please, not another fee
The judicial branch proposed yesterday that a new and separate fee be charged defendants to help pay for the cost of contract attorneys. This is one right idea but a wrong way to go about it.

In a former life, I supervised the collection and accounting of these types of fees, for one court, theoretically. The administrative overhead in accounting for, collecting, and enforcing separate fees will most likely cost more than will be collected. We already have too many special purpose separate fees.

How high do we expect the collection rate to be for the insular class of convicted criminals? And how many court clerks and accountants must we hire to calculate separate fees that aren't being paid? Wouldn't it be better if we just doubled or trebled the 'court costs' and did away with the special interest fee structure? We could still use the funds we don't collect to pay for the things we want. The accounting will just be cheaper.

And, despite three separate notifications to two separate News Journal reporters, that their reports are missing the big picture and are in effect inaccurate, they continue to follow the false trail like sheep. The conflict attorney program is just one of several such programs. All of the reported numbers of cases, dollar figures, and the overall valuations of the problem are incomplete and thus, wrong. Why would they continue to print incomplete and inaccurate reports?

harvard law school offers free classes online
The Berkman Center for Internet & Society, from Harvard Law School is offering a free class on the subject of privacy in cyberspace.

Individual sections of the non-credit class includes: Online Profiling, Employees Privacy on the Net, Governmental Collection of Data, and Cryptography and other Self-Help Mechanisms.

The opening session started on Monday, so if you're interested register quickly.

Another class to be offered by the Berkman Center is: Violence Against Women on the Internet
(via metafilter)

school drug testing comes to the Supreme Court
Should a school be allowed to ask for a urine test from any student who wants to be involved in an extracurricular activity? The US Supreme Court has a couple of cases before it on the subject of drug testing that may shape how we deal with the subject of drug testing in schools, at work, and when running for a political office.

An involved, and reasoned argument against such drug testing makes its case based upon a rationality and proportionality basis:

Given the serious intrusion, judges must insist on a serious government interest that is significantly furthered before blessing the policy as reasonable. The school district's asserted interests of deterring illegal drug use are substantial. But there is no tight fit between that goal and the means chosen here.

Crucially, there is no reason to believe that students who want to be in the choir or the chess club are more likely to use drugs than all other students. (Indeed, one might think students who choose to forgo participating in any extracurricular activities at all might be more disaffected with school, and more likely to use drugs in their greater leisure time - though some of these students might instead need to work afterschool jobs or take care of siblings.)

That lack of fit between ends (deterrence of drug use) and means (testing only those engaged in extracurricular activities) decisively distinguishes the Earls case from the student athlete drug testing upheld in the Vernonia case. The Vernonia Court explicitly relied on the facts that athletes were the leaders of the local high school drug culture, that athletic participation itself created special health risks for those on drugs, and that the incremental intrusion of a drug test was small given the other privacy intrusions inherent in sports themselves. Athletes also face special temptations to take drugs such as steroids to boost their athletic performance. None of these factors applies to the school stamp club.

I think that the authors of this article make a strong argument. But, will the Supreme Court see it that way?

amateur archeologists earn beer money with rare find
A couple of treasure hunters unearthed a trove that contains one of the most spectacular finds ever. They then proceeded to sell the artifacts they uncovered for just enough money to buy a new stereo, and some beer.

How amazing a find is this?

Experts say they are certain the haul, which included a circular disc depicting the heavens with sun, moon and stars, is at least 3,600 years old.

This shows Europeans had a rudimentary knowledge of the solar system and its influence on our lives far earlier than previously thought. Harald Meller, an archaeologist, said: "This ranks as one of the 20 most important finds of all time, up there with the tomb of Tutankhamun and the discovery of Otzi the iceman in the Alps.

So what is the punishment for trying to unload ancient priceless artifacts? Maybe the original discoverers had the right idea. The folks they sold their bounty to were arrested when they tried to sell the goods in the lobby of a Swiss hotel for considerably more money.

it is alive
Debates over genetically engineered crops have been raging for the past couple of years. The battle has shifted from corn and wheat, to a new arena - seafood. Critics have labeled gene modified foodstuffs with the moniker "frankenfood," after Mary Shelly's Frankenstein.

So now, questions have arisen about frankenfish. Our neighbors to the south in Maryland have passed a law allowing genetically modified fish to be grown in lakes and ponds that aren't connected to other waterways. California is considering imposing a fine up to $50,000 for the possession, release, or import of frankenfish into the state.

The Food and Drug Administration is presently considering whether such fish are safe to eat.

no tv for you
Can the taking away of television viewing be considered "cruel and unusual punishment?" Cruel maybe, but as many children around the world may have experienced, it's probably not unusual.

But when the order to not watch television comes from a judge, and is the result of a sentencing in a criminal case, it might be the grounds for an appeal. A federal district court judge sentenced a defendant (ny times, reg. req'd) to ten months of home confinement, with the condition that the home be televsion free.

After originally agreeing to the condition, the defendant has had second thoughts and is claiming that his first amendment rights are being violated.

how effective are drug courts?
Delaware was one of the first states in the country to have a drug court program. The focus of such a program is prevention, and rehabilitation rather than punishment. Successful completion of Drug Court can mean that a person can apply to have their charges expunged, and emerge with a clean record.

The Attorney General's Office has to decide whether a person should be offered the opportunity to take part in Drug Court. There are a number of things that they look for involving the offense in question, and the person charged with the offense.

So, how effective are Drug Courts? The Office of Justice Programs, from the federal government released the results of a study called: "Looking at a Decade of Drug Courts," back in 1998, which showed some remarkable results:

Unlike traditional treatment programs, becoming –clean and sober” is only the first step toward drug court graduation. Almost all drug courts require participants (after they have become clean and sober) to obtain a GED, maintain employment, be current in all financial obligations, including drug court fees and child support payments, if applicable, and to have a sponsor in the community. Many programs also require participants to perform community service hours -- to give back to the community that is supporting them through the drug court program. One drug court requires prospective graduates to prepare a two year –life plan” following drug court graduation for discussion with a community board to assure the court that the participant has developed the –tools” to lead a drug-free and crime-free life.

The original goals for drug courts -- reductions in recidivism and drug usage -- are being achieved, with recidivism rates substantially reduced for graduates and, to a lesser but significant degree, for participants who do not graduate as well. Drug usage rates for defendants while they are participating in the drug court, measured by the frequent, random urinalyses required of all participants, are also substantially reduced, generally to well under 10%, dramatically below that observed for nondrug court offenders.

The "outcomes” drug courts are achieving go far beyond these original goals, however: the birth of over 500 drug free babies to drug court participants; the reunification of hundreds of families, as parents regain or are able to retain custody of their children; education and vocational training and job placements for participants, to name a few. Most significantly, many of the judges who have served as the "drug court” judge have requested an extension of their assignment, and many have taken on the drug court duty in addition to their other docket responsibilities.

In addition, the costs of drug court supervision is substantially less than of incarceration, and of a hospital stay within a prison.