Fighting for their Families: A Landmark Victory for Women’s Rights in India

By Devon Fitzgerald

In a landmark case for women in India and equal rights on the global stage, an unnamed woman in New Delhi fought and won a case against her cousin brother (or male cousin) for the position of head of her joint family.

The ‘Karta’ is the head of a joint (or undivided) family, a common family structure in India comprised of multiple generations. In the context of traditional American family structures this would include grandparents, parents, aunts, uncles, siblings, and first cousins. The managerial position within this structure is reserved for the eldest male member of the joint family. This is especially important in regards to families who own businesses. The Karta makes decisions for the greater good of the family -- especially in regards to family maintenance and account keeping.

The family’s conflict began when the woman in question’s father and three uncles passed. As the eldest child of the eldest son, she felt she had the right to inherit this coveted position. However, the eldest son of a younger brother, by virtue of his gender,was technically next in line.

Still, the woman brought her case to the high court in New Delhi to test the limits of the standing law regarding joint family management.

The Hindu Succession Act was amended in 2005, granting women equal rights to inheritance. Based on this amendment, the high court in Delhi ruled in favor of the woman, arguing that it was hypocritical of the law to give equal rights to women in regards to inheritance of their joint family, but not the management of it.

The court’s Justice Najmi Waziri agreed, writing, “If a male member of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF), by virtue of his being the first-born eldest, can be a karta, so can a female member.”

This ruling is a victory for women everywhere. The lack of coverage of this particular case leaves many unanswered questions. Mainly, what encouraged this unnamed woman to take her case to court? Was it the contrasting codification of the changing equal rights climate in India? What makes people question the longstanding norms and traditions all over the world? Where will these changes be made next? While women’s rights activists may still be unsure about the future of equality in India, they can find hope in the courage of this woman. Not only was she was willing to stand up to her family, but her passion pushed her to fight an unfair system which has treated women as second-class citizens for centuries. Where there may be uncertainty in what comes next, there is certainly solace in this small step towards equal rights under the law.

Starkest Illustration of The Death of Scalia

By Brett Mittler 

The following piece is a follow up to my previous Review of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association - Union Case Before Supreme Court.

The most significant labor union controversy that had reached our nation’s high court in recent years has come to a halt. The one sentence result (“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.”) in the case of Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association will permit the system of agency fees for non-union teachers in California. This split ruling leaves the legal foundation surrounding this issue in tumult with the unions coming out on top, at least until the Supreme Court has a ninth Justice at some point in the future.                                

The only effect this ruling had was to leave untouched the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The issue has come full circle without any additional legal reasoning; the Court of Appeals ruling was bound by a previous Supreme Court precedent that upheld fees against a previous constitutional challenge. This case, Friedrichs, was supposed to revisit and build upon the prior ruling. Due to the 4-4 Supreme Court, the possibility of a constructive outcome pervaded us.

Back in January when Court heard the Friedrichs case, it seems that this was a shoo-in, a five-to-four split, that it was unconstitutional for unions representing government employees to charge fees to workers that they bargained for but were not members. This would even apply to fees that covered the cost of normal union negotiations, not specifically lobby or political advocacy fees.  

The death of Justice Scalia left the Court with little option but ending it with an even split. Sadly, there is little evidence that the Court made an effort to mitigate the split and come to a more productive conclusion. The result of the case set no legal precedent and thus leaves the constitutional issue up in the air. The lawyers involved in the case are set to file a rehearing petition, requesting that the case be heard in the new term beginning October 3rd in hopes of having another Justice on the bench by then. 

If the Court decides that they will not rehear the Friedrichs case, the only other option to confront the issue of agency fees would be the consideration of an entirely different case. This case would have to work its way through the lower courts again until it reached the Supreme Court. Lower courts will have to rely on similarly unhelpful legal foundations. We simply will not have an answer for the litigants in these cases until a new Justice is confirmed. When we finally have a nine-person Court, what will the next step be for union dues? Only time will tell, I suppose.

A Maryland Judge Just Ruled Against Warrantless Cell Phone Location Tracking. Here’s Why All States Should Follow Suit.

By Martin M. McSherry

On Wednesday, the Maryland Court of Special Appeals published a legal opinion by Judge Andrea Leahy that protects one’s constitutional right to privacy in the digital age. The opinion suppresses the evidence obtained by the Baltimore Police Department’s use of highly controversial cell site simulators - known colloquially as stingrays - to track down a murder suspect in his own home using signals from his cell phone.[1] Stingrays are invasive cell phone surveillance devices used by law enforcement that impersonate cell towers, tricking nearby cell phones into transmitting their locations and other identifying information.[2] The opinion finds that the use of a stingray, considered an “active cellular surveillance device,” obtains information not voluntarily shared with third parties and requires a warrant.[3]

Judge Leahy’s reasoning is sound. The opinion applies the test pronounced in Katz v. U.S., which determines that a Fourth Amendment search occurs when a person has an “actual expectation of privacy” that “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable.’”[4] In Katz and other cases, the Supreme Court has found that the use of surveillance technology not available to the general public to gather information about the interior of a home (such as thermal imaging) constitutes a Fourth Amendment search.[5] Outside the home, the Court has ruled that the use of GPS data from a tracking device fixed to a car is also a Fourth Amendment search.[6] Even though a person traveling on public thoroughfares in a vehicle is visible to the public and “‘the eye cannot by the laws of England be guilty of trespass,’” the use of a stingray goes above and beyond visual surveillance.[7]

The result of allowing the unfettered use of cell-site simulators would be to effectively install a GPS monitoring device on every American of the type requiring a warrant in United States v. Jones. As Justice Sotomayor wrote in her concurrence in Jones, “Disclosed in [GPS] data… will be trips the indisputably private nature of which takes little imagination to conjure: trips to the psychiatrist, the plastic surgeon, the abortion clinic, the AIDS treatment center, the strip club, the criminal defense attorney, the by-the-hour motel, the union meeting, the mosque, synagogue or church, the gay bar and on and on. The Government can store such records and efficiently mine them for information years into the future… Awareness that the Government may be watching chills associational and expressive freedoms.”[8]

Moreover, the ownership and use of a cell phone in contemporary American society is not voluntary; it is a requirement of day-to-day life. Maintaining a job in both white-collar and blue-collar settings often requires being on-call to answer emails, messages, or phone calls from colleagues or clients. Personal relationships, group memberships, and other associations often necessitate the use of cell phones. Perhaps citizens should forgo fancy smartphones to avoid such offensive invasions of privacy, one might suggest. Even an old, scratched, clunky Motorola Razr from 2004 is susceptible to cell-site simulators. It is unreasonable to establish surrendering this ubiquitous piece of technology as the price of admission to the realm of reasonable privacy protection. Doing so would lower the temperature of the chill on associational and expressive freedoms described by Justice Sotomayor to an arctic deep-freeze.

This rationale was embraced by the Justice Department in September, which issued a department-wide policy mandating all federal agents “obtain a search warrant supported by probable cause before using a cell-site simulator,” setting limited exceptions for exigent circumstances.[9] The legislatures in California, Washington, Virginia, Minnesota, and Utah have mandated that a warrant must be issued for the use of stingrays.[10] However, as State of Maryland v. Kerron Andrews demonstrates, many state and local police departments are not bound by this requirement.

In 2014, the ACLU of Florida obtained internal emails from the Sarasota Police Department through a public records request. The emails revealed that police falsely claimed in probable cause affidavits that information obtained from stingrays came from confidential informants.[11] “In reports or depositions we simply refer to the assistance as ‘received information from a confidential source regarding the location of the suspect,’” one email reads. “To date this has not been challenged…”[12] This deception is likely at play in other police departments, making it more difficult for defendants like Kerron Andrews to appeal their convictions by challenging unconstitutional surveillance techniques.

Instead of the piecemeal approach of waiting for legislatures and judges in every state to protect privacy, especially as the use of cell-site simulators is being concealed by police, Congress should act now to require a warrant to be issued before law enforcement at every level uses a stingray. In the absence of congressional action, the Supreme Court should review this issue and rule according to the precedent established in Katz, Kyllo, and Jones. Doing so would protect the constitutional rights to privacy guaranteed to all Americans.

________________

[1] State of Md. v. Kerron Andrews, 1496 Md. App. 1 (Md. Ct. Spec. App. 2016).

[2] Id., at 27.

[3] Id., at 26.

[4] Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 359 (1967).

[5] Kyllo v. United States, 533 U.S. 27, 33 (2001).

[6] United States v. Jones, 132 S. Ct. 945, 948 (2012).

[7] Knotts v. United States, 460 U.S. 276, 286 (1983).

[8] Jones, 132 S. Ct. at 955-56.

[9]  Dep't of Justice, Justice Department Announces Enhanced Policy for Use of Cell-Site Simulators (2015).

[10] Cyrus Farivar, Appeals Court: No Stingrays Without a Warrant, Explanation to Judge, ARS Technica, Mar. 31, 2016 at 1.

[11] Maria Kayanan, Internal Police Emails Show Efforts to Hide Use of Cell Phone Tracking, Am. Civ. Liberties Union, June 19, 2014 at 1.

[12] Id.

We Need Judges

By Josh Kirmsse

On Tuesday, March 29, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Friedrichs v. California Teachers Association. The case, featuring a group of California teachers suing their union over mandatory membership fees, threatened to overturn 40 years of precedent. Many anticipated the decision could strike a death knell for unions nationwide. Others were confident that the Court would, with wisdom and depth, uphold previous decisions, pointing the way for future federal courts when tackling this difficult question. Both were disappointed.

“The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court,” read their one-sentence decision.

The Court, by virtue of a tie, could not fulfill its duties properly. When future cases arise, lower courts cannot rely on newly elaborated legal reasoning to make decisions. The California teachers and their union are denied a firm understanding of what the future holds. Amid gridlock and polarization, the judiciary seemed to be the only functional branch of our government. That no longer seems to be the case. The Supreme Court desperately needs a ninth member. As editorial after editorial has argued, Senate Republicans should step up and hold a hearing for the incomparably qualified Merrick Garland.

Instead, they’ve played political hot potato with American jurisprudence. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell promised not to hold hearings just minutes after Obama’s announcement, claiming the President was playing politics with the nomination process. Senator Orrin Hatch, just a week earlier, had predicted Obama’s appointment would be “about the election.” His solution? Nominate Garland. Unsurprisingly, once his request had been fulfilled, Hatch welcomed back his partisan blinders. In a New York Times editorial, Hatch himself made the case for “letting the voters decide” on the new vacancy.

Nonsense. The voters decided in 2008 and 2012, when they reelected President Obama in decisive electoral college victories. Senator Hatch was reelected himself in 2012, two years after he said that Garland could be confirmed “virtually unanimously.” The American people should not be required to elect a President and Congress of the same party in order for a nominee to be confirmed. Elections are mandates on candidates and ideas, not reminders that public officials need to fulfill basic constitutional duties.

The obstructionism doesn’t stop with Garland. While the Supreme Court may be making headlines, it isn’t our only judicial vacancy crisis. 84 seats in federal courts sit vacant; 50 nominees are pending; nearly 59,000 cases sit on federal court backlogs at this very moment. Refusal to hold hearings on Garland isn’t an isolated incident. It’s part of an epidemic.

Our Founders foresaw this problem. As Hamilton wrote in Federalist #76, “the intrinsic merit of [candidates] will be too often out of sight.” He knew that the process was not perfect, but believed it to be the best possible system for appointments. Like Hamilton, the Founders were countrymen, holding statesmanship above political disagreement. His hope was that Senators would be “independent” and “public spirited men.” In his vision, the Senate would prioritize integrity over politics. Compromise would be struck in the name of civility.

Unfortunately, that sense of decency is lost upon Senate Republicans. If the GOP hopes to be the party of the Constitution, maintaining the country that our Founders envisioned, they have a moral and civic responsibility to change course. Hold hearings for Merrick Garland. Work with President Obama to revitalize our crumbling judiciary. Senate Republicans, do your job.

Keeping Peace, Neglecting Justice: Problems and Solutions with UN Peacekeepers

By Ryan Niksa

It is always difficult and disturbing to hear about allegations of abuse of power, corruption, and other serious criminal activity occurring in systems where individuals are appointed to protect and serve others. Recently, the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), the principal authority of the United Nations charged with maintaining international peace and security, adopted a resolution that addressed escalating allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA) committed by UN peacekeepers in multiple regions. While the resolution agreed to by fourteen of the fifteen member states of the UNSC ostensibly represents growing effort and progress for current Secretary-General (SG) Ban Ki-moon in breaking a culture of institutional failure and impunity deep inside the UN, some remain skeptical. Seeing how such abuse has long been significantly underreported and inadequately handled, there appears to be an inexplicable lack of effort from UN leadership and the UNSC.

For over sixty years, UN peacekeepers have been deployed in field missions into war-ravaged and impoverished countries around the world to protect civilians and maintain order. According to a recent UN report, as of late February, there are sixteen active UN peacekeeping missions and just over 122,000 total peacekeeping personnel, with military peacekeepers representing a majority of the total personnel (over 104,000 of the 122,000 plus members are military troops, police, and observers). Over 120 UN member states contribute to the UN military peacekeeping personnel, and of the sixteen field missions, nine currently operate in Africa, more than any other region, specifically in Darfur, the Central African Republic (CAR), the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), and other unstable areas. In regions as poor and chaotic as the DRC, Darfur, and CAR, UN peacekeepers are the main security force. The current peacekeeping mission in CAR, MINUSCA (United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic), created in 2014 after fighting erupted the year before between the Muslim Séléka and Christian anti-Balaka groups, has close to 10,000 military peacekeepers from over two dozen contributing member states.

Sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN peacekeepers is certainly not a new problem. Ban Ki-moon’s predecessor, Kofi Annan, UN Secretary-General from 1997-2006, was the first SG to directly address the problem. He created a “no tolerance policy against sexual abuse and exploitation” in 2003, explaining that “men, women and children displaced by conflict or other disasters are among the most vulnerable people on earth. They look to the United Nations and its humanitarian partners for shelter and protection. Anyone employed by or affiliated with the United Nations who breaks that sacred trust must be held accountable and, when the circumstances so warrant, prosecuted."

In 2004, Annan invited Prince Zeid Ra’ad Zeid Al-Hussein, the Permanent Representative of Jordan to the UN, to be his Adviser on Sexual Exploitation and Abuse by UN Peacekeeping Personnel, and in 2005, the two collaborated to produce the first comprehensive analysis of sexual exploitation and abuse by UN peacekeeping personnel. Commonly referred to as “The Zeid Report,” the assessment designated four main areas of reform: the current rules on standards of conduct, the investigative process, organizational, managerial and command responsibility, and individual disciplinary, financial and criminal accountability. Since Ban Ki-moon replaced Annan in October of 2006, he has keenly reaffirmed commitment to the no tolerance policy. Furthermore, the SG has discussed the institution of deeper reforms with member states of the UNSC. Such proposals include increased education and training for peacekeepers on what constitutes sexual exploitation and abuse under the no tolerance policy, more immediate reporting of any allegations against volunteer and military peacekeeping personnel, and harsher sanctions against member states that provide corrupt peacekeepers. Since 2007, the UN has overhauled its justice system and established an entirely new Conduct and Discipline Unit, and training, investigative and victim assistance procedures have been developed through a “three-pronged” strategy of prevention, enforcement and remedial action.

The main hindrances to commitment to the no tolerance policy most worryingly reflect flaws in the inherent structure of the United Nations. Peacekeeping missions are at historically high levels of deployment, with contemporary missions lasting almost three times longer than missions a decade ago. Such high demand for UN peacekeepers but stagnant numbers of UN peacekeeping volunteers translates to the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations (UNDPKO) constantly looking to member states for funds and personnel. Dependency on states impedes oversight and accountability, as through current agreements between the UNDPKO and troop-contributing countries (TCCs), the peacekeeping troops’ home country is the sole investigator and prosecutor of any alleged abuse committed by them, rendering any disciplinary action from the TCC completely voluntary. Investigations by the national investigation organizations (NIOs) of TCCs are usually delayed, allowing for evidence or witness tampering, the accused are shuffled around and hidden from the UN and human rights non governmental organizations (NGOs), and outcomes related to the investigation’s progress or any disciplinary action from the TCC are usually unclear or unreported. Other issues stemming from the lack of UN oversight persist: allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse are still underreported, and without proper training, peacekeepers remain confused about the perceptions of sexual exploitation and continue to engage in prostitution and transactional sex (food and rations to the peacekeeper’s beneficiaries in exchange for sex) at elevated rates. Besides a lack of deterrent training and education, remedial assistance to victims is still very weak: very few victims have been assisted due to lack of dedicated funding and the slow enforcement process.

The UNSC was finally impelled to act after a startling escalation in sexual exploitation and abuse allegations was recently uncovered in the Central African Republic, igniting a scandal that rocked the United Nations. According to a report from the UN General Assembly in February, of the 69 allegations of sexual exploitation and abuse committed by UN peacekeepers in 2015, 38 came from just two peacekeeping missions: MINUSCA, and the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). The SEA allegations against MINUSCA peacekeepers in 2015, however, received significant attention and elicited harsh criticism against the UN and its response to allegations.  The scandal precipitated by SEA allegations made in CAR in mid-2014 that remained undisclosed until March of 2015 engendered further condemnation.

In May and June of 2014, an official from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) conducted interviews with ten children from Bangui, the capital of the Central African Republic. The children alleged that between December 2013 and June 2014, soldiers from the French Sangaris Forces and Chadian and Equatorial Guinean troops forced them to perform sex acts in exchange for food or money. A month after the interviews, a report describing the allegations was sent to a high-ranking OHCHR director of field operations, Anders Kompass. Kompass would inform his boss of the findings, before giving the report, which included the names of the victims and perpetrators, to French diplomats in Geneva. His release of the report to the French would spawn a cover-up rather than responsive action. OHCHR leadership suspended Kompass, and not until late March of 2015, a full eight months after Mr. Kompass’ actions, did the United Nations send an official copy of its Bangui inquiry to the government of France, with all the names redacted. Ban Ki-moon, outraged with the concealment while hearing more allegations specifically incriminating UN peacekeepers in CAR, forced Babacar Gaye, the head of the MINUSCA mission, to resign in August of 2015. By January, twenty-two allegations had been brought against UN peacekeepers in CAR, even after an external inquiry launched by Ban Ki-moon prompted the release of a scathing report that extensively cited “gross institutional failures” in the MINUSCA scandal.

On March 11th, the UNSC responded by adopting resolution 2272, a sweeping resolution that introduced multiple reforms to address the rise in sexual exploitation and abuse allegations. The resolution’s first clause heeded recent advice from Ban Ki-moon “to repatriate a particular military unit or formed police unit of a contingent when there is credible evidence of widespread or systematic sexual exploitation and abuse by that unit.” The second clause further requested that the Secretary-General repatriate all units of the TCC or police-contributing country from which the alleged perpetrator was from if they fail to take the appropriate steps to investigate the allegation, inform the SG of the investigation’s progress and outcome, and/or hold the perpetrators accountable for their actions. The concluding section recommended improvements to SEA pre-deployment training, established a trust fund for long-term counseling and medical support for victims, and underscored the critical importance that internally displaced persons and refugees are protected from any form of exploitation or abuse. Shortly after the passage of resolution 2272, the UN, for the first time, began naming the countries of alleged perpetrators. Ban Ki-moon vowed to make information available about outstanding allegations on a new website, partnering with important human rights NGOs including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International to do so.

While resolutions created by the UN General Assembly are not legally binding, resolutions adopted by the UNSC are. However, as much as resolution 2272 is a permanent step in the right direction in ending the culture of impunity and corruption, critics like myself instantly ruminate on what else needs to occur for better implementation of the no tolerance policy. If the UN and its peacekeeping missions are to regain the trust of our planet’s most vulnerable civilians, can repatriation, resolution 2272’s salient reform, benefit them? The notion of repatriating troops after discovering evidence of abuse sounds noble in principle, but what if nations still need the UN peacekeeping troops as their main security force, simply because their withdrawal would plunge the country back into instability? The Central African Republic, even as a hotbed of sexual offenses and allegations, has limited options. United Nations officials in February contended that CAR was particularly fragile amidst crucial presidential elections, and repatriating a battalion accused of committing sexual abuses could lead to even greater problems, since it has always been logistically difficult to bring in a new battalion of military peacekeepers. Ban Ki-moon and the UNSC alike voice the need for further reforms, but while further reforms should supplement those of resolution 2272, they should not fixate on UN peacekeepers from specific countries. The ensuing wave of reforms should be directed at the United Nations’ core structure and how it currently fails to hold UN and member state officials accountable.

Anthony Banbury, former United Nations assistant secretary general for field support, would know about the UN’s structural problems from working for the organization for over three decades. In his recent editorial piece in The New York Times, Banbury, in divulging his reasons for recently leaving the UN, cited the peacekeeping atrocities in CAR, and mentioned the UN’s stunning lack of accountability, where “short of a serious crime, it is virtually impossible to fire someone in the United Nations. In the past six years, I am not aware of a single international field staff member’s being fired, or even sanctioned, for poor performance.” The current problems holding UN peacekeepers accountable certainly relate to the UN’s dependency on a disproportionate group of  troop-contributing countries, but this only provides more incentive to undergo structural changes instead of simply relying on the reforms of member states. If it is difficult to replace corrupt peacekeeping troops with fresh troops, then the UN should take an alternative route to enforcing accountability: removing the chiefs of staff in peacekeeping missions if they are not appropriately managing their peacekeepers, just as Ban Ki-moon removed Babacar Gaye from MINUSCA.

The UN should also look outward in directly addressing its structural issues and improving accountability. Human rights NGOs including AIDS-Free World and Human Rights Watch should not only report allegations online as enumerated in resolution 2272, but also be tasked with reviewing the performance of UN supervisors and troop leaders and reporting back to the OHCHR field director. These organizations would not be overstretched since not every region has rampant SEA allegations and offenses that require their intervention. A more effective proposal might involve the formation of a completely independent commission, called for by UN member states and assigned with looking into every allegation of sexual exploitation and abuse by both military and civilian peacekeeping personnel and all other supervisory staff running peacekeeping missions around the world. Besides resolution 2272’s “name and shame policy,” the UN must accomplish much more in expediting prosecutions and weakening the culture of impunity and recidivism, and a DNA database of all peacekeepers, created and regularly monitored and updated by the OHCHR, would be an impactful deterrent.  

My final proposed change might be perceived as the most radical, but Ban Ki-moon himself proposed increased utilization of on-site martial court investigations and trials. I believe the UN should begin experimenting more liberally with such proceedings. According to the aforementioned UN General Assembly report released in February, the average time taken in 2015 to appoint national investigation officers or inform the Secretariat of a national investigation was three weeks. With on-site martial court proceedings, the investigation would be much quicker and more thorough. Witnesses and perpetrators would still be in the mission area, and the UN and OHCHR, through holding effective investigations and legitimate martial proceedings, can successfully prevent the alleged perpetrators from returning to their home countries outside of UN jurisdiction. Due to the UN’s  bureaucracy and limited resources, it is unrealistic to assume that the UN can usurp the role of sole investigator and prosecutor for all sexual exploitation and abuse allegations, but transferring power from the TCCs back to the UN would certainly exhibit a paradigm shift in UN structure and accountability. Moreover, on-site martial proceedings could become a viable method against SEA allegations in the future.

While the disillusionment and lack of faith in the UN’s credibility is almost palpable in his editorial, Banbury states at the article’s conclusion that “Secretary General Ban Ki-moon is a man of great integrity, and the United Nations is filled with smart, brave and selfless people … but we need a United Nations led by people for whom ‘doing the right thing’ is normal and expected.” I, like Banbury, still deeply respect the personal sacrifices made by those who work for the UN, and for all they do to make the world healthier, more equitable, and more secure. The UN’s most pressing problems, its lack of accountability and transparency, bureaucratic inefficiency, red tape, and antiquated structure and mentality, have certainly led to many losing faith in the organization’s ability to promote international cooperation and peace.

However, I believe the MINUSCA peacekeeping scandal not only made UN leadership more aware of its peacekeeping problems, but also opened their eyes to key structural issues, providing an impetus to change and take necessary action. With more planned peacekeeping reforms on the horizon, I am interested to see what direction the UN takes. If UN leadership is serious about resolving the issue, it must address structural problems within the organization, especially pertaining to how it holds member states and individuals accountable. If the UN can make genuine progress on a structural level, it would certainly strengthen my faith in its legitimacy. More importantly, internal reform would go a long way in improving implementation of the no tolerance policy, restoring trust and helping to ensure that only the best peacekeepers provide assistance and security to those who need it most.

The Superficial Reality of Spotlight's Success

By Kelli Jones

After its success at the Oscars, Spotlight has once again drawn attention to the systematic cover up of child abuse within the Catholic Church, particularly highlighting the courage and persistence of journalists at the Boston Globe. However, less than a week after the awards ceremony, a new legal decision regarding child sex abuse in Philadelphia has failed to file criminal charges for the covering of abuse of hundreds of child victims. The two Bishops on trial for purposely concealing evidence of abuse face no criminal consequences as either the statute of limitations has expired, or the accused abusers are deceased. While members of the Spotlight team should be highly commended in their actions, which drew attention to the shocking systematic procedures of the Catholic Church, the case in Philadelphia once again highlights that legal reform is ultimately needed.

The now public Grand Jury report states that two Bishops in Philadelphia covered up the sexual abuse of hundreds of children, by over fifty members of the church, across four decades. The FBI’s Behavioral Analysis Unit assessed the actions of the Bishops at the Diocese of Altoona-Johnstown, and their “conclusions were blunt but exact. James Hogan and Joseph Adamec enabled the priests of the Diocese to sexually abuse children.” In a process that resembles the account of the Boston diocese shown in Spotlight, Priests who were reported to the church for sexual abuses including rape were often removed for ‘treatment’ and subsequently relocated to a different parish. Instead of reporting the accusations to legal authorities, the Bishops kept the information within the church, using its own system to reportedly attempt rehabilitation and reintegration into service. The report even found that Bishops asked the accused Priests if they felt they needed this help, effectively allowing them to judge their own case. The public image of the Catholic Church was the main priority for the Bishops, rather than the protection of children within its care.

A more shocking revelation of the report is that at times when members of the community came forward to the police, they took no action further than a referral of the matter back to the church to deal with internally. One church official told the jury that church officials held such power within the community that “the police and civil authorities would often defer to the diocese.” This is a process unheard of in any other area of the justice system, and one that undoubtedly neglects to achieve justice or ensure protection for the child victims involved. The report found that the “men took actions that further endangered children as they placed their desire to avoid public scandal over the wellbeing of innocent children. Priests were returned to ministry with full knowledge they were child predators.” Common Pleas Judge Patrick Kiniry, for example, had a meeting with Bishop Hogan after allegations were made against a priest in his jurisdiction. When asked about Hogan’s decision to move the Priest to another location, Judge Kiniry replied “You have to understand, this is an extremely Catholic county…Back then the Diocese moved the problem, that’s just how it was.” Yet the evidence presented, and the lack of conviction for a Bishop who orchestrated the cover up, suggests that this is how it remains.

The main obstacle to securing a prosecution is the statute of limitations, which ensures that prosecutors can only charge a criminal within a given time frame after the crime. In general, this aims to ensure that evidence does not devalue over time and to motivate victims to come forward earlier to prevent further abuse. Former federal prosecutor Richard E Myers also argues “If you allow a case to get really old, it skews heavily in the prosecution’s favor...The defense is more likely to lose witnesses than the prosecution." Yet within the Philadelphia case alone, evidence and testimonies regarding hundreds of individual victims were presented, a quantity difficult to dispute. The idea that justice can be achieved decades later for a criminal charge such as murder is also widely accepted, as no state places a statute of limitations on such a prosecution.

In the case of child victims therefore, the statutory period appears arbitrary and neglectful. As children, many of the victims understandably don't feel able to come forward and can be too young to identify that a crime or fault is present. The Grand Jury report states “the victims of sexual abuse often engage in delayed reporting if they report at all. The reasons for delayed reporting are numerous and understandable…Victims find themselves alive and walking but feeling dead or dying.” In the Philadelphia case, the victims were required to come forward up to twelve years after coming of age however the report “detailed an account of a 70-year old victim who came forward to report the devastating trauma of their youth.” The difficulty victims face in speaking out, especially involving an institution such as the Catholic Church, which has a strong voice within the community, cannot be underestimated. Removing, or considerably extending, the statute of limitations is an essential step to ensure that those who do find the courage to speak out receive full justice, and prevent future child abuse.

Ultimately, the statute of limitations must be reconsidered, not merely in Philadelphia but nationwide, as it places an arbitrary time frame on the suffering that victims face. This requires legislative and legal action, which will undoubtedly take time that unfortunately not all victims have. A Bill recently passed in Oregon for example, eliminates the statute of limitations for sexual assault crimes. It is expected to be signed into law by Governor Brown shortly, and would set a hugely significant precedent. Some have also suggested a temporary lifting, particularly in light of cases regarding the Catholic Church, in order for prosecutions to occur that can break the cycle of the systematic concealment of abuse. Philadelphia Attorney General Kathleen Kane commented, “Victims need to be heard. Abolishing this statute would allow these predators to be held accountable until the last day of their lives, because these victims live with it until the last day of their lives.” In the more immediate future, the report emphasizes the need for members of the church and law enforcement to pursue, and investigate all accusations accordingly. The Grand Jury acknowledged that the “report details incidents of law enforcement officials falling short of their oaths,” and urged officials to continue the investigative work that was able to bring the Bishops to trial, even if no prosecution was possible. The continuing action of law enforcement and the actions of legislators is vital to protect the most vulnerable in society who have, for too long, been grossly violated and unprotected by the laws that should serve them. Until these changes occur, the justice system is tragically failing precisely those who need it most.