I came across an interesting article today in the Times.  I tend to gravitate more towards legal articles because, as of now, that seems to be the avenue I am going down career-wise.  The article used the scenario of a young man named Ryan Holley to expose a serious flaw in the justice system.  According to the article, Holley lent his car to a friend one night.  That friend then proceeded to use the car to drive 3 men to the home of a drug dealer with the intention of stealing from his safe.  During the burglary, they killed the man’s 18 year old daughter.  Holley was sentenced to life without the possibility of parole for simply lending his car to his friend. 

Now, I have always been a proponent of only sentencing people for crimes that they directly committed.  I feel that if two people are robbing a bank and one shoots a guard, only the man that actually pulled the trigger should be charged for the murder.  Obviously, I don’t support the sentence that Ryan Holley was given at all.  Even if we assume that he did know of his friends intentions before he handed over the keys to his car (the police never established if he did or didn’t), Holley should not have been charged with first degree murder.  He was not physically part of any robbery, and he performed no actions during the robbery.  The scariest thing about this case is the fact that the jury actually convicted after the prosecutor made this ridiculous statement; ““No car, no crime. No car, no consequences. No car, no murder.”

It seems that we need to be much more careful with who we lend our things to in the future, since it appears that if we lend a tool to our neighbor and they commit a crime with it, we will be charged with the exact same crime.

Popularity: 15% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Comments(0)

There are certain boundaries that are not meant to be crossed in life.  We all recognize them without giving them a second glance, strictly because our common sense, ethics, morals, and sense of right and wrong alert us to the fact that these acts are just plain wrong.  Many times these boundaries are crossed accidently, such as racist joke or violent threat.  Just as often, these boundaries are crossed on a personal level, affecting very few people.  However, sometimes boundaries are crossed at a level and magnitude that affects our society as a whole.  Not only does an act like this hurt many, but it rocks the very stability of our nation. 

There are few who have the power to cross a boundary that could have such a devastating impact.  Essentially, the act is limited only to the leaders of nations around the world.  Unfortunately, from my perspective, these boundaries are stepped over too often for the world’s own good.  Recently, our president stepped over a boundary that I believe threatens the very foundation of our nation. 

We have all heard of Scooter Libby.  The man lied under oath about the source of the Valerie Plume leak.  He was sentenced to prison after being convicted of perjury.  Due to a pardon that came directly from President Bush, he will never spend a day in a cell.  While a presidential pardon can potentially clear someone who needed to protect a secret that threatened national security, they are generally an abuse of power.  If you think about the entire concept of a persidential pardon, you start to see just how flawed it truly is.  We have a justice system that convicts based upon the judgement of our peers.  These peers represent our society as a whole, albeit figuratively.  This system was laid out under the constitution and is an integral part of our nation as both a social tool and a governmental tool.  However, a presidential pardon circumvents the decision made by our peers.  In other words, a presidential pardon circumvents the decision made by our society.  This pardon allows the president to place himself above the laws of this country, above the justice system laid out in our constitution.  In effect, our president becomes the law.  While Scooter Libby is a trivial matter, it serves to remind us of the power that our leader has, and just how that power might be used.  There are boundaries that should not be overstepped, and President Bush crossed the line when he cleared Libby of a crime he clearly committed.  Sadly, speculation and commonsense tell us that lied to protect the very men who pardoned him.  It’s easy to protect yourself when you face no consequences from the law. 

The sad thing about the Libby incident is the lack of public outrage.  It is almost as if society expected this course of action from Bush, and when it became reality, it was no surprise at all. 

Popularity: 9% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(4)

I just arrived back from my vacation a few hours ago and was shocked to find that someone stole one of blog entries!  A new linkback led me to a site called LifeTechnology.org.  The article in question is one I wrote a while back about I-Doser.  It has since been the most popular entry on my site, and drives the majority of my traffic.  If you follow the link, you will see that they copied the entry word for word, leaving only a link under the title to my site.  If you ask me, that is a blatant case of plagiarism.  They don’t even leave a direct link to the actual entry, and never once asked my permission to use it.  I have written them an email, but somehow I doubt that will solve the problem.  Who would have though that a tiny blog like mine would be the victim of this kind of theft?  I know I have seen things like this on more popular blogs like Fracas, but I never would have expected it to happen to me.  Anyone have any ideas of how to deal with this?

Popularity: 8% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(2)

As a business law student, I am always quick to take note of interesting lawsuits and cases that I can analyze.  Today was no exception, as I picked out an intellectual property suit that I read about in the New York Times.  In a country where people tend to sue over just about anything, we find that the line between a valid suit and a ridiculous suit is becoming extremely blurred.  One of the most confusing aspects of law tends to be that of intellectual property.  While we see intellectual property suits over many different areas of life, I had never considered the fact that someone might sue over the menu of a restaurant.  To clarify, I mean the actual preparation of the food on the menu.  A chef at a New York City restaurant has filed an intellectual property suit against another New York City restaurant for allegedly copying its decoration, lay out, and among other things, its salad dressing. 

This case opens up an interesting avenue for discussion, beginning with the issue of deciding who a food item actually belongs to.  I know from firsthand experience that the internet makes cooking much easier.  The large databases of recipes to be found are an excellent resource for someone who wants to try something new.  However, if you cook the food, does it belong to you?  This lawsuit seems to be arguing that it does not.  Under the pretenses of this lawsuit, you cannot profit from using someone else’s recipe.  This bothers me, simply because food is food, and there are only a few ways to make certain dishes.  I happen to love scrambled eggs with American cheese.  I crack three eggs, scramble them, and place singles of American cheese on top.  However, when I get this in restaurants, I do not sue them for violating my intellectual property rights.  Sure they may have been doing it first, but I know for a fact I didn’t steal the recipe from them.  Conversely, if they ever saw me cooking at home, they wouldn’t assume I was stealing theirs either.  Also, consider bake sales.  Generally, people pull out a cookbook or grab a recipe online to bring to the bake sale.  Are they infringing intellectual property rights because they are selling what they have created using someone else’s recipe?  It’s certainly an interesting idea. 

I realize that a restaurant stealing from another restaurant is a tad bit different from the above scenarios, especially when the chef who allegedly stole the recipes and such originally worked under the chef filing suit.  It just seems to me that food preparation should not be allowed to fall under intellectual property.  Also, intangibles like restaurant color scheme and layout seem to be a stretch as well.

Popularity: 8% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(No Ratings Yet)

 Loading ...

Comments(1)

I was recently chatting with someone about my dreams of becoming a defense attorney, and a subject came up that I have been forced to reflect on many times before.  The person asked me, “Would you be able to defend a rapist murderer or a serial killer?”  Now let me start off by saying that I am a moral man.  How can anyone not condemn someone who has done something as bad as what had been put into that question?  Could I really live with myself if I successfully allowed someone as terrible as that to walk the streets and strike again? 

If this man didn’t confess on his own accord, I could live with it.  Does this make me an awful person?  Hardly.  I would be a worse person if I did NOT defend him.  That might seem insane to some people, but I believe in the right to have a lawyer defend you at your trial.  Let’s detach ourselves from the evil of this man’s alleged crimes, and ask ourselves if we would like to be defended if we were on trial for the same crimes.  “But we didn’t commit these awful crimes,” you say.  Exactly.  Did it ever occur to you that maybe he didn’t either?  Even if the evidence is stacked against someone, there is always that chance that they might be innocent.  Human beings are always so quick to jump to conclusions and condemn someone to prison or death.  We don’t even consider the fact that maybe there was a mix up somehow.  That is exactly why I would want to be a defense attorney.  If I were wrongfully accused and in that chair myself, I would want someone defending me.  Even if 95% of my clients were terrible people who deserve all that they get, maybe I would be able to save that one innocent man.  To me, that would more than make up for all the murdering rapists I tried to defend. 

Being wrongfully charged and convicted of a crime is possibly the worst thing that could happen to you.  I can’t think of many worse tragedies that could befall you.  Some of us fail to realize how often mistakes like this happen.  There are people who are wrongfully convicted every day.  That is the flaw of a jury trial.  People make mistakes.  How many of you have ever been to jury duty?  How many of you voted along with the rest of the jurors in order to get out of there quicker?  That signals something wrong.  The justice system is not perfect, but most of us fail to see that before we become the victim.

Like I said, it is your duty as a lawyer to defend those you request a defense.  This is the only thing preventing these people from life in prison.  The only line is drawn when there is an uncoerced admission of guilt, in which case, there is no way to justify the defense of that man. 

Popularity: 7% [?]

Share this with the world:

If you enjoyed this article, you can subsribe to the College Critic Feed by clicking here! Also, please leave a comment if you enjoyed the article, agree with it, disagree with it, or even flat out hate it!

(1 votes, average: 4 out of 5)

 Loading ...

Comments(0)