The Roundtable
Welcome to the Roundtable, a forum for incisive commentary and analysis
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
on cases and developments in law and the legal system.
 By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Sociology. Spotify playlists, Google advertisements, and Amazon product search results are all tailored to individuals utilizing the power of algorithms. While algorithms are quickly becoming a consequential component of our everyday lives, we are only starting to learn about their limitations and potentially detrimental impacts. Incidents like Facebook’s trending topic controversy which centered around the company’s suppression of conservative media indicate that algorithms might be anything but neutral [1]. While the legal system can be a powerful deterrent against algorithmic discrimination, it has yet to adapt to the digital age. Oftentimes referred to as artificial intelligence, algorithms are mathematical formulas performed by computers that can be used to describe data, predict trends, and prescribe courses of action [2]. Algorithms work by analyzing input data with mathematical formulas which results in an output, usually in the form of a recommendation. While many presume algorithms cannot be biased, algorithms can face constraints at every step of the algorithmic process. Perhaps the most concerning biases are those that replicate and reinforce societal disadvantages. This is the case with Northpointe’s COMPASS sentencing system, an application that is designed to help judges decide parole sentences by predicting an individual’s chance of recidivism [3].
0 Comments
 By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying Sociology. Tags: ICC, War Crimes, International Relations In November 2017, the International Criminal Court (ICC) made headlines by deciding to investigate the United States for war crimes and potential crimes against humanity in Afghanistan. A report by the ICC’s Chief Prosecutor, Fatou Bensouda, alleges there is reasonable basis to believe the United States’ army tortured at least 61 prisoners. The report also states that the CIA carried out similar actions with at least 27 other detainees. [1] This latest move comes amidst allegations that the ICC fails to prosecute wealthy, industrial nations, instead focusing its efforts on African countries. While the investigation is not expected to yield charges, a more assertive International Criminal Court has the potential to bolster the failing institutions’ legitimacy and establish the ICC as a powerful deterrent against war. The ICC is an international court that prosecutes crimes against the international community like genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. [2] It was established in July 2002 after the adoption of the 1998 Rome Statute, which outlines the ICC’s jurisdiction as well as its rules and procedures. [3] The ICC is not meant to replace national courts. Instead, it is designed take action on crimes that the country in question has supposedly failed to reasonably address. While over 120 countries have signed the treaty, the United States has not yet ratified it. During the Clinton administration, the treaty received a considerable amount of support from the president. This changed during the Bush administration, which refused to support the institution. Though the Obama administration demonstrated a greater commitment to support the court, neither Clinton nor Obama were able to pass the Rome Statute through Congress, allowing the United States to comply with the ICC’s requests at will. [4]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. Tax credits have become a popular buzzword of the Republican party and recently made their way into Donald Trump’s new child care plan. This plan depends heavily on tax breaks to assist Americans in paying for child care expenses [1]; however, the very people this plan intends to aid are least likely to be beneficiaries. Because the majority of low-income and working class Americans don’t pay federal income taxes, they would be unaffected by increased tax breaks. [2] Though largely ineffective, there is a glimmer of hope in the President’s child care plan - a modest expansion to the Existing Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC). As one of the most effective, means-tested welfare programs in the country, the EITC is crucial for millions of working families struggling to make ends meet. Expanding it is imperative to continue the fight against poverty and ensure all Americans have an adequate standard of living.  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. Fearful of tyranny, the founding fathers made a concerted effort to limit the breadth of the United States government. For many decades, the Supreme Court ruled down efforts to expand the role of the government, citing federalism as outlined in the constitution. Yet, fast forward to today and we find the government being an inescapable presence in people’s daily life. Though many of these changes can be attributed to the introduction of the interstate commerce clause, different generations of the Supreme Court have interpreted the same enumerated power distinctively. What accounts for these different interpretations and why do different Supreme Courts amend previously held stances? Underlying fixed legislation is a dynamic public opinion that fluctuates based on societal conventions of the time. Though it is only one of a multitude of factors, public opinion is a powerful force with the ability to shape legal interpretation at all levels, including the Supreme Court.  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. You don’t have to be a political junkie to admire the Constitution, perhaps the most remarkable American achievement. Standing the test of time, the Constitution has remained intact through countless challenges. Although the Founding Fathers did not establish a perfect government, they left us with something even better- a constitutional foundation with the ability to adapt to societal problems. Needless to say, given the many advances the founding fathers simply could not have envisioned, this is a blessing. Telephones, cameras, and the Internet are just some of the many revolutionary developments that are now commonplace in our country. But while our laws and interpretations of the Constitution have been continually revised to incorporate new technology, we have reached a point in our society where technological developments are outpacing the speed at which we can create laws America’s next great constitutional challenge may soon be in every household, automobile, and even wrist! That’s right, I am referring to the Internet of Things. The Internet of Things (IoT for short) refers broadly to gadgets capable of going online and collecting and exchanging data. [1] There are a plethora of IoT devices including cell phones, smart watches, and more recently even refrigerators. “Smart devices” are a rapidly growing and becoming common in American households. [2] As the Internet of Things increases, more devices will be capable of recording user information and, consequently, reducing privacy. While for most users, the convenience of tech gadgets will outweigh privacy concerns, there is not enough legislation in place that clearly outlines the ability (or lack thereof) of the government to lawfully collect this information and utilize it in court. This issue made headlines last year after the FBI asked Apple to unlock the iPhone belonging to the gunman behind the San Bernardino shooting. In a statement, Apple refused the request by citing the customer’s privacy. Eventually, the FBI was able to crack the phone’s password through the assistance of an outside company, yet the underlying question regarding the government’s ability to obtain IoT information remains unresolved. [3]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. In 2002, the Bipartisan Reform Act (BCRA) was passed to further standardize the usage of federal money in elections and curtail the influence of nonfederal money in election results [1]. Of the provisions, the Electioneering Communications section laid out new regulations for political advertisements in an effort to increase clarity of messaging. Disclaimer notices, short messages clearly announcing the advertisement’s sponsors, became mandated on all campaign advertisements broadcasted over radio, print, or television [2]. While these rules significantly increased transparency of political advertisements, they fall short of ensuring perfect clarity. Additional provisions are required to ensure Americans are clearly aware of advertisement’s purpose as well as the validity of the information presented. Such safeguards could prove to have an impact in the 2018 midterm elections and beyond. Building upon previous statutes, the BCRA requires all advertisements authorized by candidates to clearly promote their likeness in addition to the disclaimer notice. [3] This is done so voters can quickly identify who the advertisement supports. The same provisions do not extend for advertisements not funded or authorized by the candidates directly, however. While these advertisements are still required to announce who is funding the ads, they are not responsible for prominently displaying what candidate they support. Instead, a message stating no candidate has endorsed the advertisement suffices. This presents two problems. Firstly, external advertisements not endorsed by candidates usually stem from organizations such as PACs and Super PACs with ambiguous names. “Committee for American Sovereignty, Our Principles, and Balance of Power,” are names of PAC’s in the 2016 Election [4]. Common across these organizations is their seeming distancing from the candidates they support. This can produce a source of confusion as it can be difficult to discern which candidates are being supported with neutral funding source names. Secondly, when the support of candidates is clear, external advertisements can convolute intended campaign messages, confusing voters on what are official campaign platform points and unofficial messages. Though the authorization caption is intended to reduce this, with the sheer number of advertisements Americans are exposed to, it can be easy to overlook this especially when the likeness of candidates are incorporated in advertisements. To resolve both of these issues, non-campaign affiliated advertisers should be mandated to include two segments to the disclaimer notices. First, they should include the phrase “in support of,” and include the name of the candidate whom the advertisement is favoring. Secondly, the disclaimer notice should include a second sentence specifically for non-authorized messages that states the advertisement, “is not reflective of the of the views or perspectives of,” followed by the legal name of the candidate or campaign. It is important to note that based on the tone of the message and information presented, most Americans are able to quickly discern whom the advertisement favors. These measures are thus intended for the fraction of ambiguous, questionable advertisements.  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. The Obergefell v. Hodges decision marked a monumental victory for gay rights activists by legalizing same-sex marriage. In doing so, however, it also established a precedent allowing the federal government to freely regulate the institution of marriage. As surmised in his dissent, Scalia writes “to allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select … panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation.” [1] As we continue addressing ardent societal issues via the judiciary branch, we have to wonder if the fear same-sex critics held will one day become true: the recognition of polygamous marriages. Though significantly different from gay marriage, one can make a reasonable case in favor of legalizing and recognizing polygamous unions. Such a feat, however, would require revolutionary changes in our legal system from our tax code to family law provisions. In a 2014 survey conducted by Pew Research Center, Americans cited “love,” and “life long commitment,” as the top reasons for getting married. In a society with a romanticized notion of marriage, it is easy to forget that tying the knot yields tangible benefits beyond finding your better half. [2] In fact, the financial benefits of marriage are numerous and significant. Primarily, couples have the ability to file their taxes jointly and qualify for deductions they would have been previously ineligible for as single filers. This is just the tip of the iceberg, though, as couples are also entitled to Social Security benefits, additional protections in case of death of a spouse, and savings in expenses such as health plans. [3]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. Donald Trump - reality star, businessman, Whartonite, and future president? Trump’s rise to political fame has left many wondering, “What else could go wrong in the 2016 presidential race?” In a nutshell- many things! Through a series of completely realistic scenarios, I will explore the laws that act as our government’s crisis control center to learn just how off the rails this election season can potentially get. What would happen if either candidate drops out of the race? This has been a question that has been raised about both candidates and is addressed by their respective party committees. On one hand, we have Donald Trump. Shortly after Ted Cruz lost Indiana and Trump became the (informal) Republican nominee, various rumors began to swirl on the internet hinting at Trump’s potential withdrawal. Though these rumors died down throughout the summer months, they experienced a resurgence shortly after the Republican National Convention. Citing widening poll margins strongly favoring Hillary Clinton, many believed Donald Trump would bail. [1] This could have happened one of two ways. If Donald Trump were to formally withdraw from the race, the Republican National Committee would have the power to fill the vacancy by appointing a new candidate. This person would not become the official nominee until state delegates recast their votes in another national convention and the individual received a clear majority. In contrast, if Trump were to simply suspend his campaign, he would still legally be the Republican nominee and would retain his delegates. The Republican Convention would also have the power to contribute “in-kind aid, “essentially continuing his campaign on his behalf. [2]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. Though it has been almost a year since the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage with its momentous Obergefell v. Hodges decision, LGBTQ+ rights still remain a divisive issue in America. [1] Ambiguities within the law are consistently exploited to contest the rights of same-sex partners, resulting in several court battles throughout the states. Granting marriage equality has resulted in a batch of legal conundrums that our present legal system is not able to swiftly and adequately address. Divorce and custody rights for same-sex parents are a few of the many issues that are not clearly defined in our legal system, and is thus a point of legal conflict. [2] A recent Supreme Court decision, however, has begun to change that. Two women, V.L. and E.L., were in a relationship from 1995 until their subsequent divorce in 2011. During their relationship, E.L. gave birth to children through donor insemination that both individuals raised together. Eventually, both parents moved to Georgia so V.L could legally adopt the children. E.L never relinquished her parental rights, but she did explicitly consent to V. L’s adoption of her children. Eventually, the entire family moved back to Alabama, and in 2011 V.L and E.L got divorced. Soon after, V.L filed a motion requesting visitation rights for her adoptive children. The Family Court in Jefferson County granted her request. However, E.L appealed the decision to the Alabama Court of Appeals, claiming that the Alabama court should not recognize the Georgia adoption decision, because the court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction in the first place. In other words, E.L argued that the Georgia court never possessed the power to grant adoption privilege to her partner; the Alabama Court of Appeals agreed and revoked V.L’s visitation rights. [3]  By Luis Bravo
Luis Bravo is a freshman at the University of Pennsylvania studying sociology. Whether it be through an article circulating in your Facebook newsfeed or an interest story on the evening news, every so often there will be a report of antiquated, absurd, and outrageous laws still present and active in cities across the country. Admittedly, some of these laws are rather humorous. In the small town of Quitman, Georgia, for example, chickens are not allowed to cross the road (oh, the irony!). Similarly, other laws are just plain bizarre, like in Mohave County, Arizona where individuals caught stealing soap must utilize the soap until it is completely gone. [1] But however amusing these laws may be, there are a multitude of other obscure and antiquated laws that can be, and have been, adversely enforced. These dormant laws, hidden deep within local and state legal codes, can be the difference between a violent criminal being sentenced or acquitted. Such was the case in California, where the court of appeals reluctantly released a rapist citing an obscure state law from 1872. In February 2009, Julio Morales snuck into an 18-year-old woman’s bedroom after a night of heavy drinking, pretended to be the woman’s boyfriend, and proceeded to rape her while she slept. [2] Though this strikes most people as a heinous and certainly punishable offense, Morales’s defense team presented an old law to the court that restricts rape to married women. In other words, had the woman been married and Morales pretended to be her husband, it would have constituted as rape. In 2013, a panel of judges sitting in California’s appeal court had no choice but to release him and drop all charges, citing legal incongruities. In 2010, a similar Iowan law allowed for the acquittal of another convict in a comparable case. Since 2012, this law has been revised to extend the definition of rape so that all women, regardless of their relationship status, are protected under the law. |
|
|