American Education... how do you spell wtf ?

As a student going through the ridiculous process of pulling applications together for law school while spending the summer in Europe, American education is giving me a headache. Every time some European asks me to explain what the process is like or how much it costs, they all think that I am lying when I tell them that I am paying well over $20,000 per year at my public university. They then think that I am rich or how else could anyone afford such costs without scholarships (in a university with 47,000 students in a state constantly cutting funding for public education, it is nearly impossible to get a substantial scholarship; most financial "aid" comes in the form of loans). If by some chance they did believe me when I told them what undergrad costs, they absolutely lose it when I tell them the price of law schools (public and private) that I am hoping to apply to (at least twice as much). When I ask them how much they pay for school, they say that they are paying for one of the highest tuition prices - 1,000 to 2,000 euro per semester (at today's exchange rate of $1.2935/euro, that is about $1,300 to $2,590).

While the United States' university educational system does have merits in the freedom that students have to really study whatever they want (financial concerns aside, of course), it is absolutely ridiculous that a country that constantly stresses the need for educated professionals still supports a system that throws students and their families into thousands of dollars in debt before the students even have a chance to earn any money. My European friends cannot even fathom the idea that many Americans save for college since birth and that this is still not sufficient.

Although taxes in many European countries are higher than in the United States, providing and supporting quality education in public universities for all students is considered a fundamental right. Thus, it is made a priority and families are not indebted because they have children that need a university education.

I do not have any thorough policy prescriptions here, just an observation on how insane the undergraduate and post-graduate educational system is (open to ideas, here). While Americans generally do not like paying such high taxes, reforms definitely have to be made to ensure that the taxes we are paying are being used efficiently. And if someone had to raise my taxes in order to support universities, I would not mind paying it, as the cost of attending would probably decrease. Until some reforms are made, I will be looking forward to dropping more money on law school apps and then hiding in law school deferring student loans for a few more years.

iSeeYou! Big Brother Issues iMacs

While the Harrington High School teen's story seems disturbing, it seems to be equally extreme to remove these types of tracking technologies off of computers in the event that they are stolen. In this particular instance, based on the one-sided comments of the plaintiffs, the school's actions crossed the line when, after reaching an agreement about the computer insurance fee and realizing that the computer was not in fact stolen, chose to repeatedly activate the photo-tracking technology and delete the pictures.

However, the family is also responsible for reading and understanding the terms of the agreement regarding the insurance fee and what programs will be activated. These tracking technologies, while out of place in this particular instance, are a valuable security measure for recovering a missing or stolen computer (as long as the thief is not smart enough to cover the microphone and camera) and it makes sense for the school to have such measures in place. CNN reports that "the school district installed the LANrev webcam security system for use if the laptop is reported lost, missing or stolen."

Unfortunately, this story does not make clear the response of the Lower Merion School District school district nor its current actions after the Robbins family filed their lawsuit. According to this article, "both state and federal officials are investigating the district for possible wiretap violations."

The New York Times reports that "using this surveillance capability, school officials found images that led them to believe that Blake Robbins, a 15-year-old student, was using illegal drugs. Mr. Robbins said the 'pills' he was seen consuming were Mike and Ike candies." However, if the purpose of the camera activation technology is to prevent theft or damage to the laptops, as the school states, then it is irrelevant whether or not the school thought that the student was consuming illegal drugs, as the computer was not damaged nor was it stolen. As the editorial in the New York Times pointedly argues, "If the district was really worried about losing the laptops, it could have used GPS devices to track their whereabouts or other less-intrusive methods. Whatever it did, the school had a responsibility to inform students that if they accepted the laptops, they would also accept monitoring."

Yes, the school district does bear the responsibility of informing the students about the technology with which the laptops are equipped, but in the digital age, it is also important for individuals to know and understand these technologies and their proper usage. The laptops did not belong to the students and if the students take them home under the terms of the agreement made with the school, it seems unreasonable to expect complete privacy using property belonging to a public school district. Despite all of these factors, based on the available information, the school district grossly overstepped its rights when realizing that, as the laptop was not missing, damaged, or stolen, and still chose to activate and reactivate the software.

Argentina's Got 'Em by the Balls

Before beginning this commentary, it is important to note that the “chemical castration” is a drug given to reduce sexual desire; this is not the equivalent of a castration in the literal sense. However, this still brings up a controversial issue when addressing what the purpose of a criminal justice system is – solely doling out punishments for crimes committed, or is there an additional component of rehabilitation? Furthermore, is there and should there be an element of choice (proposition, as opposed to imposition/coercion) for convicted rapists regarding a treatment which is ineffective once the regimen is stopped? The reporter in the video states that those who do not volunteer to undergo this type of treatment will not have the same access to appealing for sentence reductions; there are currently 11 convicted offenders who have opted for this treatment in return for reduced sentences.

In the video clip, Mendoza Governor Celso Jaque states that the chemical and psychological treatment enables those convicted to be able to be reintroduced to society. However, with the risks that Enrique da Rosa highlights, the treatment’s effectiveness is relative and fails to be comprehensive enough to address significant factors contributing to why a rapist commits a rape or sexual assault.

While this report addresses a province in Argentina, “the practice in Mendoza follows measures adopted in several European countries and eight U.S. states: California, Florida, Georgia, Montana, Oregon, Wisconsin, Louisiana and Iowa.” In any of these cases, if there is a lack of access to the same legal channels for those who opt out of the treatment as those who select the treatment have, then this sentencing option is more of a coercive measure and should not be described as an elective procedure. Additionally, the information presented by CNN in this segment totally overlooks the problematic situation of the effects on an innocent person who was convicted and then chooses this procedure in order to reduce his or her sentence. How reversible is the process?

All in all, the imposition of this treatment upon prisoners seems to go beyond both concepts of what the purpose of the criminal justice system is. If prisons are seen solely as places of punishment for crimes committed, then time spent in prison would be sufficient. If the criminal justice system is seen as integrating punishment and rehabilitation, then a treatment that is highly relative with an unknown degree of its effects on an individual’s health is not the best course of action. While a holistic approach to addressing root causes of crimes is appreciated, these courses of action must be sensitive to all individuals’ rights as well as be much more certain than this procedure.

Don't Talk to the Police

This popped up on Google Videos last night and I thought it was quite interesting.  This is a lecture given by a former criminal defense attorney who is now a law professor and a former police officer who is now finishing his third year of law school.  

Basically, they both explain how based upon the 5th Amendment, it is never in your benefit to talk to the police without immunity.  In the former police officer's segment of the lecture, he describes cases in which talking to the police have led to people incriminating themselves as well as different interview (interrogation) techniques he uses (they are tricky).  Watch the videos but beware, Prof. James Duane talks like he's trying to set a record.

Part One with Professor James Duane

'

Part Two with Officer George Bruch