Tuesday 12 November 2013

Are Changes in Sight? Stagnation in the Gun Control Debate

By Amanda Presutti


In the past few years and especially in the last few months, gun shootings have become a rather frequent occurrence to the utter shock and dismay of the United States media and American public. In instances like the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting and the Naval Yard shooting in Washington DC, the murderers were seemingly normal citizens who gained access to their weapons not through illegal black market purchases, but through entirely legal pathways. The perpetrators of these crimes, as well as those of so many other, lesser-known shootings, have been able to attain weapons with relative ease. Their ability to do so has made many American and government officials wary of the background checks that all individuals are subject to when purchasing a firearm. Not only have Americans questioned the effectiveness of the system, they have also begun to worry about their safety as they grow more skeptical of the gun purchasing process. This concern can be considered legitimate, considering how many deaths due to gun related incidents occur each year. In fact, over 32,000 deaths occur annually due to the misuse and abuse of firearms, and this number is only increasing.[1]

As these crimes continue, the United States government has realized the necessity in bringing gun control laws to the forefront of its attention. Although the government understands the importance of addressing these rising gun control issues in order to subdue violence, the strong partisanship in Congress poses a huge dilemma. The Republican and Democratic parties have long stood on opposing sides ever since this issue has come into question. Republicans have established that the Second Amendment right should not be tampered with in any way. In the Republican mindset, all citizens have the right to own and use a weapon, and by creating limitations on gun purchases or stricter, more intensive background checks, the government is encroaching on these fundamental rights.  On the other hand, the Democratic Party believes that the government is not, in fact, infringing on the Second Amendment rights’ of its citizens; rather, it is attempting to protect them. The Democratic Party views the restrictions and changes to gun control as a necessary step in trying to promote safety and stop gun abuse while the Republican Party thinks that these restrictions will not help end violence.

The divide between the two political parties is so strong that disputes have even arisen between them regarding international gun control laws. In fact, Secretary of State John Kerry recently signed a United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, which was created to crack down on the transfer of international weapons to human rights abusers and especially terrorists.[2] Although this treaty was meant to hamper international terrorist organizations and protect Americans, members of the American National Rifle Association believed that it limited their fundamental rights. The National Rifle Association’s chief representative Chris Cox stated, “these are blatant attacks on the constitutional rights of every law abiding American. The NRA will continue to fight this assault on our fundamental freedom.”[3] The response of this NRA representative shows the strength of the divide between many members of the Republican Party and the more liberal members of the Democratic Party. All other countries throughout the world besides Syria, Iran and North Korea agreed to sign the treaty and bring the international law into effect, showing that the laws it set in place were not controversial in the viewpoint of most nations. However, the tenderness towards any firearm related law, whether international or meant to advance security policy, remains high and many Americans still oppose any limitations placed on firearm purchases and trade.

Because there is such a huge dispute and divide between the political parties regarding this issue, many United States legislators have attempted to focus their attentions on another portion of this matter. When investigators analyzed the backgrounds of the murderers in the Sandy Hook and Virginia Tech shootings, they discovered that both perpetrators not only had a history of violence, but they had been diagnosed with mental illnesses.[4] In actuality, this situation has held true for similar, lesser-known cases; many mass murderers who have managed to attain weapons legally have had a history of mental illness. For this reason, federal investigators and Congressional officials have begun to believe that mental instability is a leading cause in many instances of shootings.

With the sharp partisanship in the House and in the Senate, Congress understands that there is little likelihood of passing any gun control regulation laws, even if such laws only strengthen background checks for those trying to purchase weapons. Additionally, Congress may be trying to shy away from any serious political debates in exchange for much less controversial issues that could help solve the problem. In general, Congress acknowledged its limitations and attempted to effect change and provide some safety for the population by focusing on mental health laws, which they knew they could control. Regarding this issue, Senator Lindsey Graham, R- S.C. even admitted, “the mental health component could do the most good.”[5]

As of recently, Congress has been making headway on mental illness laws. Moreover, Democrats have brought it the attention of Republicans that by leaving the Affordable Health Care Act and Obamacare unscathed - or at least somewhat, more people with mental instability and serious illnesses will be allowed to enroll in health insurance. [6] Therefore, they will be able to seek the treatment and necessary help that they need. Thus, many American lives could potentially be saved; however, Republicans have to take many other factors into consideration when evaluating these plans and are reluctant to make any decisions just yet.

Shootings and gun-related deaths continue to pose a problem in American society and throughout the country; however, even without partisanship hampering the law-restructuring process, there are many difficulties in creating gun-control laws. Another major problem in trying to create these laws and basic restrictions is that there is a lack of clarity about where to draw the line. For one, it is difficult to determine exactly how the government should decide who is eligible to own a gun. Every person’s criminal record is different, and it becomes a question of when does a person’s criminal record become so bad that they should not own a firearm. Should people with misdemeanors or small felonies be allowed to purchase and carry a weapon? What crimes prevent a person from owning a weapon- is it dependent on the extent of the crimes or the repetition of certain crimes? Moreover, it is difficult for the government to define what mental illness is, or even what types of guns are more destructive than others. In order to create more laws and put stricter background checks in place, government officials must come to an agreement and specifically determine what is universally acceptable.

The gun control debate becomes more and more of a pressing issue as gun shootings continue to constantly ring throughout the news. It is certain that changes need to occur regarding gun control laws or mental health laws in order to provide a safer, more secure environment for this generation and those in the future. However, these changes will come very slowly, as partisanship and serious technicalities pose countless problems for legislators throughout the nation. These changes demand that legislators work together to determine basic guidelines and come to an agreement about what needs to be accomplished and how to accomplish it.










[1] “Starbucks asks US customers to leave guns at home.” Baertlein, Lisa. Reuters. September 18th, 2013.
[2] “The Myth of the Global Gun Grabbers.” Garofalo, Pat. US News. September 26th, 2013.
[3] “The Myth of the Global Gun Grabbers.” Garofalo, Pat. US News. September 26th, 2013.
[4] “More Americans Want Less Strict Gun Laws.” Bidwell, Allie. US News. September 20th, 2013.
[5] “Mental Health Legislation, Not Gun Control, Focus of Congress After Navy Yard Shooting.” Fox, Lauren. US News. September 17th, 2013.
[6] “Mental Health Legislation, Not Gun Control, Focus of Congress After Navy Yard Shooting.” Fox, Lauren. US News. September 17th, 2013.

Wednesday 6 November 2013

Application of Miller v. Alabama


By Caitlin Barbas

Sara Kruzman, a 35-year old inmate at the Central California Women’s Facility is a woman sentenced to death for killing her alleged pimp while she was a minor.[1] Following the announcement of the upcoming parole release of Sara, national attention has returned to the controversy surrounding juvenile sentencing as well as the legislation and court rulings regarding this issue.
Much of this controversy comes in the wake of the case, Miller v. Alabama, heard by the United States Supreme Court over a year ago. In the court opinion, released on June 25, 2012 by Justice Kagan, the Supreme Court ruled that juvenile mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole violates the Eighth Amendment of the US Bill of Rights, which protects citizens from “cruel and unusual punishment.”[2] Using the rulings of previous juvenile justice court cases, most notably Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida, the court explained that a mandated life sentence without the possibility of parole over looked the fundamental distinction between adults and minors. Teenagers, the court explained are likely to be highly influenced by their background and often cannot properly handle situations involving peer pressure. The court further asserts this judgment, writing, “[Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile] prevents taking into account the family and home environment… the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation…. and the possibility of rehabilitation.”[3] The court, however, specified that states were not required to promise release from prison;rather, they must make the opportunity present in the case of “maturity and rehabilitation.”[4]
Application of this ruling within individual states’ justice systems has been slower than expected, with many cautious about the social consequences of lighter sentencing, such as a higher crime rate.[5] This has resulted in numerous, non-uniform updates to state justice systems across the nation. For example, only in September 2013 did Massachusetts revise its general laws to include 17 year-olds in juvenile jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Massachusetts Chief Justice of the state juvenile court system explained that 17-year old defendants charged in the commonwealth in 2012 for any crime would have their charges transferred to juvenile court. However, at the time of the legislation’s passing, it was not officially ruled whether the sentences of all current inmates serving juvenile life without parole would be reviewed.[6] In Louisiana, we see the application of Miller v. Alabama to current and future juveniles facing trial, similar to the process explained in Massachusetts. However, in December of 2012, the Supreme Court of Louisiana, in the ruling, State v. Williams also applied the new sentencing regulations to the pre-sentenced inmates serving life without parole for crimes committed as a juvenile.[7]
            In examining only these two states, both of whichhave legally applied the rulings of the United States Supreme Court, we already are able to see that there exist multiple interpretations of this case. While the Court’s ruling that juveniles, in the present and the future, may not be sentenced to life without parole, the Court made no clear distinction as to whether the ruling would also apply retroactively. Should an inmate currently serving life in prison for a crime committed as a juvenile be granted a sentence hearing or should that inmate be bound to the procedures used during the time their crime was committed? Furthermore, the Court cited a violation of the Eighth Amendment in sentencing minors to mandatory life without parole; therefore, one must question whether the individual rights of the inmates currently serving time under this punishment are infringed upon by a state’s decision not to review prior sentencing. These questions represent a true point of controversy with the functionality of the American Justice System, particularly in the juvenile system. The court’s vague rulings seem to be problematic, as there appears to be no clear and uniform response of states to the new decision. However, this vagueness allows the states to take into consideration their own situation and autonomy. It is this push-and-pull which we see defining the scene of the individual states’ juvenile justice system following the Supreme Court Ruling on Miller v. Alabama.


[1] Associated Press, "California Governor Allows Freedom to Woman Who Killed Pimp." Last modified October 27, 2013. Accessed October 27, 2013. http://news.msn.com/crime-justice/calif-governor-allows-freedom-to-woman-who-killed-pimp.
[2] Miller v. Alabama, 132 S.Ct, 2455 (2012)
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] The New York Times, "End Mandatory Life Sentences." Last modified September 16, 2013. Accessed October 27, 2013. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/17/opinion/end-mandatory-life-sentences.html?_r=0.
[6] Ring, Dan. The Republican Newspaper, "17-Year-Olds to be Treated as Juveniles in Massachusetts Courts Under Law Signed by Gov. Deval Patrick." Last modified September 18, 2013. Accessed October 29, 2013. http://www.masslive.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/09/gov_deval_patrick_signs_law_to.html.
[7] Equal Justice Initiative, "Louisiana Supreme Court Permits Retroactive Application of Miller v. Alabama." Last modified December 28, 2012. Accessed October 28, 2013. http://www.eji.org/node/728.

Penn State Paying for Sandusky’s Crime


By Tanner McCarron

The nightmare that has plagued one of the world’s most iconic public universities is about to come to an end. On Monday, October 28th, Penn State University announced that it would pay $56 million to 26 young men, the victims  of former Penn State defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky’s sexual assault1. The announcement comes as the University attempts to move on from the legal and public relations disaster that has hung as an albatross around the neck of the University.

In November 2011 it was revealed that former Penn State football coach Jerry Sandusky had raped multiple children in the showers of the Penn State locker room. Following this discovery, the university hired former prosecutor, Louis Freeh, to investigate the matter.  The investigative report revealed that Penn State leaders, including President Graham Spanier and legendary football coach Joe Paterno, willfully withheld information regarding the child abuse in order to protect the reputation of the University at the expense of the young victims. Freeh wrote, “"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at Penn State University - Messrs. Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley - repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse from the authorities, the Board of Trustees, Penn State community, and the public at large.2" Ironically, the investigation that the University spent millions to fund ended up serving as the evidence the NCAA used to enact heavy sanctions against one of Americas largest football programs. The sanctions included a 60 million dollar fine, an elimination of all wins dating back to 1998, a reduction of 20 total scholarships for the next four years, and the most damning being a four-year postseason ban3. The University was quick to accept the penalties as well asto compensate the victims that were affected. 

When the heavy sanctions were levied against the Penn State Football program many questioned the legality of the penalty. There had been no precedent to follow, and the University had not violated any football related regulations. However, football was put on the backburner, and the University did what was in the best interest of the University, and accepted the penalty. The announcement on Monday is another clear indicator that the University is more concerned with doing right by those who were victimized and creating a positive public appearance rather than fighting for every nickel and dime in court.

A lot can be learned from the scandal that rocked Happy Valley. First it shows that even if punishments, plea settlements, or sanctions seem overly severe against a University, it is in the best interest to accept them, because it is the quickest way too move on and preserve its image. Universities strive to attract the brightest and most promising students the world has to offer, and a messy court battle or negative PR is the easiest way to turn these students away. Second, this scandal brought to light the danger of having a solitary figure, embody an institution. Joe Paterno was not only worshiped in Pennsylvania and amongst college football diehards, but was admired throughout the countryfor his widely held status as an exemplary citizen. His power and influence was limitless. Unfortunately he used his power at the expense of justice. As the final chapter of the Penn State scandal is written, the moral of the story is that all power must be checked. 



Bibliography
1.     Gough J. Paul. “Penn State pays $56M in claims to Sandusky victims”.
2.   PBS.org. “Report: Penn St. Paterno Chowed No Concern for Sandusky Victims”.
3.     ESPN.com. “Penn State Nittany Lions hit with $60 million fine, 4 year bowl ban,