GPS Tracking

(Rest easy, your donuts are safe!)

As much as I know my mom would love to be able to track me down at any given moment, I would never want my cell phone to be a gateway for others to view personal information. GPS tracking is absolutely an infringement on the rights of an individual. On a domestic level, police have ways and means of tracking down criminals that frankly, require minimal effort. For instance, license plates, personal records, such as credit card history and prior addresses, and even, if they’re not too busy with donut holes, the world wide web; all of which have been proven to be useful tools in looking up personal information. Police can even zero in on an address via satellite to search for an individual’s vehicle. Granted these all require some work, and it’s not like police are paid for such efforts. Domestically, GPS tracking is a step over the line of personal privacy that should be neither legal or justified. While it may be useful in situations where there is a grave threat or danger, there should be strict guidelines, such as probable cause, before it should even be considered.

The Washington Post article did not at all change my stance. After hearing judges have granted cell phone tracking data requests without probable cause, I was even more skeptical of such investigations. While I see the advantages of such a system in tracking serial killers and other criminal targets and also in emergency situations; from what the article reports, tracking is not being used in a way that is constitutionally acceptable. For instance, the article insists that FBI agents are requesting location data citing lower standards such as "specific and articulable facts showing reasonable grounds to believe the data is relevant to an ongoing criminal investigation."

Perhaps on an international level, GPS tracking would be more appropriate. Especially in terms of terrorists and national security. Because these situations are often more difficult to handle in terms of tracking and ordinarily involve the safety of a mass amount, I could see looking into GPS traking data from cell phone companies. In such incidences, however, probable cause should be necessary before any investigative steps are taken. If the government rules GPS tracking is absolutely necessary in these cases, then there has to be such guidelines (ie. probable cause) in order to prevent abuse.

However, GPS tracking has already become commercialized and it is my belief that its abuse is inevitable. I would not support its use, unless there is a proven emergency situation (perhaps probable terrorist attacks), and I would never want the government to require all cell phones to have it. There could be devastating consequences if this tool were to fall into the wrong hands. Technologically, there are already so many ways to hack into others' personal lives. GPS tracking would just be another way for stalkers, rapists, and other criminals to retrieve information. As GPS tracking becomes more popular, there is no telling how many criminals may be able to use it to their advantage. There are so many other means of tracking intelligence and it is unfortunate that prosecutors and police have lost all interest in true detective work, and would rather look to a last resort before really exploring their options.

Giuliani on Torture

I found this video of a speech by Giuliani to be interesting and relevant to our current talks on torture. While everyone agrees torture should never be justified in America, it was refreshing to hear Giuliani's take on the exaggerations and falsehoods portrayed about torture in the liberal media...


"And I see, when the Democrats are talking about torture, they’re not just talking about even this definition of waterboarding, which again, if you look at the liberal media and you look at the way they describe it, you could say it was torture and you shouldn’t do it. But they talk about sleep deprivation. I mean, on that theory, I’m getting tortured running for president of the United States."


Giuliani goes on to describe how he was able to put criminals in jail...
"You know how I put hundreds of Mafia people in jail? And I helped to put thousands in Italy in jail? You know how I did it? I did it by electronic surveillance and aggressive questioning. None of them wanted to give me the information. They didn’t walk into my office and say, ‘I want to tell you about all of those Mafia murders…”


And of course terrorists are not going to give up information. However, we should use the above methods described to retrieve information and should never result to torture. Torture has been an issue for centuries and is just now beginning to surface publically. Although it is disturbing, there is still time to change current policy and focus more on effective means of questioning. We should not rely on the tactics of our enemies and stoop to the level of Islamic extremists. We should set the example and show other countries that torture is not acceptable, even in times of war. However, the president should be able to use his/her discretion in making decisions about tougher means of interrogation and the bottom line should be public safety.

"...we should be against torture. But we should not be against aggressive questioning. And the line between the two is going to require some really difficult decisions about drawing it and kind of trusting each other with the discretion for the president to make decisions about what has to be done in the interests of the American people.’’

America's Safety: Number One!

After watching the Frontline piece and reading Greenwald and Robin’s arguments about the current administration’s use of fear to extend executive power, I would still argue that in times of war, the nation as a whole should be the top priority and the president and our government should use executive power to its full legal extent in order to do what is necessary to keep our citizens safe. While I do admit as Greenwald strongly reiterates, there is a state of fear among Americans, I wouldn’t necessarily consider it to be a bad thing. For once, Americans are finally aware of the dangers and threats that face our country each and every day. If anything I feel that for once, no one was able to sugar-coat the safety crisis. The administration’s only crime is shedding some light on America’s vulnerability, and frankly the truth hurts. However, I would rather hear the real safety concerns than be babied into thinking that just because we have a strong military, we should not be fearful of terrorist organizations.

People always want the government and other authorities to keep them safe. However, they never want to know how that level of safety is reached. People don’t want to see the dark-side of CIA interrogation and any show of force scares them, yet they still want to be protected. What Americans need to realize is that there are uses of force and interrogation necessary and vital to our country’s survival and in times of war, our government’s power has to be extended in order for us to protect our own national interests.

Finding a Good Defense Attorney: In Too Deep??

This is the image many think of when they picture the defense attorney or lawyers in general. Blumberg’s piece on the defense lawyer argues that personal agendas often lead lawyers to persuade their clients to plead guilty, despite the circumstances. He gives readers a pessimistic view of the plea bargaining system and the interaction between the lawyer, the judge, and the prosecutor. According to Blumberg, the defendant has become a “secondary figure…a means to other ends of the organization’s incumbents.” He insists that defense lawyers steer their clients towards a guilty plea, rather than taking an “adversarial posture.”

I agree with Blumberg’s criticisms of the defense lawyer. In many ways, their personal agendas encourage them to play a more low-key role and work harder to plead cases out. Plea bargaining in the court system downplays the fundamental idea of one’s right to zealous advocacy. Blumberg is also correct in saying it gives lawyers an easy fix, undermining justice in the courtroom, simply so the case can be resolved as soon as possible. However, without such bargaining, the criminal justice system would have to be completely uprooted simply due to the case load. I feel the challenge involved in being a good defense lawyer is finding a balance between zealous advocacy and the negotiation process. It is important to communicate with both the judge and the prosecutor, but a defense attorney should never lose sight of their clients’ interests and in the end their goal should be to get the best results for them as possible.

What About the Victims?

Sandel’s article on victim testimony raises some interesting questions about the role of the victim in the criminal justice process. Bill Clinton in the early 90’s insisted that victims should be at the forefront of the trial, rather than “on the outside looking in.” Those who support retributive justice argue that a victim’s voice in the courtroom simply sheds light on the magnitude of the crime. Others feel that highly emotional testimony will only divert attention away from factual evidence and logical thinking.

I support the idea of retributive justice. Providing a jury with facts and statistics does not always bring the moral issues of a crime to the surface. I feel the jury, as well as the rest of the court, should know just how the particular crime impacted others’ lives. In almost all cases of capital punishment, the victim is not there to testify. Thus, I feel it is important that those who were closest to that person speak out on their behalf. I really don’t think justice can be served until the victim has some sort of voice. If the defendant is given the right to speak and defend themselves, why shouldn’t the victim be able to tell their side of the story? The jury should rely on evidence, but they should also consider the effects of the crime on the victims and their families before sentencing.

In Front of Our Eyes...

“What happens in front of our eyes is transformed inside the head, and is refined, revisited, restored, and embellished…”

This is the claim Barry Scheck makes when criticizing the reliability of eyewitness testimony. Scheck insists that eyewitnesses are the main source of false convictions in the American justice system. His article, “Seeing Things,” reports that shaky eyewitness accounts have proven to be more of a hindrance in convicting criminals than an aid. Because eyewitness accounts are more often than not emotionally powerful, they usually stick out in the juror’s mind. Scheck argues that this type of emotional trigger within the juror is not always a good thing, considering that what one remembers about a certain event may be very limited. Stuart Taylor takes the same position in his article “Innocents in Prison.” Taylor’s article reports that 205 DNA exonerations have been recorded since 1989, clearly showing that false convictions are a reality in courts across the country. Taylor argues that in terms of eyewitness identification, police are often pointing out the potential suspect to the eyewitness. Because of our limited capacity to remember physical attributes and details, in addition to what Taylor calls improper police procedure, there is no doubt that false convictions are taking place.

I agree with Taylor that in some cases, police involvement in eyewitness testimony has led to false convictions. I also agree with Scheck that while eyewitnesses may be the most memorable, they are often not the most reliable. Taylor suggests in his article that certain procedures should be taken in order to ensure that eyewitness testimony is honest and fair. I would suggest the same thing. When witnesses are identifying potential suspects, they should not have someone pointing someone out to them. They should be given time to make the decision on their own with no outside influence. I agree with Taylor that some of these simple procedures are being overlooked and that the criminal justice system may at times manipulate evidence. I also feel that if new DNA evidence is available after conviction, the defendant should be able to appeal. If these types of actions were taken, the amount of innocents in jail would be significantly reduced. Although I agree with Taylor that things could be improved, I feel 2-3% is an acceptable error rate. No system can be perfect and even with correct procedures it is still possible for the innocent to be convicted. I would be more interested to know just how many guilty parties walk free. Nevertheless, the system, just as us, cannot always be 100% accurate when pointing out the guilty.

Tort Cases: Too Many or Too Little??

In tort cases, it is definitely more common to hear ridiculous cases like that of Judith Haimes. These types of legal escapades just serve as a catalyst for Americans to point the finger at greedy lawyers and roll their eyes as once again we complain of too many meaningless law suits. While these cases show the negative aspects of civil law, we rarely hear about the other side of the coin, or in this case, law suits like Paul Miller’s. Paul Miller, a man struck with bad luck, was nearly left homeless by the Bank of America. In this case, a large corporation was punished for their wrong doing in such a way that could actually benefit the everyday individual. It turns out that Paul Miller was not the only one suffering. The Bank of America was not only digging a hole for Paul, but also for many other “little guys.” The case could set a standard for future treatment of Social Security funds, yet the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 will make it even more difficult for people like Paul Miller to have their day in court.


While I find cases such as Judith Haimes’ to be an embarrassment to not only civil law, but to the legal profession as a whole, I do admit that as Americans, we tend to look at only the negative aspects of law, rather than the positive. I liked Senator Frank E. Moss’s argument that despite the consumer’s “many rights in the law, he is often shut out of the courthouse by economic realities.” I believe Mencimer would have cringed to think that Judith Haimes had her case thrown out of court. I also think Haltom and McCann would have been disappointed with the Class Action Reform Act that was passed after Paul Miller’s case. All of the authors expressed the need for tort cases to be taken more seriously and no longer be scolded upon by the mass media as “ridiculous.” Legitimate tort cases deserve their time in the sun, and I would have to say several tort cases have helped set a public safety standard beneficial to society. At the same time, I do not oppose the Class Action Reform Act, because I realize that the majority of the time, tort cases involve money hungry individuals looking for somewhere to place blame. Civil law should be able to distinguish between the frivolous and the legitimate, in order to ensure that only cases of sound accusation be heard.