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 Regina Salmons
Regina Salmons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying English. Sometimes in law, as in life, it is not what we say, but how we say it. In the matters of the legal world and within the courtroom, the precise wording of statements can make all the difference. Where one places a comma can be the difference between winning and losing a case, and the order in which one structures a sentence can determine the outcome of someone’s life. Yet at the same time, how one reads the meaning of a text is often dependent on who is reading it, as interpretations often vary. This past November, the Supreme Court heard Lockhart v. United States, a case that saw an entire argument revolving around whether or not the last clause of a sentence containing multiple modified the preceding clauses. Lockhart was undeniably guilty of possessing child pornography—a crime to which he had pleaded guilty. Lockhart had also previously been convicted for the first-degree sexual abuse of his girlfriend of the time. Because of his prior conviction, his presentence report judged that he be subjected to a ten year mandatory minimum sentence enhancement. The enhancement was based on the wording of a crime “relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse or abusive sexual conduct involving a minor,” which the judgment decided encompassed the abuse of his adult girlfriend. [1]
1 Comment
 By Regina Salmons
Regina Salmons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying English. Women have been an integral part of our military for as long as the United States has existed as a country. Women unofficially served as cooks and nurses during the Revolutionary War and the Civil War, and were formally allowed to join the military as nurses and in other non-combat roles during World War I. Over the years, and throughout various international conflicts, women have slowly become more and more integrated into the American military, as the country’s national defense needs call them to service. Just this past December, Defense Secretary Ashton Carter announced that starting in January 2016, all positions in the military would be open to women, as long as they met physical standards. Despite a request from the Marine Corps for certain exceptions, Carter affirmed that women can now fill any position—from driving tanks, to firing machine guns, to leading infantry soldiers into battle, all jobs that women were not allowed to perform before January. [1] Having women in the military has long been refuted and contested, but in 2016, we have seemingly left any doubts behind. The military must often deal with controversy, and as heated as the debate about incorporating women was, the discussion of the draft brought about similarly intense reactions. With women in the process of becoming fully integrated into the military, many people are wondering why women should not be subjected to the draft as well. If women can serve in any position that men can, what is to say that they should not be called to action by the process of the draft as well? By allowing women to be drafted, are we not ensuring that the best candidates to serve and protect our country are chosen? On February 2, General Neller of the Marine Corps and Army Chief of Staff General Milley spoke before Congress on the issue, endorsing the idea that the draft should include both genders. There has been backlash to these testimonies, which presidential candidate Ted Cruz called “immoral,” as well as further support for the proposal to draft both genders. [2]  By Regina Salmons
Regina Salmons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying English. The ongoing debate over abortion has extended beyond hypothetical arguments into the real world. In McCullen v. Coakley, Eleanor McCullen and other pro-life protestors and self-proclaimed “counselors” petitioned against Attorney General Martha Coakley for the infringement of what they believed to be their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. [1] The petitioners argued that the required 35-foot buffer zones around women’s health clinics and abortion clinics designed to exclude these protestors infringed too heavily on their ability to provide “sidewalk counseling” to those entering the clinics. Additionally, they argued that “clinic escorts,” whose job it is to accompany patients seeking medical help through the buffer zones into the clinics, also prevented their right to free expression. Both the District Court and the First Circuit denied that the Act requiring the zones violated the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court, meanwhile, ruled that the law did in fact violate the First Amendment because it limited free speech too broadly, as the sidewalks leading to the clinics are indeed public ground. Historically, politicians often used such sidewalks as platforms for free speech and campaigning, yet those forms of campaign were not usually violent or inflammatory. On the other hand, these protestors often block the entrances to the clinic, not allowing those seeking reproductive health services to enter the building. The response of the Court was that in those circumstances, which appeared to only occur on Saturdays, police officers could be called to disperse the crowds.  By Regina Salmons
Regina Salmons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania studying English. If you wanted to bet on sports (legally, that is) you would have to find your way to Nevada, Oregon, Delaware or Montana. These four states are exempt from the Professional and Amateur Sports Protection Act (PASPA), also known as the Bradley Act. The act was named thusly due to the efforts of Bill Bradley, a senator from New Jersey and former hall of fame basketball player for the New York Knicks, who was a main sponsor of the 1992 bill. . PASPA’s intention was to stop the spread of sports betting in the United States during a time when legalized casinos were rapidly emerging. [1] The four exempted states were grandfathered in. There was a clause in PAPSA that allowed any state where legalized gambling had been present for at least ten years to apply for legalized sports gambling, of which New Jersey and Nevada were eligible to do so, being the only two states to have legalized casinos prior to 1989. However, New Jersey failed to do so, losing the opportunity to legalize sports betting. [1] It appears that New Jersey regrets that decision. In 2011, New Jersey asked voters if sports betting should become legal, to which 64% responded yes in a non-binding referendum. [2] The amendment permitted the New Jersey Legislature to legalize sports gambling at casinos (with the exception of college athletics) becoming law in 2012. However, immediately following the approval of the law, five sports leagues, including the NCAA, NFL, NBA, NHL, and MLB sued on the grounds that it violated PAPSA.  By Regina Salmons
Regina Salmons is a sophomore at the University of Pennsylvania. Increasingly, researchers claim that the human brain is not fully developed at the major milestones in American youth culture. In other words, at sixteen, many Americans can drive a car, at eighteen they can vote, and at twenty-one they can drink alcohol, but according to the MIT Young Development Project, only at twenty-five are human brains fully developed. [1] Until 2012, a juvenile could be sentenced to life in prison without parole. The question that then arises is should the criminal justice system hold individuals with underdeveloped brains that commit criminal acts so accountable? Should any person under twenty-five be condemned to life and death in prison when their rational and moral judgment is not yet solidified? In the 2012 case Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court ruled the sentencing of juveniles to life in prison without parole unconstitutional, arguing that it violated the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments’ protections against cruel and unusual punishment. [2] However, only juveniles charged with committing, or being an accomplice to, murder after the decision feel its effects; the ruling has no retroactive powers to overturn or amend the sentences of juveniles made prior to it. Thus, all of Pennsylvania’s nearly five hundred juveniles serving life without parole, the highest inmate count for any state in the country, have no hope of re-entering society and redefining their life with a fully developed capacity for reason. [3] |
|
|
