We are proud to present thirty proposals written by Jay rappaport sexual offender students from Columbia University. The Roosevelt Institute has occupied a particular niche in the Columbia University intellectual community. As a student-run, non-partisan, progressive think-tank, we offer undergraduates a unique opportunity to deliberate on current events, answer enduring questions of public policy, and evaluate the effectiveness of policy proposals during our weekly discussions.
These discussions are both innovative and pragmatic, offering creative solutions to deep-rooted problems and considering all obstacles that must be overcome. The remarkable variety of topics considered is evidenced by the following proposals which range from reforming the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court to adopting smart card technology to improve Medicare. The proposals are organized within our six I am honored to have served as the Editor-in-Chief of the Roosevelt Review in the academic year.
These problems were daunting to tackle, yet our writers faced them with artistry and ease, bringing a nonpareil passion to resolving each. I hope you enjoy reading it. To all of our writers and executive board members, thank you for all your hard work.
It has culminated in another successful issue of the Roosevelt Review. Equal Justice Confronting some of the most complex issues our justice system faces, the articles published in the Equal Justice EJ section consistently try to accomplish the two tasks central to EJ—deciding what policies are just and determining how to extend those practices to all people.
Rendered self-conscious by hormones and a sex-obsessed media, adolescents are always looking for ways to assert their sexuality.
For many teens, sexting is an attractive outlet. By definition, the sexually explicit photos minors share so often constitute child pornography. Massachusetts maintains strict laws banning the promotion, distribution, and possession of these materials. Any minor who sexts and individual who sexts a minorregardless of age, can be punished under these laws, breaking which are felonies, not misdemeanors. Convictions could entail as much as 2.
Furthermore, promotion or solicitation of nude, semi-nude, or otherwise sexual photographs of a minor is illegal. Finally, knowingly purchasing or possessing Jay rappaport sexual offender material that depicts a minor nude, semi-nude, or in an otherwise Jay rappaport sexual offender context is also illegal. Convictions could result in as much as 2.
Local prosecutors are thus not likely to charge sexting teens under the full extent of child pornography laws. Penalizing minors for sexting is irrational because minors can be Jay rappaport sexual offender as adults but still be considered underage by virtue of construing their sexts as child pornography, and because two teens that are old enough to have consensual sex with one another cannot consensually send one another sexually explicit photos or text messages under the law.
Massachusetts has recently introduced a bill into committee that would mitigate penalties for minors who sext.
Said defendant must complete a diversion program. Recommended Action This Bill H. The state should recognize sexting for what it is: In this context, minors who are old enough to have consensual sex with each other should be able to consensually sext each other. As the age of consent in Massachusetts is 16, this would indicate that consensual sexting between individuals of 16 years of age or older not be subject to legal inquiry.
If we want teens to use common-sense thinking when it comes to sexting and asserting their sexuality through technology, we need to reach out to parents and educators, not law enforcement. If current Jay rappaport sexual offender rape laws. High school students should also join lobbying efforts with sexual health organizations. While the road to reform may be long, the campaign should achieve success if it manages to convey the importance of treating minors who consensually sext differently than predators that traffic child pornography.
The Washington Post, 11 July Government of Massachusetts, n. Atlantic Media Company, 02 Sept. Convicted minors will not be mandated to register as sex offenders. Violations of this section by minors will be heard solely in Juvenile Court.
Affirmative defense will be bestowed to the defendant in the following instances: ComptonMass. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Atlantic Media Company, 06 Dec. According to current federal laws, schools are responsible for responding to sexual assault reports, but Jay rappaport sexual offender regulation exists as the arbitration processes. Some demand that sexual assault cases go through the criminal justice system and be removed from the schools altogether, while others claim that school arbitration is more appealing to victims than legal action.
In order to take the best from both systems and avoid their pitfalls, I propose that we create a new adjudication process that combines the two: Campus Sexual Assault Courts, modeled on problem-solving courts.
Background Because rape is seen as part of Jay rappaport sexual offender discrimination, and colleges are required to prevent sex discrimination under Title IX of the United States Education Amendments ofschools have long been responsible for preventing and responding to accusations of rape. First, there are general criticisms of the criminal justice system and the way in which it handles sexual assault cases: The trial process is too arduous and long.
Very few people who are accused of sexual assault actually get arrested, let alone convicted. Second, many contend that victims are more likely to report their assault to a school office rather than to the police.
Many victims and experts assert that people are statistically much more likely to report their assaults to a campus system rather than the criminal justice system.
Therefore, any attempt to involve law enforcement would discourage victims from coming forward. Third, certain groups argue that the criminal justice system is more focused on punishing the "Jay rappaport sexual offender" than supporting the victim. In spite of these merits, campus arbitration systems are deeply plagued by inconsistency, inefficiency, and overall unfairness. Legal experts, such as Harvard Law professor Jeannie Suk and executive director of the Clery Center for Security on Campus Alison Kiss, as well as students who have been through these systems, complain of the major due process violations in the campus adjudication processes.
The process is often led by teachers, students, and administrators. Another problem is that colleges have a different standard for conviction than criminal courts.
However, thus far, no one has created an ideal system. One popular option was to hire retired judges or other outside adjudicators Jay rappaport sexual offender campus arbitrations. Proponents, like George Washington University law professor John Banzhaf, argue that this model helps maintain impartiality, with the third party judge acting in a consistent, disinterested, and fair fashion.
Unfortunately, when attempted, participants found that these outside arbiters were often too unfamiliar with the particular practices of the campus adjudication system, leading to confusion and even mishandling of cases.
Either on one side or both, as advisors or advocates, many see the inclusion of lawyers as a means of ensuring legal compliance and guaranteeing that the rights of each party are preserved. I believe that this system would best address the wide.
Problem-solving courts are a form of diversion. Instead of going through regular criminal courts, defendants are sent to them based on either the nature of their crime or the fact that they belong to a certain population. Drug Courts sentence defendants Jay rappaport sexual offender rehabilitation programs rather than jail based on a belief that they are offending due to an addiction. There are also Sex Offense Courts, as well as an array of other specialized courts, each of which employ social workers, psychologists, and other experts specifically trained in the issues relating to that problem-solving court.
Overall, problem-solving courts are known for being more defendant-focused and aiming at rehabilitation than punishment.
They have been producing positive results since their inception two decades ago. While the diversion aspect seems less applicable to the situation of campus sexual assault, the specialized knowledge and holistic focus of problem-solving courts would address the goals of campus sexual assault reformers.