly clear how May’s vision will take shape, the developments over the past week have set the stage for a British economic model grounded on highly liberal economic policy. Economic protectionists who voted “leave” are unlikely to see their hopes for future economic economic policy actualized. In fact, those who hoped for protectionist economic policies may see a Britain committed to liberalism like never before.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Will May’s Hard Brexit Live up to Voters’ Expectations? appeared first on Law Street.

Americans all have different relationships to food. I didn’t know that you could buy applesauce in a jar until I went to college. I was aware that you could get soup in a can but I had never experienced it personally. My mother and grandmother made these things from scratch. So there were no food labels indicating the nutritional value on any of these items, but following Michael Pollan’s advice to not eat anything that my grandmother would not have recognized as food, the nutritional value wasn’t something we worried about calculating with numbers. It just felt wholesome.

However, not everyone has the luxury of making food from scratch. Americans increasingly rely on processed foods to replace or supplement home-cooked meals. These foods are convenient and often a cheaper alternative. In some cases, they are the only option, since many Americans live in “food deserts.” A food desert is a location where grocery stores that carry fresh produce are more than a mile away and residents don’t have access to them via a car or public transportation. Neighborhoods like this tend to have grocery stores that only have processed food options. A lot of food deserts are in urban areas, but there are also some in rural communities as well, because if the nearest store where you can buy a tomato is five miles away and you lose or don’t have access to your car, you have a very long walk to purchase a tomato.

You can actually go to the U.S. Department of Agriculture website and take a look at food deserts around the country.

Since Americans are either being forced–through economic necessity or location–or choose to consume more processed foods, efforts have been made to make the labeling on these foods easier for consumers to understand. The strategy adopted by the White House, as part of Michelle Obama’s efforts to combat obesity, has been to modify our existing food labeling. But there may be other ways to label our food that better informs consumers and encourage them to make different choices.

Facts Up Front Food Labels

Our current food labeling method is called the “facts up front” system, which utilizes a black-and-white label on the back of the product, with some key facts also displayed on the front of the product. In the following video, Allison Aubrey of NPR explains some of the changes that were made to the facts up front system that will hopefully make it more user-friendly for consumers.

The two main changes to the labeling system, which are designed to promote healthier choices, are the modifications in serving size and the “added sugar” reference on the label. With the previous labeling system, it was not always clear to consumers that what they consider a “serving” and what a “serving” actually is for the purposes of calculating the calories are rarely the same thing. For example, a 24-ounce bottle of coke, which many adults would drink with their meal and think of as a “serving” because it was in one unit, might actually be 2.5 servings. So the number of calories listed was not the number calories in the bottle, which would be much higher than what people were actually consuming.

The other major modification designed to assist consumers is the “added sugar” valuation. Most people don’t realize that sugar is put into nearly all processed foods, even ones that aren’t sweet. Salad dressing, for example, often has sugar added to it. The added sugar value is designed to alert consumers to the hidden sugars in their foods, which are a huge driver for obesity and other health risks.

These changes to the food labels may, in fact, help consumers make better choices. A majority of Americans do look at food labels when they are deciding whether to purchase a food item, so making sure that they are better able to understand the number of calories and nutritional value of the food they are about to consume may help them avoid (at least most of the time) foods that are unwise to eat. If sales for a particular food decline because consumers are changing their behavior, that may even encourage manufacturers to alter the amount of sugar and fat they use to attract more health-conscious consumers.

But there is another way that we can label our food that might be even more beneficial to the consumer.

Traffic Light Labeling

This video explains some of the studies conducted that compare the facts up front food labeling system with an alternative option known as the “traffic light” system. As the name suggests, the traffic light labeling system uses red, green, and yellow/orange to indicate that a nutrient level is healthy or unhealthy. For example, a food that has low fat and low fiber would have a green circle that says low fat (which is a good thing) and a red circle that says low fiber (which would be bad). Glancing at it quickly, if you saw a string of red circles on the label you would know that this food should be eaten in moderation or avoided completely. In contrast, a food with a lot of green circles is something that you can eat more frequently.

Here is the good news: both kinds of food labels will be helpful if you are trying to decide between two different kinds of products. If your choice is between a bag of Fritos and a bag of sourdough pretzels then either the facts up front type of labeling or the traffic light labeling is going to help you know which choice is healthier. However, when you are looking at a product by itself and trying to decide if it is a good choice the traffic light system is much better at helping you make an informed decision.

The traffic light system may be of more use to people as they actually shop than facts up front food labels. It depends on how people make their purchasing decisions. If consumers are going to the store and holding two types of bread in front of them to try to figure out which one is healthier, then the facts up front label is just fine. But if they are reaching for a salad dressing on its own, not comparison shopping, a facts up front label may not alert them to the fact that it is a bad choice, whereas a traffic light label with a red warning circle that says “high sugar” may be more effective at steering consumers away from that product. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that a prevalence of red labels will lead to a reduction in purchases, which is why food manufacturers in Europe are resistant to the implementation of the traffic light label system. Its use in the U.K. is voluntary for manufacturers.

The facts up front system actually leads consumers to make the wrong estimates. It encourages people to think there are more good nutrients in a product than there actually are and fewer bad nutrients. Overall, the traffic light label was easier for consumers to understand, since it can be confusing to think about the recommended daily value of a nutrient and to make the necessary calculation. But a red warning on a package is immediately perceived as “don’t eat this!”

It’s unclear how the traffic light system might affect consumers and manufacturers but the system has been used in the U.K. to try to combat label confusion. Ideally, any labeling system that we use should tell consumers as clearly as possible which products are healthy and/or exactly how unhealthy for you a particular junk food is. And hopefully, that would reduce the amount of particularly unhealthy junk food people consume. But a good labeling system will also influence manufacturer behavior and the traffic light system may be even better at that than a facts up front label. Manufacturers may not want to put a series of red circles on their products, increasing the perception that they are unhealthy, so they might modify their product to get the label reduced from red to yellow.

Conclusion

In a perfect environment, the food labeling system could be complicated and consumers would have the time needed to analyze each product for its relative health merits. As a result, they would wisely avoid the foods they should. But we do not live in the perfect environment. Food shopping is something that many consumers engage in almost as muscle memory, relying heavily on brand loyalty and a general feeling that a product is wholesome. Even when consumers look at food labels, which most of them do, they may not understand them. They know that a bag of potato chips is bad, especially when comparing it to a rice cake, but they may not understand just how bad.

A traffic light labeling system should be explored to figure out if it does a better job accomplishing the goals of a labeling system, which are to inform consumers, modify their behavior where possible, and encourage manufacturers to make their products healthier in an attempt to capture market share. We put warning labels on dangerous products like cigarettes, but our food labeling system does not treat sugar with the same level of danger. Given the health crisis that overconsumption of these products has helped to create, perhaps we should.

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 Food Labels: Is the ‘Facts up Front’ System Good for Consumers? appeared first on Law Street.

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

No, All Chinese People Don’t Know Karate

On Monday night, the “O’Reilly Factor” showed reporter Jesse Watters on a mission to find out what people on the streets of Chinatown are thinking about the 2016 election. Instead he ended up making fun of Chinese people by using blatantly racist stereotypes. He asked people if they know karate (the Japanese martial art), or if he should bow while saying hello to them, if in China they call Chinese food just “food,” and he made fun of old people who didn’t speak English.

The segment was immediately criticized by a whole bunch of journalists and pundits as blatantly racist. Did Fox apologize? Of course not…instead, the network tweeted that it was “hilarious.”

Hilarious #WattersWorld: @JesseBWatters Goes Down to Chinatown to Find Out What They Think of @realDonaldTrump: https://t.co/HBQCGdHO01

— Fox Nation (@foxnation) October 4, 2016

Rant Crush

RantCrush collects the top trending topics in the law and policy world each day just for you.

The post RantCrush Top 5: October 6, 2016 appeared first on Law Street.

Britain has a new prime minister after Andrea Leadsom announced her exit from the race Monday morning. Theresa May, the 59-year-old home secretary, will replace David Cameron as the leader of the United Kingdom. Soon after Leadsom signaled her exit Monday morning, it became clear that few barriers still stood in May’s way.

First, Leadsom cleared the way for May to be the last woman standing, and the last candidate in a field that dwindled from five to two over the past few weeks. “Strong leadership is needed urgently to begin the work of withdrawing from the European Union,” Leadsom said Monday morning, reading from a letter addressed to the chairman of the 1922 committee (a group of influential lawmakers in the Conservative Party), Graham Brady. “[Theresa May] is ideally placed to implement Brexit on the best possible terms for the British people.”

So grateful for all the support – I do believe my decision is in the best interests of the country and our economy & I wish Theresa success!

— Andrea Leadsom MP (@andrealeadsom) July 11, 2016

Then, Michael Gove and Boris Johnson–two supporters of the “Leave” campaign that successfully sparked Britain’s exit from the European Union—voiced their support for May. Finally, once it became apparent that she would become his successor, Cameron read a statement in support of May, and said he would officially step down as prime minister on Wednesday. “I am delighted that Theresa May will be the next prime minister,” he said, calling her “strong, competent and more than capable.”

And at five o’clock Monday evening, May was officially coronated as the leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister of Britain. She paid tribute to her former opponents as well as Cameron, and said she was “[honored] and humbled to have been chosen by the Conservative party to become its leader.” Her statement continued:

During this campaign my case has been based on three things. First, the need for strong, proven leadership to steer us through what will be difficult and uncertain economic and political times, the need, of course, to negotiate the best deal for Britain in leaving the EU, and to forge a new role for ourselves in the world. Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it.

Her second and third tenets, she said, will be to unite the country and make sure it works “not for the privileged few but that works for everyone one of us.” May will be the second female prime minister in Britain’s history, and the first since Margaret Thatcher, who led the UK from 1979 to 1990. In the months preceding Britain’s exit from the EU, May supported the “Stay” camp, though she did not project her stance as vigorously or vocally as other candidates. In her first official statement as prime minister and in remarks she gave earlier in the day, before Leadsom dropped out, May reiterated the fact that “Brexit means Brexit.” There would not be a second referendum, she said. 

Not everyone in Parliament is unanimously in support of May, however. Three parties–Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Greens–are calling for a general election, saying that the Conservative Party no longer has the mandate to govern since its leader, Cameron, resigned. The next scheduled general election is in 2020, five years after the Conservative Party won its parliamentary majority in 2015. 

With @TheresaMay2016‘s coronation we need an early General Election. The Tories now have no mandate. Britain deserves better than this.

— Tim Farron (@timfarron) July 11, 2016

But dissent from opposing parties will do little to halt the ascent of Britain’s newly minted leader, at least for the next four years: Prime Minister Theresa May. 

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 New Day In the UK: Theresa May Is the First Female PM In 26 Years appeared first on Law Street.

A report conducted by a five-member panel concluded that while the U.K.’s policy on the Iraq War was erroneous and costly, it was not illegal.

The Iraq Inquiry, a seven year undertaking, was launched in 2009 by former Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The 6,000 page report sought to determine if the Iraq invasion was “right and necessary” and “whether the U.K. could–and should–have been better prepared for what followed,” according to a statement by Sir John Chilcot, the retired civil servant who spearheaded the effort.

U.K. forces joined the U.S.-led coalition in March 2003. The conflict, which was sparked by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, killed 179 British troops. Nearly 4,500 American troops died, along with over 100,000 Iraqis, including civilians.

As a thesis to a handful of key findings, Chilcot concluded, “The U.K. chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.”

To the detriment of then Prime Minister Tony Blair’s detractors, the report saw no reason to suspect intentional wrongdoing or unlawful activity on the part of Blair or Parliament.

At a press conference Wednesday following the Chilcot report’s release, Blair said his decision to join U.S. forces in Iraq was “the hardest, most momentous, most [agonizing decision] I took in my ten years as Prime Minister.”

Blair lamented the thousands of Iraqi deaths that resulted from the invasion, but did not go as far as expressing regret for the decision. He was steadfast in defending the U.S.-led coalition’s decision to depose Saddam Hussein, the tyrannical leader of Iraq who was eventually captured by U.S. forces and hanged in Iraq.

He also sought to console the families of British soldiers who perished on the battlefield, by claiming they did not die in vein. “[British forces] fought in the defining security struggle of the 21st century, against the terrorism and violence which the world over destroys lives and divides communities,” said Blair.

Here are some of the findings from the report, which is based on testimony from 150 witnesses and 150,000 documents:

• The U.K.’s judgement of the severity of the WMD (weapons of mass destruction) threat posed by Iraq was not justified by the evidence, or lack thereof.
• Blair underestimated the consequences of an invasion, and did not properly prepare for the vacuum left by Hussein’s absence.
• Blair’s government understood the risks (i.e. internal strife in Iraq, active Iranian pursuit of its interests, regional instability, and Al Qaida activity in Iraq) and joined the invasion anyway.

Chilcot ended the report by offering a suggestion for what we can learn from the U.K.’s errors in the Iraq War. “Above all, the lesson is that all aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with the utmost [rigor],” he said. “Sadly, neither was the case in relation to the U.K. Government’s actions in Iraq.”

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 Report Blasts Tony Blair, UK Government’s Handling of Iraq War appeared first on Law Street.

Happy 4th of July Law Streeters! If you need help with your barbecue banter this Independence Day, look no further than Law Street’s top trending articles from last week. Beef up your small talk with facts on Britain’s historic Brexit vote, the integration of big data into women’s healthcare, and the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent domestic abusers from owning firearms. ICYMI–Check out the top stories below.

1. Brexit: What You Need to Know in the Aftermath of Britain’s Historic Vote

Britain voted on Thursday to end its 43-year membership in the European Union. The withdrawal process will be long–it will most likely be two years until Britain is entirely sovereign–and fraught with difficult decisions for the nation’s future, but the vote has sent tremors within the now-former EU member-state and beyond. Here is a briefing on Brexit and what it might mean for the future. Check out the full story here.

2. Big Data: A Revolution for Women’s Healthcare

Since 1990, the Society for Women’s Health Research (SWHR®) has been advocating for innovation in women’s healthcare. The organization is on the cutting edge of the newest research trends, and each year SWHR picks a different theme to highlight at its annual gala. At this year’s event, one message rang loud and true: we’re officially in the age of big data. Almost everything we do–from voting choices, to commercial purchases, to Netflix binge-watching, can be recorded and analyzed to glean patterns. But the incorporation of big data into healthcare is particularly exciting, and promises to revolutionize medical treatment for women. Read on for a sampling of how we’re now integrating big data into patient treatments, and what it means for women’s health. Check out the full story here.

3. Supreme Court Decision Prevents Domestic Abusers from Owning Firearms

The 6-2 ruling prevents anyone convicted of “reckless domestic assault” from being able to own firearms. This case involves two men from Maine, Stephen Voisine and William Armstrong III, who were convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms due to previous convictions for domestic assault. Under both state and federal law, anyone with a domestic violence conviction cannot possess firearms. Check out the full story here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

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

London Mayor Sadiq Khan is banning ads that promote negative body image from London public transportation.

It all started with this Protein World ad asking if passengers were “beach body ready” last spring.

As a result, 378 people filed formal complaints with the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), leading the ASA to prohibit the ad from appearing again in the London underground system. Beyond that, more than 70,000 people signed a change.org petition demanding Protein World take it down.

@SnugglingonSofa I did this earlier today: pic.twitter.com/PDjiLiPXkJ

— Booky w/t Curly Hair (@NicoleBurstein) April 23, 2015

Khan announced the ban on Monday, and it will go into effect in July.

“As the father of two teenage girls, I am extremely concerned about this kind of advertising which can demean people, particularly women, and make them ashamed of their bodies. It is high time it came to an end,” Khan said, according to a BBC report.

Research from the U.K.’s Government Equalities Office found that more than 50 percent of adults are ashamed of their appearance and one in five elementary school-aged girls has already gone on a diet in her lifetime.

Liam Preston, public affairs manager at the Be Real Campaign in the United Kingdom, said, “These negative influences out there…we don’t need them, and they will make people more anxious about how they look.”

Jessica Brown, 23, commutes in and out of London every day. Advertisements like Protein World’s poses a threat to people struggling with body image, she said, especially those who are working to overcome self harm or eating disorders.

“If you’re going to be on the tube for up to an hour, you don’t want to be looking at content that can be offensive,” Brown said. “It’s not going to help [people] on their path to recovery if they’re looking at this woman who’s been perfectly photoshopped.”

The ban will effect all transportation systems in London, including buses and the Tube. However, there is still much more that needs to be done in order to provoke global change on this issue.

“If the mayor understands it’s a big issue for Londoners…we’re hoping that the rest of the world is going to follow suit as well,” Preston said.

Samantha Reilly

Samantha Reilly is an editorial intern at Law Street Media. A New Jersey native, she is pursuing a B.A. in Journalism from the University of Maryland, College Park. Contact Samantha at SReilly@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post This Mayor Wants to Keep Billboards from Body-Shaming Londoners appeared first on Law Street.

The future is now–there’s a robot lawyer that can get you out of parking tickets in the United Kingdom…sort of. Joshua Browder, 19, who is certainly way more impressive than I was at the same age, made a “robot lawyer” that helps people appeal parking tickets. Since the site, donotpay.co.uk launched late in 2015, it has appealed more than $3 million in parking tickets, and it may soon make its way across the pond to the United States.

Browder is now a freshman at Stanford University, and he launched donotpay.co.uk (aka the robot lawyer) last year. It’s still in beta mode right now, but the full version will go live this spring.

The concept is pretty simple–if you need to appeal a parking ticket you go to the site and it takes you step-by-step through the process. According to Business Insider:

Once you sign in, a chat screen pops up. To learn about your case, the bot asks questions like ‘Were you the one driving?’ and ‘Was it hard to understand the parking signs?’ It then spits out an appeal letter, which you mail to the court. If the robot is completely confused, it tells you how to contact Browder directly.

The robot lawyer is also being taught how to help people navigate certain insurance claims and deal with delayed or cancelled flights.

So, the robot lawyer isn’t a lawyer exactly, but rather a tool that can automize tasks that were traditionally done by a lawyer–and often done expensively. Of course, the robot lawyer cannot dispense subjective legal advice, because that is something that only humans can legally do.

Robot lawyer is, however, learning:

Browder programmed his robot based on a conversation algorithm. It uses keywords, pronouns, and word order to understand the user’s issue. He says that the more people use the robot, the more intelligent it becomes. Its algorithm can quickly analyze large amounts of data while improving itself in the process.

Browder has big plans for this kind of tech–he’s starting to program in New York City laws, and he’s working on a version that will help Syrian refugees apply for asylum. Browder’s tech, whether or not you want to call it a “robot lawyer,” is pretty cool, and it’s certainly a cost and time-saving measure. I don’t think we’ll see robots arguing in a courtroom anytime soon, but we may all have an easier time when we get into a scuffle with a broken parking meter.

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 Get a Parking Ticket? A New “Robot Lawyer” May Soon Be Able to Help appeared first on Law Street.

At the end of last year, the United Nations launched a working group to discuss the “arbitrary detention” of Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange has been living in London’s Ecuadorian embassy since 2012, after his 2010 arrest in London, where he was brought in on charges regarding sexual assault and molestation in Sweden.

Both of the women who reported these assaults have remained anonymous in the press, but police have revealed that both incidents took place in August 2010. One of the charges was dropped in 2015, but the other still stands today. In a controversial move that alienated him from several political allies, the Ecuadorian ambassador granted Assange political asylum on the grounds that Ecuador has historically protected those who are vulnerable. Assange was concerned that if he was deported to Sweden, he might then be deported to the United States, where his involvement with Wikileaks could lead to him being tried for treason–and, according to Assange and his supporters, could face the death penalty. In July 2015, Assange requested asylum in France but his request was denied by Francois Hollande. For a series of several months, British police forces did guard the Ecuadorian embassy but they never made overt threats or attempts to forcibly remove Assange from his place of refuge.

The Guardian ran a poll this week to gauge popular opinion on the United Nation’s ruling that Julian Assange has been arbitrarily detained–66 percent of Britons polled felt that the UN had made the wrong call. British politicians also fell into this camp–Prime Minister David Cameron said that the only person detaining Assange was “himself” and Secretary of State Philip Hammond rejected the UN decision via Twitter.

The UN may have handed down a ruling from on high, but British law enforcement still has agency over how to proceed with Assange. Assange has called the UN’s decision a victory that is legally binding, but the overwhelmingly negative response from British officials has led Assange to remain within the Ecuadorian embassy for the time being.  Swedish officials have supported the British decision to reject the UN ruling, leaving Assange essentially in the exact same position he was before the UN working group was formed. The UN has claimed that he should be allowed to walk free of the embassy and is even entitled to compensation but it did not specify how and when the UK and Sweden should go about dropping the charges against him and ensuring his reintegration into society.

The UN has effectively asked two governments to abandon a sexual assault case for no better reason than that the defendant is living a life of relative discomfort. Neither of these governments have tortured or committed any form of violence against Assange, they simply want to bring him in for questioning and put him on trial if necessary. Assange’s ruling should not be considered a landmark case because it is not one that will apply to any other situation. If any other criminal sought refuge within an embassy for several years, he would still be asked to undergo questioning and trial after leaving his place of asylum. Assange may have the satisfaction of a UN stamp of approval but the ruling likely has no leg to stand on in a legal setting.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Julian Assange’s Partial Victory: A UN Declaration with No Teeth appeared first on Law Street.

There were some very strange arrests this week, from all over the globe. Check out the weird arrests of the week from Law Street in the slideshow below:

It’s a Bird, it’s a Plane?

Image courtesy of Helgi Halldórsson via Flickr

Antonio Cortes wore a Superman getup to a charity event in Gloucester, England, earlier this week. But, while wearing the costume he realized that a woman across the street was being mugged, and ran to stop it. He was able to subdue the attacker, who was subsequently arrested.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

No matter what you call them–hoverboards, swagways, swegways, or just plain silly, you’ve probably seen them. They’re the new two-wheeled skateboard-y type things that are propelled by a passenger shifting weight, and they’re a pretty hot new trend on city sidewalks. Given their seemingly-overnight popularity, it would be safe to assume that they’d also be a hot new holiday gift, and promoted by online retailers as such. But au contraire, new safety concerns actually have Amazon–the king of online retail–pulling many of the from the site. Additionally, the federal government is now looking into the safety of such devices. So it might not be all fun and games this holiday season for producers of the hoverboards.

Amazon has pulled hoverboards from the major producers, including Swagway, but some of the smaller companies that produce the devices are still up. According to Swagway, the takedowns took place after an email stating:

Amazon sent out a notice on Friday just before 5 p.m. PST, to all ‘hoverboard’ sellers to ‘provide documentation demonstrating that all hoverboards you list are compliant with applicable safety standards.’

Amazon isn’t the only company that has taken a step (or a roll?) away from the hoverboards. Overstock.com also announced that it will be pulling the hoverboards from its site.

Despite the hoverboards’ popularity, there have been multiple allegations that the devices can catch fire. They operate using lithium-ion batteries, which can overheat and cause problems. That issue makes it difficult to transport the hoverboards, which is why a few different airlines have already banned them. Safety officials in the United Kingdom also impounded 15,000 of the hoverboards earlier this month due to a faulty plug.

Additionally, the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission has said it has received at least 11 reports of hoverboard fires in 10 different states. Patty Davis, a spokesperson for the commission told CNN Money:

We consider this a priority investigation. This is a popular holiday item and it’s going to be in a lot of consumers’ homes, and we’d like to quickly get to the bottom of why some hoverboards catch fire.

Given how quickly hoverboards have caught on, this news isn’t going to be great for the all-but fledgling industry. Hoverboard manufacturers have to figure out how to get safety concerns under control, the sooner the better.

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 Amazon Stops Selling Some Hoverboards Over Safety Concerns appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

It’s been a while but let’s jump right into what is going on in the news this week.

The Italian Court of Cassation (the top criminal court in Italy) has officially thrown out the guilty verdicts of Amanda Knox and her ex-boyfriend  Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian native.

On November 2, 2007 the body of 21-year-old UK citizen, Meredith Kercher, was found in the home that she shared with Amanda Knox in the college town of Perugia, Italy. Amanda Knox, her then-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, and Rudy Guede (from the Ivory Coast) were all prime suspects and were eventually tried and convicted of Kercher’s murder.

In the first trial in 2009, Amanda Knox was convicted of murder, sexual assault, and slander with an original sentence of 26 years in prison. Raffaele Sollecito was convicted of murder and sentenced to 25 years in prison. Rudy Guede was later tried and convicted of murder with a 16 year sentence; he admitted to being inside the home when Kercher was murdered and his DNA was found all over her bedroom where her body was found.

In 2011, Knox and Sollecito appealed and the court throw out the original convictions, except for Knox’s slander charge which required only a year of prison time that was counted as served in the four years that Knox had already spent there. But in 2013, the high court in Italy reversed the acquittal and required another appeals trial. Then in 2014 the new appeals trial held the original 2009 conviction and ordered Amanda Knox to serve 28 1/2 years in prison (including the one year for slander) but kept Sollecito’s time to 25 years.

But finally, in March of this year the Italian high court found that Knox and Sollecito did not murder Kercher, and just a couple of days ago the court released its final statement and reasoning behind this decision.

The Court of Cassation wrote that there was an “absolute lack of biological traces” of Knox and Sollecito in Kercher’s bedroom or even on her body. The Court also noted that there was a plethora of omissions and poorly executed investigations into this case.

Case in point, the original prosecutor Giuliano Mignini was one piece of work. While he was prosecuting Amanda Knox, he was making his own court appearances for indictments starting in 2006 for “abuse of office power” and “abetting” in connection to another high profile case. So, essentially the prosecutor seemingly liked getting his way by any means necessary and encouraging others to break the law too.

Now, I have been following along with this case for quite sometime and I have a hard time distinguishing the truth. Sometimes I believe that Knox was not involved but then other times I have to wonder if she really was. Some of Knox’s actions are consistent of a scared 20-something living in a foreign country but then there are other things that scream she knew at least that something was going on. We may never know the truth, but this latest ruling by the court should put an end to the saga of Amanda Knox’s fate, and let the family of Meredith Kercher move on with their lives.

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 Amanda Knox…Free at Last! appeared first on Law Street.

Tower Hamlets Mulberry School for Girls in London received a visit from two very special guests on Tuesday. Hundreds of students welcomed former Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard and First Lady Michelle Obama, while cheering and waving American and British flags. Obama has been very active in charity work, setting an example for many people with her programs such as Let’s Move!, aimed at raising a healthier generation of kids, and her Reach Higher initiative which pushes young people from disadvantaged backgrounds to go beyond high school and enter college or undertake professional training. The First Lady has now launched a $200 million program to help girls with their education. Gillard and Obama joined forces this week to talk about Obama’s Let Girls Learn program, aimed at helping adolescent girls around the world finish school. Michelle’s goal is to “build a healthier family, a stronger community, and a brighter future.”

“We can pay forward all of the love and support that our families have poured into us.” Michelle Obama… http://t.co/0cOEuQvdJK

— Bisila Bokoko (@BisilaBokoko) June 17, 2015

Obama announced this collaboration between the U.S. and the U.K., sharing her plans to advance education, particularly in countries experiencing crisis and conflict. She has hopes that the $200 million dollar effort will remove hindrances such as school fees, transportation issues, early marriage, pregnancy, and family obligations–all things that prevent 62 million girls around the world from going to school. Gillard, who is now the chair of the Global Partnership For Education, plans to assist this initiative. Gillard stated, “Why would we not want to have the best of the world’s talent available to participate in building the world’s future.” Michelle told the young girls in the audience:

I see a roomful of business leaders and surgeons and barristers. I see women who are going to win elections, and science competitions, and arts awards. I see leaders who will inspire folks not just here in Tower Hamlets, but all across the country and all around the world.

She informed the crowd about current trends that show it will take 100 years before all girls in South Sudan will have the ability to complete a lower secondary school-level education and explained that this is simply not good enough. Her ability to make change happen rather than wait for things to change eventually is certainly admirable. She passionately spoke to the girls, telling them about her upbringing as an African-American girl who worked hard to receive an education with her working class family on the south side of Chicago. When a student asked Obama what inspired her campaign, her response was touching:

Oh, it’s you. Didn’t you notice how I almost cried? I couldn’t get through my speech. It’s you. It’s your soul, it’s your passion. And there are — I can’t tell you how many times I interact with young girls like you in every part of the world. And I am always in awe of what you’re able to do, what you’re able to push through, and how hungry you are for your education; that when given the tools and the opportunity, you run with it.

People are risking their lives in other countries for the sake of education. Yet many of us see education as something that is automatically given to us because we have been in school all our lives. We take it for granted and forget that everyone does not have such amazing opportunities. With an education, people can be unstoppable; there are no limits to the things that can be done. To see someone such as Michelle Obama have passion and truly want to help others is refreshing. The First Lady made sure these girls know to always go after their dreams, despite the circumstances they may be in.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Michelle Obama Takes Education Efforts Global appeared first on Law Street.

Today, there is a historic vote in the Republic of Ireland. It’s poised to become the first country to legalize same-sex marriage through a referendum. While select other nations allow same-sex marriage, those laws have come about as the result of a court decision or through legislation being passed. Ireland would be the first nation to legalize gay marriage through a popular vote, which is required to change its constitution. Given Ireland’s complicated relationship with religion, the fact that this nation has become the battleground for a gay marriage vote says quite a bit about the waning influence of Catholicism in the country.

The question posed to voters about the matter will be a “yes” or “no” one; they’ll be asked to confirm or deny the statement that: “Marriage may be contracted in accordance with law by two persons without distinction as to their sex.” The vote has been widely discussed on social media, with hashtags like #YesEquality and #VoteYes taking the lead. There’s also been social media coverage of many Irish citizens living in various places abroad who are returning home to cast their votes.

Many young people had travelled from as far as New York and Brussels especially to cast their vote #hometovote pic.twitter.com/2j0zMgCNC0

— Carole Leger (@CaroleLeger) May 22, 2015

Look at this!! #hometovote Dublin Airport last night with People coming home to VOTE pic.twitter.com/G2U4MdyD5k

— David O’Reilly (@DavidOReilly25) May 22, 2015

Ireland has an incredibly long and storied Catholic tradition, and roughly 85 percent of Irish people identify as Catholic. The Catholic Church in Ireland has stood in opposition to the campaign to legalize same-sex marriage. For example, the Catholic Iona Institute, along with other groups, have advocated for a “no” vote in today’s referendum. Common arguments cited in this debate over marriage equality appear to include the old argument about “redefining” marriage, despite the fact that this would only create the opportunity for same-sex civil marriages. There’s also concern from “No” voters over the prospect of children being raised by gay parents, despite the fact that such concerns have been handily debunked in numerous studies.

The fact that polls are looking very promising for the “Yes” voters–from what I’ve seen they’ve ranged from about 70-80 percent voting yes–really does say a lot about the future of Ireland as a Catholic stronghold. Of course, it hasn’t just been the Catholic Church’s hesitancy when it comes to social issues like gay marriage that have led to waning support. The highly publicized sexual abuse and pedophilia scandals of the last few decades garnered the Catholic Church significant amounts of criticism. For example, in 2011 a survey found that just 18 percent of Catholics in Ireland were regularly attending mass. That’s an incredibly sharp decline from 1984, when it was reported that 90 percent of practicing Catholics attended mass on a regular basis.

So, despite Ireland’s Catholic tradition, the campaign to allow marriage equality has moved forward. While the vote totals probably won’t be released until tomorrow, there’s been a large wave of support for the “Yes” vote to legalize marriage equality. Ireland, despite all odds, does seem in a good position to make history and become the first nation to legalize same-sex marriage by popular vote.

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 Is Ireland About to Make History? appeared first on Law Street.

Sofia Vergara’s ex fiancé, Nick Loeb, is suing her for the rights to their frozen embryos.

Before the actress and Loeb separated they went through the process of medically creating and freezing embryos with the intention of using a surrogate to bring one or more of those embryos to term.

During this process, the couple decided to split up and a biological child was never brought into the world.

Vergara has since moved on and is now engaged to actor Joe Manganiello. Loeb, on the other hand, has publicly lobbied to regain ownership of the frozen embryos that were created while he was in a relationship with Vergara. He intends on using a surrogate to bring the embryo to term; however, Vergara does not want the embryo to result in a child. According to Loeb:

We signed a form stating that any embryos created through the process could be brought to term only with both parties’ consent. The form did not specify–as California law requires–what would happen if we separated. I am asking to have it voided.”

Loeb, creator of the Crunchy Condiment Company, has used his ex-fiance’s notoriety to catapult his own case into the pop-culture stratosphere. His main argument for why he should be allowed the rights to the embryos he made with his ex? Women have the power to bring a pregnancy to term even if the man objects, so he should be allowed to bring his unborn child into the world and raise it as he sees fit.*

(*Probably a flawed argument, considering most natural pregnancies are not preceded by legally binding contracts.)

But what happens if a couple warring over embryonic rights does not have any star power?

The topic of frozen embryo ownership isn’t just a celebrity issue. In the United States alone, 600,000 eggs are frozen every year. If freezing eggs is such a common practice, shouldn’t contracts regarding legal rights to frozen eggs be pretty standard? In America…not exactly.

Consider our British brothers and sisters who have fairly concrete laws regarding the process of freezing eggs:

In the U.K. for a couple to go through such treatment, they’d have to sign all the consent forms. If the couple split up, if one party withdraws the consent, the other party can’t use it at all.

In other words, if Vergara and Loeb were having this squabble in England, chances are that Loeb’s request to void the contracts would not be granted. Perhaps the realm of embryonic rights would become less of a gray area if the United States were to adopt the U.K.’s policy wherein consent must unequivocally come from both parties.

Corinne Fitamant

Corinne Fitamant is a graduate of Fordham College at Lincoln Center where she received a Bachelors degree in Communications and a minor in Theatre Arts. When she isn’t pondering issues of social justice and/or celebrity culture, she can be found playing the guitar and eating chocolate. Contact Corinne at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post True Hollywood Story: Embryo Edition appeared first on Law Street.

“Avengers: Age of Ultron,” the latest hit in the Avengers franchise, debuted in theaters recently and made more than $200 million in a single weekend. The surprising part however, is that it earned that $200 million outside the U.S., before the movie even opened stateside. The increasing globalization of the film industry is abundantly clear. But the changes in the film industry aren’t just reflected in the exports of American movies to foreign audiences. There are also many nations expanding into the industry. Read on to learn about the globalization of the film industry, and its worldwide ramifications.

The American Film Industry: Changes From Sea to Shining Sea

While Hollywood is facing greater competition from abroad in almost every aspect of the film industry, it is still the dominant player globally. In 2014, for example, the top ten most profitable movies were all made in the United States.

Hollywood has had to adjust to a changing customer base. Nearly 60 percent of the box office hauls taken in by these big productions came from abroad. This means that the success of the Hollywood movie industry is driven more by foreign markets than domestic. In fact, the number two market for Hollywood films, China, is predicted to surpass the American market by 2020.

In response to this changing environment, Hollywood is increasingly relying on big-budget blockbusters. These movies have been particularly marketable specifically because of their simple plot lines, which often avoid nuanced or culturally specific stories that might get lost in translation. Additionally, Hollywood often adds extra scenes to movies released in other countries, sometimes featuring actors from those countries, in order to make them more relatable. This has meant making changes to movies, too. For example, in the remake of “Red Dawn,” the nationality of the invading soldiers was changed from Chinese to North Korean in order to avoid alienating the Chinese movie audience.

Foreign Film Industries: The Veterans

Although Hollywood, as a result of globalization, is facing stiffer competition abroad, there has long existed a traditional foreign film industry. The center of this industry is located in Europe

European Film Industry

While every country in Europe makes movies, five countries in particular make up 80 percent of the market: France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Italy, and Spain. The industry itself is also massive in scope, including 75,000 companies and 370,000 workers across Europe.

In addition to the number of people involved, Europe is also home to some of the most prestigious events in cinema. Perhaps the most famous is the Cannes Film Festival in France. This event has taken place nearly every year since 1946, with filmmakers from all walks of life competing for the coveted Palme d’Or prize for the best film in the competition.

Despite the success of the film industry in Europe, it has struggled to deal with foreign competition, particularly Hollywood. As of 2013, 70 percent of the European film market was dominated by American films. This is in stark contrast to a much smaller 26 percent coming directly from European sources.

But as Hollywood has made efforts to keep its industry relevant, so has Europe. One of the most prominent attempts has been through the LUX competition. Seeking to address one of the most glaring problems in Europe’s film industry–distributing and dubbing movies in all the languages spoken in Europe–the films involved in this competition are sub-titled in 24 different languages so as to be accessible to a wide audience.

Film Industries Down Under

Australia and New Zealand also have prominent film industries. While Australia is currently dealing with losing out on some projects because its tax credits are not competitive enough, there is a strong tradition already in place. For example, “Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith” as well as the “Matrix” trilogy were both filmed there.

The New Zealand film industry is strong and thriving. This has been the result of two forces. First, home-grown production of films such as “The Piano,” which won three Oscars in 1993, has helped promote the industry. There has also been a rise of recognizable talent coming out of the country, including director Peter Jackson. Like Australia, New Zealand has also been the location of major Hollywood productions such as “Avatar,” “King Kong,” and “The Last Samurai” to name just a few.

Rising Stars

Other countries are continuing to create voices of their own through national film industries. Three of the most successful countries in creating major movie industries of their own have been India, Nigeria, and South Korea.

India

Although Hollywood is the most profitable film industry worldwide, India’s is the most productive based on its sheer number of films. India’s film production is so prodigious that it has earned a nickname of its own: Bollywood, in reference to the city of Mumbai. In fact, India’s industry is so expansive that the Bollywood moniker is really only applicable to Mumbai–other regions and cities have film industries of their own that have spawned similar nicknames, such as “Kollywood” and “Sandalwood.”

While the Indian film industry has been a compelling force for more than 100 years, it has seen a huge jump in growth recently. From 2004-2013, gross receipts tripled and revenue is estimated to reach $4.5 billion next year. With those kinds of numbers, India’s film industry promises to continue its upward trajectory in money and influence.

Nigeria

The Nigerian film industry also produces more films per year than Hollywood, and it has the similar nickname “Nollywood.” Nigeria’s films are often lower-budget productions that are released directly to DVD and often not even filmed in a studio. Nonetheless, the Nigerian film industry is influential enough regionally that neighboring countries fear a Nigerianization effect on their own cultures.

The Nigerian film industry is so popular that the World Bank believes that with the proper management it could create a million more jobs in a country with high unemployment levels. The film industry in Nigeria already employs a million people, making it the second-largest employer in the country behind the agricultural sector. Still, for Nigeria to be on the same level as Hollywood or Bollywood, many issues would have to be addressed, in particular the high rate of film pirating. The video below explores Nollywood and its impact on Hollywood.

South Korea

South Korea also has a strong film industry, although it doesn’t have a catchy nickname. While it does not generate the volume of films of Bollywood or Nollywood, it does have the advantage of being the go-to destination for entertainment for much of Asia, particularly China and Japan. South Korea’s movies resonate both domestically and regionally because they often play on historical conflicts that affected the region as a whole. The film industry there also received a boost when a law was passed stating that at least 40 percent of films shown in South Korea had to be produced there, forcing local companies to step up and fill the void.

What does film industry globalization mean?

Money

One of the most obvious implications of globalization is financing. Several major Hollywood studios including Disney have bankrolled films in Bollywood. This is in an attempt to harness the massive potential audience there. Financing is a two-way street however, and when Hollywood struggled for funds following the 2008 recession it received loans and financing from Indian sources.

Culture

Another implication is cultural. In many countries, the government has posted quotas or imposed tariffs on foreign films to limit their dominance domestically. These laws are aimed specifically at American movies. One of the motivations for these rules is the competition American films provide. In basically every domestic market worldwide, Hollywood movies have a larger share than the domestic industry. Secondly, movies are seen as cultural pillars, so leaders are interested in preserving, and even promoting their own culture over that of a foreign entity like the one presented by Hollywood.

Like financing, cultural considerations also have a return effect on Hollywood. In order to attract more foreign viewers, Hollywood movies have simplified story lines and included more actors from different locales. In effect, Hollywood has had to become more diverse and open in order to appeal worldwide. This effect may actually dilute any would-be American cultural overload as well, as these movies are incorporating more global cultures in order to be competitive.

Globalization is a give and take. There has been a long-standing fear of globalization leading to Americanization; however, as the film industry has shown, for American filmmakers or any others to be competitive globally their themes and characters must be global, too. Additionally the invasion of Hollywood movies has also encouraged many domestic industries to build up their own audiences and industries that had been neglected before.

Conclusion

Hollywood has long dealt with issues, ideas, and events that have stretched the world over, and it is now dealing with competition as diverse and far reaching as the topics of the movies it produces. The Hollywood film industry had remained the dominant player in the industry by leveraging foreign markets. Globally this has also meant the incorporation of more films and actors from traditional markets such as Europe. It also means the rise of movies and stars from non-traditional markets as well. Thus the globalization of the film industry has meant many things to many different people, but what it has meant to everyone involved from production to consumption is greater access and opportunity. Hopefully, the global film industry will continue along this path.

Resources

Arts.Mic: Three Countries With Booming Movie Industries That Are Not the U.S.

BBC: How the Global Box Office is Changing Hollywood

Vanity Fair: Avengers Age of Ultron is Already a Huge, Hulking Hit at the Box Office

Business Insider: The Highest Grossing Movies of 2014

Grantland: All the World’s a Stage

Law Without Borders: The Intersection of Hollywood and the Indian Film Industry

Los Angeles Daily News: Why TV, Film Production is Running Away From Hollywood.

European Parliament Think Tank: An Overview of Europe’s Film Industry

BBC: Australia Film Industry Hurt by Strong Currency

International Journal of Cultural Policy: Cultural Globalization and the Dominance of the American Film Industry

UN: Nigeria’s Film Industry a Potential Gold Mine

Festival De Cannes: History of the Festival

100% Pure New Zealand: History of New Zealand Screen Industry

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Globalization of Cinema: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

The United States spends more money on health care than any other developed country. At the same time, studies find that patients in other countries enjoy better quality and more accessible health care than Americans. Why is American health care so expensive and what are the underlying issues that hold the United States back from necessary reforms? Read on to learn more about the U.S. healthcare system and how it stacks up internationally.

How does the U.S. healthcare system compare internationally?

According to the 2014 Commonwealth Fund analysis of the U.S. healthcare system in comparison to other industrialized countries, the United States ranks last among peer nations. This poor ranking is not a one-time thing, as almost all previous editions of the report from 2004-2010 also ranked the American healthcare system the lowest in terms of both cost and quality. The report compares the United States to some of the most developed and industrialized nations in the world, including Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom. All of these countries spend much less on health care and have higher-quality services.

What are the problems with the American healthcare system?

The United States adheres to a Selective Health Coverage (SHC) system, also called a hybrid healthcare system. Roughly half of healthcare spending comes from private funds, while the government covers the other half through federal, state, and local funds. The majority of healthcare costs are covered through private insurance companies that sell health coverage to employers and private individuals at different rates. The government provides coverage through Medicaid for low-income households, and Medicare for retired Americans.

High Costs 

As the United States has no universal health coverage, people mainly receive health insurance from their employers, the government, or purchase it through exchanges. The Affordable Care Act, which entered into force in 2013, made it easier to gain coverage, but 10 percent of Americans still lack health insurance.

As each insurance plan includes deductibles, co-pays, and out-of-pocket costs, even with insurance, it could be quite expensive to seek medical services. In 2014, the average household spent $8,000 in medical costs, including monthly insurance payments, taxes, lost wages, out-of-pocket care, and other costs. These prohibitive costs mean that Americans may skip physician visits, treatments, tests, or follow-up care, even if recommended by their doctor.

The American healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world. Around 18 percent of the country’s GDP goes toward healthcare costs. The Netherlands ranks next, but spends only 12 percent of its GDP on health care. The government spends by various estimates between $8,500 to $10,000 per capita annually, and still requires high out-of-pocket costs for its citizens. Other industrialized countries spend from $3,000 to $5,500 per capita and manage to cover more people and offer better services. Overall, the U.S. ranks last on the Commonwealth Fund’s rankings for national health expenditures. There are plenty of reasons for that, including but not limited to high costs associated with administrative hassles and duplicate testing. The United States is also the only developed country where medical costs contribute toward, and in some cases directly lead to, personal bankruptcy. Even such business giants as Starbucks and General Motors have acknowledged the disproportionately high costs of providing health care to their employees.

Low Quality 

The healthcare system in the United States isn’t very efficient. While most other countries have adopted some kind of unified system of communication with patients and other providers, the U.S. system’s administrative hassles were cited as a problem by the Commonwealth Fund. The overall health of the American population is worse than that of other industrialized countries. The U.S. ranks last on all three measures of healthy living, including mortality amenable to medical care, infant mortality, and healthy life expectancy at age 60.

What types of healthcare systems do other countries have?

National Services

The most popular type of healthcare system in the developed world is a national health services system. In this type of system, necessary medical care is fully paid for by the government. Hospitals and clinics are publicly operated, but private sector institutions also exist. Private medical clinics may have specific regulations they must follow, while the government pays them certain fees. Or, private medical clinics could operate solely like businesses and profit by providing superior, more personal or elective medical care. Many countries employ this mode;, including the United Kingdom, Spain, and New Zealand.

In the United Kingdom, health care is largely supported by tax contributions that are then used by the government to cover the vast majority of its population’s medical costs. Private coverage also exists, often through employers, but these premiums are affordable as to allow competition with public health care, which is free of charge. The U.K. healthcare system ranks first on the Commonwealth Fund’s list among other industrialized countries, particularly when it comes to efficiency and access.

National Health Insurance System

In a national health insurance system, also called a single-payer system, the government pays for all costs, but doesn’t operate healthcare services. Canada, Denmark, Taiwan, and Sweden are among those countries that operate a single-payer healthcare system.

Taiwan has one of the best healthcare systems in Asia. Health providers are employed by the public or private sector, but are paid standardized fees, which eliminates price competition and adds quality competition. In 2010, Taiwan spent three times less (6.5 percent) than the United States (16 percent) in its healthcare expenditures, covering 99 percent of its population. Administrative costs are also extremely low (1.5 percent) in comparison with the U.S., which spends 20-30 percent of overall healthcare funds on administrative costs.

Multi-Payer Health Insurance System

This system of health care is operated by Germany, Japan, and France. According to this model, all physicians are paid from a special fund, which is designated for healthcare services. The rates are the same for all physicians, cutting administrative costs for government, and creating quality competition.

Germany is a great example of a system that provides quality and cost-efficiency. Health services in Germany operate through an alliance of around 240 not-for-profit insurance providers that cover about 90 percent of the total population and are paid from a specifically designated “sickness fund.” The other 10 percent are generally high-income households that prefer private health insurance with superior services and quality. Amazingly, government expenditures for health care in Germany are half those of the United States, and the quality of health care is very high. Insurance companies and medical providers are closely regulated by the government, while employers and employees assume shared responsibility to pay taxes towards the “sickness fund.” Such a system helps to decrease the government’s costs and and provide more people with health coverage.

Watch the video below to learn more about Germany’s healthcare system.

Why is health care in the U.S. so expensive?

The complexity and for-profit nature of the American healthcare system is the primary reason for its high cost. As insurance companies are concerned with profit, they are always looking for ways to minimize their expenses and make money.

Expensive Mix of Services

The United States’ healthcare system provides a very expensive mix of services:

• The U.S. sees more specialist visits than in other countries, which are two-to-three times more expensive than general physician visits.
• Specialists often order more diagnostic tests and medical procedures that rack up the total costs. In comparison, other industrialized countries offer considerably fewer MRI scans, C-sections, and other procedures that could be avoided and are not always medically necessary.
• Duplicate testing is another issue that plagues American health care. As physicians and specialists make money from procedures, they often order duplicate testing. For example, dermatologists can order  biopsies from several affected skin areas, even if only one such procedure is required  for diagnosis.
• American hospitals also contribute toward the country’s expensive mix of services. They admit fewer people and, therefore, charge higher prices for hospitalization. They treat elderly people in the intensive care units (ICUs), while other countries subscribe to more specialized, palliative care, which is less costly.

Administrative Costs

There are thousands of health insurance plans available in the market, leading to variations in coverage, deductibles, co-pays, premiums, and other features. Not only is this system confusing, but such a system increases administrative costs as all doctor’s offices, laboratories, and hospitals have to bill insurance companies and patients for each rendered procedure and each doctor’s visit. As insurance plans vary greatly, medical facilities and patients have to constantly phone insurance companies to clarify details of premiums to find out what procedures are covered by the insurance company. Such a system creates unnecessary administrative hassles and drives up overall costs. It’s estimated that the United States “wastes” half of the $361 billion spent on administrative costs by spending it on expenses that could be avoided and are not necessary.

Pharmaceutical Spending 

Medical facilities and insurance companies are not the only players in the healthcare market. Drug manufacturing companies charge higher prices in the U.S. than in other industrialized countries. For example, branded prescription drugs are twice as expensive in the U.S. than in the rest of the developed world. In 2011, the United States paid $985 per capita for prescription drugs and other medications. That’s almost double what most other high-income countries spent on pharmaceuticals. This difference is due to the fact that other industrialized countries are often able to negotiate lower prices as they purchase pharmaceuticals in large quantities to provide medications for the whole population.

Interestingly, innovations and new medical technologies also drive up the cost of health care. The United States has more high-tech medical equipment than other industrialized countries. On top of it, it also has more stand-by equipment than other countries. The need to pay for the maintenance of these state-of-the-art technologies results in higher prices for tests, scans, and analysis for patients.

More Chronic Diseases 

People in the United States are less healthy than in the majority of developed countries. Obesity and other chronic diseases are more common in the U.S. than in its peer countries. That means that insurance companies and the government will spend a lot of money on managing chronic conditions that often require constant treatment, high-tech tests, and frequent hospitalizations.

Will the American healthcare system change?

If the United States ranks so poorly in health care, why doesn’t it do something to fix the problems? The answer to that question lies in the intersection between money and politics.

Interest-Group Lobbying

Many profit from the current healthcare system, including drug manufacturers, medical equipment providers, specialist physicians, insurance companies, and others who have considerable influence on public policy. The interests of those who make a profit from the current healthcare system are well represented through lobbying. In 2009, around 4,525 healthcare lobbyists were hired by more than 1,750 companies, including 207 hospitals, 105 insurance companies, and 85 manufacturing companies. For example, Big Pharma spent $22 million on healthcare lobbying in 2011; Blue Cross Blue Shield and biotech companyAmgen spent $21 million each on healthcare lobbyingthat year. None of the players involved in the healthcare business wants to lose profits, so lobbyists are trying to block any efforts that can damage their clients, even if those efforts could bring better health care to millions of Americans.

What are the possible solutions?

Even after the implementation of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act in January 2013, roughly 10 percent of Americans are still uninsured. In order to fix that problem, the United States could work toward implementing another system of health care, but that’s unlikely to gain much ground.

There have also been alternative solutions offered, such as the so-called “managed competition” model proposed by Stanford University Business School professor Alain Enthoven more than two decades ago. According to this model, insurance companies, physicians, hospitals, drug manufacturers, and other actors in the healthcare industry could come together to form an entity that has the responsibility to provide care for specific municipalities based on an annual allowance. This strategy could produce higher quality and lower costs simultaneously.

Another proposed solution is based on the implementation of a universal tax credit, similar to the child tax credit, that provides a $1,000 reduction in income tax to families that have a child. Money for this tax credit could be obtained from existing health insurance subsidies, like Medicaid and Medicare.

Conclusion

The United States’ healthcare system has not served its people well, especially when looked at in comparison to its peer nations. There are many faults to the current system, including high costs, inefficient practices, and an unwillingness by many to change. In order to effectively provide health care to as many people as possible, more changes need to be made. While the Affordable Care Act was a step in the right direction, the United States is still at the bottom of the list when it comes to effective health care.

 Resources

Commonwealth Fund: How the U.S. Healthcare System Compares Internationally

CNN Money: Healthcare Lobbying Boom Continues

Department for Professional Employees, AFL-CIO: The U.S. Healthcare System: An International Perspective

Forbes: U.S. Health Care Ranked Dead Last Compared to 10 Other Countries

Forbes: Universal Coverage is Not “Single Payer” Healthcare

Forbes: Why We Should Replace Obamacare With a Universal Health Tax Credit

HealthPAC: How Other Countries Do it

Global Post: Eight Places That Do Health Care Better Than the US

Global Post: Special Report: Health Care in Taiwan

Atlantic: Why Do Other Rich Nations Spend So Much Less on Health Care?

Center for Public Integrity: Lobbyists Swarm Capitol to Influence Health Reform

Law Dictionary: How Many Americans Really Do Not Have Health Insurance?

U.S. News & World Report: Obamacare Enrollees, by the Numbers

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post American Health Care: Last Place Among Peer Nations in Latest Study appeared first on Law Street.

Despite China’s strong and consistent economic growth, there have been two areas that are clearly understood to be American-dominated spheres–military and finance. While America still holds a large lead over other countries in terms of military power–at least based on money spent–that other sphere of power may be waning. Although China has long been dismissed as lacking in infrastructure and innovation, that belief is likely about to change. With the formation of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, China is throwing itself into the financial arena. Read on to learn about China’s latest push for superpower status that has the potential to change the global financial system that has been in place since WWII, and casts into question the future of who controls the world’s purse strings.

History of the Current System

The history of the modern financial system began in 1944. While WWII still raged, representatives from the Allied powers met to decide the future of the global financial system. The result of this was the Bretton Woods Agreement, named after the town in New Hampshire where the meeting was held.

Bretton Woods Agreement

This agreement essentially pegged global currencies to the U.S. dollar. Countries were required to maintain a fixed exchange rate with the U.S., buying up dollars if their currency was too low and printing more money if their currency’s value was too high. It was a basic concept of supply and demand, but with physical currency.

This, in effect, made the United States the preeminent global economic world power. It also relied on the relationship between U.S. dollars and gold, because the dollar itself was tied to a gold standard. However, the Bretton Woods system came crashing down in 1971 when the U.S. experienced something known as stagflation–when a country simultaneously sees a recession and inflation–and was forced to abandon the gold standard. In an unforeseen result, the rising demand for the dollar had made it more valuable even though its value was pegged to a certain amount of gold. The resulting disparity led to shortage and the need to scrap the existing system. Despite the end of the Bretton Woods system, two of its guarantor agencies, the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, survived and continue to this day.

The IMF

The IMF was created as part of the Bretton Woods agreement. Its original purpose was to help countries adjust their balance of payments with regard to the dollar, which was the reserve currency. Once the gold standard was abandoned, the IMF offered members a variety of floating currency options, excluding pegging the value of currency to gold. Additionally, the 1970s saw the beginning of the Structural Adjustment Facilities, which are loans out of a trust fund offered by the IMF to countries. The IMF was instrumental in guiding a number of countries, particularly developing ones, through a series of crises including the oil shocks in the 1970s and the financial crisis in 2008.

World Bank

The World Bank was originally known as the International Bank for Reconstruction when it was created as part of the Bretton Woods Agreement. Initially, the bank was created to help with reconstruction in Europe, with its first loan going to France in 1947. However, over time and following the collapse of the Bretton Woods system, it has changed its focus to fighting poverty. The World Bank’s footprint has also expanded from a single office in Washington, D.C., to offices all over the world, and it is now made up of five different development institutions. Like the IMF, it has also tackled issues as they have arisen over the decades, such as social and environmental challenges.

Criticisms of the IMF and World Bank

Although the IMF and World Bank have survived for more than 70 years, they have faced extremely harsh criticism. The IMF has been criticized far and wide. Mostly the criticisms boil down to the conditions upon which the IMF grants loans. Namely, many people believe the IMF intervenes too much in a country’s operations by forcing it to meet arduous standards before it will be given a loan. The problem here is there is no one-size-fits-all way for countries to operate and the parameters the IMF sets are sometimes seen as more detrimental to a country than its existing financial situation. There are also accusations of supporting corrupt regimes and a lack of transparency.

The World Bank faces several of these same criticisms and more. On top of not taking into account individual local situations, the World Bank has also been criticized for enforcing a de facto Washington consensus along with the IMF. In other words, by controlling the money, the World Bank and IMF can force countries to do what Washington wants. Additionally, the World Bank and IMF have been accused of helping large corporations at the expense of poor and developing nations. In particular, the debt associated with the loans, has left many recipients mired in a perpetual state of debt and therefore beholden to the IMF and World Bank structure.

The video below offers a detailed explanation of Bretton Woods, the IMF, World Bank, and the criticisms they face.

 The Asian Infrastructure Bank

With the existing state of finance the way it is, it comes as little surprise that China and other nations who do not agree with many American policies would seek to create their own institutions of last resort. This indeed is what China, India, and a number of other smaller countries now intend to do. This has led to the creation of the Asian Infrastructure investment Bank, or AIIB. Although the details of the bank are still murky it will essentially be a clone of the World Bank.

Aside from differing with the U.S. over policy, China and other nations are also upset over representation within the World Bank and IMF. The way the system is currently set up, an American is traditionally in charge at the World Bank and a European at the IMF.

The video below explains what the AIIB is, what it means for the U.S., and how it will impact the existing system.

With Friends Like These

While it is not that shocking that a rising country like China desires its own system and to be free of the constraints placed upon it by the United States and its allies, several other countries that have been quick to sign up for the AIIB have been surprising. These nations included a number of traditional American allies including Germany, France, the U.K., and South Korea. Nevertheless, while it is still unclear what these countries hope to gain from membership, the fact that they would willingly flout American criticisms and join with China is certainly a diplomatic blow.

Progress on the AIIB

Whereas China’s new bank appears as a smack in the face to the U.S., there is still much to be decided. First of all, there was already an Asian Development Bank, so if anything the AIIB seems to be replacing that more than the World Bank or IMF. Additionally and most importantly, the AIIB has not actually been created yet, so all these defections and statements are just plans, not concrete actions. Furthermore, while countries were upset at and critical of the IMF and World Bank as being puppets of U.S. interest, this new Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank is seemingly being designed specifically to make China its unquestioned leader. Thus it bears watching how long countries want to suffer under China’s yoke and if the grass really is much greener.

There are other projects in the works as well. The U.S. has a new trade proposal of its own for the Asian Pacific that would also aid in the development of infrastructure. The following video shows how the IMF and other groups plan to work with the AIIB in the future financial environment.

Conclusion

America’s position as the global hegemon seems increasingly to be challenged in every facet from sports to entertainment to now finance. For roughly 70 years America has been the guarantor of the world’s economy; however, that is beginning to change as revealed by its inability to prevent the financial crisis in 2008 and through tests from other countries such as China. The U.S. therefore, may have to adjust to its new position in a world, where it wields less control and enjoys less prestige. The only lingering question then is not if this degradation of power will occur, but how will the U.S. respond to it?

Resources

Primary

International Monetary Fund: History

World Bank: History

Additional

About News: Bretton Woods System and 1944 Agreement

Vox: How a Chinese Infrastructure Bank Turned into a Diplomatic Disaster for the United States

Economics Help: Criticism of the IMF

Globalization 101: Why the World Bank is So Controversial

Financial Times: Superpowers Circle Each Other in Contest to Control Asia’s Future

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank: Threat to the Financial System? appeared first on Law Street.

Natalie Allman, a 29-year-old mother of two, is a victim of domestic abuse. In 2012 the Hereford, England native was beaten with a dumbbell and had her throat slashed by her then-fiance Jason Hughes, 42. His reason for assaulting the mother of his children–he wanted to make her look ugly as a punishment for breaking up with him.

The savage attack lasted for seven hours in the couple’s home in Ross-on-Wye, Herefordshire, with both of their young twin sons watching. Luckily Allman survived the attack and found justice when her ex, a former territorial army soldier, was sentenced to nine years in prison for the attack. Unfortunately, this justice has strings attached.

She is being forced to send her abuser letters in jail with updates on their five-year-old twin boys, and if she doesn’t comply she could end up in jail.

Mum whose ex cut her throat ordered to WRITE to him in prison #NatalieAllman #Britain http://t.co/fs0A0EDeZ7 pic.twitter.com/PNfnts9LTw

— Trending UK News (@UKolizer) February 14, 2015

In January, Hughes applied for a residence and contact order requesting six letters a year as well as phone calls with updates on his children in accordance with the United Kingdom’s Children Act of 1989. Allman, who still bears a visible scar along her throat from the attack, fought back, spending £3,000 in legal fees. However, a judge still ordered her to send him three letters a year on their school progress, health, and emotional development. If she doesn’t comply, she could face a fine or jail time.

The act was designed to make the best arrangements for children after their parents split up, but in this case, the judge’s decision sounds like it’s more for the benefit of the abuser than his children. It’s textbook re-victimization. Distraught after the ruling, Allman told the Sunday People:

We are the victims, not him. I thought he was going to kill me that night for no reason and my boys saw that.

They were terrified. I’m so angry that the law still defends his parental rights and that he is still being allowed to control us from behind bars.

As far as I’m concerned he gave up the right to contact with any of us the night he attacked me but the court doesn’t see it that way.

What about our rights to get on with our lives and forget the trauma he put us through? As long as we are in constant contact how are we going to do that?

For her safety, the letters he writes go to Allman’s father’s home so that Hughes does not know her new address.

A change.org petition asking the Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State Justice Chris Grayling to review the contact order has been started in Allman’s name. In the petition, her supporters claim this order will only perpetuate revictimization stating:

This is nothing more than psychological torture that prolongs the suffering of an abuse victim and her traumatised children. Every birthday a card arrives, and every letter she receives is a cruel reminder of the control he continues to assert over her behind bars.

As of this morning over 18,500 supporters have electronically signed the online petition. They need only 6,500 more to reach their goal of 25,000. Hopefully Grayling listens to the public outcry for this woman. She didn’t survive almost being killed to relive that torture for the rest of her life.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post English Abuse Victim Forced to Write Letters to Her Jailed Attacker appeared first on Law Street.

Lawyers. You can’t count on them for anything. It is why I decided to go into legal editing out of law school instead of actually doing a despicable thing like practicing. I mean, lawyers have to have good malpractice insurance because at some point, they are going to be sued for something stupid or dishonest that they did–not because the client is an idiot. No. It will definitely be the attorney’s fault.

Courtesy of Giphy.

What type of dumb or shady thing would a lawyer do anyway? I am sure we can all come up with some lackluster examples, but I have one that beats all of yours. What if a woman were to go to the office of a divorce lawyer and ask for help with her divorce? And what if, on hearing this request, that lawyer went ahead and helped her without giving her the proper disclosure that getting a divorce could lead to being divorced? Clearly that attorney would just be trying to get that paycheck without any regard for the client, right?

I am sure you–if you are a lawyer or are preparing to be one–would never make this mistake. I mean, you probably have warning signs in your office to alert incoming clients to this little-known side effect of divorce. I am sure you are all good guys looking to help your clients, not trick them; however, at least one lawyer has done this hateful crime. And it all happened in the UK.

Jane Mulcahy is a good Catholic who would never do something horrible like get a divorce. So when she entered the office of what would soon be her archenemies and asked for help with her divorce, she did not, and could not, know that soon the worst thing imaginable would happen: she would be divorced.

Courtesy of Giphy.

Now, as Ms. Mulcahy was not herself familiar with the field of law, it could not be expected that she came into the law firm with the knowledge that we, members of the legal world, have on this subject. I still remember, after all, the week in law school that we spent talking about the meaning of divorce and how, at the end of the proceedings, it would somehow end up with the termination of a marriage. It was a shocking revelation, indeed, and one that not a lot of outsiders were privy. So, of course, with this being such a legal secret, it is very plausible that this poor, abused woman had no idea what a divorce was when she asked for one.

Because of the murky definition of divorce, and knowledge of Mulcahy’s strong religious beliefs, it was the duty of her solicitors to inform her that if she were to get a divorce, her marriage would, in fact, be terminated. Also, they should have advised her instead to get a judicial separation–which is basically just all the benefits of a divorce without the sin of a failed marriage. In other words, it was perfect for Mulcahy, and yet her lawyers did not let her know about it. (It is my humble opinion that divorces probably make the lawyers more money, and so they deceitfully hid the meaning of divorce from their client to make a few more bucks from themselves. They should be ashamed.)

Courtesy of Giphy.

When Mulcahy learned of the trickery that had been done to her, she did not take it lying down. Instead, she sued. See, dirty lawyers? This is what happens when you play fast and loose with the lives of your clients: you get sued and lose lots of money … wait. What? A judge dismissed the claim? Man. Clearly, we are dealing with a crooked judicial team as well. Will justice ever be served to the poor, downtrodden Mulcahys of the world? Probably not. They all have pretty bad karma from committing the sin of divorce. Payback is a bitch, after all.

Ashley Shaw

Ashley Shaw is an Alabama native and current New Jersey resident. A graduate of both Kennesaw State University and Thomas Goode Jones School of Law, she spends her free time reading, writing, boxing, horseback riding, playing trivia, flying helicopters, playing sports, and a whole lot else. So maybe she has too much spare time. Contact Ashley at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Woman Sues Because Her Divorce Ended in Divorce appeared first on Law Street.

Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Those are all principles on which the United States was founded. Now, in my book, there’s one thing that fits very firmly into the happiness category: chocolate. So when I learned that my ability to get certain types of chocolate–particularly chocolate imported from the United Kingdom–has been hampered, I got pretty upset. After all, it’s my liberty to stuff my face with lots of chocolatey goodness, and it affects my life if I cannot do so.

The main conveyer of food from the UK to the US is called Let’s Buy British Imports (LBB). LBB just made a settlement with the American Hershey’s Company to stop importing Cadbury products. Cadbury is a British chocolate manufacturer, and if you’ve never had anything Cadbury-made, you’re missing out, because it’s damn delicious. Its most recognizable product in the U.S. is probably the Cadbury egg, but there are plenty of different variations of Cadbury sold, especially at specialty shops.

The settlement came from a claim by Hershey’s that the packaging on the chocolate made by Cadbury looked too much like some of Hershey’s, and that selling them in the United States infringed on trademark and licensing issues. It won’t just be Cadbury that won’t be imported any more, British-made KitKats are also going to be left across the pond, as well as a few other choice British sweets.

While this won’t make it illegal to have Cadbury in the US, or anything of that magnitude, sellers of the delicious creations will have a very hard time being able to stock the candy. It’s possible to import chocolate yourself, but it is very difficult to do so, given all the Food and Drug Administration and custosm hoops that require jumping through.

Those of you who have never been blessed with the pure magic that is Cadbury are probably wondering: what’s the big deal? Isn’t it just chocolate? Can’t you just eat some Hershey’s and call it a day, you weird, sugar-addicted freak?

Cadbury really is better than American chocolate. There is a legitimate, scientifically proven difference in taste. It tends to be higher in fat than American chocolate and focuses more on using milk than sugar. As Tatiana Schlossberg of The New York Times realized after a rather informal taste test:

The British Dairy Milk was slightly fudgier, allowing for a creamier taste and texture. The American Dairy Milk bar left a less pleasing coating and somewhat of a stale aftertaste.

In addition, the Telegraph pointed out:

a Hershey bar contains only 11 percent cocoa, while a British-made Dairy Milk bar – hardly a gourmet product – contains almost twice as much cocoa, at 20 per cent.

So, it’s probably not just a packaging concern on Hershey’s part. Cadbury chocolate tastes better, and has a pretty devoted following.

Most upsettingly, we’ll still see “Cadbury” on our shelves. Unfortunately it will be knockoff version, as Hershey’s has a deal to produce Cadbury products with altered recipes. Talk about adding insult to injury.

—

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 No More Cadbury Chocolate For You appeared first on Law Street.

The disasters involving the cruise ship Costa Concordia in 2012 and the ferries Norman Atlantic and Sewol in 2014 all have one thing in common: they were recent sea disasters in which lives were lost. While the Costa Concordia and the Sewol disasters were caused by human error and the Norman Atlantic is still under review, there is one question that’s looked at very closely anytime a disaster happens on the high seas: was the ship in full compliance with the  Safety of Life at Sea (SOLAS)? Read on to learn a basic understanding of SOLAS, what led to its creation, and what else exists in terms of safety for cruise passengers.

What is SOLAS?

SOLAS is a comprehensive set of rules that guide all cruise ships, cargo ships, oil tankers, and even the small boats that sit in marinas around the world. This document, which has been used for more than 100 years in a few different versions, has been generally regarded as the most important of all international treaties concerning the safety of merchant ships; however, SOLAS in its current state is actually a fairly recent product, given that it just entered into force in 1980.

What existed before SOLAS?

Before SOLAS was conceived, nations had rulemaking bodies pertaining to the high seas, though each nation operated independently of others. One of the better known lawmaking bodies was the British Board of Trade. It maintained standards for British shipping with legal updates until the last decade of the nineteenth century. While the technology had improved and the ships had gotten larger, no updating of the rules was undertaken until SOLAS.

The Ill fated R.M.S. Titanic. Image courtesy of Cliff via Flickr

Why the Change?

The main factor in the change to SOLAS was the disaster in which Royal Mail Steamer (RMS) Titanic sank. To explain why it turned into such a disaster, it’s important to know that the British used a very complex set of rules to determine how many lifeboats a ship needed. This formula is as follows: any ship over 10,000 tons must carry 16 lifeboats with a capacity of 5,500 cubic feet of space plus enough rafts and floats to equal 75 percent of the lifeboat capacity. This was based on the assumption that a human being needed ten feet of cubic space.

Now let’s apply this formula to the Titanic. The Titanic weighed in at a massive 46,000 tons, putting her well over the 10,000 ton mark. This meant that to be certified, she needed at least 16 lifeboats. The Titanic was equipped with 16 lifeboats able to carry 65 people each, meaning that she could carry a total of 1,040 people. Titanic’s owner, the White Star Line, showed that they had done better than minimum requirements by adding four collapsible boats, each able to hold 47 people. That gave the Titanic enough space to rescue 1,178 people.

Now let’s take a look at Titanic’s total passenger number. About 700 people survived the sinking, while roughly 1,500 died. That makes a grand total of approximately 2,200 passengers and crew, meaning that even if the rescue boats were filled to capacity, people were going to die. The only way they could have been saved was if another ship was close enough to the Titanic that she could perform a rescue attempt.

That led to the second problem behind the Titanic’s sinking. According to various reports from survivors, they could make out the lights of a ship on the horizon, and data tells us that was correct. That ship was the liner Californian, and she suffered two misfortunes. The first was that her officers misread Titanic’s visual calls and the second was that at 11:30pm, ten minutes before the Titanic hit the iceberg, the Californian’s only wireless operator, shut down the ship’s wireless communications device and went to bed. This meant that the Californian had no clue what was going on with other ships outside of where officers could see from the ship’s bridge.

SOLAS’ Inception

SOLAS was created as a response to issues from the Titanic disaster. The deaths of more than 1,500 passengers and crew raised many questions about the safety standards that were in force at that time. To answer those questions, delegates from Europe and America met to create worldwide standards. The work of these delegates led to the adoption of the first SOLAS convention on January 20, 1914, although it never entered into force due to World War I.

A second edition came out in 1933 in response to a number of ships that were catching on fire. The results lead to some 60 articles on ship construction, lifesaving equipment, fire prevention, and fire fighting, wireless telegraphy equipment, navigation aids, and rules to prevent collisions.

The third, fourth, and current fifth editions were made in response to changes in the shipping industry. The third edition was designed to update the 1933 convention, which had been overtaken by technical developments. The fourth edition was another update, though it also represented a change in leadership. Up until that point, Great Britain had been taking the leading role in the conventions. After this point the creation of SOLAS and all other international sea-related law was put under control of the United Nations through an agency called the International Maritime Organization (IMO).

The current SOLAS regulations were introduced into force in 1980; however, due to the voting process that was implemented with the law, these regulations are more flexible to changes in shipping than any of the previous conventions. It is also predicted that these regulations will not be replaced by newer standards anytime soon, due to a process known as Tacit Acceptance Procedure (TAP).

How does TAP work?

In short TAP works in the following manner: an amendment shall enter into force on a specified date unless, before that date, objections to the amendment are received from an agreed number of parties. To explain this, here is a hypothetical situation. An amendment has been passed using knowledge learned from the Costa Concordia disaster, stating that cruise ships should not get within 70 feet of any shoreline that is not a port, unless in an emergency situation. The member states of the IMO have a designated period of time to state any objections that they have. IMO currently has 170 member nations and a number needed to stop a motion is agreed upon by the member nations. For this example we will say that only 40 need to state an objection in that amount of time. If that number is reached, the amendment does not pass. If only 30 have issues, the amendment becomes law.

So, who do shipping companies answer to?

Despite the IMO making the rules, they have no direct control over the implementation of them. That role falls on the shoulders of the member governments. Most governments do take this role very seriously and do their best to keep their own companies in line; however, there is another method to keeping another nations’ members in check. Member governments can also put pressure on each other by inspecting foreign ships that visit their ports to ensure that they meet IMO standards. If they do not they can be detained until repairs are carried out. This will cost a company more money than if they do it right in the first place.

Is SOLAS the highest standard in the ship industry?

No, the main objective of the SOLAS Convention is to specify minimum standards for the construction, equipment, and operation of ships; member nations are encouraged to go above and beyond these regulations. Though a prime example is not in service today, there is one example from history that illustrates this point. That ship is the ocean liner S.S. United States, pictured below. Entering into Trans-Atlantic service in 1952, the United States, which was formerly owned by the United States Lines, was built to a high standard of fire proofing, which has yet to be surpassed by any ship. Her designer, William Francis Gibbs, was paranoid about the United States catching on fire due to having witnessed or read about several fires on other ships throughout the course of his life. As a result, the United States was made from materials that would not burn and carried no products made from wood except for a fireproof piano and the breadbox, which was far higher a standard than the SOLAS convention laws in place at the time.

The S.S. United States. Image courtesy of Stewart Clamen via Flickr.

Are there other documents that ships have to follow in addition to SOLAS?

The short answer is yes, because in addition to IMO requirements, every ship operates under the maritime laws of a specific country, referred to as the ship’s flag state. For example, the United States does have other documents that American-owned shipping companies are required to follow and are enforced by the United States Coast Guard. The most recent act is the Cruise Vessel Security and Safety Act of 2010. This added several new passenger rights laws that help in cases of theft and rape on board ship. The laws, however, do not give any directions for what to do in the event of a ship disaster. Some European  nations, such as the Netherlands, on the other hand, follow the code of laws laid out in Lloyd’s Register. Despite the differences the unique law sets are designed to work with each other to help further safety on board for passengers and crew.

So, what happened to the recent boat disasters?

Costa Concordia

The Costa Concordia was a cruise ship that ran aground on an undersea hazard after sailing too close to the coast of Giglio Island near Italy, causing a gash in her hull and the ship to tip over. The Costa Concordia herself did not suffer from any SOLAS violations, other than the debatable issue of crew training; however, what is clear is that this disaster, which claimed 32 lives, was due to human error on the part of her captain. The video below explains how the Costa Concordia was wrecked.

Sewol

The Sewol was a South Korean Ferry that capsized and sank, taking the lives of 300 people with it. This disaster could have been prevented if the Sewol had not undergone an illegal redesign and was not carrying significantly more cargo than it was designed to accommodate. In addition, the Sewol’s owner skimped on safety features to save money.

Conclusion

SOLAS is a set of laws to help to keep people safe on ships. Through international cooperation these laws are kept up to date and nations are tasked with making sure that everyone is kept safe while traveling on the high seas. While disasters can still happen under these laws–often due to human error–SOLAS seeks to help ensure that there will never be another Titanic disaster situation.

Resources

Primary

IMO: SOLAS

IMO: History of SOLAS

IMO: List of Conventions

US Congress: Cruise Vessel Safety and Security Act of 2010

UN: International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea 

Additional

David Allen Butler: Unsinkable

Titanic Facts: Titanic Lifeboats 

SS United States: Conservancy

Daily Mail: Titanic Needed 50% More Lifeboats

Chris Schultz

Chris Schultz is a Midwestern country boy who is a graduate of Dordt College in Sioux Center, Iowa and holds a bachelors degree in History. He is interested in learning about the various ocean liners that have sailed the world’s waters along with a variety of other topics. Contact Chris at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Safety on the High Seas: Who Makes the Rules? appeared first on Law Street.

Cannibalism is truly the stuff of nightmares that, terrifyingly enough, still occurs today. Recently police found a 34-year-old man, Matthew Williams, eating the face and eyes of a 22-year-old woman whom he recently killed in a hostel in Wales. He later died after the police stunned him with a 50,000-volt taser.

Williams, who had been recently released from jail, lived in the hostel, which housed many homeless people and former convicts. He allegedly brought his victim, Cerys Yemm, back to the building for a drink after meeting her for the first time. A key witness in the case informed authorities that Williams had taken a number of drugs earlier that evening. There is substantial debate over just what those drugs were. Some coverage claims that he took cocaine while others claim he overdosed on beta blockers and injected himself with heroin substitutes.

Hostel owner Mandy Miles discovered Williams covered in blood eating Yemm’s eye and face. According to a recent article, Williams said “that’s no girl” after Miles exclaimed “do you know what you’re doing to that girl?” Miles told authorities that she would have attacked Williams with a fire extinguisher if she thought there was any chance that Yemm was still alive. However, she found it clear that Yemm’s situation was beyond hope and so she locked Williams in the room and phoned the police. Miles stated recently that she frequently experiences flashbacks to the horrifying incident.

Following his grisly crime, Williams’ mother informed authorities that she felt it could have been prevented. According to her, her son was not taking the proper medication following his release and should have been hospitalized for his severe mental disorders. She elaborated on her son’s condition by saying that he heard voices and often suffered paranoid delusions. A fellow inmate imprisoned with Williams claimed that he called himself “the Wolf” because he ate people.

This isn’t the first story in the past few months of incidents of people eating human flesh. In June a Norwegian man consumed the meat taken off of his own hip bone following a surgical procedure. His actions, of course, differed substantially from this case as they did not inflict harm on others.

Even celebrities are weighing in on the topic of eating other people. Josh Hutcherson, best known as Peeta from The Hunger Games film series, recently conceded that he was curious about the taste of human flesh. Granted, he said he would only consume said theoretical human flesh if it were from someone who “died of natural causes.” Sorry, Josh, that is still a creepy thing to say.

Hopefully, this recent incident of cannibalism remains an isolated and rare occurrence and isn’t the start of a violent trend.

Marisa Mostek

Marisa Mostek loves globetrotting and writing, so she is living the dream by writing while living abroad in Japan and working as an English teacher. Marisa received her undergraduate degree from the University of Colorado in Boulder and a certificate in journalism from UCLA. Contact Marisa at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Hostel Cannibalism: Welsh Man Eats Woman’s Eyeball and Face appeared first on Law Street.

With the long weekend coming up, you’ll have some extra time to laugh about the weird, stupid, and ill-advised things that people try to do that end with a trip to the police station. To get you started, check out the slideshow below of the five weirdest arrests this week:

[SlideDeck2 id=26400 ress=1]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Socrate76 via Wikimedia]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Hey everyone, it’s Friday, which means that most of us are probably just biding our time until 5 o’clock. Luckily, I’m here to help you bide that time, by presenting you the top weird arrests of the week!

[SlideDeck2 id=25767 ress=1]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Weird Arrests of the Week: Where Exactly Is Waldo? appeared first on Law Street.

The people of Scotland voted to maintain their 307-year-old union with the United Kingdom yesterday, as the Scottish independence referendum was defeated by a margin of 55.3 to 45.7 percent. The referendum had numerous implications for both Scotland and the UK, and while Scottish residents decided against independence, a shift in UK politics may now be looming.

The referendum marks one of the most significant events in UK politics, and campaigning went down to the wire as preliminary polls anticipated a narrow result. On September 15, just three days before the vote took place, the three major Parties in parliament vowed to provide more power to the Scottish government. David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband, leaders of the Conservative, Liberal Democrat, and Labour Parties respectively, all came out in support of giving Scotland more control over its budget and public policy if the independence movement were to fail. Such a promise may have influenced the results of the referendum, and may also explain why its defeat was greater than previously expected.

The Future of Devolution

The debate over Scottish autonomy has sparked a lot of discussion of the media is calling “Devo-Max.” This term, also known as Devolution Max or “independence lite,” is the concept of giving Scotland a significant amount of autonomy in taxation, spending, and internal policy matters. At its fullest extent, Devo-Max would give Scotland control over nearly all of its policy with the exception of national matters like defense and foreign policy, which would remain in the hands of the national government.

Fiscal autonomy is one area that specifically appeals to the people of Scotland. A What Scotland Thinks poll found that nearly three quarters of Scottish residents favor giving the Scottish parliament primary authority over taxation and welfare if it did not become independent. Currently, Scotland receives a block grant from parliament each year to fund policy initiatives under its authority. If devolution went as far as fiscal autonomy, nearly all of its revenue would go directly to the Scottish Parliament, rather than to the UK for parliament to allocate.

The West Lovian Question

Conventional wisdom suggests that further devolution may be favorable to both Scotland and the United Kingdom, as Scotland would have more autonomy and the UK would retain the economic benefits of the union. However, such a solution could also exacerbate the current “West Lothian Question,” in parliament. The West Lothian dilemma was created during an earlier period of devolution. This problem got its name after Tam Dalyell, a member of parliament (MP) for the Scottish constituency of West Lothian, who cautioned against further devolution of power.

The UK parliament in Westminster devolved some of its authority to create the Scottish parliament in the late 1990s, and as a result, it no longer deals with every issue related to Scotland. Scotland still has MPs in Westminster to provide Scotland with a say in issues of national importance. As a result, issues that exclusively affect England are still voted on by the national parliament – meaning members from Scotland have a say in issues that exclusively affect England. The practical consequences of this could be a vote outcome that does not reflect the views of MPs representing English districts, even if the bill only affects England. As more and more power is devolved to Scotland and other parts of the UK, this problem will continue to worsen.

Suggested solutions to the West Lovian dilemma include the creation of England’s own local government, or restricting the vote on England-only issues to MPs from English districts. However, many oppose the creation of an additional level of government, and changing who can vote on specific legislation could create two different majorities depending on the issue at hand.

Going forward

Although the extent to which Parliament will devolve power to Scotland remains unknown, it is clear that the recent referendum has shaken up politics in the UK. Momentum from the independence campaign has forced a response from parliament; however, further devolution creates its own problems. Although the 307-year-old union remains, the UK’s national politics are likely going to change.

Alex Salmond, Scotland’s First Minister and strong proponent of independence, announced his resignation after the results of the referendum came out. Although the referendum failed to secure independence for Scotland, it did provoke a significant response from parliament. In his resignation statement, Salmond noted the significance of the movement saying, “We now have the opportunity to hold Westminister’s feet to the fire on the ‘vow’ that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland. This places Scotland in a very strong position.”

—

Kevin Rizzo (@kevinrizzo10)

Featured image courtesy of [stuart anthony via Flickr]

Kevin Rizzo

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

The post Where Does Scotland Go From Here? appeared first on Law Street.

Security cameras are a common facet in many places that we frequent, from office complexes to shopping malls. Closed circuit security cameras (CCTV) are mainly put in place to keep people safe, but one notable place where CCTVs are missing is our schools.

Tragedies such as the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut in 2012 have raised alarms for increased school security and the use of technology to keep children safe. Many schools have security cameras at their entrances and, in some cases, in hallways and other high-traffic areas. In the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia, and other nations, schools are beginning to experiment with the idea of placing closed-circuit security cameras in classrooms. Read on to learn the arguments about whether or not we should extend CCTV coverage to our public school classrooms.

What are the arguments for putting CCTVs in classrooms?

Those who support the addition of cameras to public school classrooms argue that they will increase school security while providing a useful tool for teacher collaboration. Many claim that the presence of the cameras alone would be enough to deter many students from committing crimes or engaging in common misbehavior while in the classroom. Cameras can also provide evidence if students are accused of a crime, saving administration from conducting lengthy and probing investigations.

Cameras could also be used by teachers as a tool to share effective learning methods and to connect with parents. Experienced, highly effective teachers could videotape segments of their lessons to be used in professional development programs and teacher training courses. Advocates have also argued that cameras could serve as deterrents to those bad teachers who do exist, particularly in special needs classrooms where students may have difficulty communicating instances of abuse to their parents. Parents would also have the ability to become in tune with what their children experience in the classroom, creating a closer marriage of a student’s education and home life and allowing parents to understand and supplement that education.

What are the arguments against CCTVs in classrooms?

Opponents are cautious about the installation of CCTVs due to the intrusion upon public school classrooms. Some administrators have indicated plans to use CCTVs to evaluate teacher performance and determine teacher effectiveness. Many professionals in American education oppose this method of teacher evaluation, as it seeks to make direct links between teacher methods and student achievement without accounting for other variables, such as socio-economic conditions and student behavior.

Additionally, using constant video surveillance of teachers as a form of evaluation would lead to a system where teacher merely imitate specific behaviors and methods they know evaluators are looking for while lacking creativity, individuality, and maverick methods that often characterize the best teachers and drive innovation. Many opponents also indicate that the presence of cameras could create a “Big Brother” atmosphere in the classroom, dampen student participation, and dissuade many students from exercising free speech.

Others worry that it infringes upon the relationships that teachers can have with their students. Teachers often have the ability to engage with their students about sensitive topics, including problems at home, difficulties in school, and the like. Teachers worry that installing CCTV cameras will make it less likely that students can confide in them, and therefore less likely that they are able to provide help or advice for those students. This worry is compounded by the fact that in most cases where cameras are installed, they are not able to turned off by the teachers themselves.

CCTVs in Classrooms in the UK

The idea of CCTVs has gained great momentum in Britain, where 85 percent of schools currently have CCTVs, and some schools, such as Stockwell Park High School in South London, have over 100 cameras inside its buildings (two in each classroom and 40 in hallways, cafeterias, and other areas).

The CCTV-based monitoring has had mixed reception in the UK. Teachers don’t really seem to like the institution of the cameras, citing concerns that they’re not in place for safety reasons, but rather to judge teachers. A teachers union conducted a study in the UK and discovered that 41 percent of teachers claimed that the cameras were used to find evidence that led to “negative views” of the staff being monitored.

There have also been cases of students in the UK being unhappy with the CCTV cameras placed in their schools. In a school in Essex, a student named Sam Goodman started a protest after discovering that cameras that were said to have been placed in his school for training purposes had actually been switched on. Goodman took many issues with the implementation of CCTV cameras, pointing out, “We’ll end up with all teachers being the same. And pupils will grow up thinking that it’s acceptable to be monitored like this.” He also was suspicious that the cameras were just supposed to be used for teacher training, claiming that the equipment seemed too extensive for such a narrow purpose. He eventually started a walk-out to protest the CCTV cameras.

There’s also a debate ongoing in the UK that the placement of CCTV cameras has gone too far. According to a British watchdog group called Big Brother Watch, more than 200 schools had installed CCTVs in restrooms and changing rooms (locker rooms). The only way that Big Brother Watch got that information was by filing a Freedom of Information Request with the government. A statement from Big Brother Watch claimed:

The full extent of school surveillance is far higher than we had expected and will come as a shock to many parents. Schools need to come clean about why they are using these cameras and what is happening to the footage. Local authorities also need to be doing far more to reign in excessive surveillance in their areas and ensuring resources are not being diverted from more effective alternatives. The Home Office’s proposed regulation of CCTV will not apply to schools and the new Commissioner will have absolutely no powers to do anything. Parents will be right to say that such a woefully weak system is not good enough.

While CCTV surveillance has become a sort of norm in the UK, many are still not happy about it. Those who are advocating for CCTV cameras in classrooms in the U.S. may be able to improve on the UK’s experiment to avoid the problems found there, while those who oppose the implementation may use the UK’s problems as reasoning for avoiding CCTV cameras in classrooms here.

Conclusion

Given the concentration of cameras in certain institutions, it’s no surprise that we’re now talking about implementing them in public school classrooms. While there are certainly benefits, such as added security and deterrence from fighting, there are also strong arguments against the practice, such as privacy concerns. Taking a cue from the UK’s book may be a smart idea, but whether or not the practice will catch on in the U.S. remains to be seen.

Resources

Primary 

Change.org: Cameras in Special Needs Classrooms

Hudson Park High School: CCTV Report

Additional

PR Web: CCTV Cameras Can Prevent Violence in the Classroom

SelfGrowth.com: Classrooms Should Have Closed-Circuit Cameras

Boss Closed Security: School Closed Circuit TV: How Does it Work and Why?

TES Connect: CCTV is Used to Spy on Teachers

Sydney Morning Herald: School Surveillance Puts Trust at Risk

LoveToKnow.com: Keep Security Cameras Out of School Classrooms

Salon: Big Brother Invades Our Classrooms

National Education Policy Center: Cameras in the Classroom: A Good Idea?

Guardian: Someone to Watch Over You

Learn By Cam: CCTV in Schools and Classrooms

USA Today: Who’s Watching the Class?

ZD Net: Should CCTV Be Allowed in Schools and Universities?

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post CCTV Cameras in Classrooms: Big Brother Watching? appeared first on Law Street.

On September 18, 2014 Scotland will vote on a referendum as to whether the country will become independent of the United Kingdom. This will not be the first time Scotland has sought sovereignty from the United Kingdom in recent history. In 1979, a referendum for a Scottish devolution was put to a vote, but no change occurred because it failed to receive a majority ‘Yes’ of over 40 percent from the electorate. So, the question left is what is the difference now? Here is everything you need to know about the Scottish Referendum, players involved, and the impacts of the vote.

Who are the organizations involved?

‘Yes Scotland’ is the organization representing the individuals and parties in support of an independent Scotland. Led by Chief Executive Blair Jenkins, the organization is backed by the Scottish National Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and the Scottish Green Party. As of June 2014, ‘Yes Scotland’ has raised £4.5 million in donations. EuroMillions winners Chris and Colin Weir are their biggest donors, having given £3.5 million since the campaign was launched in May 2012.

They are met in opposition by the ‘Better Together’ campaign, headed by British Labour Party politician Alistair Darling. The Conservative Party, Liberal Democrats, and the Labour Party are supporting the campaign. In addition to writing a 1,600-word essay explaining her anti-independence views, author of the beloved “Harry Potter” series J.K. Rowling donated over £1 million to the Better Together campaign. To date, Rowling has contributed the biggest sum to ‘Better Together’ from a single donor, followed by business man Ian Taylor.

Who is able to vote?

According to the draft of the referendum, the following people would be allowed to vote in the referendum:

• British citizens who are residents in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 53 other Commonwealth countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Citizens of the 27 other European Union countries who are resident in Scotland.
• Members of the House of Lords who are resident in Scotland.
• Service/Crown personnel serving in the UK, overseas in the British Armed Forces, or with Her Majesty’s Government who are registered to vote in Scotland.
• Citizens that are 16 years old and older.

The Scottish National Party has extended voting rights to registered 16 and 17 year olds for the referendum in an effort to gather more support for independence.

Could an Independent Scotland join the European Union?

If Scotland is to become sovereign, then the Scottish Government will have to negotiate with European Union members to ensure membership. Negotiations would occur while Scotland is still part of the United Kingdom and, therefore, part of the European Union. Scotland will have to be approved by all other member states of the European Union. Article 48 of the Treaty of the European Union allows for a treaty amendment in this kind of situation.

What would a ‘Yes’ vote mean for the rest of the United Kingdom?

An independent Scotland intends to retain the close ties currently with the United Kingdom. The Queen will remain the head of state, and the currency would still be the pound. However, MPs will no longer be sent to Westminster since independence would end the parliamentary union currently in place.

Although recent polls have support for Welsh independence hovering around 10 percent, leader of Plaid Cymru (equivalent to the Scottish National Party), Leanne Wood, believes the Scottish referendum may be a turning point. It is not unimaginable that if independence is achieved and proves to be successful, then the people of Wales may follow suit.

Before the referendum occurs, the United Kingdom is receiving funding from Scotland to pay for the armed forces and embassies. If a ‘yes’ vote is reached Scotland would no longer pay into those services as they would use that money for a Scottish equivalent. Money will be saved in defense since Scotland would no longer be supplying funds for the United Kingdom’s nuclear weapons.

Sport Minister Shona Robison states that if Scotland is to be its own nation by the 2016 Olympic games, it will be able to compete in Brazil.

Arguments for a ‘Yes’ Vote

An issue on the forefront of both campaign agendas is agriculture. Scottish territory is covered in 80 percent agricultural land, but the mountainous terrain, harsh climate, and poor soils limit land use. The Common Agricultural Policy pays all countries that are members of the European Union to help subsidize farmers. Agreed upon at recent negotiations, nations with productivity less than 90 percent of the European Union average collect additional money for their funding. The United Kingdom divided the money between England, Scotland, Wales, and Northern Irelands, which the Scottish government did not find fair. They believe that Scotland is the reason the United Kingdom received the funding and therefore, deserves a bigger portion of the cut.

Supporters of independence argue that Scotland would qualify for higher subsidies if it were separate from the rest of the United Kingdom. They cite Ireland as an example of a country receiving more of the funds while having a smaller agricultural sector. Also, if Scotland were an independent member of the European Union they would have a more influential voice at negotiations.

Scotland also looks towards Ireland in reference to defense spending. The Royal United Service Institute predicts that Scotland would be able to create a defense force similar in strength and size to those in Ireland, Norway, and Denmark. The estimated cost is £1.8 billion per year, compared to the £3.3 billion Scottish taxpayers paid to the United Kingdom during the 2010 – 2011 fiscal year.

Advocates for independence declare that Scotland’s economy is not thriving as much as it could because it has followed the same policies as the rest of the United Kingdom. The Scottish government states that, “If Scotland had matched the levels of growth of other independent nations […] GDP per head in Scotland would now be 3.8 percent higher, equivalent to an addition to £900 per head.”

In 2013, there were only 59 Scottish Members of Parliament (MPs) in the House of Commons with a total of 650 MPs and 785 Lords. Voters in Scotland only elected four percent of the United Kingdom Parliament; the politicians who are in control over defense, welfare, and economic decisions.

Members of the House of Lords are nominated by a committee instead of being elected by the people. The Scottish National Party believes that MPs should be elected and not appointed; therefore, they do not nominate members. Parliament member Angus MacNeil said, “A ‘yes’ vote for independence means that people in Scotland can get rid of the expensive and unrepresentative Westminster tier – which means better and cheaper government.”

The core of the Yes Campaign and those who support it is that the people who live and work in Scotland should have the right to make the choices for their own country.

Arguments for a ‘No’ Vote

Members of the opposition are concerned what independence would do to research and development sector. Currently, “Scotland receives a total of £130 million from UK based charities, £100 million from UK central government and £47 million of funding allocated to UK universities by UK industry, commerce and public corporations.” Through the UK Research Councils, Scotland also received £234 million to go towards funding research in pioneering new technologies. It is speculated that a split from the United Kingdom would end funding that universities in Scotland are currently receiving. This would greatly damage its universities and the advances in technologies found at them.

The impact on education is a tremendous area of concern. Currently, Scottish and European Union students do not pay tuition fees at universities in Scotland, while United Kingdom students have to pay fees. United Kingdom students would become reclassified as European Union students if independence occurs, meaning they would not have to pay fees anymore. Although beneficial for the remaining United Kingdom, free tuition would be a huge attraction and possibly limit space for Scottish domiciled students.

Conclusion

It is clear that both those in support and opposition of the referendum are acting in what they believe to be in the best interest of Scotland, and in some instances the United Kingdom. On September 18, if a majority vote of ‘yes’ is reached, it would propel Scotland into a uncharted territory and new era.

Resources

Primary

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

Additional

New Statesman: Can Plaid Cymru Learn From the SNP and Put Welsh Independence on the Agenda?

Yes Scotland: Scotland’s Future: Draft Referendum (Scotland) Bill Consultation Paper

BBC: Scottish Independence: Students Could be ‘Squeezed Out’ of Home Universities

BBC: Scottish Independence: Who Are The Big and Small Money Referendum Donors?

Alex Hill

Alex Hill studied at Virginia Tech majoring in English and Political Science. A native of the Washington, D.C. area, she blames her incessant need to debate and write about politics on her proximity to the nation’s capital.

The post Scottish Sovereignty: All the Facts on the Referendum appeared first on Law Street.