Along with a little bit of snow, finals season has fallen on us here in Bloomington, and I am in the thick of it. My toughest exam, and the one I was most dreading, was Torts on Wednesday. My worry was, perhaps, not founded. Actually, I knew more than I thought I did, which I think is the general consensus about the law among 1Ls. It doesn't feel like we know anything about the law, but suddenly when an outsider asks us a question, we seem to have the answer. None of us are sure when it happened - I suspect that it was over Fall Break - but most of us know the basics of the law, even if we don't think we do.
That said, I have this one recommendation to anyone thinking about coming to law school: take plenty of Economics. They tell you that a couple of courses will make you well suited for law classes, but that is an understatement. In undergrad, I took (I think) five or six Econ courses. On my Torts exam, I think I used each of them at least once. Well, except Labor Economics. I suppose I will have to wait until 2L to apply that one.
I have three exams remaining: Legal Profession, Contracts, and Civil Procedure. I feel the best about Civ Pro, though LP is a take-home exam this Saturday. It finds itself due at the exact time that IU will face off against Kentucky in basketball. I suspect that I will be turning it in early.
One final note. Today we received an e-mail telling us that the faculty has approved a new grading scheme that will benefit us ever so slightly. This makes me breathe easier about Torts, and since the grades are retrofitted, and because I was right on the edge, my Criminal Law grade from the summer should be moving up. I'm not entirely sure how I feel about the new grading system. Sure, it benefits me. But it doesn't do much for the competitive nature of things. Despite the negative image law school competition has, I believe that competition is what drives a vast majority of us. I suppose we'll have to see how it all works in the long run.
12.07.2007
11.20.2007
IU and Indiana Law Rankings
Yes, we all know you're not supposed to care about rankings. But they exist, and, if nothing else, they make for fun conversation.
The TaxProf Blog posed an interesting question recently: how much is a law school helped or hurt by the university of it is a part? "Of the Top 100 (105 with ties) law schools in the most recent ranking, all but 13 are affiliated with national universities." He posted a list of the biggest positive spread and the biggest negative spread schools. I'm proud to say that Indiana Law is #27 on the biggest positive spread list, with a spread of 39 ranks (#36 law school with a #75 undergrad). Maybe we're holding them up.
Although the administration of our law school officially shuns the rankings, it's good to know that we continue to make upwards strides. We are consistently ranked in all sorts of rankings, from U.S. News and World Reports to TaxProf to Professor's Articles Receiving Citations. I'm glad I made a good choice in law school.
The TaxProf Blog posed an interesting question recently: how much is a law school helped or hurt by the university of it is a part? "Of the Top 100 (105 with ties) law schools in the most recent ranking, all but 13 are affiliated with national universities." He posted a list of the biggest positive spread and the biggest negative spread schools. I'm proud to say that Indiana Law is #27 on the biggest positive spread list, with a spread of 39 ranks (#36 law school with a #75 undergrad). Maybe we're holding them up.
Although the administration of our law school officially shuns the rankings, it's good to know that we continue to make upwards strides. We are consistently ranked in all sorts of rankings, from U.S. News and World Reports to TaxProf to Professor's Articles Receiving Citations. I'm glad I made a good choice in law school.
Hoosier Gun Owner?
As expected, the Supreme Court has granted cert in the D.C. gun ownership case. The court phrased the granting issue as: “Whether the following provisions — D.C. Code secs. 7-2502.02(a)(4), 22-4504(a), and 7-2507.02 — violate the Second Amendment rights of individuals who are not affiliated with any state-regulated militia, but who wish to keep handguns and other firearms for private use in their homes?”
Not wanting to get into a debate about Second Amendment rights quite yet (my undergrad Constitutional Law course helps, but perhaps I'll debate after ConLaw next semester), I just want to point out an interesting quirk in that phrasing and how it impacts Indiana law.
Certainly such a case wouldn't arise in Indiana (assuming that this state is, in fact, a "red state"). But if it did, the phrasing that the Court chose would provide a pretty clear answer. In Indiana, "a militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State." Ind. Const. Art. 12, § 1 (emphasis added)*. Male, female, old, young. Basically everyone that doesn't have a note from the Governor (or are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms) is part of a militia. Perhaps that is why our state takes such a strong stance on the Second Amendment. That's why a D.C. style law won't come about here, and why such a law certainly wouldn't survive our courts.
The phrasing of the question in front of the Supreme Court says that it applies to individuals without no affiliations to a state-regulated militia but who want to possess guns in their homes. In Indiana, the only persons not in the state-regulated militia are those who are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms. Seems unlikely that those folks would want to bring guns into their homes anyway.
*In the original 1851 Constitution of Indiana, the section read "The Militia shall consist of all able-bodied white male persons, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this state; and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped, and trained, in such manner as may be provided by law." A 1936 amendment deleted "white". A 1974 amendment rewrote the section to its current version.
Not wanting to get into a debate about Second Amendment rights quite yet (my undergrad Constitutional Law course helps, but perhaps I'll debate after ConLaw next semester), I just want to point out an interesting quirk in that phrasing and how it impacts Indiana law.
Certainly such a case wouldn't arise in Indiana (assuming that this state is, in fact, a "red state"). But if it did, the phrasing that the Court chose would provide a pretty clear answer. In Indiana, "a militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this State." Ind. Const. Art. 12, § 1 (emphasis added)*. Male, female, old, young. Basically everyone that doesn't have a note from the Governor (or are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms) is part of a militia. Perhaps that is why our state takes such a strong stance on the Second Amendment. That's why a D.C. style law won't come about here, and why such a law certainly wouldn't survive our courts.
The phrasing of the question in front of the Supreme Court says that it applies to individuals without no affiliations to a state-regulated militia but who want to possess guns in their homes. In Indiana, the only persons not in the state-regulated militia are those who are conscientiously opposed to bearing arms. Seems unlikely that those folks would want to bring guns into their homes anyway.
*In the original 1851 Constitution of Indiana, the section read "The Militia shall consist of all able-bodied white male persons, between the ages of eighteen and forty-five years, except such as may be exempted by the laws of the United States, or of this state; and shall be organized, officered, armed, equipped, and trained, in such manner as may be provided by law." A 1936 amendment deleted "white". A 1974 amendment rewrote the section to its current version.
"Oeniphiles Rejoice" Redux
On August 29, I posted a story about Professor Pat Baude's victory in an Indiana wine shipping case. The case was decided by Judge John Tinder, an Indiana Law alumni and District Court judge.
The state of Indiana is appealing the decision to the Seventh Circuit (see briefs here). In a delightful turn of fate, Judge Tinder is awaiting Senate confirmation for his appointment to that court.
On a side note, I usually like what my state is doing. But in this case, I certainly hope that Indiana fails. Professor Baude et al are representing the freedoms of Hoosiers. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit is fairly libertarian, and hopefully will affirm the decision of its future comrade.
The state of Indiana is appealing the decision to the Seventh Circuit (see briefs here). In a delightful turn of fate, Judge Tinder is awaiting Senate confirmation for his appointment to that court.
On a side note, I usually like what my state is doing. But in this case, I certainly hope that Indiana fails. Professor Baude et al are representing the freedoms of Hoosiers. Fortunately, the Seventh Circuit is fairly libertarian, and hopefully will affirm the decision of its future comrade.
11.13.2007
One Month Left
It occurred to me, as I checked my official Indiana Law day planner, that my finals are in less than a month. This must explain why I haven't been posting much. I have two papers to write (one would best be described as an undergrad touchy-feely paper that has little place in a law school curriculum, but I digress) in the next week, and eventually I'll have to solidify some sort of outline for my four finals. So far I've felt that law school has been, well, exactly what I thought it would be. I don't think I came in with inordinate fear, but I don't think I was sugarcoating what life would be like in a Tier 1 law school either. I've seen a lot of people start to fall apart from the stress, and a lot of folks have been getting sick lately. I don't know if my general comfort with the process is aided by my summer start or not, but I suspect that my nature is helping keep my sanity.
On top of all that, I've been working incessantly to secure myself a job for my first summer. Somewhere along the line I decided that I would best fit into bigger law firms in Indianapolis (where I intend to stay after graduation), so I've been looking into all of them, along with a few government agencies. I'm hoping for the best, and the few hiring partners I've had casual conversations with seemed interested in my business experience. I'll be happy anywhere I work, but I certainly have my preferred places.
Lastly, I've met a few potential 1Ls at various law school events, and I've noticed an increase in traffic coming from searches by sundry students. I'll try to keep both in mind over the next few weeks, as prime application season begins, and as more seek advice on which law school to attend. I certainly vouch for the quality of Indiana Law. I'm sure my comrades in the blogroll to the right will certainly agree.
On top of all that, I've been working incessantly to secure myself a job for my first summer. Somewhere along the line I decided that I would best fit into bigger law firms in Indianapolis (where I intend to stay after graduation), so I've been looking into all of them, along with a few government agencies. I'm hoping for the best, and the few hiring partners I've had casual conversations with seemed interested in my business experience. I'll be happy anywhere I work, but I certainly have my preferred places.
Lastly, I've met a few potential 1Ls at various law school events, and I've noticed an increase in traffic coming from searches by sundry students. I'll try to keep both in mind over the next few weeks, as prime application season begins, and as more seek advice on which law school to attend. I certainly vouch for the quality of Indiana Law. I'm sure my comrades in the blogroll to the right will certainly agree.
10.29.2007
Occam's Tax Code
Not so long ago in Torts, we discussed Occam's razor as it relates to strict liability. The razor is the 14th century principle of lex parsimoniae; that is, that, all other things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the right one. What followed was a delightfully intellectual discussion that does not need repeating here. Rather, it made me think about all the places in life that the razor would make life that much better.
As we get into election season (not that today is any different than the last eight months), it occurred to me that my vote should go to the one who follows the concept of the razor most closely, specifically regarding the tax code. The version just recommended by Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had tortious action performed upon it by CNBC, and rightfully so. Even though it keeps the AMT at bay, and reduces top corporate taxes, it raises taxes elsewhere (for example, a 4% surtax on all AGI over $200,000, which I suspect several of my readers make or will be making). In fact, as the report from the Tax Foundation states, "almost all of the 90 million taxpayers whom Rangel claims would pay less under his tax plan would still end up paying more to Uncle Sam in 2011 as a result of the tax cuts' expiring."
Fortunately, it's unlikely that this bill will pass before 2009, and then only if a Democrat takes the White House. For that reason, this goes as a large point in the "con" column for voting Democratic. I still put my support behind Ron Paul (who, incidentally, will be on the Tonight Show tomorrow), because it seems that his tax code is the most Occam-like. Simple solution indeed.
As we get into election season (not that today is any different than the last eight months), it occurred to me that my vote should go to the one who follows the concept of the razor most closely, specifically regarding the tax code. The version just recommended by Charlie Rangel (D-NY) had tortious action performed upon it by CNBC, and rightfully so. Even though it keeps the AMT at bay, and reduces top corporate taxes, it raises taxes elsewhere (for example, a 4% surtax on all AGI over $200,000, which I suspect several of my readers make or will be making). In fact, as the report from the Tax Foundation states, "almost all of the 90 million taxpayers whom Rangel claims would pay less under his tax plan would still end up paying more to Uncle Sam in 2011 as a result of the tax cuts' expiring."
Fortunately, it's unlikely that this bill will pass before 2009, and then only if a Democrat takes the White House. For that reason, this goes as a large point in the "con" column for voting Democratic. I still put my support behind Ron Paul (who, incidentally, will be on the Tonight Show tomorrow), because it seems that his tax code is the most Occam-like. Simple solution indeed.
10.27.2007
Shadow Day
As part of the first-year PRACTICE program that IU has implemented, we get the chance to link up with an alum and shadow them. Since I was going home for Fall Break anyway, I opted to seek only persons in Lake County. I was very fortunate that one of our grads is a senior judge in the Lake County Criminal Court, specifically the high crimes division. I jumped at the opportunity, and it was fantastic.
I knew that shadowing the judge would make my options clearer in terms of career planning and summer work, and indeed it did just that. His career path after IU was fairly straightforward: several years as a prosecutor, then a stint as a defense attorney, then election to the bench. This certainly is one of the paths that I thought might fit my own ambitions.
I have to admit that the day was fast-paced and surprising, and I realized just how little I actually knew about the function of a felony court. The first part of the day was almost Fordian: an assembly line of criminals and lawyers being brought to the podium as prosecutors rotated in and out of several doors. I saw plea agreements accepted and rejected by the bench, several translators trying to keep up, closing arguments in a double-murder jury trial, a sentencing for a high-profile brutal murder, and dozens of other administrative proceedings.
Law and Order tries to make the process look busy, but nothing compares to just sitting in the room watching everyone. Since I was nearer to the back, I got to watch the reactions of the families. Some took it rather well, almost stoic. Others fell apart. I watched a girl and her mother respond to the sentencing of their brother and son, respectively, and saw how a life can be destroyed by one stupid mistake. There were eighty-plus year old mothers, and little children who might never see their parents without bars. The emotions were hard to deal with, even as a neutral bystander.
To be honest, I'm not sure how the whole day affected me. On one hand, it made me want to be a prosecutor even more. The opportunity to be on a stage, performing for a jury, is appealing. The ability to decide how and why to prosecute someone is appealing. The high-profile nature of it all is appealing. Yet, on the other hand, it was overwhelming. You have to keep your emotions hidden. You have to keep from being empathetic. You have to do your best to be "the state." It's a lot to take in at once.
As a result, I know a lot more about the criminal justice system, in reality and out of the books. No matter what I decide to do, at least I will know that I did all I could to be informed before making it.
I knew that shadowing the judge would make my options clearer in terms of career planning and summer work, and indeed it did just that. His career path after IU was fairly straightforward: several years as a prosecutor, then a stint as a defense attorney, then election to the bench. This certainly is one of the paths that I thought might fit my own ambitions.
I have to admit that the day was fast-paced and surprising, and I realized just how little I actually knew about the function of a felony court. The first part of the day was almost Fordian: an assembly line of criminals and lawyers being brought to the podium as prosecutors rotated in and out of several doors. I saw plea agreements accepted and rejected by the bench, several translators trying to keep up, closing arguments in a double-murder jury trial, a sentencing for a high-profile brutal murder, and dozens of other administrative proceedings.
Law and Order tries to make the process look busy, but nothing compares to just sitting in the room watching everyone. Since I was nearer to the back, I got to watch the reactions of the families. Some took it rather well, almost stoic. Others fell apart. I watched a girl and her mother respond to the sentencing of their brother and son, respectively, and saw how a life can be destroyed by one stupid mistake. There were eighty-plus year old mothers, and little children who might never see their parents without bars. The emotions were hard to deal with, even as a neutral bystander.
To be honest, I'm not sure how the whole day affected me. On one hand, it made me want to be a prosecutor even more. The opportunity to be on a stage, performing for a jury, is appealing. The ability to decide how and why to prosecute someone is appealing. The high-profile nature of it all is appealing. Yet, on the other hand, it was overwhelming. You have to keep your emotions hidden. You have to keep from being empathetic. You have to do your best to be "the state." It's a lot to take in at once.
As a result, I know a lot more about the criminal justice system, in reality and out of the books. No matter what I decide to do, at least I will know that I did all I could to be informed before making it.
10.23.2007
Finally a good use for all this computing power
To my regular readers: I apologize for the lack of posting in the last week or so. I've been quite busy. Fear not, however; I have a list of topics to discuss that should be up here before too long.
It seems to me that only a few law schools in the nation actually require laptops, much less laptops with certain required characteristics. IU is one of them. I suppose this is a good thing, because it gave me an excuse to buy a new laptop, but in the long run, it is probably excessive.
The requirements were such that we needed top-of-the-line everything. High powered processors, massive hard drives, and more memory than a herd of elephants. All that so that we can run Microsoft Word in class to take notes, and at the end of the semester run exam software. I equate this to using C4 to light a firecracker.
So, in an effort not to have my money wasted, I sought something for which I could use this thing for. As a result, I have joined the World Community Grid. Essentially, it is a grid computing software that I now run every hour of the day. According to the site, "Grid computing joins together many individual computers, creating a large system with massive computational power that far surpasses the power of a handful of supercomputers. Because the work is split into small pieces that can be processed simultaneously, research time is reduced from years to months. The technology is also more cost-effective, enabling better use of critical funds."
Since I joined the WCG three days ago, I have joined four projects. Discovering Dengue Drugs - Together, Human Proteome Folding Project, FightAIDS@Home Project, and SETIatHome. The program runs in the background all day, and lets me help out worthwhile causes for the sake of humanity. For those looking for a feel-good project that lets you use your excessively powerful law school computers, I invite you to sign up and download the software.
For all students, professors, staff, and alumni of Indiana Law, I have set up teams on the two websites to represent our school (called IU School of Law - Bloomington). The teams don't do anything particular, but they allow us to compete with other teams (notably, the one at the law school up 37).
And trust me, if I happen to be the one who finds proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, you'll be the first to know.
It seems to me that only a few law schools in the nation actually require laptops, much less laptops with certain required characteristics. IU is one of them. I suppose this is a good thing, because it gave me an excuse to buy a new laptop, but in the long run, it is probably excessive.
The requirements were such that we needed top-of-the-line everything. High powered processors, massive hard drives, and more memory than a herd of elephants. All that so that we can run Microsoft Word in class to take notes, and at the end of the semester run exam software. I equate this to using C4 to light a firecracker.
So, in an effort not to have my money wasted, I sought something for which I could use this thing for. As a result, I have joined the World Community Grid. Essentially, it is a grid computing software that I now run every hour of the day. According to the site, "Grid computing joins together many individual computers, creating a large system with massive computational power that far surpasses the power of a handful of supercomputers. Because the work is split into small pieces that can be processed simultaneously, research time is reduced from years to months. The technology is also more cost-effective, enabling better use of critical funds."
Since I joined the WCG three days ago, I have joined four projects. Discovering Dengue Drugs - Together, Human Proteome Folding Project, FightAIDS@Home Project, and SETIatHome. The program runs in the background all day, and lets me help out worthwhile causes for the sake of humanity. For those looking for a feel-good project that lets you use your excessively powerful law school computers, I invite you to sign up and download the software.
For all students, professors, staff, and alumni of Indiana Law, I have set up teams on the two websites to represent our school (called IU School of Law - Bloomington). The teams don't do anything particular, but they allow us to compete with other teams (notably, the one at the law school up 37).
And trust me, if I happen to be the one who finds proof of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe, you'll be the first to know.
9.26.2007
Reader Opinions Sought
I am in the midst of deciding how I should spend my first summer. I have two basic alternatives: study abroad or find a job. I would like opinions (in comment form) on which would be better in the long run, and why. Obviously the opinions of practitioners and upperclassmen are more valuable at this point than opinions from fellow 1Ls.
I know (with a fair amount of certainty) that I want to work in criminal prosecution when I finish law school, and I also know that I want to stay in Indiana. Although nearly all study abroad programs I found involved international business or human rights, I was able to find a study abroad program through Tulane University that focuses on Criminal Law. It takes place in Amsterdam, because of its proximity to the Hague, among other reasons. The focus of the coursework would be comparative criminal procedure, international criminal law, and terrorism (as seen in the European way, as a crime rather than something upon which to declare war). The downside is that it is costly, and I would have to take out additional loans to fund such a trip.
My other alternative is to find work in a prosecutor's office or courtroom somewhere in Indiana. More populous counties like Marion, Lake, Monroe, Tippecanoe, and St. Joseph have large court systems, but I would love to work in a rural office (say, Park or Adams county) just as much. I have also looked into the Army JAG summer internship program, and wouldn't be opposed to working there, either. All of these alternatives give me valuable networks for when I want to find a job in a prosecutor's office in three years. The downside is that many of these positions are unpaid, so I might still need to take out loans.
So, for all the practitioners, judges, professors, and upperclassmen reading this: in your opinion, which is the better alternative? Your help is much appreciated.
I know (with a fair amount of certainty) that I want to work in criminal prosecution when I finish law school, and I also know that I want to stay in Indiana. Although nearly all study abroad programs I found involved international business or human rights, I was able to find a study abroad program through Tulane University that focuses on Criminal Law. It takes place in Amsterdam, because of its proximity to the Hague, among other reasons. The focus of the coursework would be comparative criminal procedure, international criminal law, and terrorism (as seen in the European way, as a crime rather than something upon which to declare war). The downside is that it is costly, and I would have to take out additional loans to fund such a trip.
My other alternative is to find work in a prosecutor's office or courtroom somewhere in Indiana. More populous counties like Marion, Lake, Monroe, Tippecanoe, and St. Joseph have large court systems, but I would love to work in a rural office (say, Park or Adams county) just as much. I have also looked into the Army JAG summer internship program, and wouldn't be opposed to working there, either. All of these alternatives give me valuable networks for when I want to find a job in a prosecutor's office in three years. The downside is that many of these positions are unpaid, so I might still need to take out loans.
So, for all the practitioners, judges, professors, and upperclassmen reading this: in your opinion, which is the better alternative? Your help is much appreciated.
9.21.2007
Terror-Management Theory and the Law
Today I made the hike up to the Psychology Building to listen to a lecture. The lecture, by University of Missouri-Columbia professor Jamie Arndt was on the topic of Terror-Management Theory (TMT). The topic of the lecture was "Is Death Hazardous or Good for Your Health?: Understanding the Impact of the Awareness of Mortality on Health-Relevant Behavior". The lecture was quite enjoyable, especially since I am sure I was the only law student there.
The basic premise of TMT (and I apologize to Professor Arndt if I falsely describe it) is that when you combine 1) the human biological need for self-preservation and 2) the fact that humans are unique in their knowledge of the inevitability of death, you get the potential for extreme terror. Some have called it a fear of death or a fear of annihilation. When we reach that point, we respond in one of two ways: we take better care of ourselves (trying to delay our inevitable demise), or we take worse care of ourselves (either through denial or, if death is soon anticipated, risk taking).
The experiments the psychologists in this area are running are quite interesting. Reminding people of their own mortality has been shown to increase their inclination to respond favorably to people who bolster their own worldview and negatively to those who oppose it. One test Dr. Arndt mentioned was a mention of death or cancer to a person who values tanning. The surveys show that they are more inclined to buy higher-SPF sunscreen right after the reminder of their own mortality. My business undergrad instantly kicked in and developed a marketing ploy for sunscreen manufacturers: put up a billboard with the words "Death" and "Skin Cancer" and nothing else. Further down the interstate, perhaps just a few moments later, advertise your product. The inclination will be for the individuals to buy your product, at least theoretically. Such advertising would work as well for churches and exercise clinics.
TMT has some interesting effects in the study of law (or else why would I have attended, other than for pure intellectual stimulation on a Friday afternoon). I am curious how it would impact death row inmates, for example. How would such an effect alter a person's feeling of the necessity for deadly force in self-defense? Are people who are reminded of their inevitable annihilation more likely to commit crimes?
The ideas for journal articles abound. And all I had to do was hike to the north side of campus.
The basic premise of TMT (and I apologize to Professor Arndt if I falsely describe it) is that when you combine 1) the human biological need for self-preservation and 2) the fact that humans are unique in their knowledge of the inevitability of death, you get the potential for extreme terror. Some have called it a fear of death or a fear of annihilation. When we reach that point, we respond in one of two ways: we take better care of ourselves (trying to delay our inevitable demise), or we take worse care of ourselves (either through denial or, if death is soon anticipated, risk taking).
The experiments the psychologists in this area are running are quite interesting. Reminding people of their own mortality has been shown to increase their inclination to respond favorably to people who bolster their own worldview and negatively to those who oppose it. One test Dr. Arndt mentioned was a mention of death or cancer to a person who values tanning. The surveys show that they are more inclined to buy higher-SPF sunscreen right after the reminder of their own mortality. My business undergrad instantly kicked in and developed a marketing ploy for sunscreen manufacturers: put up a billboard with the words "Death" and "Skin Cancer" and nothing else. Further down the interstate, perhaps just a few moments later, advertise your product. The inclination will be for the individuals to buy your product, at least theoretically. Such advertising would work as well for churches and exercise clinics.
TMT has some interesting effects in the study of law (or else why would I have attended, other than for pure intellectual stimulation on a Friday afternoon). I am curious how it would impact death row inmates, for example. How would such an effect alter a person's feeling of the necessity for deadly force in self-defense? Are people who are reminded of their inevitable annihilation more likely to commit crimes?
The ideas for journal articles abound. And all I had to do was hike to the north side of campus.
9.13.2007
Absorbing Wisdom
I found myself a new hobby.
As I described in my last post, I found myself very interested in listening to the stories and knowledge of a variety of persons in the legal field. It has taken the place of reading The Economist in my weekly schedule, actually. And, thankfully, the law school offers a great deal of optional educational opportunities for people like me.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture on mental capacity and the legal ramifications of being on the fringe of such a category (i.e. those who are capable of making good decisions, but only just, and those who are not capable of making good decisions, but only just). The main thrust of the discussion was aimed at Alzheimer's patients, and how to treat them. For example, if a person my age says "When I'm old, if I can no longer remember my children, and cannot enjoy the intellectual pursuits I once did, I would like to be killed." Do we respect that person's choice when they become old, or do we count the older self as a new person?
The lecture was given by visiting Oxford professor Jonathan Herring, a very qualified speaker (nothing like hearing about Hoo-zee-er basketball in an English accent). I found it particularly interesting that in Britain, whether a person is mentally qualified is a question of law, while here in the States it is a question of medicine. I suppose that we Americans assume doctors are better at assessing mental incapacity than judges.
In the coming weeks, we have lectures on comparative British & American law, constitutional design in emerging democracies, and others. In October we have a pair of Courts of Appeal hearing arguments (one is a military court) in our Moot Court Room. You can be assured that I will be there for all these lectures and more. The law never ceases to amaze me (although, to be honest, Contracts can occasionally cease to do so).
I must rest up. Tomorrow after class I'm going to sit in on the Monroe County Court and hopefully hear some worthwhile legal argument.
As I described in my last post, I found myself very interested in listening to the stories and knowledge of a variety of persons in the legal field. It has taken the place of reading The Economist in my weekly schedule, actually. And, thankfully, the law school offers a great deal of optional educational opportunities for people like me.
Yesterday I had the pleasure of listening to a lecture on mental capacity and the legal ramifications of being on the fringe of such a category (i.e. those who are capable of making good decisions, but only just, and those who are not capable of making good decisions, but only just). The main thrust of the discussion was aimed at Alzheimer's patients, and how to treat them. For example, if a person my age says "When I'm old, if I can no longer remember my children, and cannot enjoy the intellectual pursuits I once did, I would like to be killed." Do we respect that person's choice when they become old, or do we count the older self as a new person?
The lecture was given by visiting Oxford professor Jonathan Herring, a very qualified speaker (nothing like hearing about Hoo-zee-er basketball in an English accent). I found it particularly interesting that in Britain, whether a person is mentally qualified is a question of law, while here in the States it is a question of medicine. I suppose that we Americans assume doctors are better at assessing mental incapacity than judges.
In the coming weeks, we have lectures on comparative British & American law, constitutional design in emerging democracies, and others. In October we have a pair of Courts of Appeal hearing arguments (one is a military court) in our Moot Court Room. You can be assured that I will be there for all these lectures and more. The law never ceases to amaze me (although, to be honest, Contracts can occasionally cease to do so).
I must rest up. Tomorrow after class I'm going to sit in on the Monroe County Court and hopefully hear some worthwhile legal argument.
9.07.2007
Dinner Date with the Judge
One of the new things Indiana Law is trying on us is a 1L PRACTICE program, that ties in themes of ethics, professionalism, and career-planning. Last night we were fortunate to have a pair of speakers practicing in an area of the law in which I'm particularly interested. One is a county judge and former prosecutor here in Bloomington, while the other is a top criminal defense attorney. The actual presentation was quite interesting, as the two often disagreed and bickered (over such things as whose job is harder and who has better investigators).
As insightful as the presentation was, the most enjoyable part of the evening happened afterwards. One of my professors invited a group of students to dinner with the two speakers. The dinner conversation lasted about three hours, and I was glad that I accepted the invitation. I spent the first part of the night talking to the defense attorney, a highly regarded lawyer from Indianapolis. While I have no interest in working on that side of the courtroom, it was great to talk to the guy one-on-one. His golf-course living and iPhone were a testament to the economic success that such a position can offer.
After he left, we spent a while talking with the judge, exchanging law school stories and hearing tales of the most interesting folks to enter her courtroom. I felt like her life story was similar to mine, in regards to growing up, and our opinions of the legal profession. At the end of the night I was unhappy about leaving, as I could have absorbed her knowledge for at least a few more hours. Not all my comrades shared that enthusiasm, though. In the end, I found a good connection in a prosecutor's office and a courtroom.
Moral of the story: never turn down a dinner date with the judge.
As insightful as the presentation was, the most enjoyable part of the evening happened afterwards. One of my professors invited a group of students to dinner with the two speakers. The dinner conversation lasted about three hours, and I was glad that I accepted the invitation. I spent the first part of the night talking to the defense attorney, a highly regarded lawyer from Indianapolis. While I have no interest in working on that side of the courtroom, it was great to talk to the guy one-on-one. His golf-course living and iPhone were a testament to the economic success that such a position can offer.
After he left, we spent a while talking with the judge, exchanging law school stories and hearing tales of the most interesting folks to enter her courtroom. I felt like her life story was similar to mine, in regards to growing up, and our opinions of the legal profession. At the end of the night I was unhappy about leaving, as I could have absorbed her knowledge for at least a few more hours. Not all my comrades shared that enthusiasm, though. In the end, I found a good connection in a prosecutor's office and a courtroom.
Moral of the story: never turn down a dinner date with the judge.
9.05.2007
The Getting Involved
Week two. So far, so good. Classes are exactly how I thought they would be, which is comforting, even though the classes themselves are not. I've settled into a cozy routine of sleep, work, and class. And of course I leave Saturdays open for college football (Go Hoosiers!) and going out.
But, I haven't felt involved yet. In high school, I was in about a dozen extracurriculars (more, possibly). In undergrad, I participated in a few (limited more by my working than by lack of interest). And I feel like those experiences were priceless (volunteering to help poor individuals file tax returns, for example). So now that I'm in law school, I feel like I should get involved, if not to meet new people than to keep busier.
This week has been "get involved" week, where we get fed free lunch every day and find activities with which we want to get involved. My interests vastly outnumber the hours of free time I have, though, so determining which are best has been tricky.
First of all, I needed to join one of the legal fraternities. I settled on Phi Alpha Delta, mostly because of the size of the network and the names of the more famous members. This group should take care of my need and desire to participate in service projects.
I then needed to find a group to give me outreach in the political environment (especially since one of my libertarian friends turned liberal the other day). Since my choices were American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society, the choice was obvious. I chose the smaller Federalist Society, mostly because I needed a place to talk to fellow conservative-leaning libertarians and network nationally. Who knows who might one day support my campaign?
I then needed something to help get me involved in the practice of law. IU has three practice programs, and the one I chose is the Inmate Legal Assistance Project (or Program?), in which I will travel to the federal prison in Terre Haute and assist inmates with legal issues. This should help me fill my need for justice while offering basic skills like, I don't know, talking to clients.
Lastly, I needed a place to feel political and contribute to the betterment of the law school. I thus decided to run for 1L representative to the Student Bar Association. The election is next week, but I have felt a great deal of support from my classmates. We have buttons made up, and all-around positive press. Even if I'm not elected, the experience of politicking is making me feel alive. As I've always said: "Life is politics."
So what do you think? Did I get involved enough?
But, I haven't felt involved yet. In high school, I was in about a dozen extracurriculars (more, possibly). In undergrad, I participated in a few (limited more by my working than by lack of interest). And I feel like those experiences were priceless (volunteering to help poor individuals file tax returns, for example). So now that I'm in law school, I feel like I should get involved, if not to meet new people than to keep busier.
This week has been "get involved" week, where we get fed free lunch every day and find activities with which we want to get involved. My interests vastly outnumber the hours of free time I have, though, so determining which are best has been tricky.
First of all, I needed to join one of the legal fraternities. I settled on Phi Alpha Delta, mostly because of the size of the network and the names of the more famous members. This group should take care of my need and desire to participate in service projects.
I then needed to find a group to give me outreach in the political environment (especially since one of my libertarian friends turned liberal the other day). Since my choices were American Constitution Society and the Federalist Society, the choice was obvious. I chose the smaller Federalist Society, mostly because I needed a place to talk to fellow conservative-leaning libertarians and network nationally. Who knows who might one day support my campaign?
I then needed something to help get me involved in the practice of law. IU has three practice programs, and the one I chose is the Inmate Legal Assistance Project (or Program?), in which I will travel to the federal prison in Terre Haute and assist inmates with legal issues. This should help me fill my need for justice while offering basic skills like, I don't know, talking to clients.
Lastly, I needed a place to feel political and contribute to the betterment of the law school. I thus decided to run for 1L representative to the Student Bar Association. The election is next week, but I have felt a great deal of support from my classmates. We have buttons made up, and all-around positive press. Even if I'm not elected, the experience of politicking is making me feel alive. As I've always said: "Life is politics."
So what do you think? Did I get involved enough?
8.29.2007
Oenophiles rejoice!
One of the great perks of being situated in south-central Indiana is that I happen to be in wine country (as much as one can have in this particular climate). There are several wineries in the Bloomington area, and I have to believe that their presence brings Indiana Law a wealth of connoisseur law professors.
Ironically, Indiana is a harsh place to be an oenophile. The state is in the pockets of the large alcohol distributors, providing that we can't import wine from out of state, and, until recently, couldn't even have wine from Indiana wineries shipped to our homes (today, the restrictions on wine shipping are still extremely harsh). As a result of this environment, several lawsuits have been brought in an attempt to loosen the grip of these distributors. Fortunately, the biggest wine lovers I know are all law professors.
One such professor, Patrick Baude, was recently involved in a suit, and today the court ruled in his favor. I'd love to summarize the decision, but aside from its length*, I'd hate to screw up briefing a professor's case. If and when I have Professor Baude again, I'd hate for that to be hanging over my head.
"This litigation challenges the constitutionality of Indiana laws that allegedly restrict the ability of wineries, and out-of-state wineries in particular, to sell their product directly to Indiana residents, primarily by orders placed by telephone or over the Internet."
Preventing out-of-state wineries from shipping to Indiana residents violates the Commerce Clause. The defendants, the Indiana ATC and one of the wholesalers, say that the restrictions are there "for the children". Poppycock, says the court (not in those words, of course).
The gist of the decision:
"[T]he court finds the wholesale prohibition, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-7(a)(6), to be unconstitutional insofar as it bars wineries that possess wholesale privileges in states other than Indiana from seeking a Direct Wine Seller’s permit. The court also finds the requirement of an initial face-to-face transaction between a winery and customer prior to direct shipment, as described in Ind. Code §§ 7.1-3-26-6(4), 7.1-3-26-9(1)(A), to be unconstitutional. These two conditions constitute a form of economic protectionism and violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
"The court does not find Indiana’s general prohibition of direct shipping, Ind. Code Ind. Code § 7.1-5-11-1.5, to be unconstitutional except with respect to the two specific conditions in the statutory provisions cited above. Nor does the court find the statute allowing an Indiana farm winery to sell its product onsite and at certain other locations, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-12-5, to be unconstitutional."
Not a complete knock-out win, but definitely a step in the right direction. So on this night, I propose a toast to Professor Baude and his success in this litigation. Congratulations!
*Please note, Professor, that I did actually read the whole case. I just didn't think my readers wanted the details.
Ironically, Indiana is a harsh place to be an oenophile. The state is in the pockets of the large alcohol distributors, providing that we can't import wine from out of state, and, until recently, couldn't even have wine from Indiana wineries shipped to our homes (today, the restrictions on wine shipping are still extremely harsh). As a result of this environment, several lawsuits have been brought in an attempt to loosen the grip of these distributors. Fortunately, the biggest wine lovers I know are all law professors.
One such professor, Patrick Baude, was recently involved in a suit, and today the court ruled in his favor. I'd love to summarize the decision, but aside from its length*, I'd hate to screw up briefing a professor's case. If and when I have Professor Baude again, I'd hate for that to be hanging over my head.
"This litigation challenges the constitutionality of Indiana laws that allegedly restrict the ability of wineries, and out-of-state wineries in particular, to sell their product directly to Indiana residents, primarily by orders placed by telephone or over the Internet."
Preventing out-of-state wineries from shipping to Indiana residents violates the Commerce Clause. The defendants, the Indiana ATC and one of the wholesalers, say that the restrictions are there "for the children". Poppycock, says the court (not in those words, of course).
The gist of the decision:
"[T]he court finds the wholesale prohibition, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-26-7(a)(6), to be unconstitutional insofar as it bars wineries that possess wholesale privileges in states other than Indiana from seeking a Direct Wine Seller’s permit. The court also finds the requirement of an initial face-to-face transaction between a winery and customer prior to direct shipment, as described in Ind. Code §§ 7.1-3-26-6(4), 7.1-3-26-9(1)(A), to be unconstitutional. These two conditions constitute a form of economic protectionism and violate the Commerce Clause of the Constitution.
"The court does not find Indiana’s general prohibition of direct shipping, Ind. Code Ind. Code § 7.1-5-11-1.5, to be unconstitutional except with respect to the two specific conditions in the statutory provisions cited above. Nor does the court find the statute allowing an Indiana farm winery to sell its product onsite and at certain other locations, Ind. Code § 7.1-3-12-5, to be unconstitutional."
Not a complete knock-out win, but definitely a step in the right direction. So on this night, I propose a toast to Professor Baude and his success in this litigation. Congratulations!
*Please note, Professor, that I did actually read the whole case. I just didn't think my readers wanted the details.
8.22.2007
[Day] One: They Scare [Me] to Death
It's only day one and I already have a rule of contract law named after me. This can't be a good sign of things to come.
The day actually wasn't bad at all. I started off my day with Contracts, a course, I feared, that had great potential to cure my insomnia. First day of class wasn't bad, but I found myself in the line of fire. I was just sitting there minding my own business when, suddenly I heard the words no one wants to hear on the first day. "Mr. Blair..."
We were discussing expectancy damages, and we had the hypothetical that a buyer chose between two identical cars. One cost $37K. The other cost $34K. The buyer agreed to buy the more expensive car, but when the seller refused to turn over the car, the buyer sued. For what could the buyer sue? I said $34K, because, to me, the substitute performance penalty, worked in reverse, should make the person as well off as if the contract had been completed; in other words, $3K in the hole. For the remainder of the class period, this concept of giving the seller something for nothing was termed "The Blair Rules of Contract Enforcement." I'm not deep enough into the class to know if it is real or not, but someone said it sounds a lot like the Restatement of Contracts. I can only hope.
I also had Torts, Civil Procedure, and Legal Profession (Ethics), but wasn't cold called in any of them. I can honestly say that Torts today was the first time I ever felt like I really didn't want my name called. That class, so far, has been a mental workout like no other. I have a feeling that it will require all my effort not to let it kill me. The other two are more my style: remember and apply written rules. That I can enjoy. Common law, on the other hand... blah.
Only 991 days until graduation...
The day actually wasn't bad at all. I started off my day with Contracts, a course, I feared, that had great potential to cure my insomnia. First day of class wasn't bad, but I found myself in the line of fire. I was just sitting there minding my own business when, suddenly I heard the words no one wants to hear on the first day. "Mr. Blair..."
We were discussing expectancy damages, and we had the hypothetical that a buyer chose between two identical cars. One cost $37K. The other cost $34K. The buyer agreed to buy the more expensive car, but when the seller refused to turn over the car, the buyer sued. For what could the buyer sue? I said $34K, because, to me, the substitute performance penalty, worked in reverse, should make the person as well off as if the contract had been completed; in other words, $3K in the hole. For the remainder of the class period, this concept of giving the seller something for nothing was termed "The Blair Rules of Contract Enforcement." I'm not deep enough into the class to know if it is real or not, but someone said it sounds a lot like the Restatement of Contracts. I can only hope.
I also had Torts, Civil Procedure, and Legal Profession (Ethics), but wasn't cold called in any of them. I can honestly say that Torts today was the first time I ever felt like I really didn't want my name called. That class, so far, has been a mental workout like no other. I have a feeling that it will require all my effort not to let it kill me. The other two are more my style: remember and apply written rules. That I can enjoy. Common law, on the other hand... blah.
Only 991 days until graduation...
A Late-Night Post
Well, I survived orientation, which, from what I had heard beforehand, seems to be just short of a miracle. I'll post more thoughts on orientation at a time when I shouldn't be in bed. Tomorrow I begin my classes, and find out if I'm any good at this 1L thing.
Unlike my summer start course, where anyone anywhere could have found out who my professor was, I have decided to keep my regular semester professors unnamed for the purposes of this blog. While I'm sure that anyone from Indiana Law will figure out my professors from descriptions of course work I discuss (and if they were to ask me in person, I'd tell them), I think it would be most respectful to these men and women to keep their names out of my blogs. This practice will hopefully keep me from feeling the Socratic fire more than my classmates. I doubt that it will alter the quality of the posts on this blog (I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing).
I have the full array of courses tomorrow (less LRW, of course), so I should know by tomorrow afternoon whether or not I made a substantial (or procedural) mistake in going to law school. Until then, adieu.
Unlike my summer start course, where anyone anywhere could have found out who my professor was, I have decided to keep my regular semester professors unnamed for the purposes of this blog. While I'm sure that anyone from Indiana Law will figure out my professors from descriptions of course work I discuss (and if they were to ask me in person, I'd tell them), I think it would be most respectful to these men and women to keep their names out of my blogs. This practice will hopefully keep me from feeling the Socratic fire more than my classmates. I doubt that it will alter the quality of the posts on this blog (I'll let you decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing).
I have the full array of courses tomorrow (less LRW, of course), so I should know by tomorrow afternoon whether or not I made a substantial (or procedural) mistake in going to law school. Until then, adieu.
8.19.2007
Playing Catch-up
I'm finally back in town, after a much needed break from the hectic life of a law student. Tomorrow starts the next leg of the race, and I feel (moderately) prepared for it.
The final in Criminal Law was certainly... unexpected. I don't want to give away details about the questions or my answers, but the exam certainly shifted us out of the realms where we had practiced up to that point. I've been trying to avoid doing a post-op on the exam, and I think getting out of town helped with that a bit. I hope I did well, since my Crim Law grade matters more to my desired profession than, say, Contracts or Property, but we'll see in a couple weeks when grades are posted.
While I was away, good things happened in the Ron Paul campaign. #5 (9%) in the Iowa straw poll and #3 (18%) in Illinois makes for a dramatic shift from the 1% he had been polling with up to that point. And he spent markedly less than most of the "big name" candidates. I still don't think it's likely that the management of the Republican Party would nominate him, but he's certainly making a buzz in the electorate. We'll just have to sit back and wait.
I'll have more to post after tomorrow, when I get my fall schedule, and I see where the other persons of my study group end up. Whatever happens, I feel pretty confident that I'm ready. Summer start was the right choice for me, and I certainly feel like I got my money's worth. For all pre-Ls reading this, I recommend such a program highly, if for no other reason than the social aspects. And doing it at IU is the icing on the cake.
The final in Criminal Law was certainly... unexpected. I don't want to give away details about the questions or my answers, but the exam certainly shifted us out of the realms where we had practiced up to that point. I've been trying to avoid doing a post-op on the exam, and I think getting out of town helped with that a bit. I hope I did well, since my Crim Law grade matters more to my desired profession than, say, Contracts or Property, but we'll see in a couple weeks when grades are posted.
While I was away, good things happened in the Ron Paul campaign. #5 (9%) in the Iowa straw poll and #3 (18%) in Illinois makes for a dramatic shift from the 1% he had been polling with up to that point. And he spent markedly less than most of the "big name" candidates. I still don't think it's likely that the management of the Republican Party would nominate him, but he's certainly making a buzz in the electorate. We'll just have to sit back and wait.
I'll have more to post after tomorrow, when I get my fall schedule, and I see where the other persons of my study group end up. Whatever happens, I feel pretty confident that I'm ready. Summer start was the right choice for me, and I certainly feel like I got my money's worth. For all pre-Ls reading this, I recommend such a program highly, if for no other reason than the social aspects. And doing it at IU is the icing on the cake.
8.04.2007
Always Say "No"
One of the first things I did when I started studying law in depth was to fill my younger brothers in on their rights as American citizens. Like all good lads, they drive cars and may occasionally speed. Such speeding might just bring about an officer of the law, who might just ask them questions not relating to their driving at all. And what did I tell my brothers?
"Always tell them no. Ask for a warrant, and don't let them touch the inside of the car, or any part of your person, without seeing one."
It may not make you popular with the police, and it may cause even more of a delay in your busy schedule, but that's the high price of having rights. I don't suspect that either of my brothers would be in possession of anything illegal. Then again, if they were, I would hope that both would be smart enough to demand a warrant. Letting them know that police sometimes act "unscrupulously" was my job as their older brother.
Thanks to a commenter on my last post, I was alerted to yet another wrongdoing in my great state. There's just something about law enforcement in Indianapolis and their thinking that they can throw the net wide.
As DailyKos describes, federal agents working for the TSA, including Air Marshals, took up base at two bus stops in downtown Indianapolis and set up random checkpoints to pat people down, look in bags, and perform "behavior" tests for the stated purpose of finding weapons and people who were a threat to public safety.
Never mind the fact that there have been no federal crimes occurring on Indy buses. Never mind that Indiana allows anyone with a concealed carry permit (from any state) to carry a handgun legally. Never mind that citizens weren't informed that they could opt out (so that the searches weren't in violation of the Fourth Amendment).
DailyKos has some alarming first-hand accounts of the searches, as well as a far more detailed account than what I can give. Sadly, the Indy Star managed to keep the story to a few lines near the middle. At least this time the comments seem to agree with the general legal consensus.
So, little brothers, I add on to my previous statement. You should also say no to any federal officer demanding to search you anywhere that's not an airport or the White House. In fact, you might want to just steer clear of Indianapolis until the ACLU takes care of this.
"Always tell them no. Ask for a warrant, and don't let them touch the inside of the car, or any part of your person, without seeing one."
It may not make you popular with the police, and it may cause even more of a delay in your busy schedule, but that's the high price of having rights. I don't suspect that either of my brothers would be in possession of anything illegal. Then again, if they were, I would hope that both would be smart enough to demand a warrant. Letting them know that police sometimes act "unscrupulously" was my job as their older brother.
Thanks to a commenter on my last post, I was alerted to yet another wrongdoing in my great state. There's just something about law enforcement in Indianapolis and their thinking that they can throw the net wide.
As DailyKos describes, federal agents working for the TSA, including Air Marshals, took up base at two bus stops in downtown Indianapolis and set up random checkpoints to pat people down, look in bags, and perform "behavior" tests for the stated purpose of finding weapons and people who were a threat to public safety.
Never mind the fact that there have been no federal crimes occurring on Indy buses. Never mind that Indiana allows anyone with a concealed carry permit (from any state) to carry a handgun legally. Never mind that citizens weren't informed that they could opt out (so that the searches weren't in violation of the Fourth Amendment).
DailyKos has some alarming first-hand accounts of the searches, as well as a far more detailed account than what I can give. Sadly, the Indy Star managed to keep the story to a few lines near the middle. At least this time the comments seem to agree with the general legal consensus.
So, little brothers, I add on to my previous statement. You should also say no to any federal officer demanding to search you anywhere that's not an airport or the White House. In fact, you might want to just steer clear of Indianapolis until the ACLU takes care of this.
8.01.2007
It's Not a "Technicality"
A couple weeks ago I wrote a post concerning the Indiana seat belt laws, and why I disagreed with them. The discussion in the comments was insightful, and I appreciated the feedback.
One of my arguments against such seat belt laws was that they often give police a way of stopping a car that they would like to search, possibly on stereotypical reasons, such as a black driver in a white town. Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down a judgement to that fact. A man was pulled over for a seat belt violation, and in the course of the traffic stop, the officer told the man to get out of the car and be subjected to a pat-down. The man was carrying marijuana on his person, and methamphetamine in his vehicle. He was promptly arrested.
The Court of Appeals was kind enough to say that such a search and seizure is unconstitutional, and that the evidence could not be admitted. They also have a very nice summary of other traffic incidents in the decision.
While reading about the story in the Indianapolis Star, I decided to read the comments left by other readers. I'm sad to say that far too many were upset with the Court's ruling. My favorite comment, summarizing the views of the opposing (and very wrong) side was this:
"What a sad civilization we live in. Blatant criminal activity goes unpunished and we avoid helping this person recover from drug addiction. This is all simply because of a technicality. Wow America, way to help better our youth and clean up or country. Our legal system is severely screwed up."
My jaw just about fell off. The Fourth Amendment is not a "technicality". It's not a sign of a "screwed up" legal system. It's what keeps the government in check from becoming King George III, the Schutzstaffel, or Big Brother.
It's sad that so many people don't have an understanding of the basic purposes of the Constitution.
One of my arguments against such seat belt laws was that they often give police a way of stopping a car that they would like to search, possibly on stereotypical reasons, such as a black driver in a white town. Yesterday, the Indiana Court of Appeals handed down a judgement to that fact. A man was pulled over for a seat belt violation, and in the course of the traffic stop, the officer told the man to get out of the car and be subjected to a pat-down. The man was carrying marijuana on his person, and methamphetamine in his vehicle. He was promptly arrested.
The Court of Appeals was kind enough to say that such a search and seizure is unconstitutional, and that the evidence could not be admitted. They also have a very nice summary of other traffic incidents in the decision.
While reading about the story in the Indianapolis Star, I decided to read the comments left by other readers. I'm sad to say that far too many were upset with the Court's ruling. My favorite comment, summarizing the views of the opposing (and very wrong) side was this:
"What a sad civilization we live in. Blatant criminal activity goes unpunished and we avoid helping this person recover from drug addiction. This is all simply because of a technicality. Wow America, way to help better our youth and clean up or country. Our legal system is severely screwed up."
My jaw just about fell off. The Fourth Amendment is not a "technicality". It's not a sign of a "screwed up" legal system. It's what keeps the government in check from becoming King George III, the Schutzstaffel, or Big Brother.
It's sad that so many people don't have an understanding of the basic purposes of the Constitution.
7.31.2007
Irony Defined
While snorkeling in Hawaii, a lawyer was attacked by a shark.
So much for that old joke about sharks, lawyers, and professional courtesy.
So much for that old joke about sharks, lawyers, and professional courtesy.
7.29.2007
Speeding Towards the Start
I have a mere eleven days before my Crim final, and something odd happened. I found myself in the library.
I know what you're thinking: "How can you think that's odd?" Well, I haven't really been in there yet this semester. I did all of my studying at home with the few books I had there, or in the conference rooms with the study group. But I never felt the need to really study in there. Until Thursday.
On Thursday, it occurred to me that there are several dozen episodes of Law and Order on every day. They appear on TNT, A&E, Spike, NBC, and probably others. They run in batches of four or five. And once I start watching, I can't stop. The only thing that can stop me from watching more is an episode of Criminal Intent (which is, by far, the worst of the spin-offs). That's my problem. So, feeling the need to get away from the temptation to find out how Jack McCoy can sink the defendant this time, I retreated to a carrel in the library, where I have spent that last two days.
It feels like it worked. I spent my time studying inchoate crimes, and my outline for this section is better than any of my previous work. If I continue to spend this number of hours in the library, I might be slightly less worried about my final. Slightly.
The sad thing is that it's Saturday night, and I'm here studying attempt instead of going out. Oh, how far I've come. Oh, how far I have yet to go.
I know what you're thinking: "How can you think that's odd?" Well, I haven't really been in there yet this semester. I did all of my studying at home with the few books I had there, or in the conference rooms with the study group. But I never felt the need to really study in there. Until Thursday.
On Thursday, it occurred to me that there are several dozen episodes of Law and Order on every day. They appear on TNT, A&E, Spike, NBC, and probably others. They run in batches of four or five. And once I start watching, I can't stop. The only thing that can stop me from watching more is an episode of Criminal Intent (which is, by far, the worst of the spin-offs). That's my problem. So, feeling the need to get away from the temptation to find out how Jack McCoy can sink the defendant this time, I retreated to a carrel in the library, where I have spent that last two days.
It feels like it worked. I spent my time studying inchoate crimes, and my outline for this section is better than any of my previous work. If I continue to spend this number of hours in the library, I might be slightly less worried about my final. Slightly.
The sad thing is that it's Saturday night, and I'm here studying attempt instead of going out. Oh, how far I've come. Oh, how far I have yet to go.
7.25.2007
What you do on your own time...
The ABA Journal picked up an interesting story today from Florida that seems to involve the Amendment VIII.
Back in November, Terry Lee Alexander, in prison for armed robbery, was caught masturbating in his jail cell. A female sheriff's deputy saw the act, and he was charged with indecent exposure. During jury selection, the potential jurors were asked about their masturbation habits. All the men and all but two women admitted to the act. In the end, the jury convicted Mr. Alexander on the charges and added sixty days to his sentence.
While I don't argue that the act would be indecent if done in public, it seems to me that it is tremendously cruel to disallow such acts in the privacy of one's home. Prisoners are home in their cell, and when there is no cellmate, the area would be sufficiently private (the deputy saw the act from a nearby control room). He wasn't intimidating her, nor does it seem that he was using her as the object of his fantasy. He was simply trying to indulge himself.
In fact, we could go one step further. Public urination is a crime. The prisoner's cell is being called a public place in this case. In prison, toilets are in the cell. Therefore, the state is forcing the inmates to commit a crime every time they use the toilet. Thus, one would reasonably expect that the male organ in question would regularly be visible, self-gratifying or not.
Sexual acts are a biological necessity for human beings, especially men. Any law that disallows masturbation, even if it is in a prison cell, is at least potentially a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling in this case is wrong, and his lawyer ought to appeal.
EDIT: The ABA Journal reports today that seven more inmates are being charged by the same female deputy. Writers in the Miami papers are suggesting that this is a large waste of tax dollars. I'd have to agree.
Back in November, Terry Lee Alexander, in prison for armed robbery, was caught masturbating in his jail cell. A female sheriff's deputy saw the act, and he was charged with indecent exposure. During jury selection, the potential jurors were asked about their masturbation habits. All the men and all but two women admitted to the act. In the end, the jury convicted Mr. Alexander on the charges and added sixty days to his sentence.
While I don't argue that the act would be indecent if done in public, it seems to me that it is tremendously cruel to disallow such acts in the privacy of one's home. Prisoners are home in their cell, and when there is no cellmate, the area would be sufficiently private (the deputy saw the act from a nearby control room). He wasn't intimidating her, nor does it seem that he was using her as the object of his fantasy. He was simply trying to indulge himself.
In fact, we could go one step further. Public urination is a crime. The prisoner's cell is being called a public place in this case. In prison, toilets are in the cell. Therefore, the state is forcing the inmates to commit a crime every time they use the toilet. Thus, one would reasonably expect that the male organ in question would regularly be visible, self-gratifying or not.
Sexual acts are a biological necessity for human beings, especially men. Any law that disallows masturbation, even if it is in a prison cell, is at least potentially a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment. The ruling in this case is wrong, and his lawyer ought to appeal.
EDIT: The ABA Journal reports today that seven more inmates are being charged by the same female deputy. Writers in the Miami papers are suggesting that this is a large waste of tax dollars. I'd have to agree.
7.24.2007
Dissecting the Debates, Part 1
It has now been 24 hours since the YouTube/CNN Democratic Debates, and I'm finally putting in words what my opinions were of the debates. It's a shame that half the questions were posed directly to Ms. Clinton and Mr. Obama. I think (as a member of a third party) debates are often the only chance for lesser-known candidates to get a word in edgewise (when was the last time you saw front page news about Mike Gravel or Ron Paul?). So, while I thought the format was generally very creative, I thought questions aimed specifically at the front-runners ought to have been cut back.
I'm no Democrat, and so I watch the debates with the eye of a skeptic. The Democrat I like is Bill Richardson, who has the most "libertarian" views of them all. He's the only one that doesn't like tax increases, the only one who supports gun rights, and the only one whose solution to Darfur is reasonable (boycotting the 2008 Olympics to get China to pressure Darfur is genius, and an option far-too-often overlooked). I also believe that governors tend to make better presidents than senators. Senators are legislators, which means they make the laws. The president is not a legislator, and thus the experiences of a legislator are less valuable than those of a governor, who was him- or herself a chief executive.
That being said, I think Richardson came off poorly in the debate. I liked his video segment, but his answers just didn't seem to be well put together. I've read his writings, and I know he's brilliant. He just doesn't speak well in this debate format.
My distaste for Barack Obama grew even more last night. We counted the number of times he skirted the question or changed topic. It was just about every time he spoke. He doesn't seem to have solid ideas at all, and, while popular to the younger voters, just doesn't have (yet) what it takes to lead the country. This debate showed it. His answer that bothered me most: his response that the only reason his children went to private school (University of Chicago Lab School) was because he taught at the university. A good answer would have been, "I sent them to private school because I believed it was in their best interests." At least there he would have been honest. And I think many parents can relate. It's not "giving up on" our public schools to do what is in the best interests of you children. It's called being a good parent.
I enjoy Mike Gravel in these debates. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, I love that he's so self-deprecating, and that he spends the rest of his time tearing down the other Democrats. Not one for party unity, he seems to have the (reasonable) assumption that if more people hate another candidate, his chances increase. His best answer: when asked who his favorite teacher was, he said it was the teacher who helped him overcome his speech impediment, helping him learn to speak, so he could do so little of it at the debates.
Dennis Kucinich. Wow. What can you say about a man like that? He is the epitome of a single-issue candidate. I'm sure he has other opinions, but his basic argument in every answer is that he was the only one to have voted against the Iraq war and spending on the Iraq war every time. Again, at least he's tearing apart his fellow Democrats.
Joe Biden, while sometimes a bit abrasive, has the most realistic view of the Iraq situation. He proposes slicing the country into a confederation. At least his plan accounts for the fact that Iraqis hate one another, and you'll need to separate them somehow for the fighting to (mostly) end. And he would bring on Dick Lugar as Secretary of State, which is a smart move. I did NOT care for his smirky comment about Tennessee in response to the Red State Update question about Al Gore. Not that he was going to win Tennessee anyway. Nor did I like him saying that the gun owner wasn't mentally qualified to own the firearm. Way to sound like a jerk.
Chris Dodd had the most entertaining video clip (vote for the guy with the white hair for the White House). But otherwise he was unremarkable. Give credit to the lack of questions his way, perhaps, but his most worthwhile solution was to change the entire federal fleet of vehicles to hybrids (a good call, since the #1 polluter in the world is the U.S. government). Not so keen on his opinions about health care. Then again, I'm not a fan of ANY Democratic solution to health care.
John Edwards may have turned on the southern gentleman charm a bit much last night. I like him as a person, especially since he's one heck of a lawyer, but I'm not sure about his presidency. His solution for health care was the first and most complete out there (a pathetic attempt by Mr. Obama followed, which Edwards won't let him forget). It's still universal health care, but at least he's reasonable about it. He covered the bases well when asked about talking to his kids about sex. If nominated, this guy might actually win. At least now he uses his hair as a laughing point.
Read into it all you want, but I've saved Hillary Clinton for last. She's probably the smoothest talker on the stage who still answers questions. I wasn't a fan of Clinton before this debate, and I'm certainly not any more entranced now. Doug Hass covered one of my big issues with her very well back in February, with her talk of taking oil company profits. Too liberal for my blood, or as she prefers, "progressive" (a word used by all great communist leaders). On the other hand, at least she had the guts to say she wouldn't automatically talk to Castro and Chavez (unlike Obama) within the first year.
I have to say that I like the notion of "the people" submitting questions to the candidates, even if they do go through several layers of selection from obviously biased individuals. I dislike the time limits imposed, though I understand why they're there. But you can't answer a question like "How would you solve health care?" in sixty seconds.
Some friends and I will be submitting some questions for the Republican debates. Look for us in September!
I'm no Democrat, and so I watch the debates with the eye of a skeptic. The Democrat I like is Bill Richardson, who has the most "libertarian" views of them all. He's the only one that doesn't like tax increases, the only one who supports gun rights, and the only one whose solution to Darfur is reasonable (boycotting the 2008 Olympics to get China to pressure Darfur is genius, and an option far-too-often overlooked). I also believe that governors tend to make better presidents than senators. Senators are legislators, which means they make the laws. The president is not a legislator, and thus the experiences of a legislator are less valuable than those of a governor, who was him- or herself a chief executive.
That being said, I think Richardson came off poorly in the debate. I liked his video segment, but his answers just didn't seem to be well put together. I've read his writings, and I know he's brilliant. He just doesn't speak well in this debate format.
My distaste for Barack Obama grew even more last night. We counted the number of times he skirted the question or changed topic. It was just about every time he spoke. He doesn't seem to have solid ideas at all, and, while popular to the younger voters, just doesn't have (yet) what it takes to lead the country. This debate showed it. His answer that bothered me most: his response that the only reason his children went to private school (University of Chicago Lab School) was because he taught at the university. A good answer would have been, "I sent them to private school because I believed it was in their best interests." At least there he would have been honest. And I think many parents can relate. It's not "giving up on" our public schools to do what is in the best interests of you children. It's called being a good parent.
I enjoy Mike Gravel in these debates. While I don't think he has a chance of winning, I love that he's so self-deprecating, and that he spends the rest of his time tearing down the other Democrats. Not one for party unity, he seems to have the (reasonable) assumption that if more people hate another candidate, his chances increase. His best answer: when asked who his favorite teacher was, he said it was the teacher who helped him overcome his speech impediment, helping him learn to speak, so he could do so little of it at the debates.
Dennis Kucinich. Wow. What can you say about a man like that? He is the epitome of a single-issue candidate. I'm sure he has other opinions, but his basic argument in every answer is that he was the only one to have voted against the Iraq war and spending on the Iraq war every time. Again, at least he's tearing apart his fellow Democrats.
Joe Biden, while sometimes a bit abrasive, has the most realistic view of the Iraq situation. He proposes slicing the country into a confederation. At least his plan accounts for the fact that Iraqis hate one another, and you'll need to separate them somehow for the fighting to (mostly) end. And he would bring on Dick Lugar as Secretary of State, which is a smart move. I did NOT care for his smirky comment about Tennessee in response to the Red State Update question about Al Gore. Not that he was going to win Tennessee anyway. Nor did I like him saying that the gun owner wasn't mentally qualified to own the firearm. Way to sound like a jerk.
Chris Dodd had the most entertaining video clip (vote for the guy with the white hair for the White House). But otherwise he was unremarkable. Give credit to the lack of questions his way, perhaps, but his most worthwhile solution was to change the entire federal fleet of vehicles to hybrids (a good call, since the #1 polluter in the world is the U.S. government). Not so keen on his opinions about health care. Then again, I'm not a fan of ANY Democratic solution to health care.
John Edwards may have turned on the southern gentleman charm a bit much last night. I like him as a person, especially since he's one heck of a lawyer, but I'm not sure about his presidency. His solution for health care was the first and most complete out there (a pathetic attempt by Mr. Obama followed, which Edwards won't let him forget). It's still universal health care, but at least he's reasonable about it. He covered the bases well when asked about talking to his kids about sex. If nominated, this guy might actually win. At least now he uses his hair as a laughing point.
Read into it all you want, but I've saved Hillary Clinton for last. She's probably the smoothest talker on the stage who still answers questions. I wasn't a fan of Clinton before this debate, and I'm certainly not any more entranced now. Doug Hass covered one of my big issues with her very well back in February, with her talk of taking oil company profits. Too liberal for my blood, or as she prefers, "progressive" (a word used by all great communist leaders). On the other hand, at least she had the guts to say she wouldn't automatically talk to Castro and Chavez (unlike Obama) within the first year.
I have to say that I like the notion of "the people" submitting questions to the candidates, even if they do go through several layers of selection from obviously biased individuals. I dislike the time limits imposed, though I understand why they're there. But you can't answer a question like "How would you solve health care?" in sixty seconds.
Some friends and I will be submitting some questions for the Republican debates. Look for us in September!
7.21.2007
WW You D?
Hypothetical situation:
You're a law student. You're spending your Friday night at a local bar listening to a band. As you and your friends "bang your hair" to the sounds of the 80s, you see two bouncers removing another patron of the establishment. One bouncer has the man by the neck; the second kicking the guy's feet and pushing them along. The patron has a look of confusion and shock. The bouncers throw (literally) the guy out of the fire exit, and proceed to kick the guy several times in the ribs before closing the door. What do you do?
A) Walk out the door, help the patron up, and offer your advice on torts.
B) Tell the bouncers that they were out of line (and prepare to be strangled and kicked yourself).
C) Contract local police to a gross abuse of power by the bouncers.
D) Stand quietly by and watch someone get treated like crap.
You're a law student. You're spending your Friday night at a local bar listening to a band. As you and your friends "bang your hair" to the sounds of the 80s, you see two bouncers removing another patron of the establishment. One bouncer has the man by the neck; the second kicking the guy's feet and pushing them along. The patron has a look of confusion and shock. The bouncers throw (literally) the guy out of the fire exit, and proceed to kick the guy several times in the ribs before closing the door. What do you do?
A) Walk out the door, help the patron up, and offer your advice on torts.
B) Tell the bouncers that they were out of line (and prepare to be strangled and kicked yourself).
C) Contract local police to a gross abuse of power by the bouncers.
D) Stand quietly by and watch someone get treated like crap.
7.16.2007
The People You Meet
It is incredible the diversity of the people you meet in law school. Not just in terms of race, gender, sexuality, and the like, but the pure mindset of the others. So far, almost everyone has had a personality that is enjoyable, or at least insightful into worlds I have never known. This excludes our two main gunners, whose personalities are generally unpalatable. However, this is not to say that every idea everyone has is one with which I could agree, or even understand. Case in point.
Today in class we started discussing "To Catch a Predator" like scenarios, where the police entrap or entice (depending on your viewpoint) adults online trying to seduce underage persons. After class, one student mentioned to me that he disbelieved in age of consent laws. I couldn't let this go, so I walked with him and tried to wrap my head around his reasoning.
He explained to me that there should be no such thing as statutory rape. He believes that, in the interest of personal freedom, any two individuals should be able to do what they want with their bodies. I should point out that I believe this too, but only when the two persons involved are adults. Anyway, I asked him if he meant persons of any age, using an example of a nine-year-old girl who "wanted" to have sex with a fifty-year-old man. He said such a scenario would be fine, if the girl really wanted it.
I argued that the purpose of statutory rape laws were to prevent older people from taking advantage of particularly persuadable young people. He suggested that they were for the sake of prevention of pregnancy and STD in young people. The notion that the government worries about five-year-olds getting pregnant is one I cannot understand.
He made an interesting argument. He proposed that there would be a license that people younger than 18 could get that would give them permission to have sex with anyone they wanted of any age (all over 18 would automatically get the license). The license would operate much like a driver's license, in that the person would be required to have a knowledge of what he or she was about to do, and that they could appreciate the consequences of their actions. By having them jump through such a bureaucratic hoop, he suggests that young girls would get what was coming to them if they chose to have sex (since, in taking the test, they would be demonstrating consent). He likens this to a person who gets into deep credit card debt and have to pay it back three years down the road.
It was at that point I chose to end the conversation. I'm going to work on an argument to refute this notion (since apparently saying that young people can fall prey to perverts too easily is not sufficient).
I should emphasize that the guy is a generally good guy, and we've had many deep conversations about law and philosophy. But nonetheless, it's incredible the people you meet.
Today in class we started discussing "To Catch a Predator" like scenarios, where the police entrap or entice (depending on your viewpoint) adults online trying to seduce underage persons. After class, one student mentioned to me that he disbelieved in age of consent laws. I couldn't let this go, so I walked with him and tried to wrap my head around his reasoning.
He explained to me that there should be no such thing as statutory rape. He believes that, in the interest of personal freedom, any two individuals should be able to do what they want with their bodies. I should point out that I believe this too, but only when the two persons involved are adults. Anyway, I asked him if he meant persons of any age, using an example of a nine-year-old girl who "wanted" to have sex with a fifty-year-old man. He said such a scenario would be fine, if the girl really wanted it.
I argued that the purpose of statutory rape laws were to prevent older people from taking advantage of particularly persuadable young people. He suggested that they were for the sake of prevention of pregnancy and STD in young people. The notion that the government worries about five-year-olds getting pregnant is one I cannot understand.
He made an interesting argument. He proposed that there would be a license that people younger than 18 could get that would give them permission to have sex with anyone they wanted of any age (all over 18 would automatically get the license). The license would operate much like a driver's license, in that the person would be required to have a knowledge of what he or she was about to do, and that they could appreciate the consequences of their actions. By having them jump through such a bureaucratic hoop, he suggests that young girls would get what was coming to them if they chose to have sex (since, in taking the test, they would be demonstrating consent). He likens this to a person who gets into deep credit card debt and have to pay it back three years down the road.
It was at that point I chose to end the conversation. I'm going to work on an argument to refute this notion (since apparently saying that young people can fall prey to perverts too easily is not sufficient).
I should emphasize that the guy is a generally good guy, and we've had many deep conversations about law and philosophy. But nonetheless, it's incredible the people you meet.
7.10.2007
Party News
More good news from the Washington Times today. Just as I was disenfranchised with the two-party system several years ago, it seems that more and more of the American people are also losing faith in both parties. From the article:
I can imagine this trend continuing through the entire 2008 election cycle. As both parties spend more time bashing the other side, the people in the middle might realize that, in that respect, both major parties are correct.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Vote Libertarian.
"Polls show that fewer Americans are calling themselves Republicans or Democrats and the number of Americans unaffiliated with either party has reached an all-time high — good news for Libertarians, say officials of the nation's third-largest party.
"The Libertarian Party has had an 18 percent increase in membership since January, said Shane Cory, executive director of the Libertarian National Committee....
"A survey released last month by Rasmussen Reports found that a record share of Americans, 32.9 percent, identified themselves as neither Republican nor Democrat.
"The Rasmussen poll — conducted in May with a sample of 15,000 adults — found that the percentage identifying themselves as Republicans (30.8 percent) dropped for the fourth consecutive month, while the percentage of Democrats (36.3 percent) decreased for the third straight month, following trends that began for Republicans in the middle of 2005 and Democrats in January 2006."
I can imagine this trend continuing through the entire 2008 election cycle. As both parties spend more time bashing the other side, the people in the middle might realize that, in that respect, both major parties are correct.
If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times. Vote Libertarian.
7.09.2007
Magister rerum mens (Mind is the Master of Things)
The current discussion in class is Mens Rea. The concept of a guilty mind is one of the cornerstones of our criminal justice system. Mens rea accounts for free will; in essence, man is responsible for his actions because he chooses them. While it is not always so simple, crimes are punished, in part, based on the levels of intent.
Aside from the usual issues of general/specific intent and scenarios involving intoxication, modern neuroscience is changing the way we look at human behavior, and thus, how we should punish wrong doing. This article in the New York Times magazine discusses some of the impact of brain-monitoring technology on the judicial process.
Generally speaking, there are two issues with using such technology. First, should we allow biological deficiencies as a defense against crimes? Second, should we use this technology to "predict" who is more likely to commit crimes? The article does a good job covering these issues, but I'd like to discuss a couple points in regards to the concept of mens rea in criminal law.
Under the Model Penal Code, there are generally no strict liability crimes. A crime always requires some guilty mind. This means having one of four mental states: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. If a defendant has a growth on his prefrontal cortex that causes him to act in a way that is criminal, should we hold him accountable? Perhaps he knows the difference between right and wrong, yet still pushes someone down a flight of stairs. With fMRI scans, among others, we can establish that the growth may cause anger or rage in response to certain stimuli. How would punishing the individual meet our purposes of punishment? While the goal of incapacitation would be met, we cannot "deter" an individual whose brain makes him commit a crime, and without surgery (and perhaps even with it) we cannot "reform" the individual. Yet a brain growth doesn't necessarily make one "insane" by our definitions. Further, wouldn't taking scans of a suspect's brain to determine their guilt in a crime be a violation of the ban on self-incrimination?
A striking second problem is that of holding individuals accountable for their predispositions. Let us suppose that we know that a growth in a particular area makes a person 1000x more likely to lose control of their rage and kill a person. Would it be fair to lock them up without an actus reus? If we punished thoughts, no man would be free. It leads to imagining horrible futures like that in Minority Report (don't get me started on how wrong punishing "precrime" would be).
I prefer the antiquated concept of free will. But modern science seems to be coming closer and closer to proving that free will is nothing but a combination of chemicals mixing in the right proportions at the right moments. In that sense, are any of us free at all?
Aside from the usual issues of general/specific intent and scenarios involving intoxication, modern neuroscience is changing the way we look at human behavior, and thus, how we should punish wrong doing. This article in the New York Times magazine discusses some of the impact of brain-monitoring technology on the judicial process.
Generally speaking, there are two issues with using such technology. First, should we allow biological deficiencies as a defense against crimes? Second, should we use this technology to "predict" who is more likely to commit crimes? The article does a good job covering these issues, but I'd like to discuss a couple points in regards to the concept of mens rea in criminal law.
Under the Model Penal Code, there are generally no strict liability crimes. A crime always requires some guilty mind. This means having one of four mental states: purpose, knowledge, recklessness, or negligence. If a defendant has a growth on his prefrontal cortex that causes him to act in a way that is criminal, should we hold him accountable? Perhaps he knows the difference between right and wrong, yet still pushes someone down a flight of stairs. With fMRI scans, among others, we can establish that the growth may cause anger or rage in response to certain stimuli. How would punishing the individual meet our purposes of punishment? While the goal of incapacitation would be met, we cannot "deter" an individual whose brain makes him commit a crime, and without surgery (and perhaps even with it) we cannot "reform" the individual. Yet a brain growth doesn't necessarily make one "insane" by our definitions. Further, wouldn't taking scans of a suspect's brain to determine their guilt in a crime be a violation of the ban on self-incrimination?
A striking second problem is that of holding individuals accountable for their predispositions. Let us suppose that we know that a growth in a particular area makes a person 1000x more likely to lose control of their rage and kill a person. Would it be fair to lock them up without an actus reus? If we punished thoughts, no man would be free. It leads to imagining horrible futures like that in Minority Report (don't get me started on how wrong punishing "precrime" would be).
I prefer the antiquated concept of free will. But modern science seems to be coming closer and closer to proving that free will is nothing but a combination of chemicals mixing in the right proportions at the right moments. In that sense, are any of us free at all?
Nanny State Strikes Again
First of all, before I get started, I want to give a shoutout to the several blogs that have linked to mine in the past week or so. I have all of them in the Blogroll to your right, but I appreciate the warm welcome to IU Law from Doug Hass and Kyle Michael, and of course the links from Evan Schaeffer are always appreciated.
This was a sad week in Indiana for civil liberties. At the demands of the General Assembly, Indiana modified its seat belt laws to require use for all occupants of a motor vehicle, with a few exceptions for farm trucks, mail carriers, and newpaper delivery persons, among others. I simply cannot agree with this law and its alleged benefits for the public.
I agree completely that seat belts are a good idea. For the love of mercy, wear a damn seatbelt. Since we were kids, we've been raised to know that seat belts make driving much safer, and news stories abound of what happens when you don't (like Governor Corzine's incident in New Jersey when his SUV was driving 91 mph). Plain and simple, if you don't wear a seat belt, you are taking unnecesary risks in an age when stupid drivers are everywhere.
That said, the government has no place telling me how I should behave in my space. Who is harmed when I don't wear a seat belt? Well, unless my body flies out of the car and happens to hit another vehicle or human being, only myself. I agree with laws saying that parents should buckle in their children (duty of care). And I mostly agree with laws that make seat belts in cars mandatory (though my libertarian beliefs lead me to believe that a car company would have to be stupid not to install them anyways, simply because sales to educated [or common sense-using] consumers would drop). But telling me that, as an adult, I can't make up my own mind about my own safety is ridiculous.
Sure, there were 899 seat belt deaths in Indiana in 2006. Again, I'm all for safety. But when the government has to take care of us, we've lost everything that gives us free will, the essence of any free society.
I also oppose these laws from the standpoint of a law student. Generally speaking, I distrust laws criminalizing omission. There are times when such laws are necessary (requiring lifeguards to act to save drowning children, requiring parents to feed their children, and other scenarios where there is a duty to act). But criminalizing NOT acting for one's own good is government coercion. Think about it. Blacks defines coercion as "compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force". What happens if you choose not to wear your seat belt? Punishment by the state.
Perhaps the law is bad also because it encourages arbitrary enforcement. If I get pulled over in my Benz wearing a suit and listening to smooth jazz, I am probably less likely to recieve an actual citation than the poor black kid driving a beat-up Lincoln. Further, police may use this law as an excuse to pull over "suspicious" vehicles for a chance to get a whiff of that potentially pot-laced air. I am not saying that police are naturally corrupt, or that these scenarios will necessarily happen, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to see these problems in the law.
This is the latest in a string of government attempts to make us all better off by taking away our freedoms. It's the little things that count. This may seem minor (like surrendering trans-fats), but it preps us for losing more freedoms in the future. At some point we have to say, "Enough is enough; we can take care of ourselves."
I would love to get some feedback on this if you have a moment. Do you agree/disagree with my position?
This was a sad week in Indiana for civil liberties. At the demands of the General Assembly, Indiana modified its seat belt laws to require use for all occupants of a motor vehicle, with a few exceptions for farm trucks, mail carriers, and newpaper delivery persons, among others. I simply cannot agree with this law and its alleged benefits for the public.
I agree completely that seat belts are a good idea. For the love of mercy, wear a damn seatbelt. Since we were kids, we've been raised to know that seat belts make driving much safer, and news stories abound of what happens when you don't (like Governor Corzine's incident in New Jersey when his SUV was driving 91 mph). Plain and simple, if you don't wear a seat belt, you are taking unnecesary risks in an age when stupid drivers are everywhere.
That said, the government has no place telling me how I should behave in my space. Who is harmed when I don't wear a seat belt? Well, unless my body flies out of the car and happens to hit another vehicle or human being, only myself. I agree with laws saying that parents should buckle in their children (duty of care). And I mostly agree with laws that make seat belts in cars mandatory (though my libertarian beliefs lead me to believe that a car company would have to be stupid not to install them anyways, simply because sales to educated [or common sense-using] consumers would drop). But telling me that, as an adult, I can't make up my own mind about my own safety is ridiculous.
Sure, there were 899 seat belt deaths in Indiana in 2006. Again, I'm all for safety. But when the government has to take care of us, we've lost everything that gives us free will, the essence of any free society.
I also oppose these laws from the standpoint of a law student. Generally speaking, I distrust laws criminalizing omission. There are times when such laws are necessary (requiring lifeguards to act to save drowning children, requiring parents to feed their children, and other scenarios where there is a duty to act). But criminalizing NOT acting for one's own good is government coercion. Think about it. Blacks defines coercion as "compulsion by physical force or threat of physical force". What happens if you choose not to wear your seat belt? Punishment by the state.
Perhaps the law is bad also because it encourages arbitrary enforcement. If I get pulled over in my Benz wearing a suit and listening to smooth jazz, I am probably less likely to recieve an actual citation than the poor black kid driving a beat-up Lincoln. Further, police may use this law as an excuse to pull over "suspicious" vehicles for a chance to get a whiff of that potentially pot-laced air. I am not saying that police are naturally corrupt, or that these scenarios will necessarily happen, but it doesn't take much of an imagination to see these problems in the law.
This is the latest in a string of government attempts to make us all better off by taking away our freedoms. It's the little things that count. This may seem minor (like surrendering trans-fats), but it preps us for losing more freedoms in the future. At some point we have to say, "Enough is enough; we can take care of ourselves."
I would love to get some feedback on this if you have a moment. Do you agree/disagree with my position?
7.05.2007
Criminal Meiosis
Having been in class for three days now, I have noticed that there is an interesting group mentality beginning to show. It's almost like meiosis, in that our class is quickly dividing into groups. Not social groups, per se, but the so called "study group". Let me explain.
On day two, we were given two cases to analyze under a specific statue and the void-for-vagueness doctrine over lunch. Interestingly, the class split into two types of person: the types who wanted to go it alone, and the types that sought other human contact. Being in the latter, I found two guys that seemed reasonably intelligent, that I had gone out with the week before, and that I thought might contrast well with my mindset. At that moment, our cell divided from the others. I had to turn away good friends, perhaps better friends.
Over lunch, the three of us actually came up with answers that were fairly close to the "correct" answer given by the prof. And we worked quite well together, each contributing ideas that built upon the others for a full legal thought. We agreed that this was the ideal study group.
Fast forward to today. Again, we had fairly deep thought lunch work, so we decided to have a working lunch. This time, however, someone else wanted to tag along. None of us wanted to be "that guy" that refuses to share answers, so we allowed it. After a fairly unproductive lunch, we gathered another unattached soul, and lost the first. Again, our group didn't work as efficiently as it did on day two.
There is an exchange that goes on in this situation. As law students, we recognize the importance of networking and being social with one another. After all, our legal life will be dependant on these people. And yet, there must be a cutoff. When the engine runs fine, you don't need to keepadding parts. Sure, you may get supercharged here, or you might get a speed boost there. But as you go, there is a diminishing marginal return on additional study partners. Where do you draw the line?
On day two, we were given two cases to analyze under a specific statue and the void-for-vagueness doctrine over lunch. Interestingly, the class split into two types of person: the types who wanted to go it alone, and the types that sought other human contact. Being in the latter, I found two guys that seemed reasonably intelligent, that I had gone out with the week before, and that I thought might contrast well with my mindset. At that moment, our cell divided from the others. I had to turn away good friends, perhaps better friends.
Over lunch, the three of us actually came up with answers that were fairly close to the "correct" answer given by the prof. And we worked quite well together, each contributing ideas that built upon the others for a full legal thought. We agreed that this was the ideal study group.
Fast forward to today. Again, we had fairly deep thought lunch work, so we decided to have a working lunch. This time, however, someone else wanted to tag along. None of us wanted to be "that guy" that refuses to share answers, so we allowed it. After a fairly unproductive lunch, we gathered another unattached soul, and lost the first. Again, our group didn't work as efficiently as it did on day two.
There is an exchange that goes on in this situation. As law students, we recognize the importance of networking and being social with one another. After all, our legal life will be dependant on these people. And yet, there must be a cutoff. When the engine runs fine, you don't need to keepadding parts. Sure, you may get supercharged here, or you might get a speed boost there. But as you go, there is a diminishing marginal return on additional study partners. Where do you draw the line?
7.03.2007
The (Migratory) Birds and the Bees
Having completed two full days of law school, I feel like I made a great choice. Not just a great choice coming to Indiana Law, but a great choice in going to law school period. In these discussions, I feel at home. It feels good to sit at a lunch table and bounce legal theories off study partners. This is me in my element, and I feel like I'm ready.
The first day went surprisingly smooth. After a brief spiel by some of the deans, we were officially introduced to Dean Robel as the first third of the Class of 2010. It felt good, looking around, knowing that these people will be the folks with whom I spend my next three years. It became very real, as if all the dreaming and hypothesizing of the past year had finally materialized.
I feel comfortable saying that Professor Baude is an amazing professor. Everything you hear about law professors being tremendously witty is true. One minute we're discussing swarms of bees forcing us out of our homes, the next we're talking about whether an individual migratory bird needs to migrate in order to be migratory. We've had hearty discussions about voluntary reflexes, and how Baude told his son robbers wouldn't break into their house. Burglars would.
At this point, Crim Law is primarily philosophical and much less black-letter law. Why do we punish people at all? Why must laws be made in advance of crimes? Why don't we let judges "make" criminal law, while we let them create property and tort law? These sorts of questions are deeply thought-provoking, and they are a very good place to start the study of law. I can't imagine taking other law courses without this basic background. In that respect, I feel that the summer start program was the best use of money I could ever want.
Though the start of class meant the end of a solid week of going out, I have a feeling that I will enjoy my time in the classroom as much as my time out of it. I truly love this.
Until next time, try not to appear drunk in public, and keep your clipped-wing geese from jumping into my alfalfa fields.
I should clarify that this blog is chock-full of inside jokes that exactly 67 people understand. Sorry to the rest - take Baude, and you'll get it.
The first day went surprisingly smooth. After a brief spiel by some of the deans, we were officially introduced to Dean Robel as the first third of the Class of 2010. It felt good, looking around, knowing that these people will be the folks with whom I spend my next three years. It became very real, as if all the dreaming and hypothesizing of the past year had finally materialized.
I feel comfortable saying that Professor Baude is an amazing professor. Everything you hear about law professors being tremendously witty is true. One minute we're discussing swarms of bees forcing us out of our homes, the next we're talking about whether an individual migratory bird needs to migrate in order to be migratory. We've had hearty discussions about voluntary reflexes, and how Baude told his son robbers wouldn't break into their house. Burglars would.
At this point, Crim Law is primarily philosophical and much less black-letter law. Why do we punish people at all? Why must laws be made in advance of crimes? Why don't we let judges "make" criminal law, while we let them create property and tort law? These sorts of questions are deeply thought-provoking, and they are a very good place to start the study of law. I can't imagine taking other law courses without this basic background. In that respect, I feel that the summer start program was the best use of money I could ever want.
Though the start of class meant the end of a solid week of going out, I have a feeling that I will enjoy my time in the classroom as much as my time out of it. I truly love this.
Until next time, try not to appear drunk in public, and keep your clipped-wing geese from jumping into my alfalfa fields.
I should clarify that this blog is chock-full of inside jokes that exactly 67 people understand. Sorry to the rest - take Baude, and you'll get it.
6.29.2007
The Changing of the Minds
Even though classes haven't started yet, it seems that law school is already having a mind-altering affect on us. My experience in the last couple days has demonstrated this affect.
Law school seems to bring together a fairly diverse set of individuals. The only common factor seems to be that we are all smart, did well on the LSAT, and got good grades in college. Everything else is up for grabs. In my class, there are a fair number of libertarians, a large number of liberals (this IS Bloomington, after all), and I'm sure at least a few ultra-conservatives.
This week a few of us have been going out, and we got to discussing politics (as happens often when I'm around). One of my friends, a registered Libertarian, was telling me how he disagreed with the death penalty in all cases except treason and terrorism. Now, I am a firm believer in the death penalty, at least when guilt is 100% (or 99.9%) positive, and the crime took the life of another. This is just my personal belief, and I don't generally push it on others.
The following day, he had finished some of his reading for the first day of class, and discovered that perhaps his opinions were incorrect. You see, our first class in Criminal Law, and the first reading is about the purposes of punishment. The reading raised a good point about why the death penalty should exist. Let's assume that the death penalty is abolished, and that capital crimes earn life in prison. Well, as you may or may not know, so too does armed robbery. So in our hypothetical world, if an armed robber knows he is about to be caught, and thus will recieve life in prison, he might just start shooting. After all, a few murders on his hands won't gain him any more of a severe punishment.
While it is reasonable to assume that not all criminals think things out with such logical reasoning, we must believe that one of the purposes of punishment is to act as a deterrent. As such, many of the philosophical ideas that make us who we are will fall by the wayside as we begin to "think like lawyers".
And that's without having been in the classroom once.
Law school seems to bring together a fairly diverse set of individuals. The only common factor seems to be that we are all smart, did well on the LSAT, and got good grades in college. Everything else is up for grabs. In my class, there are a fair number of libertarians, a large number of liberals (this IS Bloomington, after all), and I'm sure at least a few ultra-conservatives.
This week a few of us have been going out, and we got to discussing politics (as happens often when I'm around). One of my friends, a registered Libertarian, was telling me how he disagreed with the death penalty in all cases except treason and terrorism. Now, I am a firm believer in the death penalty, at least when guilt is 100% (or 99.9%) positive, and the crime took the life of another. This is just my personal belief, and I don't generally push it on others.
The following day, he had finished some of his reading for the first day of class, and discovered that perhaps his opinions were incorrect. You see, our first class in Criminal Law, and the first reading is about the purposes of punishment. The reading raised a good point about why the death penalty should exist. Let's assume that the death penalty is abolished, and that capital crimes earn life in prison. Well, as you may or may not know, so too does armed robbery. So in our hypothetical world, if an armed robber knows he is about to be caught, and thus will recieve life in prison, he might just start shooting. After all, a few murders on his hands won't gain him any more of a severe punishment.
While it is reasonable to assume that not all criminals think things out with such logical reasoning, we must believe that one of the purposes of punishment is to act as a deterrent. As such, many of the philosophical ideas that make us who we are will fall by the wayside as we begin to "think like lawyers".
And that's without having been in the classroom once.
6.19.2007
Requiescat in Pace
As a once and future Hoosier, my deepest sympathies go out to the family and friends of Coach Terry Hoeppner. The most important thing a coach can do is begin and keep traditions. Coach Hep did that, and his presence will surely be missed, both on the field and off. From all of us in the law school, rest in peace, Coach.
6.12.2007
The Week in Ridiculous Legal News
One of my biggest pet peeves is government hypocrisy. You know the type: you can't own guns but we can, you can't grow marijuana but we can, you can't generate nuclear power but we can. Well, this story out of Pennsylvania really has my gears grinding.
At a routine traffic stop, a police officer noticed that a passenger in the stopped vehicle had a video camera and was taping the interaction between the officer and the driver. The camera was originally off, but when the officer yelled at the driver, the friend thought to himself "maybe this cop isn't following all the rules" and started taping. After the officer took the camera, half a dozen more police officers showed up and arrested the teen for illegal wiretapping. In Pennsylvania, it seems, any recording of another individual without their knowledge is wiretapping.
This raises all sorts of issues with me. First of all, the patrol car has a video camera recording audio and video from every traffic stop. The police can tape you, but you can't tape them. Beyond that, though, I think officers ought to act in a way that suggests that they could be getting taped at any time. It is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to keep the government in check, and tapes of police beatings and other police misconduct often result in a cleaner police force. I'm thinking specifically of a video of an off-duty cop beating a bartender half his size in Chicago a couple months back. Government creating laws that can be used to subvert an honest check of government power is downright wrong.
In other ridiculous legal news, strippers in strip clubs apparently can be too naked. 14 dancers were cited for excessive nudity. In California of all places. Nothing against California or anything, but you would think a lovely liberal paradise would realize that the purpose of a strip club is to, I don't know, see naked people. Haven't the police got better things to do? And what happens to the club after these women (at least, I assume they were women) were released? It gets hit with a possible administrative review by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. So, was the liquor what made the dancers get naked? Or was it the sweaty singles? California, you confuse me.
At a routine traffic stop, a police officer noticed that a passenger in the stopped vehicle had a video camera and was taping the interaction between the officer and the driver. The camera was originally off, but when the officer yelled at the driver, the friend thought to himself "maybe this cop isn't following all the rules" and started taping. After the officer took the camera, half a dozen more police officers showed up and arrested the teen for illegal wiretapping. In Pennsylvania, it seems, any recording of another individual without their knowledge is wiretapping.
This raises all sorts of issues with me. First of all, the patrol car has a video camera recording audio and video from every traffic stop. The police can tape you, but you can't tape them. Beyond that, though, I think officers ought to act in a way that suggests that they could be getting taped at any time. It is the responsibility of ordinary citizens to keep the government in check, and tapes of police beatings and other police misconduct often result in a cleaner police force. I'm thinking specifically of a video of an off-duty cop beating a bartender half his size in Chicago a couple months back. Government creating laws that can be used to subvert an honest check of government power is downright wrong.
In other ridiculous legal news, strippers in strip clubs apparently can be too naked. 14 dancers were cited for excessive nudity. In California of all places. Nothing against California or anything, but you would think a lovely liberal paradise would realize that the purpose of a strip club is to, I don't know, see naked people. Haven't the police got better things to do? And what happens to the club after these women (at least, I assume they were women) were released? It gets hit with a possible administrative review by the Department of Alcohol Beverage Control. So, was the liquor what made the dancers get naked? Or was it the sweaty singles? California, you confuse me.
6.01.2007
And thus it begins...
Today I received my first "be prepared to discuss" letter from the law school. In just 30 days, I will be sitting in a classroom, listening to and learning from Professor Baude, my classmates, and perhaps even myself. I've always heard that the moment you realize you've begun is when you get this letter. Wouldn't you know it; I heard right. Law school has never seemed so close. I'm nervous, I'm excited, and I'm hoping I'm prepared. 42 pages? I can handle that.
With a month to go until the beginning of "the next three years", I have spent more time thinking about why I chose to go to law school. I've never been shy about the fact that I want to enter politics, with the ultimate goal being the governor's office in Indianapolis. It's the reason I talk to everyone I meet, the reason I read everything I can get my hands on, and (to be honest) the reason I wake up in the morning. I don't believe that I could serve my fellow Hoosiers without being an attorney, and truly understanding and appreciating the law. The law is the one thing that binds us -- our whole society -- together.
Today was my last day at my job. As I shook the hands of the steady stream of well-wishers, I felt as if I had made real connections. Sure, I had worked there for two years, and they had become like family. But most of the people, as they shook my hand, promised me a vote. They promised the vote of their friends, their family, and their communities. As I talked to my supervisor, it was clear that, while he wished I would stay, he knew I was destined for bigger things. It was if he was proud -- proud that he had helped shape me into a leader. As I walked out, I knew that the best thing I could do for these people, my friends, was to become an attorney and speak on their behalf.
We all have reasons to go law school. Some do it for prestige; some do it for money. Some do it for the challenge; some do it because they can't decide on anything else. But I didn't choose it for any of those reasons.
Eternally optimistic, I want to change the world.
With a month to go until the beginning of "the next three years", I have spent more time thinking about why I chose to go to law school. I've never been shy about the fact that I want to enter politics, with the ultimate goal being the governor's office in Indianapolis. It's the reason I talk to everyone I meet, the reason I read everything I can get my hands on, and (to be honest) the reason I wake up in the morning. I don't believe that I could serve my fellow Hoosiers without being an attorney, and truly understanding and appreciating the law. The law is the one thing that binds us -- our whole society -- together.
Today was my last day at my job. As I shook the hands of the steady stream of well-wishers, I felt as if I had made real connections. Sure, I had worked there for two years, and they had become like family. But most of the people, as they shook my hand, promised me a vote. They promised the vote of their friends, their family, and their communities. As I talked to my supervisor, it was clear that, while he wished I would stay, he knew I was destined for bigger things. It was if he was proud -- proud that he had helped shape me into a leader. As I walked out, I knew that the best thing I could do for these people, my friends, was to become an attorney and speak on their behalf.
We all have reasons to go law school. Some do it for prestige; some do it for money. Some do it for the challenge; some do it because they can't decide on anything else. But I didn't choose it for any of those reasons.
Eternally optimistic, I want to change the world.
5.15.2007
Gas Out! Or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Gas Companies
Did you buy gas? In case you were unaware, today is an official boycott on gas. Someone on the internet declared it, and it became law. Several times today I was reminded not to buy gas, and an e-mail circulated through the company. I think most of the things I've read have been similar to this, so I reproduce it here for discussion:
Don't pump gas on May 15th!!!
In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.
On May 15th 2007, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.
There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the internet network, and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up.
If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets [sic] try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.
Now, being a person with both an economics background and a little thing called common sense, I know that this is completely and utterly pointless. I hate to the be the one to burst the bubbles of the thousands of American youth that think that they have the whole system figured out, but then again, bubble bursting is a specialty of mine, so let's go ahead and get started.
First of all, more people drive than internet users. To be effective, a boycott would need everyone to get together on this. By limiting your rallying cry to internet users (who, perhaps, spend more time at home or the office and thus drive less), you limit the effects of any boycott.
Then, the author goes on to list the number of internet users. Wow, 72 million internet users... now that is an impressive number. That's almost a quarter of the population of the U.S. But, oh wise prophet, you forgot to account for the fact that a large portion of those who use the internet aren't even yet of driving age. And those between 16 and 18 might still get gas money from mommy and daddy, thus not caring about the cost of a tank of gas. I recall that when I was in high school, I got a gas card. When gas first hit $1.50 (oh, those were the days), I didn't care. My parents picked up the tab. My brother now has the same deal. If gas goes up the $5.99 a gallon, he will be relatively unfazed. The world goes on, and we still need to get there.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 73 million are all driving age adults, who each drive one car, and like to drive a lot. Hell, maybe they all drive silver American sports cars that drink gas like their owners drink gin and tonic on the rocks with a twist of lime. Now we get to some cold hard numbers. First of all, 2.29 billion is not, nor will it ever be, rounded to 3 billion. Bad rounding. Very bad. The author goes on to let us know that if all 73 million of us don't buy gas for one day, we are removing that amount from their pockets. Now, put aside the fact that maybe we don't all need to buy gas today, and thus wouldn't have bought the gas anyways, and thus are not removing cash from oil-covered pockets anyways. By the logic and numbers presented us, we could calculate that $2.292 billion a day would mean an annual income of $837.15 billion (in the logic of the author, that's almost 1 trillion!). $837 billion. Roughly the nominal GDP of Mexico. Very impressive. Especially when you consider the nominal GDP of Saudi Arabia is only $348.6 billion, the UAE is $168.3 billion, Kuwait is $96.1 billion, and Qatar is $52.7 billion (all numbers courtesy of the International Monetary Fund). Even if the entire economy of these four massive oil producing nations were oil based, it still wouldn't add up to that number. And since the boycott is aimed specifically at Middle Eastern oil industry, we should still feel free to buy from any American oil company, right?
But putting aside all the flawed reasoning, bad data, and high hopes discussed thus far, the most obvious defect in this entire scheme is that the vast majority of participants in this "gas out" are playing a zero-sum game; that is, while they may avoid buying gas today, they will inevitably buy gas tomorrow or bought it yesterday. There isn't a loss in the pockets of the gas companies. You're simply giving it to them earlier or later. And the gas companies, fully aware of what is going on, have accounted for this. You know how I can tell? Yesterday, in the 8 hours I was at the office, the price of gas shot up 40 cents a gallon. Today, the prices dropped. Money says prices go up tomorrow. Gas companies, those bastions of free-market economics, know that they can induce people to buy by dropping the price today. Buy it today, and you might actually get a good price (good being a relative term, of course).
How could you hurt the oil companies, oh optimistic youth of America? Don't buy gas for a month. Convince all your friends to carpool in a hybrid. Take over the NYMEX and use basic economics to drop the market-set price of oil to a range you deem reasonable (ah yes, traders set oil prices... always so overlooked). Convince every investor that oil is a bad investment, thus killing the demand, and the price.
Alternatively, you can do what one of my friends did: get a job at an oil company. He doesn't pay for gas, and gets more money when gas prices go up. All you have to do is relocate to Texas and sell your soul! At prices like these, it's a bargain!
Until then, it sucks, but I will keep buying gas, and, like it or not, so will you. In fact, the gas station across the street just dropped their price 15 cents. Excuse me while I get in line behind the elderly gentleman and his wife who clearly didn't get the e-mail. Fill 'er up.
*Pop* goes the bubble.
Don't pump gas on May 15th!!!
In April 1997, there was a "gas out" conducted nationwide in protest of gas prices. Gasoline prices dropped 30 cents a gallon overnight.
On May 15th 2007, all internet users are to not go to a gas station in protest of high gas prices. Gas is now over $3.00 a gallon in most places.
There are 73,000,000+ American members currently on the internet network, and the average car takes about 30 to 50 dollars to fill up.
If all users did not go to the pump on the 15th, it would take $2,292,000,000.00 (that's almost 3 BILLION) out of the oil companies pockets for just one day, so please do not go to the gas station on May 15th and lets [sic] try to put a dent in the Middle Eastern oil industry for at least one day.
Now, being a person with both an economics background and a little thing called common sense, I know that this is completely and utterly pointless. I hate to the be the one to burst the bubbles of the thousands of American youth that think that they have the whole system figured out, but then again, bubble bursting is a specialty of mine, so let's go ahead and get started.
First of all, more people drive than internet users. To be effective, a boycott would need everyone to get together on this. By limiting your rallying cry to internet users (who, perhaps, spend more time at home or the office and thus drive less), you limit the effects of any boycott.
Then, the author goes on to list the number of internet users. Wow, 72 million internet users... now that is an impressive number. That's almost a quarter of the population of the U.S. But, oh wise prophet, you forgot to account for the fact that a large portion of those who use the internet aren't even yet of driving age. And those between 16 and 18 might still get gas money from mommy and daddy, thus not caring about the cost of a tank of gas. I recall that when I was in high school, I got a gas card. When gas first hit $1.50 (oh, those were the days), I didn't care. My parents picked up the tab. My brother now has the same deal. If gas goes up the $5.99 a gallon, he will be relatively unfazed. The world goes on, and we still need to get there.
But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that the 73 million are all driving age adults, who each drive one car, and like to drive a lot. Hell, maybe they all drive silver American sports cars that drink gas like their owners drink gin and tonic on the rocks with a twist of lime. Now we get to some cold hard numbers. First of all, 2.29 billion is not, nor will it ever be, rounded to 3 billion. Bad rounding. Very bad. The author goes on to let us know that if all 73 million of us don't buy gas for one day, we are removing that amount from their pockets. Now, put aside the fact that maybe we don't all need to buy gas today, and thus wouldn't have bought the gas anyways, and thus are not removing cash from oil-covered pockets anyways. By the logic and numbers presented us, we could calculate that $2.292 billion a day would mean an annual income of $837.15 billion (in the logic of the author, that's almost 1 trillion!). $837 billion. Roughly the nominal GDP of Mexico. Very impressive. Especially when you consider the nominal GDP of Saudi Arabia is only $348.6 billion, the UAE is $168.3 billion, Kuwait is $96.1 billion, and Qatar is $52.7 billion (all numbers courtesy of the International Monetary Fund). Even if the entire economy of these four massive oil producing nations were oil based, it still wouldn't add up to that number. And since the boycott is aimed specifically at Middle Eastern oil industry, we should still feel free to buy from any American oil company, right?
But putting aside all the flawed reasoning, bad data, and high hopes discussed thus far, the most obvious defect in this entire scheme is that the vast majority of participants in this "gas out" are playing a zero-sum game; that is, while they may avoid buying gas today, they will inevitably buy gas tomorrow or bought it yesterday. There isn't a loss in the pockets of the gas companies. You're simply giving it to them earlier or later. And the gas companies, fully aware of what is going on, have accounted for this. You know how I can tell? Yesterday, in the 8 hours I was at the office, the price of gas shot up 40 cents a gallon. Today, the prices dropped. Money says prices go up tomorrow. Gas companies, those bastions of free-market economics, know that they can induce people to buy by dropping the price today. Buy it today, and you might actually get a good price (good being a relative term, of course).
How could you hurt the oil companies, oh optimistic youth of America? Don't buy gas for a month. Convince all your friends to carpool in a hybrid. Take over the NYMEX and use basic economics to drop the market-set price of oil to a range you deem reasonable (ah yes, traders set oil prices... always so overlooked). Convince every investor that oil is a bad investment, thus killing the demand, and the price.
Alternatively, you can do what one of my friends did: get a job at an oil company. He doesn't pay for gas, and gets more money when gas prices go up. All you have to do is relocate to Texas and sell your soul! At prices like these, it's a bargain!
Until then, it sucks, but I will keep buying gas, and, like it or not, so will you. In fact, the gas station across the street just dropped their price 15 cents. Excuse me while I get in line behind the elderly gentleman and his wife who clearly didn't get the e-mail. Fill 'er up.
*Pop* goes the bubble.
4.26.2007
67 Days to Go
One of the great things about IU is that they have a summer start program, where a few of us can get a head start on the whole law school process. It's only one class (Criminal Law), and it's only a couple hours a day, four days a week, for five weeks. The school says in their sales materials that it's a chance for students that have been out of school for a while to get back into the groove. While that doesn't exactly fit my description (I graduated in December, so I've only been done for a couple months), I am thinking of it more as a two-part adjustment to law school.
First of all, since half of the value of law school is networking, it will (hopefully) give me a chance to get close to a small group of 1Ls, some of whom may be in my section in the fall. Moving in a couple months early acquaints me with my future classmates, gives me an idea of the type of people Ill be spending three years with, and lets me feel a little more comfortable.
The second reason is a little more utilitarian of me. Since 1L grades are based solely on exams, figuring out how to take them well will mean the difference between high scores and less high scores. If I were to start in August with the majority of my classmates, I would be taking my first exams in December. One follows the other, so I would have no time to 'adapt' to this type of exam. If, by some chance, I bomb the first one, I wouldn't have a chance to figure out how not to bomb the rest. On the other hand, taking an exam in August means that, even if I bomb on my CrimLaw exam, I will still have an idea of how to better prepare for exams in December. I hope it doesn't come to that, but you never know.
In case it's not obvious, I'm starting to freak out a little bit at the prospect of law school. I've heard enough horror stories of exams from other bloggers that I'm concerned. I've never been 'challenged' academically, so I'm completely unsure if I'm capable of studying the way one needs to in order to succeed. I've talked to people online, people that will be my classmates, and they all seem so much smarter than me. There are the people with doctorates, the people who come out of the Ivy League, and people that just plain seem better than me.
For now, all I can hope is that my incessant reading will pay off. Aside from the periodicals (The Economist, BusinessWeek, Reason, and Wired, et al), I've been trying to digest heavy material (reading law journals, old textbooks, et al). I've also been making my way through a couple books on Criminal Law, law school exams, and legal writing and reasoning. Hopefully this all works. 67 days to go.
First of all, since half of the value of law school is networking, it will (hopefully) give me a chance to get close to a small group of 1Ls, some of whom may be in my section in the fall. Moving in a couple months early acquaints me with my future classmates, gives me an idea of the type of people Ill be spending three years with, and lets me feel a little more comfortable.
The second reason is a little more utilitarian of me. Since 1L grades are based solely on exams, figuring out how to take them well will mean the difference between high scores and less high scores. If I were to start in August with the majority of my classmates, I would be taking my first exams in December. One follows the other, so I would have no time to 'adapt' to this type of exam. If, by some chance, I bomb the first one, I wouldn't have a chance to figure out how not to bomb the rest. On the other hand, taking an exam in August means that, even if I bomb on my CrimLaw exam, I will still have an idea of how to better prepare for exams in December. I hope it doesn't come to that, but you never know.
In case it's not obvious, I'm starting to freak out a little bit at the prospect of law school. I've heard enough horror stories of exams from other bloggers that I'm concerned. I've never been 'challenged' academically, so I'm completely unsure if I'm capable of studying the way one needs to in order to succeed. I've talked to people online, people that will be my classmates, and they all seem so much smarter than me. There are the people with doctorates, the people who come out of the Ivy League, and people that just plain seem better than me.
For now, all I can hope is that my incessant reading will pay off. Aside from the periodicals (The Economist, BusinessWeek, Reason, and Wired, et al), I've been trying to digest heavy material (reading law journals, old textbooks, et al). I've also been making my way through a couple books on Criminal Law, law school exams, and legal writing and reasoning. Hopefully this all works. 67 days to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)