FindLaw's Writ - Goldstein: The Real Ten Best Law Schools
Every year, various publications put out top ten law school rankings. I know that many people worry about their law school's rankings. I don't. I received a great law education at my school ( Hofstra) which has just recently been moved into the second tier by US News and World report. However in reading Writs blawg at Findlaw.com I am reminded that there are lots of reasons to chose a school. I am a New Yorkophile so of course I am very partial to the Schools in and around the Big Apple. The following is my reply to Writ, a tongue in cheek review of why young people should chose a law school in NY and nowhere else! I hope you enjoy it. If you want to tell me why you think your school should be on a top ten list then... Contact us at www.colleluorilaw.com or leave us a comment right here.
Dear Writ,
OK, I really enjoyed the article on the Real top ten law schools and no I do not have any disagreement with Pepperdine as the No.1 on the left coast. Really if they ever open a law school in Monterey Ca. I may apply for the Dean's position. (Dean's hour meetings to be held at the Pebble halfway house)
However... How in the world can you overlook the really best law schools in the absolutely best city in the world? Come on Miami? LA?? Boulder???? GIVE ME A BREAK!!!!!
Any top 10 that ignores the Law schools in NEW YORK can't be serious. WHY
In Order:
10. It is home to the original top 10 lists (David Letterman works HERE) (apply to Pace University Law, you'll have plenty of time to stand on the line.)
9. Broadway. Who the heck hums the theme to Desperate Housewives? Every law exam I ever took was always accompanied by the humming of "The Impossible Dream" from Man of La Mancha or "Luck be a Lady Tonight" from Guys and Dolls. (Columbia. You'll need "Luck" to pass the "Impossible" NY Bar Exam if you come from this 'National law schools')
8. Jazz. Alright you can tell me about the home of Rock and Roll and put it in La or Cleveland, but the real music of the night is being played in the Jazz clubs of NYC. All of them have half price for students. BTW try seducing a woman w/ Motley Crue. Now try it with John Coltrane's "A Love Supreme." Nuff said. ( Saint John's Law school, after all, the guys there can use all the help with girls they can get.)
7. Central Park. Forget The Gates, The concerts and the muggings. Try the serenity of a morning jog. The announcement of Spring after a tough winter when boys and girls remember the excitement of the return of the Sun. (Remember time and distance make the Heart grow fonder.)
6. The Yankees. The Mets. The rest of the NY sports scene. OK not always affordable but usually a 20 minute train ride away. (The New York Law School's students have a torts classroom eye view of the victory parades.)
5. Fashion Week. You get the first look at the worlds hottest fashion trends way before they ever hit the red carpets in LA or Cannes. And guys you get the first look at the worlds hottest models way before they grace the cover of Sports Illustrated! (New York University law student's (or should I say their dad's are the only ones that can afford the prices, but the knock offs are available the next day on Fulton Ave for Brooklyn law students, and who can resist the bargain.)
4. Lincoln Center. You are going to be earning a nice big salary and you are prima facia going to be a leader in your community. You have got to be exposed to some class in music. It is fine to swing to Alabama or rock out to the Goo Goo Dolls or Phish, but lets get real. Wouldn't it be nice to have said you actually have seen an Opera that didn't star your aunt Ethel and had a real orchestra and not Ole' Uncle Fred playing Verdi or Wagner on the accordion? (Fordam Law school student face the decision everyday... Rachmaninoff or Contracts that is the question)
3. The Hampton and Point Lookout. One hour or less away, it is the party capital of the world. Really good restaurants too. And of course it is always nice to get out into the country or at least suburbia (Touro has just started building it's new campus in Central Islip about a half hour away, Hofstra students live in Point Lookout all winter long then go to the Hamptons for the summer it really doesn't get any better than that.)
2. Atlantic City and the Indian Casinos. A trip out of town for entertainment, gaming, and revelry Michael Jordan style. You can have it in many other cities ( like Vegas) but then you don't get the rest ( see 10-3 above.) ( City University {CUNY} students have the time and life experiences to really know how to get the most out of the odds at places like this. Odds were they were never going to even get into a law school now they are changing the face of law for the poor in NYC)
And the number one reason that the top 10 schools are All in NY is:
1. The Statute of Liberty. A constant reminder of why most of us started going to law school to begin with. Following her torch can keep one from burning out!
Saturday, April 30, 2005
Monday, April 25, 2005
Jury Duty: It takes a Nation
DUI Blog : Bad Drunk Driving Laws, False Evidence and a Fading Constitution
The hardest thing to do for most folks is to sit in judgment of a fellow citizen. I have always thought of people who serve on juries in our country as real patriots. They allow themselves to be dragged into a dispute that they are otherwise not involved in and have to participate in a very tough ritual to finally be selected to "enjoy" the "privilege" of service. They risk their jobs and often are reimbursed next to nothing ( I am aware of one state where it costs more an hour to park near the court than a juror makes an hour during service.) They are inconvenienced in so many ways and yet without them our system of fair trial grinds to a halt.
Then you get cases like the one my fellow criminal defense lawyer and blawgger talks about in the link above. Judges showing all the judicial qualities of hungry irritable dinosaurs and Attorney sore losers who just don't know when they should shut up. Help is on the way however in the form of a new American Bar Association Report entitled "The American Jury Project" . The report has Nineteen principals which Courts and States will want to implement to help keep people involved in jury duty and assure the health of our legal system and especially our Trial rights.
In reviewing the report there are some strikingly good suggestions such as:
Principal 1 (E):A quality and accessible jury system should be maintained with budget procedures that will ensure adequate, stable, long-term funding under all economic conditions.
In other words government's shouldn't cut the jury when they have to cut corners.
Principal 2(A)(5) Which reads "PRINCIPLE 2 – CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN JURY
SERVICE AND THEIR SERVICE SHOULD BE FACILITATED A. All persons should be eligible for jury service except those who:
5. Have been convicted of a felony and are in actual confinement or
on probation, parole or other court supervision.
I think this is a great idea. Many states deny the right of jury service to people who have been convicted of a felony there by disenfranchising many minority and poor people ( as they are more densely represented in the convicted felon ranks than Caucasians and wealthy people)
Including convicted felons who have served their sentences is a good way to welcome the felon back into societies ranks and to start the healing process that usually seems not to occur after the felon has paid his debt to society,
I would like to go one step further here to assure a jury of ones peers and also a cross-section of the community and bring an end to the practice of death qualifying a jury. If a death penalty case is on the docket and one is opposed to the death penalty they are forbidden from serving on the jury. This is unfair and means that people who oppose the death penalty do not get a say on that jury. They are discriminated against and so is the accused who often loses a juror who maybe more disposed to his side of the case whether or not there was a death sentence involved in the matter.
Principal 2 (C)(1) & (2) stands for the proposition that no one should have to spend more than one day in a central jury room waiting to see if they get called on a case. The proposition is that they serve one day or one trial whichever is longer. Where that cannot be accomplished the principal requires no more than 2 weeks service ( unless on a jury that is going longer) at least you are not stuck there forever.
And then there is Principal 2 (F) (1-3) which I reprint here:
"F. Persons called for jury service should receive a reasonable fee.
1. Persons called for jury service should be paid a reasonable fee that
will, at a minimum, defray routine expenses such as travel,
parking, meals and child-care. Courts should be encouraged to
increase the amount of the fee for persons serving on lengthy trials.
2. Employers should be prohibited from discharging, laying off,
denying advancement opportunities to, or otherwise penalizing
employees who miss work because of jury service.
3. Employers should be prohibited from requiring jurors to use leave
or vacation time for the time spent on jury service or be required to
make up the time they served.
I think this section needs to take in the needs of employers also. Small offices or highly technical jobs of course put a big burden on small employers. On the other hand businesses need jurors also and they need to know that they must suck up the cost of this type of service. Maybe there should be insurance for losing a key employee so that the employee is guaranteed to get his regular salary and the employer can then use the salary to hire a temp.
Anyway those are just the first two principals. There are nineteen others that range from jurors taking notes to jurors asking questions!! I may be writing more on this wonderful document in the coming weeks but for now we should be ready and willing to let our State assemblages and Senators and judges know we support these suggestions and want to see them put into effect. It may costs a little more but our justice system just needs to know that without jurors their is no justice.
That's what I think. If you think you want to discuss it on line leave a message or comment here or write to me through my law firm contact us pad found at www.colleluorilaw.com . I'd loved to know what you thought of your service on a jury and/ or why you didn't want to serve or what motivated you to serve. I am also interested in hearing your suggestions to improve the jury system in NY and on Long Island.
The hardest thing to do for most folks is to sit in judgment of a fellow citizen. I have always thought of people who serve on juries in our country as real patriots. They allow themselves to be dragged into a dispute that they are otherwise not involved in and have to participate in a very tough ritual to finally be selected to "enjoy" the "privilege" of service. They risk their jobs and often are reimbursed next to nothing ( I am aware of one state where it costs more an hour to park near the court than a juror makes an hour during service.) They are inconvenienced in so many ways and yet without them our system of fair trial grinds to a halt.
Then you get cases like the one my fellow criminal defense lawyer and blawgger talks about in the link above. Judges showing all the judicial qualities of hungry irritable dinosaurs and Attorney sore losers who just don't know when they should shut up. Help is on the way however in the form of a new American Bar Association Report entitled "The American Jury Project" . The report has Nineteen principals which Courts and States will want to implement to help keep people involved in jury duty and assure the health of our legal system and especially our Trial rights.
In reviewing the report there are some strikingly good suggestions such as:
Principal 1 (E):A quality and accessible jury system should be maintained with budget procedures that will ensure adequate, stable, long-term funding under all economic conditions.
In other words government's shouldn't cut the jury when they have to cut corners.
Principal 2(A)(5) Which reads "PRINCIPLE 2 – CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN JURY
SERVICE AND THEIR SERVICE SHOULD BE FACILITATED A. All persons should be eligible for jury service except those who:
5. Have been convicted of a felony and are in actual confinement or
on probation, parole or other court supervision.
I think this is a great idea. Many states deny the right of jury service to people who have been convicted of a felony there by disenfranchising many minority and poor people ( as they are more densely represented in the convicted felon ranks than Caucasians and wealthy people)
Including convicted felons who have served their sentences is a good way to welcome the felon back into societies ranks and to start the healing process that usually seems not to occur after the felon has paid his debt to society,
I would like to go one step further here to assure a jury of ones peers and also a cross-section of the community and bring an end to the practice of death qualifying a jury. If a death penalty case is on the docket and one is opposed to the death penalty they are forbidden from serving on the jury. This is unfair and means that people who oppose the death penalty do not get a say on that jury. They are discriminated against and so is the accused who often loses a juror who maybe more disposed to his side of the case whether or not there was a death sentence involved in the matter.
Principal 2 (C)(1) & (2) stands for the proposition that no one should have to spend more than one day in a central jury room waiting to see if they get called on a case. The proposition is that they serve one day or one trial whichever is longer. Where that cannot be accomplished the principal requires no more than 2 weeks service ( unless on a jury that is going longer) at least you are not stuck there forever.
And then there is Principal 2 (F) (1-3) which I reprint here:
"F. Persons called for jury service should receive a reasonable fee.
1. Persons called for jury service should be paid a reasonable fee that
will, at a minimum, defray routine expenses such as travel,
parking, meals and child-care. Courts should be encouraged to
increase the amount of the fee for persons serving on lengthy trials.
2. Employers should be prohibited from discharging, laying off,
denying advancement opportunities to, or otherwise penalizing
employees who miss work because of jury service.
3. Employers should be prohibited from requiring jurors to use leave
or vacation time for the time spent on jury service or be required to
make up the time they served.
I think this section needs to take in the needs of employers also. Small offices or highly technical jobs of course put a big burden on small employers. On the other hand businesses need jurors also and they need to know that they must suck up the cost of this type of service. Maybe there should be insurance for losing a key employee so that the employee is guaranteed to get his regular salary and the employer can then use the salary to hire a temp.
Anyway those are just the first two principals. There are nineteen others that range from jurors taking notes to jurors asking questions!! I may be writing more on this wonderful document in the coming weeks but for now we should be ready and willing to let our State assemblages and Senators and judges know we support these suggestions and want to see them put into effect. It may costs a little more but our justice system just needs to know that without jurors their is no justice.
That's what I think. If you think you want to discuss it on line leave a message or comment here or write to me through my law firm contact us pad found at www.colleluorilaw.com . I'd loved to know what you thought of your service on a jury and/ or why you didn't want to serve or what motivated you to serve. I am also interested in hearing your suggestions to improve the jury system in NY and on Long Island.
Thursday, April 21, 2005
On Judicial Independence
The three branches of American government are the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches. Each acts independently of the other. At least they are supposed to. They are interconnected and work together in a system of checks and balances.
In other words, each branch works as a balance and a check on the other 2 branches. For example, Congress makes laws, the President can veto the law a check or sign the legislation into law. The Courts can rule the new law constitutional or unconstitutional. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, well that is pretty much the only reason why a court can invalidate a law.
Congressmen serve two year terms and all can be voted out of office at the same time. Most all of them are actually retained but the ability to get rid of the bunch is the public check on the lower house. The Senators serve staggered six year terms, That checks the public power to overturn the entire government in one election. It is a check on public hysteria. Senators also are rarely defeated in re-election bids. Hence they can stay forever unless the voters tire of them. Presidents because in fact they have so much power invested in one person can only run for 2 terms of 4 years each. That is a check on their having an "imperial" presidency.
Courts have no inherent law making powers. A court can not pass legislation it can only pass on the clarity and constitutionality of that law. Occasionally however Courts have "clarified" things in such a way that the judiciary has been accused of advocating and legislating. (Usually by the side that loses. The winning side always seems to see the fact that the court's decision was obvious and the way the law was and should have been interpreted all along.) Courts can't even enforce their own decisions, they must depend on the executive branch for that service.
Judges serve for life. The only check on their tenure is if they really do something wrong (equal to a high crime or misdemeanors.) They stay for life or until they voluntarily leave office. This is fair because we expect, hope, and pray the court will act as a check on the majority opinion and defend minority opinions or at least give them due deference.
Violating against the will of the majority is no way to earn political job security. In fact it is a sure way to get tossed out of office. The constitutional framers realizing that the court was the only place a minority opinion could be successful sustained, insulated the court from danger by giving appointments for life. Interestingly certain congressmen, unhappy because they do not like the way the court has been ruling lately, have taken to bashing the court and threatening judges who rule against them with impeachment. In one case a US Senator even suggested violence!
That kind of attack, even if ridiculous, really jeopardizes the integrity and independence of the court. It gives the losing side the opinion that it lost its' case because the court was "afraid" to do what was right for fear of one of the other branches of our government.
Whether you believe the court is appropriately activist or reactionary it is important that the courts of the United States of America stay free from outside influences. The same administration, whose political party has been the number one attacker of the Supreme Court, recently used the court's very independence and it's willingness to stand up for even the most hated in our society to show off how fair America is in dealing with a recent Cuban attempt to open up our terrorist detention bases on Gideon.
You know it is hypocritical to try to have it both ways. You cannot have a judiciary that is gutsy and independent and seen world-wide as a beckon of independence and yet threaten it with all kinds of abomination if it rules against you. I figured that you would have learned that in elementary school.
An independent judiciary is one of the things that protects us from mass hysteria and the tyranny of the majority. It stops a single person from possessing so much power that he could destroy our culture as we know it. We may not always agree with the "People in Black robes", but we are lucky to have them doing their jobs and doing them apparently very well.
That's what I think. Why not drop me a line here or at www.colleluorilaw.com. Until, next time.
In other words, each branch works as a balance and a check on the other 2 branches. For example, Congress makes laws, the President can veto the law a check or sign the legislation into law. The Courts can rule the new law constitutional or unconstitutional. If the law is found to be unconstitutional, well that is pretty much the only reason why a court can invalidate a law.
Congressmen serve two year terms and all can be voted out of office at the same time. Most all of them are actually retained but the ability to get rid of the bunch is the public check on the lower house. The Senators serve staggered six year terms, That checks the public power to overturn the entire government in one election. It is a check on public hysteria. Senators also are rarely defeated in re-election bids. Hence they can stay forever unless the voters tire of them. Presidents because in fact they have so much power invested in one person can only run for 2 terms of 4 years each. That is a check on their having an "imperial" presidency.
Courts have no inherent law making powers. A court can not pass legislation it can only pass on the clarity and constitutionality of that law. Occasionally however Courts have "clarified" things in such a way that the judiciary has been accused of advocating and legislating. (Usually by the side that loses. The winning side always seems to see the fact that the court's decision was obvious and the way the law was and should have been interpreted all along.) Courts can't even enforce their own decisions, they must depend on the executive branch for that service.
Judges serve for life. The only check on their tenure is if they really do something wrong (equal to a high crime or misdemeanors.) They stay for life or until they voluntarily leave office. This is fair because we expect, hope, and pray the court will act as a check on the majority opinion and defend minority opinions or at least give them due deference.
Violating against the will of the majority is no way to earn political job security. In fact it is a sure way to get tossed out of office. The constitutional framers realizing that the court was the only place a minority opinion could be successful sustained, insulated the court from danger by giving appointments for life. Interestingly certain congressmen, unhappy because they do not like the way the court has been ruling lately, have taken to bashing the court and threatening judges who rule against them with impeachment. In one case a US Senator even suggested violence!
That kind of attack, even if ridiculous, really jeopardizes the integrity and independence of the court. It gives the losing side the opinion that it lost its' case because the court was "afraid" to do what was right for fear of one of the other branches of our government.
Whether you believe the court is appropriately activist or reactionary it is important that the courts of the United States of America stay free from outside influences. The same administration, whose political party has been the number one attacker of the Supreme Court, recently used the court's very independence and it's willingness to stand up for even the most hated in our society to show off how fair America is in dealing with a recent Cuban attempt to open up our terrorist detention bases on Gideon.
You know it is hypocritical to try to have it both ways. You cannot have a judiciary that is gutsy and independent and seen world-wide as a beckon of independence and yet threaten it with all kinds of abomination if it rules against you. I figured that you would have learned that in elementary school.
An independent judiciary is one of the things that protects us from mass hysteria and the tyranny of the majority. It stops a single person from possessing so much power that he could destroy our culture as we know it. We may not always agree with the "People in Black robes", but we are lucky to have them doing their jobs and doing them apparently very well.
That's what I think. Why not drop me a line here or at www.colleluorilaw.com. Until, next time.
May God Bless You Ben XVI.
That Lawyer Dude is a blog that is a blawg. That is to say that while it is not written for lawyers it is written about law... For the most part. Today I am departing from the format for just a second to pray for and wish good fortune on a Man who today walks in the Shoes of the Fisherman. Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger of Berlin Germany is today Pope Benedict XVI.
The name a Pope chooses is important in that it is often an indication of what the agenda is of the new man who heads the largest church in the world. Benedict means "blessed" which is one way to see this man as humble. That he should feel blessed to be named to this position. It may mean he seeks the blessing of the Lord in his work. I think however it is an indication that he is going to follow an agenda of reconciliation to the World's other religions like the previous Pope Benedict XV did during and just after World War I.
I found it interesting that the conclave has reported out another European Pope who has suffered through the detestable behavior of the Nazi Regime. It was his belief in God and his decision to follow the Lord into the priesthood that kept Benedict XVI from active service in the Nazi army. I think that his dislike of the behavior of that regime will be an important part of his ability to continue to bring understanding and patience into the Churches relationship with Israel and the Jewish people.
I grew up in a predominately Jewish neighborhood on Long Island in NY. Many of my friends had parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and occasionally siblings who were tattooed with a number and had been in a concentration camp. So many were robbed of their spirit, and of their loved ones. I think that the stories they told of being turned upon by their government and their neighbors is one of the main reasons I abhor too much power in the hand of the government and a reason I am distrustful of a government that promises to " solve " all our problems. I often as a boy wondered, about the role of the church during WWII and why it was not taking a stronger stand against regimes that clearly seemed to me to be evil. As I became older and studied International Relations, I began to realize that Vatican City was not the best place to criticize Mussolini and Hitler. I also was proud of those individual Catholics that protected their Jewish brethren at great risk to themselves. I was always very proud of my Uncles John, Mario, and Joseph who risked life and limb to rescue not only Jews but all of Europe from Hitler and the Nazi's. Later as a college student I became acquainted with the efforts of my Grandparents home town and the work that those farmers did to not only protect the few Jews they knew but in buzzing the Nazi/fascist war effort. Nevertheless it always left me feeling guilty that the Pope did not say more.
John Paul II brought an end to that guilt. His simple apology at the Wailing wall spoke volumes for those like my family that took the ultimate chance to save others they didn't even know. Even his efforts during the war was a source of pride for all Catholics. Our pope was brave and defiant in the face of tyranny. He loved freedom and understood better than anyone what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote :
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It was this understanding that these rights come from a Creator and are God given that lead John Paul II to be such the leader he was. John Paul was the Pope of my age. He and I were so much in the same place. We both hated state tyranny and communism. We both love God and Jesus and The Holy Mother. He really returned the Virgin Mary to her rightful place in our religion.
Moreover Pope John Paul II felt like family. His predecessor Pope Paul felt like a symbol for me. Not one I liked very much in my rebellious youth. John Paul II however was reachable because he was so good at explaining doctrine and being responsible for his positions on church matters. It also helped that John Paul II seemed to love the American spirit. Its vibrancy and its youthful vitality. It always seemed that prior popes looked askance at us her in the US. For John Paul II he seemed to understand how young we were as a nation. He helped our nation and our local church to grow. Giving us Props when we deserved it and scolding us when he felt we failed. He understood the importance of giving us bishops and cardinals who could communicate with their flocks. He was unafraid to place them in positions of prominence. Witness Cardinal McCarrik of Washington and the late John Cardinal O'Connor of NY. Finally Pope John Paul looked so happy, He seemed to take such joy in little things like a new baby or a child's smile, or a chant "JOHN PAUL TWO, WE LOVE YOU." Yeah it was goofy but he understood that we weren't being disrespectful we just loved him so much that we wanted to hold him close to us. He understood better than any religious leader I ever saw how important it is to be one of your flock.
Like any conservative I have a healthy fear of change. It is not one that imobilizes, it just makes me a little standoffish and gives me a wait and see attitude. Pope Benidict XVI has always been described as a hatchet man. His brief forced membership in the Hitler youth and in the Nazi war machine reinforces a kind of distance he will have to learn to overcome if he is to win over the hearts and minds of his diverse and splintered congregation. It is said he is as good a communicator as was John Paul II. I pray he is.
I am praying for him that he is able to bring together our church. I pray he can find a new way to rejuvenate the Orders. I hope he understands and is willing to face the challenges that new and maybe more dangerous "leaders" bring to the table. I pray that he has an agenda that moves the church forward and continues its success in the third world. But mostly I pray for him, That he stay healthy, and prayerful. That he not let the enormity of his calling overwhelm him so that he cannot enjoy the beauty of our people in all of their forms. That he not be so tired of debate that he loses the patience it takes to listen and explain. That he not try too hard to replace John Paul II, but rather that he instead leave us wanting more when goes to his heavenly reward. Mostly I pray that he understands that while we Know he is Pope Benedict XVI and that he not think it insulting if we chant "BEN 16 WE THINK YOUR KEEN". May God bless his noble servant Benedict XVI and his church, and those that believe in a higher power, no matter what they call Him.
If you want to leave a comment here please feel free. If you wish to contact me directly you can find me at www.Colleluorilaw.com.
The name a Pope chooses is important in that it is often an indication of what the agenda is of the new man who heads the largest church in the world. Benedict means "blessed" which is one way to see this man as humble. That he should feel blessed to be named to this position. It may mean he seeks the blessing of the Lord in his work. I think however it is an indication that he is going to follow an agenda of reconciliation to the World's other religions like the previous Pope Benedict XV did during and just after World War I.
I found it interesting that the conclave has reported out another European Pope who has suffered through the detestable behavior of the Nazi Regime. It was his belief in God and his decision to follow the Lord into the priesthood that kept Benedict XVI from active service in the Nazi army. I think that his dislike of the behavior of that regime will be an important part of his ability to continue to bring understanding and patience into the Churches relationship with Israel and the Jewish people.
I grew up in a predominately Jewish neighborhood on Long Island in NY. Many of my friends had parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, and occasionally siblings who were tattooed with a number and had been in a concentration camp. So many were robbed of their spirit, and of their loved ones. I think that the stories they told of being turned upon by their government and their neighbors is one of the main reasons I abhor too much power in the hand of the government and a reason I am distrustful of a government that promises to " solve " all our problems. I often as a boy wondered, about the role of the church during WWII and why it was not taking a stronger stand against regimes that clearly seemed to me to be evil. As I became older and studied International Relations, I began to realize that Vatican City was not the best place to criticize Mussolini and Hitler. I also was proud of those individual Catholics that protected their Jewish brethren at great risk to themselves. I was always very proud of my Uncles John, Mario, and Joseph who risked life and limb to rescue not only Jews but all of Europe from Hitler and the Nazi's. Later as a college student I became acquainted with the efforts of my Grandparents home town and the work that those farmers did to not only protect the few Jews they knew but in buzzing the Nazi/fascist war effort. Nevertheless it always left me feeling guilty that the Pope did not say more.
John Paul II brought an end to that guilt. His simple apology at the Wailing wall spoke volumes for those like my family that took the ultimate chance to save others they didn't even know. Even his efforts during the war was a source of pride for all Catholics. Our pope was brave and defiant in the face of tyranny. He loved freedom and understood better than anyone what Thomas Jefferson meant when he wrote :
"When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
It was this understanding that these rights come from a Creator and are God given that lead John Paul II to be such the leader he was. John Paul was the Pope of my age. He and I were so much in the same place. We both hated state tyranny and communism. We both love God and Jesus and The Holy Mother. He really returned the Virgin Mary to her rightful place in our religion.
Moreover Pope John Paul II felt like family. His predecessor Pope Paul felt like a symbol for me. Not one I liked very much in my rebellious youth. John Paul II however was reachable because he was so good at explaining doctrine and being responsible for his positions on church matters. It also helped that John Paul II seemed to love the American spirit. Its vibrancy and its youthful vitality. It always seemed that prior popes looked askance at us her in the US. For John Paul II he seemed to understand how young we were as a nation. He helped our nation and our local church to grow. Giving us Props when we deserved it and scolding us when he felt we failed. He understood the importance of giving us bishops and cardinals who could communicate with their flocks. He was unafraid to place them in positions of prominence. Witness Cardinal McCarrik of Washington and the late John Cardinal O'Connor of NY. Finally Pope John Paul looked so happy, He seemed to take such joy in little things like a new baby or a child's smile, or a chant "JOHN PAUL TWO, WE LOVE YOU." Yeah it was goofy but he understood that we weren't being disrespectful we just loved him so much that we wanted to hold him close to us. He understood better than any religious leader I ever saw how important it is to be one of your flock.
Like any conservative I have a healthy fear of change. It is not one that imobilizes, it just makes me a little standoffish and gives me a wait and see attitude. Pope Benidict XVI has always been described as a hatchet man. His brief forced membership in the Hitler youth and in the Nazi war machine reinforces a kind of distance he will have to learn to overcome if he is to win over the hearts and minds of his diverse and splintered congregation. It is said he is as good a communicator as was John Paul II. I pray he is.
I am praying for him that he is able to bring together our church. I pray he can find a new way to rejuvenate the Orders. I hope he understands and is willing to face the challenges that new and maybe more dangerous "leaders" bring to the table. I pray that he has an agenda that moves the church forward and continues its success in the third world. But mostly I pray for him, That he stay healthy, and prayerful. That he not let the enormity of his calling overwhelm him so that he cannot enjoy the beauty of our people in all of their forms. That he not be so tired of debate that he loses the patience it takes to listen and explain. That he not try too hard to replace John Paul II, but rather that he instead leave us wanting more when goes to his heavenly reward. Mostly I pray that he understands that while we Know he is Pope Benedict XVI and that he not think it insulting if we chant "BEN 16 WE THINK YOUR KEEN". May God bless his noble servant Benedict XVI and his church, and those that believe in a higher power, no matter what they call Him.
If you want to leave a comment here please feel free. If you wish to contact me directly you can find me at www.Colleluorilaw.com.
Tuesday, April 19, 2005
The New York Review of Books: Death in Texas
The New York Review of Books: Death in Texas
While I do not intend to turn this blog into a "Sentencing" blog. I would be remiss not to point out St Helene Prejean's recent article in the NY Review of Books. Sister has done more to turn the arguments for the death penalty on their ear than any other commentator since my former college Professor Hugo Adam Bedeu (of Tufts University.) I was very pro Death Penalty when I was a student of Bedeu's and remained so throughout the early part of my career. It was not until I had the opportunity to read Sister Helen's book "Dead Man Walking" that I relalized what a waste of effort and life the Death penalty is.
If I were a trial judge, I could sentence someone to death under the law. It would be difficult, but I do believe that the laws of the state must be upheld unless unconstitutional. As a public Policy maker or as a citizen, I have a real problem with the culture of death that the penalty infuses into our citizenry. I do not support the death penalty if there are any other means to make society safe. I find it to be usurption of the Power Of God, and beyond our ken to administer fairly.
While as a trial judge I would do my utmost to ensure a fair, just, and accurate verdict, I do not believe that such would be the result on a regular basis. Moreover I am extremely disturbed by the fact that the death penalty gives Society the feeling that it has the power over life and death and not God. In this day and age we have the ability to protect ourselves well enough from individuals who wish to play God by taking the life of another without our having to stoop to their level. Being able to vote for a death sentence as a juror and being able to impose one as a judge, does not mean one should support it as a public policy.
The death penalty wastes valuable resources of our courts, the attorneys who work on the cases and of people who time later shows may have been, or were actually innocent. It also hardens our hearts to death and it helps us to devalue life of at least some individuals. I can here the rabble of those who say that such theory devalues the life of innocent victims but that is not society's doing. Nor is it the criminal justice system's main care. Rather we must in the criminal justice system be most interested in what potentially helps (or in some cases least hurts) society as a whole. Wasting life hurts society as a whole. Having two dead bodies instead of one wastes potential and opportunity. De-valuing life, even guilty despicable lives, makes it easier to devalue the lives of those less fortunate or who seem too different from us or who of those that do not fit in with our sterotype of what or who we are. It permits our thinking to be that there are those who due to behavior or circumstance do not deserve better than they are getting.
I am not sure but I think it was President John F. Kennedy who said in his innauguration speech that a society is not judged on how it treats those in it who have the most, but rather it is judged by how it treats those within it who have the least. I would posit that among those with the least are those who are without liberty and whose very exsistance is in the hands of those that hate them the most. How we deal with them will truly be a test of our society and our values.
Anyway that's what I think. Why not tell me what you think by leaving me a comment here or one at our website at www.colleluorilaw.com.
While I do not intend to turn this blog into a "Sentencing" blog. I would be remiss not to point out St Helene Prejean's recent article in the NY Review of Books. Sister has done more to turn the arguments for the death penalty on their ear than any other commentator since my former college Professor Hugo Adam Bedeu (of Tufts University.) I was very pro Death Penalty when I was a student of Bedeu's and remained so throughout the early part of my career. It was not until I had the opportunity to read Sister Helen's book "Dead Man Walking" that I relalized what a waste of effort and life the Death penalty is.
If I were a trial judge, I could sentence someone to death under the law. It would be difficult, but I do believe that the laws of the state must be upheld unless unconstitutional. As a public Policy maker or as a citizen, I have a real problem with the culture of death that the penalty infuses into our citizenry. I do not support the death penalty if there are any other means to make society safe. I find it to be usurption of the Power Of God, and beyond our ken to administer fairly.
While as a trial judge I would do my utmost to ensure a fair, just, and accurate verdict, I do not believe that such would be the result on a regular basis. Moreover I am extremely disturbed by the fact that the death penalty gives Society the feeling that it has the power over life and death and not God. In this day and age we have the ability to protect ourselves well enough from individuals who wish to play God by taking the life of another without our having to stoop to their level. Being able to vote for a death sentence as a juror and being able to impose one as a judge, does not mean one should support it as a public policy.
The death penalty wastes valuable resources of our courts, the attorneys who work on the cases and of people who time later shows may have been, or were actually innocent. It also hardens our hearts to death and it helps us to devalue life of at least some individuals. I can here the rabble of those who say that such theory devalues the life of innocent victims but that is not society's doing. Nor is it the criminal justice system's main care. Rather we must in the criminal justice system be most interested in what potentially helps (or in some cases least hurts) society as a whole. Wasting life hurts society as a whole. Having two dead bodies instead of one wastes potential and opportunity. De-valuing life, even guilty despicable lives, makes it easier to devalue the lives of those less fortunate or who seem too different from us or who of those that do not fit in with our sterotype of what or who we are. It permits our thinking to be that there are those who due to behavior or circumstance do not deserve better than they are getting.
I am not sure but I think it was President John F. Kennedy who said in his innauguration speech that a society is not judged on how it treats those in it who have the most, but rather it is judged by how it treats those within it who have the least. I would posit that among those with the least are those who are without liberty and whose very exsistance is in the hands of those that hate them the most. How we deal with them will truly be a test of our society and our values.
Anyway that's what I think. Why not tell me what you think by leaving me a comment here or one at our website at www.colleluorilaw.com.
Tuesday, April 12, 2005
Let's help end the Culture of Death in NY State, Pass John Paul's Law
Newsday.com: Powerful committee in New York state Assembly kills death penalty bill
Newsday today reported that the New York State Assembly Codes Committee has rejected sending the Senate Death Penalty bill to the floor of the Assembly for a vote to reinstate the Death Penalty in NY. Late last year the NY Court of Appeals ruled that the Death Penalty law in NY violated the NY State Constitution in that it forced state judges to instruct juries in such a way that they thought they had to impose the death penalty.
As should be expected the Republican Senate and our Governor George Pataki have raged against the Codes Committee for stalling what they say is the will of the people. I disagree.
In fact the assembly ran a state-wide forum on the Death penalty with hearings being held around the state. The Codes Committee issued a lengthy report where in the far majority of the 180 speakers ( I believe about 140) spoke out AGAINST the reimposition of the Death Penalty. Moreover a recent Marist Poll showed that the Death Penalty only has about 28% support as against a law that calls for the imposition of a mandatory life sentence without parole provision.
It is about time the Senate and the Governor and really the whole far out right wing of the Republican party help us opt out of the "Culture of Death." The fact of the matter is that the death penalty robs all of us in a loving Society of dignity. For those that claim that the death penalty "protects us from danger" I say balderdash ( I would use harsher language but this is a family kind of blawg .)
Pope John Paul II in his masterful "Ecclesia in America"(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html) completely destroys that argument. His Holiness wrote "...(it is) unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when (there are) other bloodless means' sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender 'are now very rare, even non-existent practically'”.
In fact there are many very good reasons not to imposes a Death Penalty. For instant there is the complete inconsistency of trying to teach people that they shouldn't take a life by in fact taking one. The Death Penalty is a final solution but it does not take into account that the state makes mistakes and that an innocent life can be taken. Again I guess that proponents do not really care about innocent lost life as long as it is not theirs or someone they love. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty is unfairly used against people of color. Further the death penalty undermines the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers. A death penalty jury must be death qualified which means that if an otherwise good juror has an opposition to the death penalty they can be disqualified for having that objection in their hearts. Hence in death penalty cases the accused is only permitted a jury of his peers that has no objection to killing him. Not a very comforting thought.
Proponents of the death penalty speak about how there are a number of checks that can stop wrongful convictions. Their hypocrisy is however transparent. As they in one breath speak of the numerous appeals that can stop wrongful conviction, they complain that the appeals process takes too long and gives the condemned too many rights. They complain about loopholes that "let murderers go free" when in fact these "loopholes" as they call them are what we call rights. They hate the founding fathers 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments forgetting that these amendments ( and the 13th-15th) are the People's rights in combating the tyranny of the state. What can be more tyrannical than giving the state the right to take the life of another possibly innocent citizen??
I can hear the culture of death camp lick their lips in anticipation of the blood that may flow from the argument that " We should be able to execute those where there is no question of their guilt, where they are caught on tape or confess or are seen by many and apprehended at the scene. They will throw up names of those society hates: Colin Ferguson; Ted Bundy; the Unabomber; Osama Bin Laden!! There can be no mistake about the evil of these killers. Nevertheless the Death Penalty is wrong in a free society. I see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" (Leviticus 19:18). I am not arguing that seeking vengeneance is wrong only because the Bible says it is (though that is a good reason for me) The Bible says it's wrong because it makes sense.
If you believe in good as a triumphant victor over evil (as I do) then it is reasonable that good cannot overcome evil by good men and women perpetrating or supporting evil. When we as a society spend so much time and money worrying about exacting vengeance we lose the opportunity to combat the evil in the world by looking at ways to eliminate or at least reduce it.
I have had the burden of representing a person facing NY's death penalty. I cannot speak of the individual case however I can say that the time and effort it took to exact the punishment was enormous. The death penalty in NY has cost well over 10 million Dollars to prosecute and has resulted in no one killed. Society is no more safe for having the penalty. In fact it is fair to argue it is more in danger as those dollars have not been used to fund rehabilitation programs or programs that could possibly cause others to avoid a life of crime, one that could put them in danger of taking another's life. Moreover the use of a life without parole sentence would avoid making martyrs out of death row inmates and would save us money in the long run because the cost of prosecution and appeals would be far less.
The pro-death culturalist may rail against the argument saying that it is those that oppose the death penalty that cause it to cost so much, however their own insistence on a series of checks against killing the wrong person mandates lengthy expensive appeals and process. It is not enough to kill a man when another is murdered. Society has a moral obligation to seek out and punish only the real wrongdoer. The death penalty without a series of expensive appeals is no more than a sham. A bloodthirsty sham.
The "Life without Parole" possibility is a viable and safe provision which assures that those convicted will not ever burden society again unless they can show they were wrongfully convicted. There is a bill in the NY State Assembly right now that could assure our safety and put the focus of the "correctional system" back where it belongs... on Corrections! It is A-00851. It seeks to outlaw the Death Penalty and impose a life without parole penalty in its place. It is a wise law. It is one that could work and do exactly what Pope John Paul II asked of us. In fact I have a good suggestion to the proponents of A-00851. Laws like this one need popular names. Rename A-00851. Let's call it John Paul's Law.
The Assembly should pass John Paul's law and send it to the Senate and the Governor. Then we can see if they are serious about protecting the People of the State of New York from murders or if they are just playing politics while miring society in a culture of death.
That is the opinion of That Lawyer Dude. If you have an opinion leave a message here, or write to me at www.Colleluorilaw.com about this or any law related topic that may be on your mind. I will try to answer all inquiries.
Newsday today reported that the New York State Assembly Codes Committee has rejected sending the Senate Death Penalty bill to the floor of the Assembly for a vote to reinstate the Death Penalty in NY. Late last year the NY Court of Appeals ruled that the Death Penalty law in NY violated the NY State Constitution in that it forced state judges to instruct juries in such a way that they thought they had to impose the death penalty.
As should be expected the Republican Senate and our Governor George Pataki have raged against the Codes Committee for stalling what they say is the will of the people. I disagree.
In fact the assembly ran a state-wide forum on the Death penalty with hearings being held around the state. The Codes Committee issued a lengthy report where in the far majority of the 180 speakers ( I believe about 140) spoke out AGAINST the reimposition of the Death Penalty. Moreover a recent Marist Poll showed that the Death Penalty only has about 28% support as against a law that calls for the imposition of a mandatory life sentence without parole provision.
It is about time the Senate and the Governor and really the whole far out right wing of the Republican party help us opt out of the "Culture of Death." The fact of the matter is that the death penalty robs all of us in a loving Society of dignity. For those that claim that the death penalty "protects us from danger" I say balderdash ( I would use harsher language but this is a family kind of blawg .)
Pope John Paul II in his masterful "Ecclesia in America"(http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_22011999_ecclesia-in-america_en.html) completely destroys that argument. His Holiness wrote "...(it is) unnecessary recourse to the death penalty when (there are) other bloodless means' sufficient to defend human lives against an aggressor and to protect public order and the safety of persons. Today, given the means at the State's disposal to deal with crime and control those who commit it, without abandoning all hope of their redemption, the cases where it is absolutely necessary to do away with an offender 'are now very rare, even non-existent practically'”.
In fact there are many very good reasons not to imposes a Death Penalty. For instant there is the complete inconsistency of trying to teach people that they shouldn't take a life by in fact taking one. The Death Penalty is a final solution but it does not take into account that the state makes mistakes and that an innocent life can be taken. Again I guess that proponents do not really care about innocent lost life as long as it is not theirs or someone they love. Numerous studies have shown that the death penalty is unfairly used against people of color. Further the death penalty undermines the right to a trial by a jury of one's peers. A death penalty jury must be death qualified which means that if an otherwise good juror has an opposition to the death penalty they can be disqualified for having that objection in their hearts. Hence in death penalty cases the accused is only permitted a jury of his peers that has no objection to killing him. Not a very comforting thought.
Proponents of the death penalty speak about how there are a number of checks that can stop wrongful convictions. Their hypocrisy is however transparent. As they in one breath speak of the numerous appeals that can stop wrongful conviction, they complain that the appeals process takes too long and gives the condemned too many rights. They complain about loopholes that "let murderers go free" when in fact these "loopholes" as they call them are what we call rights. They hate the founding fathers 4th, 5th, 6th and 8th amendments forgetting that these amendments ( and the 13th-15th) are the People's rights in combating the tyranny of the state. What can be more tyrannical than giving the state the right to take the life of another possibly innocent citizen??
I can hear the culture of death camp lick their lips in anticipation of the blood that may flow from the argument that " We should be able to execute those where there is no question of their guilt, where they are caught on tape or confess or are seen by many and apprehended at the scene. They will throw up names of those society hates: Colin Ferguson; Ted Bundy; the Unabomber; Osama Bin Laden!! There can be no mistake about the evil of these killers. Nevertheless the Death Penalty is wrong in a free society. I see the death penalty as perpetuating a cycle of violence and promoting a sense of vengeance in our culture. "Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord" (Leviticus 19:18). I am not arguing that seeking vengeneance is wrong only because the Bible says it is (though that is a good reason for me) The Bible says it's wrong because it makes sense.
If you believe in good as a triumphant victor over evil (as I do) then it is reasonable that good cannot overcome evil by good men and women perpetrating or supporting evil. When we as a society spend so much time and money worrying about exacting vengeance we lose the opportunity to combat the evil in the world by looking at ways to eliminate or at least reduce it.
I have had the burden of representing a person facing NY's death penalty. I cannot speak of the individual case however I can say that the time and effort it took to exact the punishment was enormous. The death penalty in NY has cost well over 10 million Dollars to prosecute and has resulted in no one killed. Society is no more safe for having the penalty. In fact it is fair to argue it is more in danger as those dollars have not been used to fund rehabilitation programs or programs that could possibly cause others to avoid a life of crime, one that could put them in danger of taking another's life. Moreover the use of a life without parole sentence would avoid making martyrs out of death row inmates and would save us money in the long run because the cost of prosecution and appeals would be far less.
The pro-death culturalist may rail against the argument saying that it is those that oppose the death penalty that cause it to cost so much, however their own insistence on a series of checks against killing the wrong person mandates lengthy expensive appeals and process. It is not enough to kill a man when another is murdered. Society has a moral obligation to seek out and punish only the real wrongdoer. The death penalty without a series of expensive appeals is no more than a sham. A bloodthirsty sham.
The "Life without Parole" possibility is a viable and safe provision which assures that those convicted will not ever burden society again unless they can show they were wrongfully convicted. There is a bill in the NY State Assembly right now that could assure our safety and put the focus of the "correctional system" back where it belongs... on Corrections! It is A-00851. It seeks to outlaw the Death Penalty and impose a life without parole penalty in its place. It is a wise law. It is one that could work and do exactly what Pope John Paul II asked of us. In fact I have a good suggestion to the proponents of A-00851. Laws like this one need popular names. Rename A-00851. Let's call it John Paul's Law.
The Assembly should pass John Paul's law and send it to the Senate and the Governor. Then we can see if they are serious about protecting the People of the State of New York from murders or if they are just playing politics while miring society in a culture of death.
That is the opinion of That Lawyer Dude. If you have an opinion leave a message here, or write to me at www.Colleluorilaw.com about this or any law related topic that may be on your mind. I will try to answer all inquiries.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)