deprelawland - Tumblr blog

deprelawland · 7 years

Text

Free Speech on the Internet: What You Can and Can’t Say to the Wide World

By Annie Lee, University of Delaware Class of 2020

November 9, 2017

Figure 1: The rise of internet-use since 2000 (43% of population) to 2016 (76% of population) in the United States has been ongoing, with the exception of a few small dips in between(The World Bank, 2016).

While research regarding the construction of the internet dates back to the 60s, the total integration between our thoughts and the virtual data-bank did not fully culminate until the late 2000s, and growth continues to progress upwards.

Perhaps a negative consequence of the explosive growth of another medium of speech is that the original language of the First Amendment—since the founding fathers did not have the internet—is so heavily interpretable in cases arguing the extent to which free speech applies online. One such case arose just last month: PragerU, a conservative educational video creator that presents all of its materials through YouTube, sued the company (and its parent company, Google)for unconstitutional censorship.The complete press release of the lawsuit can be viewed here (or, if you prefer, the lawsuit itself), but in brief:

Over 50 PragerU videos have been restricted and/or demonetized (since restricted access means less views, which means less ad viewership) by YouTube on the grounds that they are “inappropriate for younger audiences”

PragerU believes that YouTube placed its videos under restricted mode as a “political gag mechanism” – that is, to silence PragerU’s conservative take on certain topics

o PragerU further claims that that Youtube’s vague “Terms of Use [and] Community Guidelines” and status as a “virtual monopoly…over video posting” allows it to “denigrate legitimate political and educational” solely on the basis of fundamental disagreement

o PragerU’s videos (in opinion of the company itself)“do not contain any profanity, nudity, or otherwise inappropriate ‘mature’ content”

· Since YouTube serves not only as a video service, but also a discussion platform for people from all around the world, PragerU’s “right to free association and assembly” was violated along with its right to free speech

Did PragerU have the right to complain about having their speech stripped, or does YouTube make its limitations on speech clear? Let’s take a look at the individual pieces (I myself will try to remain as objective as possible).

YouTube’s “Restricted Mode”

This feature has only existed since 2010. YouTube describes “restricted mode” as an “optional feature to help institutions…as well as people who wanted to better control the content they see.” It is the viewer’s choice as to whether they want to turn restricted mode on or off.Here are YouTube’s specific criteria for determining whether content will be or not be excluded when restricted mode is on:

(1) Talking about drug use or abuse, or drinking alcohol in videos

(2) Overly detailed conversations about or depictions of sex or sexual activity

(3) Graphic descriptions of violence, violent acts, natural disasters and tragedies, or even violence in the news

(4) Videos that cover specific details about events related to terrorism, war, crime, and political conflicts that resulted in death or serious injury, even if no graphic imagery is shown

(5) Inappropriate language, including profanity

(6) Video content that is gratuitously incendiary, inflammatory, or demeaning towards an individual or group

*On some occasions, a video may not violate the guidelines but may still be subject to restricted mode filtering if Google/YouTube subjectively deems the content as not appropriate for everyone. In these cases, videos are age restricted instead, which makes them not visible to users who are logged out, are under 18 years of age, or have Restricted Mode enabled.

PragerU believes that its content was restricted based on the last criteria—YouTube subjectively deemed their content as not appropriate for everyone due to the channel’s overwhelmingly conservative views. Note that on April 27th, 2017, YouTube itself clarified that “Restricted Mode should not filter out content belonging to individuals or groups based on…political viewpoints.”

PragerU has requested for YouTube to review and remove their videos from restricted mode for months, to which the company often replies with a vague statement saying that PragerU’s videos are inappropriate to younger viewers with no explanation as to how. From this, PragerU has concluded that the only reason its videos are getting censored is because of “YouTube’s animus towards PragerU’s political identity and viewpoint.” While this conclusion is not unviable, given that YouTube has seemingly refused to offer PragerU a reason for filtering its videos, it could be argued as hasty, as there is no explicit evidence that YouTube does not appreciate conservative views. PragerU did provide list of their restricted videos corresponded with unrestricted videos about the same subjects explained from liberal viewpoints, but if YouTube truly meant to discriminate against conservative input, then all or at least most of the conservative content on their site would be restricted.

The Restricted Videos

Since discrimination based solely on antipathy towards conservative views has been tentatively ruled out, reasons for restriction must be determined elsewhere. Let’s look at some of the titles of the restricted videos:

1. Why Isn’t Communism as Hated as Nazism?

2. Where Are the Moderate Muslims?

3. Is Islam a Religion of Peace?

4. What ISIS Wants

5. Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?

6. Islamic Terror: What Muslim Americans Can Do

7. Radical Islam: The Most Dangerous Ideology

8. The Most Important Question About Abortion

9. Why Do People Become Islamic Extremists?

10. Born to Hate Jews

In one of its processes for filtering videos, YouTube uses “an automated filtering algorithm that examines certain ‘signals’” of rule violations “like the video’s metadata, title, and the language used in the video. Based on the title only, and what the title implicates about its content, most or all of these videos listed above could be interpreted on the surface as in violation of criteria (3), (4), and (6) as highlighted in the previous section: the title, “What ISIS wants,” may suggest that the video will “cover specific details about events related to terrorism;” “Are 1 in 5 Women Raped at College?” could include “[g]raphic descriptions of violence” or “violent acts;” “Born to Hate Jews” sounds like it may contain content that is “gratuitously…demeaning towards an individual or group.”

This is not to say that mistakes in restriction by cause of a faulty algorithm are justified – on the contrary, most would agree that videos should not be censored based on only the title without ever considering the content.But the overwhelming congruity between the general subject of the restricted videos does provide a potential alternate explanation (as opposed to political bias) as to why these videos were restricted – for suspicion of terroristic, violent, and/or demeaning content.

If this entire situation was just a silly mishandling by YouTube’s algorithm, one must still question why PragerU receives such inconclusive answers from the media platform when it asks for clarification as to why its videos are getting censored. Furthermore, PragerU has pointed out that, when its videos are re-uploaded by other channels, they are not restricted. The only difference between PragerU and the channels that re-post its videos is that the other channels are not outwardly conservative. This occurrence makes it seem like YouTube’s accused animosity against PragerU’s videos is actually an animosity against the channel itself. If this is the case, then PragerU can indeed reasonably sue YouTube for restricting its freedom of speech based on disagreeable political content. But if YouTube does hold a biased animosity against PragerU itself, what then explains the similarity between the restricted videos? Why weren’t all videos, or even the channel itself, restricted?

YouTube does claim that a human team reviews the videos selected by its algorithm, but this only raises further questions. If the review team has just not gotten to it yet, then yes, the entire situation could still just be a silly mishandling by the algorithm. If they did get to it, then PragerU has a firmer ground on which to argue, but their argument is not so stable that it could not crumble: YouTube specifies that their restricted mode “[screens] out potentially objectionable content that you or your family may not want see.” Perhaps the PragerU videos were restricted, then, based on the belief that parents should have the right to control what their children are exposed to regarding arguably controversial topics. For instance, a parent may not want their pre-teen child to know about ISIS for fear that such knowledge would cause paranoia; a parent may think their child is too young to be watching videos that do so much as even mention rape/terrorism/abortion/etc.

Concluding Thoughts

As the Supreme Court once put it, “[t]he Internet’s forces and directions are so new, so protean, and so far reaching that courts must be conscious that what they say today” about online free speech “may be obsolete tomorrow” (Packingham v. North Carolina, 2017). The Court further acknowledged that it “must exercise extreme caution” when addressing “the relationship between the First Amendment and the modern Internet” because such cases are/would be the first of their kind. Regarding the former statement, reasoning from past cases, no matter how related, by itself cannot definitively back PragerU’s arguments, as every virtual platform and snippet of viral information is different. As one of the first of its kind, the case of PragerU v. Google & YouTube is a monumental one.

Who do you think is in the wrong?

________________________________________________________________

Peter, I. (2004). So, who really did invent the Internet? Retrieved November 05, 2017. <http://www.nethistory.info/History%20of%20the%20Internet/origins.html>

PragerU v. Google Inc. and YouTube, LLC,Case 5:17-cv-06064-LHK(U.S. District Court (Northern District of California) 2017). <http://www.bgrfirm.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PRAGER_U-_v_GOOGLE-YOUTUBE_complaint_10-23-2017_FILED.pdf>

Skelton, C. (2017). Packingham v. North Carolina 582 US ___ (2017). Retrieved November 5, 2017. <https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/582/15-1194/>

The World Bank. (2016). Individuals using the Internet (% of population). Retrieved November05, 2017.<https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/IT.NET.USER.ZS?locations=US>

YouTube. (2017). Community Guidelines. Retrieved November 5, 2017.<https://www.youtube.com/yt/policyandsafety/communityguidelines.html>

0 notes

deprelawland · 7 years

Text

The Unchanging Regard of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace

By Annie Lee, University of Delaware Class of 2020

October 26, 2017

Considering the rising importance of equality in contemporary times, one may be shocked to learn that the Supreme Court did not begin trying sexual harassment issues until 1980. This is not to say that sexual harassment was never an issue prior to 1980—just two years before, “over 70% of the women surveyed by the Working Women United Institute felt that they had been sexually harassed in their employment.” Also, before the Civil Rights Act of 1964, countless African American slaves had been used by their owners for sexual gratification, and of course, these victims were not allowed to dissent.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 (also referred to as “Title VII”), however, was not the saving grace that put an end to sexual harassment in the workplace. Regarding this act, the language only found “‘economic’ or ‘tangible’ discrimination” punishable under the law. More inclusive protections came along in 1980, when the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) issued the “Interim Guidelines on Sexual Harassment” and declared that “sex-related intimidation on the job or creating a sexually charged hostile work environment is unlawful under Title VII.”

This notion was federally recognized in the case of Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson (1986), which decided unanimously that the archaic language in Title VII intended to “strike at the entire spectrum of disparate treatment of men and women in employment,” not just disparate treatment of the economic or tangible kind. Let’s take a look at some of the victories for sexual equality since then...if they can really be called victories:

1991 - TAILHOOK SCANDAL

During the 35th Annual Tailhook Association Symposium at the hotel, Las Vegas Hilton, over 100 U.S. Navy and Marine Corps officers sexually assaulted 83 women and seven men. The original purpose of this symposium was to provide a debriefing on U.S. aviation in Operation Desert Storm. According to a report made by the Pentagon’s inspector general, this is what happened instead:

"…assaults varied from victims being grabbed on the buttocks to victims being groped, pinched and fondled on their breasts, buttocks and genitals…Some victims were bitten by their assailants, others were knocked to the ground and some had their clothing ripped or removed" (New York Times, 1983).

Note that this event had to be investigated twice before any cohesive information came out regarding the scandal. The initial investigation of this event was led by Rear Admiral Duvall M. Williams, the head of the Naval Investigative Service, who determined that the incident was just a minor instance of low-ranked men behaving immaturely. Williams was on record as having previously stated, and to the Secretary of the Navy of all people, that “a lot of female Navy pilots are go-go dancers, topless dancers, or hookers.” Then, regarding a profanity-filled complaint of a female officer who had been assaulted at this event, Williams said that “any woman who would use theF-word on a regular basis would welcome this type of activity.” Thus, it was determined that a second investigation, led by a different head, was necessary.

The offending officers were fired from their jobs, which retired officers complained was excessive because the allegations were “unsubstantiated.” Flag officers, who knew that these events were going on but did not say or do anything to stop them, were not punished.

2005–EEOC v. RIVERA VINEYARDS

A group of Latino workers at Rivera Vineyards filed alawsuit against the farm, accusing employers of touching, groping, leering, and making derogatory comments.One employee was raped. Before, when the workers tried to complain to higher-ups about aforementioned harassment, they would just be terminated for their supposed whining. Workers eventually won a settlement for $1 million.

2012 – CHOPOURIAN v. CATHOLIC HEALTHCARE WEST

Ani Chopourian, who worked as a physician’s assistant at the Mercy General Hospital in California, sued the hospital due to sexual harassment from coworkers. Chopourian recounted that, once, a coworker said to her, “you’ll give in to me,” and when she looked to her supervisor for help, he just laughed. One of the surgeons routinely greeted Chopourian and other employees with the introduction of “I’m horny,” which would then digress into a graphic detailing of his personal sex life.Another surgeon called her a “stupid chick,” poked her with a needle, and derided the Yale graduate for performing surgery “like a girl.” Chopourian had filed 18 different written complaints regarding mistreatment at the workplace, but instead of taking corrective action, the hospital dealt with the issue by firing her.

Coupourian won $168 million in this case, but one cannot say for sure that this monetary compensation (or any compensation in related cases) was a thick enough bandage for the psychological wounds she has suffered from harassment. And, rather than the classic remorseful apologyfrom the defendant that often follows the loss of a sexual harassment suit, Mercy General Hospital instead issued a statement of denial despite the myriad of evidence against them:

“We are disappointed by the jury's decision. We are committed to providing a safe working environment, free from sexual harassment and inappropriate behavior, which is backed by strong policies and practices to protect our employees. We stand by the actions we took in ending our relationship with this former employee and we will appeal this decision” (ABC News, 2012).

2014 – KESHA v. DR. LUKE

Kesha Sebert, better known to most as just “Kesha,” sued her own producer back in 2014 for sexual assault &battery, harassment, violence, solicitation of illegal drugs, and emotional abuse. To these allegations, Dr. Luke filed a countersuit, discrediting every single one of Kesha’s accusations. In his defense, the most convincing piece of evidence came from a 2011 deposition recording in which Kesha claimed and implied, respectively,that Dr. Luke had never drugged or assaulted her.

While Kesha and her lawyers rebutted with the argument that her statements in this recording were made falsely on the basis of fear, abuse, and bullying, this deposition transcript played a main part in the Supreme Court’s decision to prevent Kesha’s freedom from her record contract back in 2016. In addition to the transcript, a lack of official documentation regarding the sexual attacks contributed to the Court’s decision, but this in itself raises concern, as many victims of abuse tend to not report it. Kesha was later offered freedom from her contract if she were to rescind rape accusations against Dr. Luke. One must question why the opposing party would feel so threatened by the rape accusations if they were not guilty, and felt that there was no substantive evidence to prove otherwise.Kesha rejected the offer. Eventually, in August of the same year, Kesha dropped charges against Dr. Luke because the trial had dragged on for so long with no redemption in sight. In terms of PR, one could say that Kesha won, but in terms of freedom, she most definitely did not.

Given this history of mistreatment in the workplace even after the passage of fundamental legislature, one must question if protective sexual harassment legislation is doing enough. Why does news about sexual harassment still taint the headlines of today? It seems like every month, we hear of a new scandal in a new environment, then read about a new publication of another drawn-out apology of how the perpetrator regrets his actions and wishes he had never done it and such and such and such... The constant back-and-forth of violation and apology can only be described as exhaustively repetitive.

Progress cannot be called progress if the same problems from history are still resurfacing today, just in more modern forms. With respect to the frequency of workplace sexual misconduct, not much seems to have changed in the face of seemingly landmark legislature. The only difference from then and now is that today’s victims are rewarded a financial gift in exchange for the emotional trauma they will likely have to live with for the rest of their lives. Even today’s laws do not regard “a single incident or isolated incidents of offensive sexual conduct or remarks” to be“sufficient evidence of a hostile environment.”By this reasoning, then, as long as an insubordinate worker spaces out his or her instances of sexual misconduct, he/she cannot be punished. As long as a man or woman inappropriately touches or verbally assaults a coworker only once, he/she cannot get in trouble. The current laws are not enough. _______________________________________________________________

Annie Lee is a Sophomore English major on the Pre-Law track at the University of Delaware. In her free time, she enjoys writing creative pieces and, of course, watching Netflix.

_______________________________________________________________

AAUW. “Know Your Rights at Work: Workplace Sexual Harassment.” AAUW, AAUW, n.d.

<www.aauw.org/what-we-do/legal-resources/know-your-rights-at-work/workplace-sexual-harassment/>

EEOC. “Milestones: 1980.” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, EEOC, n.d.

<www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/history/35th/milestones/1980.html>

EEOC. “RIVERA VINEYARDS SETTLES EEOC SUIT ALLEGING SEXUAL HARASSMENT, RETALIATION, JOB

SEGREGATION.” U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 15 June 2005.

<https://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/6-15-05.cfm>

FindLaw. “FORD MOTOR CO. v. EEOC.” FindLaw, Thomson Reuters, n.d. <http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/458/219.html>

FindLaw. “KIMZEY v. WAL MART STORES INC.” FindLaw, Thomson Reuters, n.d.

<http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-8th-circuit/1230254.html>

Gordon, Michael R. “Pentagon Report Tells of Aviators' 'Debauchery'.” The New York Times,

The New York Times Company, 24 Apr. 1993,

<www.nytimes.com/1993/04/24/us/pentagon-report-tells-of-aviators-debauchery.html>

Healy, Melissa. “Pentagon Blasts Tailhook Probe, Two Admirals Resign.” The Tech, 25 Sept. 1992.

<http://tech.mit.edu/V112/N44/tailhook.44w.html>

Kreps, Daniel. “Kesha: I 'Got Offered My Freedom' to Rescind Dr. Luke Rape Claims.” Rolling Stone, 3 Apr. 2016.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/kesha-i-got-offered-my-freedom-to-rescind-dr-luke-rape-claims-20160403#ixzz44rPt4vBF

Lee, Eugene. “Largest Sexual Harassment Verdict in History – $168 Million.” California Labor and Employment Law,

California Labor and Employment Law, n.d.

<https://calaborlaw.com/largest-sexual-harassment-verdict-in-history-168-million/>

MailOnline Reporter. “Kesha Swore under Oath in 2011 Deposition That Dr. Luke Did NOT Sexually Abuse Her...

Undercutting Rape Allegations in Her Latest Lawsuit.” Daily Mail, Associated Newspapers Ltd., 21 Oct. 2014.

<http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2802370/kesha-swore-oath-2011-deposition-dr-luke-did-not-sexually-abuse-undercutting-rape-allegations-latest-lawsuit.html>

McLain, Lynn. “The EEOC Sexual Harassment Guidelines: Welcome Advances under Title

VII?” University of Baltimore Law Review, vol. 10, no. 2, ser. 4, 1981.

<scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1265&context=ublr>

Oyez. "Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson." Oyez, 29 Oct. 2017.

<www.oyez.org/cases/1985/84-1979>

Photo Credit: Leon israel

0 notes

deprelawland · 7 years

Text

Animal Rights (or the Lack Thereof)

By Annie Lee, University of Delaware Class of 2020

October 26, 2017

Everyone loves their pets—so much so that 68% of households in the United Statesnow house one or more animal companions. Among these, dogs and cats lead in popularity, with dogspresent in 60.2 million U.S. households, and cats present in 47.1 million. So why is it that animal protection laws are still lacking in some states?

Figure 1: Ranking based on: number of punishable felony penalties available, adequacy of standards regarding animals, and range of animal protections.Ranked first (best) is Illinois and ranked last is Kentucky. Delaware is ranked 15th (Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2016).

Among all five states with the worst animal protection laws (from worse to “better”: Kentucky, Iowa, Wyoming, Utah, North Dakota), there are no penalties for felony neglect, sexual assault, or abandonment of animals. Penalties that do exist only punish abuse against certain animals, and do not escalate for abuse against multiple animals. It is not even mandatory for officials to forfeit animals from their abusers upon conviction. Additionally, abusers in farms and businesses are protected by ag-gag laws, which forbid unconsented filming of premise and indirectly protect possible abusers from whistle blowers.

Meanwhile, the top tier states do punish felony neglect, sexual assault, and abandonment of animals. Penalties apply to most animals (see case of exception below), and increase in the case of recidivism. Animals are suspended from owners in the case of abuse, and abusers must undergo counseling or psychological evaluation before they can reclaim them. While the severity of punishment for maltreatment towards animals varies from state-to-state, the consequences,in general, remain the same. Those in Delaware are as follows:

(1) General cruelty to animals

DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1325(b)

(2) Cruelly or unnecessarily killing or injuring an animal

DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1325(b)(4)

(Note that in Delaware the term “animals” does not encompass fish, crustacea, or molluska (DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1325(a)(11))).

Condensed, “cruelty to animals” refers to inflicting unjustifiable and unnecessary physical pain or neglect upon an animal which includes, but is not limited to: beating, overworking, killing, confining in extreme temperatures, tormenting, abandoning without reasonable arrangements, and failing to provide proper sustenance, shelter, or veterinary care (DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1325 (2016)). In this context, “unjustifiable” and “unnecessary” refers to any physical act against animals performed not to cease an animal’s suffering or to prevent injury of another person,

Then, the maximum penalties for offenses:

(1) 1 year incarceration and/or $2,300 fine, restitution, or other conditions

DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4206

(2) 3 years imprisonment and fine determined by court

DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 4205

(3) Court shall prohibit owning or possessing any animal…for five years for a misdemeanor conviction, DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1325(c), and for 15 years for a felony conviction DEL. CODE ANN. tit. 11, § 1325(d).

If every state’s legislature paid as little attention to animals as the “bottom tier” states do, one would not be surprised to learn that there are nearly 2,000 abuse cases each year (note that only a fraction of abusive acts is ever reported). But that is clearly not the case—certain states do have strict codes in place. One would not be unreasonable, then, in surmising these 2,000 cases to be centralized in states with“bottom tier” animal abuse laws. But it happens that abusers will abuse animals regardless of current consequences (ranked as according to the Animal Legal Defense Fund from Figure 1):

Rank #15:Delaware (October 10th, 2017)

Figure 2: A survivor found at the scene of the abusive home in Seaford, Delaware (Brandywine Valley SPCA, 2017).

Delaware Animal Services (DAS) found 43 dead dogs and an additional 32 live but neglected animals in a Delaware home. Of the 32 living animals, only five were in stable condition; the other 27 were in severe condition and required emergency care. One had to be euthanized.

Rank #8: New Jersey (October 6th, 2017)

Police found a puppy thrown out of a third story window and into the adjacent building in Trenton, New Jersey. Upon landing, the floor collapsed out under the puppy into the basement. The owner, 19, allegedly threw the puppy out of rage.

Rank #6: Michigan (January 19th, 2017)

Figure 3: Dog found with ears, nose, and tail cut off (Michigan Humane Society, 2017).

Dog found in Detroit by a Michigan Humane Society worker with ears, nose, and tail cut off, with additional laceration on his legs. The abuser is unknown.

Rank #4: California (August 5th, 2017)

Police officers in Montclair, California found 1,000 animals, dead, and 2,000 live birds, fish, and reptiles living amongst filth of feces and garbage. There was no food or water present on site.

If even the strictest of animal protection laws won’t stop abusers from abusing, why aren’t legislators doing more? Are they just unaware? Do they think animal lives are second-rate to humans’? If this is the case, legislators must take another look.

According to a recent 2006investigation by researchers Carlisle-Frank, Frank, and Nielsen, there is a strong correlation between animal abuse and domestic violence. In this study, 48% of respondents (which consisted of battered women) reported that “animal abuse had occurred ‘often’ during the past 12 months, and another 30% reported that the abuse occurred ‘almost always.’” A 2009 study further determined that people forced to watch animal abuse are eight times as likely to become violent themselves as they age.In general, abusers misdirect their rage towards cherished pets in order to exert dominance over or intimidate their victims (“I can hurt you just as easily as I can hurt this dog”).

Evidently, people must give more attention for abused animals.Dogs and cats may lead in companion animal popularity, but this only means that they also lead in being the targets of animal abuse—57.8% of victims are dogs, while 26.9% are cats. While it may seem like there is little power in us bystanders to affect any change regarding this issue, we can stay alert, and we can raise awareness regarding the issue.

_______________________________________________________________

Annie Lee is a Sophomore English major on the Pre-Law track at the University of Delaware. In her free time, she enjoys writing creative pieces and, of course, watching Netflix.

_______________________________________________________________

American Pet Products Association. “Pet Industry Market Size & Ownership Statistics.” American Pet Products Association, 2017.

<http://www.americanpetproducts.org/press_industrytrends.asp>

Animal Legal Defense Fund. 2016 U.S. Animal Protection Laws Rankings: Comparing Overall Strength & Comprehensiveness. 2017.<http://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/Rankings-Report-2016-ALDF.pdf>

Animal Legal Defense Fund. Animal Protection Laws of Delaware. 11th ed., Animal Legal Defense Fund, 2016.

<http://aldf.org/wp-content/uploads/compendium-map/2017/usa/DELAWARE.pdf>

“Animal Abuse Statistics.” Statistic Brain, Statistic Brain Research Institute, 28 Apr. 2017<http://www.statisticbrain.com/animal-abuse-statistics/>

Fox 29. “Police: Puppy thrown out of 3rd story window in Trenton.” Fox 29, Fox 29, 6 Oct. 2017.

<http://www.fox29.com/news/trenton-man-charged-with-throwing-puppy-out-of-window#/>

Levenson, Eric. “'This is an extreme': Dog found with ears and nose cut off.” CNN, CNN, 19 Jan. 2017.

<http://www.cnn.com/2017/01/19/us/maimed-dog-detroit-trnd/index.html>

Murray, Maria. “43 dead dogs found in Delaware home, 31 severely neglected animals seized.” Fox 29, 10 Oct.

2017. <http://www.fox29.com/news/local-news/43-dead-dogs-found-in-delaware-home-31-severely-neglected-animals-seized>

Phillips, A., J.D. (2014). Understanding the Link Between Violence to Animals and People. Alexandria, VA: National District Attorneys Association.<http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/The%20Link%20Monograph-2014.pdf>

Wong, Herman. “Police smelled decay. They found a Noah’s Ark of death.” The Washington Post, The Washington Post, 5 Aug. 2017.<https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/animalia/wp/2017/08/05/police-smelled-decay-they-found-a-noahs-ark-of-death/?utm_term=.efaed79479cf>

0 notes

deprelawland · 7 years

Text

Rehabilitating Criminals is a Necessity, Not a Luxury

By Dylan Karstadt, University of Delaware Class of 2017

June 9, 2017

It is not a great time to be a prisoner in the United States of America. The United States prison system is a problem, with new estimates that America imprisons 716 people per 100,000 citizens comparing to that of Russia at 484, China 121, and Iran 284 per 100,000(McElwee 2013). Many critics understand the American prison system to be an ignominy, with the only country that incarcerates more people per capita being North Korea.These high rates of incarceration are coupled with high rates of recidivism.The harsh reality is that two-thirds of prisoners are reoffending within three years of being released, often with more serious and violent offenses. Not to mention, the prison system costs a whopping 75 billion dollars a year for the United States. With such staggering statistics, the correctional intuitions are in desperate need of an effective solution. Researchers are beginning to understand the vital importance of the effect of how institutions treat prisoners who are incarcerated. America currently uses a criminal justice system based on punishing offenders, with the intent of “teaching them a lesson”. An alternative philosophy is one of rehabilitation, with the purpose of helping criminals change their behavior into patterns that are nonviolent and constructive. The research is becoming definitive, proving that punishment fails and rehabilitation works, for a multitude of reasons.

The question of whether we should rehabilitate criminals has become one of the most debated topics throughout the United States. One of the most commonly raised questions is whether rehabilitation actually works. Currently, American prisons seem to be designed to incapacitate and deter, rather than rehabilitate criminals. A combination of strict sentencing guidelines, lack of funding, and a punitive philosophy, has made the prison system to be one that is unpleasant and overcrowded. In recent years, this attitude of punishment has reflected itself in correctional institutions. Such interventions have sought to reduce recidivism by deterring offenders rather than changing them. Certain intervention strategies include “electric monitoring of offenders in the community, boot camps for beginning a life in crime, and a scared straight programs for juveniles” (Wrzens). Defenders of American methods claim that they both deter crime and prevent it by keeping many criminals off the streets.The evidence for such deterrence is weak. The American prison system is meant to discourage inmates from continued criminal behavior, but it is clearly falling short.

Due to the clear failings of the American recidivism rates, many policymakers and criminologists believe that “nothing works” for correcting repeat offenders. These people come to a weak solution and argue that criminals will be criminals regardless of what anyone tries to do to help them. As a result, programs aimed at genuine solutions, such as rehabilitation methods, are often met with sharp criticism. For example, Governor Andrew Cuomo was forced to drop his plan to use State funds to offer prison inmates a college education. Education can play a vital role in helping people escape a life of crime, but New Yorkers were outraged by the idea.What Americans fail to realize is that prison systems in other countries are proving these negative attitudes to be flatly mistaken.

Bastoy Prison Island off the coast of Oslo Fjord, is famed for having an atmosphere that is relaxed and where criminals are treated like human beings. Inmates are treated as equals, and learn to respect themselves and others. Bastoy prison governor Arne Wilson, explains “If we treat people like animals when they are in prison they are likely to behave like animals. Here we pay attention to you as human beings” (Sterbenz 2014). Bastoy’s prison reconviction rate is an astonishing 16%, considerably lower than European average of 70% and America’s 77% (Terzi 2015). On top of that, in Norway, when criminals leave prison they are not likely to return. Norway uses a non-punitive approach, compared to the United States.According to Business Insider, “Norway focuses on “restorative justice,” which aims to repair the harm caused by crime rather than the people” (Sterbenz 2014).For example, Norway’s Halden Prison, uses a 75-acre facility to maintain normalcy. There are no bars on the windows, kitchens are fully equipped with sharp objects, and there are friendships between guards and inmates. For Norway, removing people’s freedom is a punishment in itself. As a result, Norway has among the lowest recidivism rates in the world, at 20%.

Prisons like Halden prepare inmates for life outside of prison by providing them with crafts such as, woodworking, assembly workshops, and even has a recording studio. Whereas,in the United States, the main focus is on incapacitation and deterrence within prisons, offering very little practical skills to inmates.With such considerable research, there needs to be a shift from a focus of punishment to an emphasis on rehabilitation. When properly implemented, not only is rehabilitation effective in other countries, but work programs, education, and psychotherapy techniques can ease transitions into the free world for prisoners as a whole.It is also becoming apparent that rehabilitation programs are beginning to have an effect in reducing recidivism in the United States.

A group of Canadian psychologists, Don Andrews, James Bonto, and Paul Gendreau, had taken an analysis of the effects of rehabilitated offenders by using a technique called meta-analysis. According to their studies, they looked to discover the effects of rehabilitation on American prisoners. The Canadian researchers found that there were principles of effective intervention. Such principles included 1) to target the known predictors of recidivism for change 2) to use cognitive behavior treatments that reinforce pro-social attitudes and behavior 3) to challenge criminal thinking patterns 4) to focus treatment interventions on high-risk offenders, to take into account characteristics of offenders (ex: IQ) that might affect their responsiveness to treatment 5) to employ staff that are well trained and inter-personally sensitive, and 6) to provide offenders with aftercare for when the leave the program (Wrzens). With the use of the meta-analysis, which essentially computes a batting average across all studies, they were able to calculate the average impact of treatment on recidivism. Using this method, the existing research, which now involves hundreds of evaluation studies, show that rehabilitation programs decrease recidivism by 10 percentage points. In the study, the control group had a reoffending rate of 55% percent, and the group that received treatment had a rate of 45% (Wrzens).

The evidence towards innovative, creative, and new methods towards humane treatment in the United States prison system is clear. In the United States, we spend 75 billion dollars each year locking up prisoners. We ought to be able to invest this money much more humanely than we do right now. To put it simply, do we want people who are going back to society to be angry or thankful that they were rehabilitated? The problem is that so many fail to comprehend the importance of such rehabilitation efforts for criminals. However, such a change in attitude may help the start of rehabilitative measures for convicts, so that they can get out of prison and contribute to society. Generations of research has shown that the more severely a child is punished, the more violent they become. The same is true of adults, especially those in prison. Therefore, the answer is simple and the evidence is conclusory.There needs to be a change in attitudes among Americans and a shift in the overall nature of criminal justice. Politicians need to inform themselves of the benefits of rehabilitation, rather than turning a blind eye to the problem that America is facing. Rehabilitation of criminals is a necessity, not a luxury. It’s time for reform. The voiceless and vote less prisoners and former prisoners in America need us to advocate for reform.

________________________________________________________________

McElwee, Sean. "America's Awful, Terrible, No Good, Very Bad Prison System." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 01 July 2013. Web. 15 May 2017.

Sterbenz, Christina. "Why Norway's prison system is so successful." Business Insider. Business Insider, 11 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 May 2017. <http://www.businessinsider.com/why-norways-prison-system-is-so-successful-2014-12>.

Terzi, Matt. "Do We Want Prisons To Punish, Or To Rehabilitate?" ReverbPress. N.p., 25 Aug. 2015. Web. 18 May 2017. <http://reverbpress.com/justice/want-prisons-punish-rehabilitate/>.

"The moral failures of America's prison-industrial complex." The Economist. The Economist Newspaper, 20 July 2015. Web. 16 May 2017. <http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2015/07/criminal-justice-and-mass-incarceration>.

Wrzens, Tyler. "Rehabilitation - Does Correctional Rehabilitation Work?" Recidivism, Treatment, Programs, and Gendreau - JRank Articles. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 May 2017. <http://law.jrank.org/pages/1936/Rehabilitation-Does-correctional-rehabilitation-work.html>.

0 notes

deprelawland · 7 years

Text

The First ABA Accredited Law School To Shut Its Doors: A new Trend

By Dylan Karstadt, University of Delaware Class of 2017

June 2, 2017

In April 2017, Whittier Law School’s board of trustees announced that it would shut its doors for good. This makes it the first ABA accredited school too close. But experts predict it will not likely be the last.

The school had been plagued by low bar pass rates, low graduate employment, and declining enrollment for years. The news had an impact on students and faculty, many of whom reacted with shock, anger, and tears.Third-year Whittier law student Stephanie Rigoli told the Daily News. “They just dropped this bomb on us a week-and-a-half before finals without any regard to how we would react or feel.” Around 100 students gathered on campus, carrying signs reading, “We want answers” and “don’t shut us down”. Faculty members have also sued to stop the closure – because, well, they’re lawyers. Many of whombelieved that shuttering law school is shortsighted when the legal market is strengthening.

This news is historic, with the first fully accredited law school toclose down, at a time period when many law schools are struggling with steep declines in enrollment. The reality is that fewer full time, long term legal jobs are available. Meanwhile, tuition costs are leading student debt loads to soar across the country. Students who graduated from Whitter last year had an average of $170,000 debt, which is the second highest among all law schools in the country. Whittier also had one of the lowest bar pass rates in the country, at an abysmal 22 percent. Moreover, only 45% of Whittier’s 128 graduate were able to find jobs that actually required a law degree. The news is historic, considering many other law schools are currently grappling to survive. Legal experts understand Whittier had been on a long decline, with many similar challenges hitting other law schools across the country. For example, two schools in 2015 merged, being St. Paul and Hamline and Mitchell. Charlotte School of Law suspended the admissions of new students. And Thomas M. Cooley Law School in Lansing, Michigan, closed campus after its enrollment declined. Consequently, it is arguable that these law schools could follow in Whittier’s footsteps. However, the group of these law schools is relatively small, with estimates ranging from 10 to 25 law schools in the United States.

Could this be a new trend among the law schools that are struggling to provide positive statistical employment outcomes? Experts of legal education believe that the Whittier situation fits with trends that are sweeping the field. Whittier’s shutdown reflects the pressures of the squeezing of legal education across the country. With exposure on websites such as Law School Transparency, law schools nationwide are down nearly 50% since 2005. Law schools also face new accreditation pressure, the ABA has taken action against four law schools in the last year over loose admission policies and low bar passage rates. All of these factors hit Whittier head on, which will stop accepting new students and close after its current students graduate.

________________________________________________________________

"FINALLY! One Of America’s Crappiest Law Schools Is Closing Its Doors." The Daily Caller. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 June 2017. <http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/23/finally-one-of-americas-crappiest-law-schools-is-closing-its-doors/>.

Olson, Elizabeth. "Whittier Law School Says It Will Shut Down." The New York Times. The New York Times, 19 Apr. 2017. Web. 02 June 2017. <https://www.nytimes.com/2017/04/19/business/dealbook/whittier-law-school-to-close.html?_r=0>.

"Whittier Law School is closing, due in part to low student achievement." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, n.d. Web. 02 June 2017. <http://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-edu-whittier-law-school-closing-20170420-story.html>.

0 notes