A Life for A Life?

Popular support for the death penalty is in decline in the U.S. According to a Pew Research poll conducted last year, support is now below 50% and the lowest in 45 years.  Furthermore, 19 states and the District of Columbia have abolished capital punishment.  Yet, Ohio and several other states still execute prisoners: in fact, Ohio has six scheduled executions for this year.  Is Ohio justified in killing these prisoners?  Is the death penalty justified under any theory of punishment?  Under what circumstances?  Should we keep or abolish the death penalty?

Minority Report

In the film The Minority Report criminals were apprehended and punished for crimes that they had not yet committed, but which they were about to do.   Thanks to the infallible accuracy of psychics who could predict the future, law enforcement could stop crime and punish it BEFORE it happened, saving potential victim's from trauma and death.  But is it justified punishing a crime that hasn't and will never happen?  Can we punish someone just because they have a certain --or even a high likelihood -- of causing serious harm?  Assuming a system of identifying the dangerous were reasonably accurate if not infallible, should those dangerous individuals be punished?

Victim's Rights

A ballot initiative proposed for the state elections this November seeks to incorporate victim's rights into the state constitution.  Some of the proposed rights include notice of all public proceedings involving the offense and to be heard in any public proceeding involving release, plea, sentencing, disposition or parole. In addition, the victim may refuse some discovery requests made by the accused and have full and timely restitution g from the offender.  Finally, the proposed amendment explicitly provides that the victims can  these claim these rights in court and, if denied, file an appeal. But are these rights justified?  Do victims of crimes have rights from the criminal justice system -- or are these right only available in a civil suit?  Do any theories of punishment allow such rights -- or do some imply they are untenable?   Are any of these rights justified -- or any unjustified?  Should this state amendment be passed -- or rejected?

You Can Serve Time But You Can't Hide: Community Notification Laws for Sexual Predators

Ohio, like most other states, has laws that require some sexual offenders to register their residence with the state and those names and addresses are required to be announced to the community.  In Ohio, only the category of "Sexual Predators" and "Tier 3" Sex offenders are subject to community notification.   Any offender in that category, however, is subject to reported to the community.  The Sheriff's Department notifies by mail all residents who live with a 1,000 feet of the registered address.  The registration and notification of criminals is not the norm -- but is it justified in the case of the sex offender?  After all, these criminals have already served time in prison in many cases.  Is there something special about their crime?  Or does this provision unfairly burden these former felons?

Losing My Voting Rights

In most states, criminals lose their voting rights while incarcerated (the sole exceptions being Maine and Vermont).   However, a majority of those states have some provision for criminals to regain those rights upon release or upon completion of parole or probation (although for some of those states there are some barriers to regain rights).  Yet, several states such as Florida, Alabama, and Virginia allow some criminals to regain their rights only by the action of the governor and the courts.   These policies are often highly contentious. Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe, for instance, announced an executive order to restore voting right to felons upon completion of parole or probation in 2016 -- but that order was overturned by the Virginia Supreme Court.   Consider the various theories of punishment we have studied.  Is there any justification for punishing a criminal by taking away one's voting rights?  Especially considering that the criminal is already being punished by incarceration?  Or is there some other reason to take away these rights?

Chief Wahoo's Last Hurrah

The Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo is a crude caricature of a Native American that many people find offensive.  A private school in the Cleveland area tolerated this offensive caricature when it was restricted to a once weekly dress down day.   However, when the school switched to a more relaxed dress that allowed sports wear on any day, the administration decided to ban any apparel that featured Chief Wahoo's likeness.  Several students are bothered by this policy because they revere Chief Wahoo as vital symbol of their team and see wearing it as an example of team spirit and civic pride.  Did the school administration make the right decision?  How might the offense principle apply in this circumstance?

Obesity and Paternalism

Rates of obesity in the United States are alarming -- and efforts to reverse the trend seem ineffective.  According the Center for Disease Control and Prevention 38 percent of U.S. adults are obese and 17 percent of teenagers are as well.  Another third or so of Americans are overweight. Obesity can lead to serious health condition such as heart disease and diabetes.   Some governments have attempted or considered paternalist interventions to stem the tide of obesity.  For example, New York City attempted to ban the sale of soda pop in sizes greater than 16 oz.   Other cities such as Berkeley and Philadelphia have passed a soda tax.  In Philadelphia distributors are taxed 1.5 cents per once on soda pop and other sweetened drinks: a 2 liter bottle of pop that used to cost $1.79 sells today for $2.79 because of an added dollar in tax.  These laws are intended to help consumers in these cities -- but have they gone too far?  Are these laws and taxes justified?  Why or why not?

Freedom of Speech and "Alternative Facts"

J. S. Mill in his classic defense of free speech in On Liberty worries that the suppression of opinions, even those that are false, prevents a healthy debate of ideas.   He claims, for instance, that "not only the grounds of the opinion are forgotten in the absence of discussion, but too often the meaning of the opinion itself "(37).  Yet, in our own day, there are other threats to the vigorous debate that Mill thought essential for understanding an idea at all.   In the age of social media networks and newsfeeds, citizens insulate themselves from views that disagree with. In addition, in the era of "fake news" and "alternative facts" citizens are confused by opinions deliberately intended to manipulate them.  Many people, for example, believe that climate change is a hoax and fail to address the issue because of deliberate attempts by the fossil fuel industry to confuse them.  Under these circumstances, how is Mill's debate about ideas possible?  Is there any plausible solution?  Should the government regulate news like the FDA regulates the claims of commercial products?  Or will truth eventually win out?

Liberal Rights for Enemies of Liberals?

In our political process, major parties and candidates accept liberal rights such as freedom of speech and assembly and democratic procedures.   Yet, some political groups, while playing by the liberal and democratic rulebook, advocate policies that undermine and attack liberal rights, perhaps even repudiate them.  For example, Communists advocate for one-party rule, the repression of religious expression and controlling the media.  Similarly, some religious groups advocate for the imposition of a state religion and standards of behavior and decency imposed by that religion (such as groups in other parts of the world that wish to impose their version of shariah law). Assuming these groups renounce violence, should a liberal state tolerate illiberal political groups?    Is their political speech protected by the same principles they ultimately renounce?

Highways and Protests

In On Liberty, Mill vigorously defends the right of citizens to assemble and express their views.  Yet how far does that right extend?   A bill in Iowa proposes making protesting on a highway a felony subject to as much as five years in prison.   Its proponent cites safety concerns around the obstruction of police and fire vehicles.   However, civil liberties claim it and similar laws have a chilling affect of free speech and the right to protest.  What would Mill say about all this?  Which side of the debate is correct (or is there some third or middle position that is correct)?  Is there a right to protest even if it prevents me from getting work on time?

Drugs and Liberty

Many states are beginning to experiment with legalizing marijuana for medical uses as well as for recreational uses.  Currently the states of Alaska, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Nevada, Oregon, and Washington permit some form of the recreational use of marijuana.   Nonetheless, the federal government still prohibits such uses.  Furthermore, other recreational drugs, such as LSD, cocaine, and heroine are illegal in all of the states, including those that now permit marijuana.   In many of those states the possession of at least some of those illegal drugs is a felony.   What would Mill say about the drug laws in the U. S.? Should some recreational drug use be permitted?  Should all?  What about currently legal drugs such as nicotine, alcohol, and caffeine?  Is Mill's position the current one?  Or do drug laws show that we need to go beyond the Harm to Others Principle?

The Trial of the Caskets

The Trial of the Caskets, while not an actual legal affair, has many similarities to a court trial.  It is designed to prove something.   A judgment is rendered at the end of the trial and, if appropriate, punishment is given.  Also, the terms of the trial were set by the will of  a person in the past, much as laws are the will of the legislatures that enacted them, sometimes long dead.  Morocco and Aragon choose unwisely, fail the trial, and must not only leave immediately, but never marry.  Bassanio, on the other hands, chooses successfully and wins Portia.

However, are these outcomes just?  Do Morocco or Aragon deserve their punishment?  Look at their reasoning: does it merit the outcome?  What about Bassanio?  Does he deserve Portia?  What about the possibility that Portia is giving him hints?  What does the Trial of the Caskets tell us about legal trials?

Justice Is Blind?

Justice is often portrayed as a blindfolded woman holding the scales of justice. The usual interpretation of blindness in that case is that judges need to look past their personal feelings and prejudices and uniformly apply the law. The Merchant of Venice is also concerned about blindness.   Lancelet Gobbo, for instance, plays a trick on his "sandblind" father who cannot recognize his own son.  Jessica, when she meets her lover Lorenzo after escaping her father's house, declares that: "But love is blind, and lovers cannot see / The pretty follies that themselves commit," (2.6.37-8). Some characters, like Morocco and Aragon, make poor judgments based on the appearances of things.  While other characters, like Antonio, warn about confusing appearance and reality.  He claims that Shylock, for instance, "Is like a villain with a smiling cheek, / A goodly apple rotten at the heart." (1.3.109-10)

What is this play telling us about the human ability to discriminate and discern?  Our ability to go beyond appearances to the heart of things?  What does it tell us about the law's ability to render fair and just decisions?