The Problem of Over Criminalization in America

/ Melissa DiRado / Leave a comment

The Heritage Foundation  defines over criminalization as “the trend to use the criminal law rather than the civil law to solve every problem, to punish every mistake, and to compel compliance with regulatory objectives.” In today’s society, most states have laws on the books for just about anything you could think of.   Criminalizing every behavior a person can engage in is said to chill the effects that punishing criminal behavior was originally intended to produce. The Heritage Foundation issued a report entitled “Without Intent: How Congress Is Eroding the Criminal Intent Requirement in Federal Law.” For more information, see their webpage on the topic.  In sum, this article details that Congress continues to create new crimes through legislation that do not possess the characteristics of what is typically referred to as a “crime.” Here are some of the brief findings outlined in this article:

” A core principle of the American system of justice is that no one should be subjected to criminal punishment for conduct that he did not know was illegal or otherwise wrongful. This principle of fair notice, which has been a cornerstone of our criminal justice system since the nation’s founding, is embodied in the requirement that, with rare exceptions, the government must prove the defendant acted with mens rea—a “guilty mind”—before subjecting him to criminal punishment. Members of the 109th Congress (2005–2006) proposed 446 criminal offenses that did not involve violence, firearms, drugs and drug trafficking, pornography, or immigration violations. Of these 446 proposed non-violent criminal offenses, 57 percent lacked an adequate mens rea requirement. Worse, during the 109th Congress, 23 new criminal offenses that lack an adequate mens rea requirement were enacted into law.” This quote can be found here.

The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers notes that there are over 4,450 crimes throughout the Federal criminal code. Americans are expected to know and understand the laws so they can conform their behavior to them. Ignorance to the law is said to not be a defense to criminal conduct. However, can our society really expect the average citizen to be fully informed of what conduct is punishable when there are that many offenses?

For more examples of this problem, see this article.

 

Fareed Zakaria: Why No One Is Thankful For The Federal Government

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Fareed Zakaria: Why No One Is Thankful For The Federal Government

The most recent episode of Fareed Zakaria GPS began with “Fareed’s Take” on trust in government, particularly the federal government.  Zakaria diagnoses the systemic and political causes for the near historic lows in confidence in the federal government and discusses solutions.  

Here is a brief description of the segment: 

Fareed Zakaria explains why Americans have reason not to be grateful for federal government this Thanksgiving.

ENDA: A Story of National Consensus & Party Faction

/ Matthew McKeon / Leave a comment

The progress of the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) through Congress highlights a recent development within the GOP generally.  Amidst the party’s civil war for its identity and future, once sheepish moderate Republicans are becoming more willing to stand up against the unpopular ideological purity espoused by the party’s hard-right.

On November 7, the Senate voted 61to 30 to pass ENDA; of the 61 yea votes, 10 came from Republicans.  In a superficial sense, this could be unremarkable given the historical precedent: when the Senate failed to pass a version of ENDA in 1996, 8 Republicans joined Democrats in voting yea.  But the Senate Republicans who voted for ENDA in 2013 are a very different group than those who voted yea in 1996.  First, not a single one of the latter group are still in office.  Second, three senators who voted against the measure in 1996 – John McCain, Orrin Hatch, and Lisa Murkowski – decided to vote yea on November 7.  Finally, many of the Republicans who voted yea in 2013 represent more conservative to moderate states than their 1996 counterparts, especially Orrin Hatch of Utah, John McCain of Arizona, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania, and Rob Portman of Ohio.

This shift can be seen as reaction to recent support for LGBT rights (especially for employment nondiscrimination), even among Republican voters.  A Gallup poll conducted less than a week before the 2013 vote found that 63% of Americans would vote for a referendum instituting a national ban on sexual orientation/gender identity-based job discrimination.  That same poll pointed to an interesting discrepancy  between Republican senators and Republican voters.  Only 23% of Republican senators voted to pass ENDA this past November, whereas 58% of Republican voters would vote for such a law were it put to a national referendum.  While this demonstrates that GOP social conservatives still vastly outnumber moderates and libertarians in Congress, the November 7 vote indicates there are enough moderate Republican senators to join with even a slim Democratic majority to pass pro-LGBT legislation in the future.

Having passed the Senate, it now falls to the House to vote on ENDA; here, too, party faction continues.  House Speaker John Boehner announced through a spokesperson that he was opposed to ENDA, and that the Republican-dominated House may not even bring the bill up for a vote.  This is in contrast to many Republican representatives who have signed onto the proposed House version of ENDA, which currently has 193 supporters in total.  Many of these moderate Republicans, like Pennsylvania’s Charlie Dent and Florida’s Illena Ros-Lehtinen, also voted for the 2011 repeal of the Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy.

While moderate voices have clearly begun to reemerge within the GOP regarding ENDA and a number of issues, it is unclear what if any long-term change these members will affect on the conservative majority of their party and future Republican platforms.  In the mean time, there appears to be enough moderates in both houses to join Democrats in passing pro-LGBT legislation aimed at discrimination based on sexual orientation.

(This post’s sources can be found at the  hyperlinked sections of text which reference them).

A Look Inside Amazon on Cyber Monday

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

A Look Inside Amazon on Cyber Monday

In anticipation of Cyber Monday, 60 Minutes ran a segment that took a look into how Amazon.com operates. 

Here is how the story began: 

There has never been a company quite like Amazon. Conceived as an online book seller, Amazon has reinvented itself time and again, changing the way the world shops, reads and computes. Amazon has 225 million customers around the world. Its goal is to sell everything to everyone. The brainchild of Jeff Bezos, Amazon prides itself on disrupting the traditional way of doing things. A few weeks ago the company announced it was launching Sunday delivery.

 

Tonight, for the first time, you will be introduced to perhaps Amazon’s boldest venture ever.

Sunday Funday: Teaching Scientists Social Skills

/ Matthew Clemente / Leave a comment

Sunday Funday: Teaching Scientists Social Skills

I hope everyone had a safe and enjoyable holiday!

This edition of Sunday Funday is features a short segment from NPR’s Weekend Edition Saturday about BioToasters–a public speaking organization for scientists.

Here is how the story began:

About 20 scientists are clustered in a cramped conference room in San Diego, one of the country’s science hubs, but they aren’t there to pore over their latest research. Instead, this is a meeting of BioToasters — a chapter of the public speaking organization Toastmasters, geared specifically toward scientists.

“For a typical scientist, they will spend a lot of time at the bench, so they’re doing a lot of maybe calculations or lab work where they’re not interacting directly from person to person,” says BioToasters President Zackary Prag, a lab equipment sales rep.

But scientists still often need to be able to speak to a crowd: Academics give seminars; pharmaceutical researchers present results; and graduate students defend their work in front of their professors and peers. Prag says it’s important to learn to speak clearly and make small talk.

At a recent meeting, two other Biotoasters were doing just that. New member Gina Salazar gave a presentation on “meeting girls and guys — pickup for smart people.”

Salazar practiced with member Greg Mrachko. “You’re adorable! You really look like Michael J. Fox,” she said to him, as the rest of the club laughed. “Do you have a girlfriend?”

“Michael J. Fox?” he responded. “Probably because of my new haircut.”

Practicing these social graces leads to better public speaking, and that’s important for a scientist’s career, says Union College physics professor Chad Orzel.

“Part of the way you make a reputation within the field is by giving talks at meetings, and then people see you give the talk and say, ‘Oh, that person gave a really good talk. They must be really smart,’ ” he says.

Orzel says part of a science professor’s job interview is giving an hour-long seminar. “In academia, we’re hiring people who are going to be expected to teach classes as well, so it’s absolutely critical that you be able to give a good talk,” he says

For more public policy related video/audio, be sure to check out the SLACE Archive.