Scarlet Letter Punishments Are So 17th Century
Emily Pattison – 2L

There’s a new trend amongst judges in drunk-driving cases: to order a punishment via humiliation. This may come as a shock to those of us who know a little something about the Constitution and how it prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment,” (see: Eighth Amendment) but evidently this type of sentencing has received notoriety in several counties across the U.S. due to its “sobering” effect on the defendant. Sorry, pun intended.

A judge in Houston recently sentenced 38-year-old Michael Giacona to a series of unique punishments after being convicted of killing 20-year-old Aaron Pennywell while driving drunk. This had been Michael’s second drunk driving offense, so the judge decided to make an example of him. Michael must now spend his next four Saturdays, from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., visiting the scene of the accident while wearing a sign saying, “I killed Aaron Pennywell.” Additionally, he must also keep a picture of the victim’s wrecked car in his living room, which will be verified by a probation officer’s random home visits. As a final element of his punishment, Giacona has to adhere to two years of probation and weekly Alcoholics Anonymous meetings.

Spokespersons from the organization Mothers Against Drunk Driving have expressed approval of this new type of punishment stating, “Harris County leads the nation in drunk driving fatalities and if this brings more awareness to people in the community when they see a person wearing a placard, they realize the cost of drunk driving and gets them to change their behavior, then we would fully support that because something needs to change.”

True, something needs to change, but does it have to come in the form of humiliating and shaming defendants after the crime has already been committed? Many would argue that debasing an individual might not be the most effective way of reforming them. As tragic as their actions may be, humiliation will not bring back the deceased victims. Knowing these defendants have to spend hours on the side of the road wearing a humiliating sign may evoke temporary feelings of justice, but what does it actually accomplish? The fact remains that 50-75% of convicted drunk drivers will continue to drive on a suspended license.

But that does not mean all hope is lost.

Over 70% of previously convicted drunk drivers have said that the most effective sanctions and interventions in stopping drunk driving include at least a one-year jail sentence, mandatory $10,000 (or more) fines, the installation of ignition interlock devices, and more frequent sobriety checkpoints. From a non-legal standpoint, the influence of family and friends also functions as one of the most effective means of rehabilitation for drunk drivers.

Since 1982, when drunk driving statistics were first recorded, the rate of alcohol impaired driving fatalities has decreased by 64%. This decrease has been due, in large part, to the implementation of the sentences listed above, not through humiliating punishments.

If our goal is to rehabilitate criminals and make them better citizens, ostracizing them will only make that more difficult and increase the likelihood of repeat offenses. Alcohol abusers need serious intervention and rehabilitation, not public humiliation and shame that may only deepen their personal struggles and make recovery that much more difficult.

Emily Pattison – 2L
Point/Counterpoint

Alright 2L’s and 3L’s, bust out those Con Law books and flip to the First Amendment section. Twitter may need some help in the freedom of speech department soon. See, the site recently unveiled a new censorship policy that allows it to censor tweets in countries with more stringent speech laws. But there’s more. The censorship will make the content of tweets “selectively available” in certain countries, but not others. So an anti-government tweet might be removed from the site in Turkey, but viewable in the U.S. or Great Britain. The website issued a formal announcement last week saying, “Starting today, we give ourselves the ability to reactively withhold content from users in a specific country – while keeping it available in the rest of the world.” As one might imagine, this development sparked considerable outrage across the Internet world, resulting in the pledge of many Twitter users to end their patronage of the site. Seems to ring a bell. Netflix, anyone?

Speaking from a practical standpoint, who can possibly monitor all these offensive tweets? If a foreign government asks Twitter to censor one tweet, there will likely be 10 more just like it that slip through the cracks. The Internet functions like a black hole of information – even with the most vigilant of watchdogs policing, it’s nearly impossible to control the spread of information.

And Twitter, be honest. Would this have anything to do with wanting to expand into China where the website is currently banned? People have now begun referring to Twitter as “dictator friendly,” which stands in stark contrast to how it was originally used – as a tool to topple dictatorships. It helped spread the message of protestors in Moldova, Egypt and the Middle East while simultaneously functioning as a vehicle to promote aid and assistance to Haiti. Even the Occupy movement in the U.S. made use of Twitter to spread its message. This censorship business coming from such an original bastion of free speech, quite frankly, has folks’ heads spinning.

With SOPA (Stop Online Piracy Act), PIPA (Protect IP Act) and other Internet censorship debates flying around cyberspace lately, this comes at a very inopportune time, especially because Google just announced a change in its privacy polices as well. Internet users worry that a trend is developing where governments pay closer attention to the Internet with an intent to regulate its use. The changes on these major websites now have users asking “How far is too far?”

If citizens of other countries want to exercise their right to speak, Twitter should not try to silence them. Even if it succeeds in censoring tweets, countless other outlets exist to help spread their message. There will always be other mediums and alternatives to using Twitter to spark an uprising or to organize a protest. And with the way the Internet censorship debates are going lately, it looks like the elements for another protest are in the making.

Emily Pattison – 2L

“All games have been cancelled through November 30th.” So echoes the official NBA statement made by Commissioner David Stern just days ago, quashing whatever lingering hope fans and players had to see a full 82-game schedule this season. While lockouts are certainly not new to the world of professional sports, this one seems particularly ominous given the fact that the NBA already struggles to maintain a consistent fan base. With failing negotiation talks and now all 30 games in November cancelled, what will become of the NBA? Things look grim for an organization that brought us stars like Bill Russell, Larry Bird, Jerry West, and Michael Jordan. Those players brought the NBA to the height of popularity and now, a lockout threatens to shake the confidence of national sponsors, television programmers, and most importantly, the fans.

All this turmoil has affected the morale of the players, with many resorting to social media networks to air their frustration. After another round of failed negotiation talks, San Antonio’s Manu Ginobli tweeted, “No deal. I miss the game.” Still others have started looking across the pond at European options to play ball while waiting for a resolution. It may be too early to tell, but an extended off-season could harm the players’ overall fitness, conditioning, and practice routines. These guys run like finely tuned machines during the season and it takes a lot of preparation and training to reach that point. With things at a stalemate, players stop working on the most valuable aspect of this whole dispute: their game.

With no NBA season, marketing agencies and national sponsors like Nike, Coca-Cola, and Adidas stand to lose over $500 million in ad campaigns and endorsements focused entirely on NBA athletes and teams. With a lockout, the effect of seeing LeBron sporting the newest Nikes or watching Blake Griffin slam dunk over a Kia becomes largely diminished. No one wants to see ads reminding them of the game they can’t watch with players who aren’t, well, playing. Even the television giant TNT has a rocky path ahead. TNT had 52 regular season games scheduled to air, plus the All-Star game and the Western Conference finals. Without these games it now has to scramble to fill the massive airtime void.

The effects of the lockout extend far beyond just the players, owners, and national sponsors. What about the thousands of people hired each season to work the concessions and ticket booths, or the custodians who stay late to clean up for the next game? Even the restaurants and bars situated near NBA arenas have diminishing revenues based on the lack of business and traffic flow associated with regular season games. These people, unaffiliated with the NBA, depend on the game for a paycheck that is, quite frankly, infinitesimal compared to the hundreds of millions of dollars in dispute at the moment.

And the most perplexing part? Players and owners refuse to budge over a two percent difference in profit sharing. With the recent rise of “the 99%” at Occupy protests, a number as small as two percent makes the NBA look exactly like the groups these protestors (and potential fans) abhor. That type of negative publicity makes a strong NBA comeback less likely for every day the fans don’t see some basketball.

Emily Pattison – 2L

Dethroning Apple? That’s cute. Ladies and gentlemen, we’re not dealing with some startup computer company based out of your friend’s basement. This is a multi-billion dollar company recently reported to have more cash and marketable securities than the United States government. This is the same company whose technology has been touted as ten years ahead of everyone else. And this is the same company that, despite grim economic conditions, reports continued growth in the smart phone industry each quarter. Amazon can keep updating the Kindle and it can even add more streaming options for movies, television shows, and music, but the fact remains that Apple has climbed to the top of the technology mountain for a reason, and it doesn’t plan on heading down anytime soon.

Aside from its consistently “user-friendly” products, Apple has a strategic marketing plan that other businesses now strive to emulate. Rather than following trends, conducting focus groups, and painstakingly trying to establish a target market, Apple pre-empts the marketplace and creates products based on what its team of researchers finds “cool.” A bold plan, yes, but one that seems to keep yielding profitable results. Steve Jobs, in response to questions about why Apple does not conduct market research explained, “It’s not about convincing people that they want something they don’t. We figured out what we want. And I think we’re pretty good at having the right discipline to think through whether a lot of other people are going to want it, too … You can’t go out and ask people what’s the next big thing. [Henry Ford] said, ‘If I’d have asked my customers what they wanted, they would have told me ‘A faster horse.’” Following this line of reasoning, Apple continues to develop products based on something other than what the market needs – it emphasizes products that the market couldn’t conceptualize on its own.

Turn your attention now to the fact that this is not the first time somebody has challenged the staying power of the Apple conglomerate. With each new tablet put on the market, critics claimed it would end the Apple iPad or iPhone sales. Wrong. Apple has taken on Google, Samsung, Blackberry and a host of others, while continually emerging victorious. Apple’s strength rests in its consistency. It puts out best-selling products, one after the other. It remains on the cutting edge of consumer technology. Apple has a proven track record of success, which in turn makes consumers confident that its presence on the national market will not dwindle every time another company challenges it with a modified idea.

Amazon can make attempts to “dethrone” the dominant force in consumer technology, but at the end of the day, Amazon can sell a few tablets, but its not taking over the kingdom.