Few students here at the University of Missouri are aware that texting while driving is actually illegal. Speeding, driving while intoxicated, sure, but many don’t see texting as an issue. “It doesn’t distract me that much. I know where the buttons are, so I don’t really have to look,” said a sophomore education major.

In effect since August of 2009, Missouri law prohibits drivers 21 and younger from sending or reading text messages while driving—that’s 80% of Mizzou undergraduates. 37 other states have also passed some sort of anti-texting law.

Several academic studies and one at Car and Driver have suggested that texting impairs your driving just as much, if not more, as drinking does. However, is “distracted driving” limited to just texting? What about talking on the phone, eating, even just talking to other people in the car?

Just as the Bluetooth allows for hands-free phone calls, new cell phones like the HTC Evo have an application for voice texting. Is this a safe alternative?

Cell phones played a part in over 1,780 car accidents last year in Missouri alone, but few tickets have been issued as a result of the texting ban: only 13 citations in its first five months.

“I feel bad—I know there’s a law,” said one junior finance major, “but I just do it anyway since I don’t think it’s that easy to enforce.”

The Missouri State Highway patrol announced a campaign last week to “complement” and promote the law, but the effort consists of stickers of the letters “DWT” contained by a red circle with a strike through the acronym for “driving while texting.”

Right now, the penalty for DWT is a $200 fine and two points added to your driver’s license, but state legislators have proposed upping the punishment and applying it to drivers of all ages. Some lawmakers were not supportive of the bill, though, and thought it went too far. State House Representative Jeff Roorda pointed out that it would be difficult for police officers to determine whether people were actually texting, or simply making a phone call or using a GPS device, both of which are legal.

The bill passed in the Missouri State Senate but didn’t pass the State House of Representatives in May. It was, instead, referred to the Public Safety Committee but currently has no hearings scheduled for it to be discussed further.

“Texting while driving is so dangerous. I’m a bad enough driver as it is,” said a sophomore journalism major. “The last thing I need is another distraction. No text is so important that it’s worth your life.”

Is this law, in fact, unenforceable? Even now, opponents say officers can’t tell if the person texting while driving is over 21 or not. Do you text while driving? Do you think it’s dangerous?

Posted by Nancy on October 6, 2010 at 12:44pm.

With a five-to-four Supreme Court decision June 28 that struck down the Chicago handgun ban, my parents said that they could finally get me that handgun I’ve been dreaming of for my birthday later this month. Okay, so maybe I’m not actually rushing out to go buy a gun. But what does the new decision mean for people who choose to own a gun under their Second Amendment rights? What does it mean for the communities they live in?

The Chicago ban had been in place for 28 years, originally intended to curb violent crimes in the city. But in recent years many began to think that the law interfered with their rights to defend themselves. Their thinking was that since criminals own guns regardless, no matter what laws they may be breaking, citizens should be able to legally bear arms to protect themselves from those who possess guns illegally. The Supreme Court seemed to agree.

One citizen, Otis McDonald, decided to challenge the law after he said criminals broke into his Chicago home and repeatedly threatened him. His case, McDonald v Chicago, resulted in the court’s decision. The Court heard a similar case two years ago when it ruled against a ban in Washington D.C. against the possession of handguns for private use in District of Columbia v. Heller. However, this is the first decision that applies nationwide.

The news comes as a relief to some and as a concerning development to others. With already one of the highest firearm-related death rates in the world, many questioned whether this was the right move to take. Chicago Mayor Richard Daley was one person who opposed lifting the ban. He’s hoping to push for a new ordinance regulating handguns in the city to comply with second amendment rights, although he offered no explanation for how that might be achieved.

How do you feel about the lift of the ban knowing it now applies nationwide? Would you feel safer living in a community with a handgun ban or the right to have such weapons? The gun ban remains temporarily in effect until a federal appeals court officially overturns the ban, but it will be interesting to see how such a decision affects violence, crime and self defense statistics in the city of Chicago and nationwide.

Posted by Rachel on July 13, 2010 at 1:28pm.

If you’ve committed a crime, apparently the last place you should hide is in the realm of social media. We recently published a post about real world consequences of illegal behavior on websites such as Facebook and Twitter. Mashable published an article yesterday listing out the 6 Ways Law Enforcement Uses Social Media to Fight Crime, and it appears that the degrees of separation between a criminal and the cops has decreased even more.

Here’s a quick recap of the six points:

1. Police Blotter Blogs – Typically police stations keep a record of the daily activities that occur there, but now “Twitter feeds, blogs, YouTube , and Facebook Fan Pages are being used by captains and chiefs to put out the digital equivalent of the police blotter in real-time.”
2. The Digital “Wanted Poster” – Social media websites are the perfect place to receive “up-to-the-minute updates”, and police department Facebook fan pages now allow the police to post notes and status updates soliciting the public for any information they may have about unsolved crimes.
3. Anonymous E-Tipster – Programs like tip411 created by the CitizenObserver Corporation allow the public to anonymously text tips and/or information about crimes that have been committed.
4. Social Media Stakeout – Police can use social media websites like Twitter to monitor “the bad guys doing bad things”. And, although there may be a certain “big brother” element to this sort of monitoring, they usually only act upon what’s worthy of being looked into and not general, everyday activity.
5. Thwarting Thugs in the Social Space – Given that gang members enjoy social networking sites like Twitter, Facebook and Myspace, “law enforcement [officials have] been able to infiltrate street gangs by posing as fellow gang members online, making connections, and intercepting criminal communications as they happen.”
6. Tracking and Informing with Twitter – Twitter’s proved to be a useful tool for law enforcement officials to track, monitor and share updates about traffic safety for large events or heavy rush hour.

Considering that your local police department has a presence on sites like Twitter and Facebook is probably one of the last things that comes to mind when using social media. However, this shift towards digital policing could prove to be more and more useful for law enforcement to solve crimes. Just recently the BBC reported that Italian police officers used Facebook to track down and capture a notorious mafia suspect, so it should be only a matter of time that criminals here in the U.S. are brought to justice by tech-savvy police officials.

Posted by Adrienne on March 18, 2010 at 11:12am.

Property of ABC News

Last Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard the McDonald v Chicago case, in which the plaintiffs argued to lift the handgun ban the city of Chicago placed on its residents back in 1982. This case brings to light two countering sides to the debate – those that believe the handgun ban is necessary to further combat Chicago’s rampant violence and those that believe that owning a handgun within the city limits is their right as American citizens. The debate also calls into question the Second Amendment, which protects the right to keep and bear arms, and specifically brings to light the issue of whether or not state and local governments have the right to establish bans when the federal government doesn’t include such restrictions.

The plaintiffs in the McDonald v Chicago case come from a diversity of backgrounds and include Otis McDonald, an older, retired African-American man, Adam Orlov, a former police officer and current businessman, and David and Colleen Lawson, a mixed-race couple. Some believe that the balance of the plaintiffs’ diversity was intended to help the public relation’s image of the case, which may or may not be the case (especially given that a website was created on behalf of their case, which shows a concerted effort to promote the case and its plaintiffs).

One attorney handling the case, Alan Gura, is no stranger to the gun control debate as he fought on behalf of Washington D.C. residents to lift its handgun ban in 2007. The District of Columbia v. Heller case was the first to hold that the Second Amendment protects an individual’s right to possess firearms for private use. Of course, because the ruling was determined with regards to the District of Columbia, a federal enclave, the decision did not extend to local and state governments. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Chicago residents/plaintiffs in the McDonald v. Chicago case, then this ruling has larger implications for other local and state governments to overturn restrictive hand-gun bans.

During the D.C. case, Gura, along with attorneys Robert A. Levy (who funded the case) and Clark M. Neily III, devised their strategy from civil rights attorney Thurgood Marshall’s approach of creating a diverse panel of plaintiffs to fight specific laws and restrictions that racially segregated education. The legal approach of including plaintiffs of diverse backgrounds is intended to show how the gun control restriction can and does affect a variety of Chicago residents who feel that the current ban violates their right to protect themselves and their home.

According to the Chicago Tribune, the justices are poised to overturn the Chicago gun ban:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. called it an “extremely important” right in the Constitution. Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito Jr. echoed the theme that the court had endorsed an individual, nationwide right in their decision two years ago. The fifth member of the majority, Justice Clarence Thomas, did not comment during the argument, but he has been a steady advocate of the Second Amendment.

If the Supreme Court’s decision, which should be delivered in several months, is in favor of the plaintiffs and strikes down Chicago’s hand-gun ban, then the ruling could challenge the constitutionality of other local or state gun regulations.  The decision would, of course, determine just how far the Justices’ guidance could extend — meaning if it would only include an allowance for hand-guns at home, or if it would also allow carrying hand-guns in public.

It is interesting that residents of Chicago, a city known for its gang violence, are calling to lift gun ban regulations, as one would imagine the regulations were put in place to deter the widespread usage of gun violence in the city. However, given that all four of the plaintiffs in the McDonald v Chicago court case argue for the right to bear/keep arms to further protect themselves, their family, and their home, one must wonder just how safe and protected Chicago residents feel with the current ban. The plaintiffs argument suggests that law abiding citizens are left essentially defenseless, with the Chicago police as their only protection against the ills of the city; whereas, the guns end up in the hands of deviants with intent to commit crimes.

Does this case highlight a larger breakdown of a city’s justice system? Could the plaintiffs’ concerns be a larger commentary about how criminals manage to stay armed and dangerous in Chicago and how law-abiding citizens feel near defenseless with only the reactive actions of the police as protection? If the laws and police are not able to keep the peace, then does that mean that a city has failed its residents?

Posted by Adrienne on March 10, 2010 at 2:35 pm.

Ahh, Facebook. During the many hours I spend on Facebook, I sometimes come across things I really shouldn’t see. For instance, there’s no need for me to see personal arguments play out on Facebook in angry status updates specifically directed to someone, and then retaliatory comments upon that.

At times, my friends have confided in me about hurt feelings when their friend(s) don’t share the same Facebook etiquette as they do — like when someone has supciously de-friended them or refused to answer their messages. What I say to those friends is that Facebook is not a reflection of real life. Different Facebook users have different habits, so there’s no real way to normalize behavior into standard expectations for all.

That being said, one standard of expectation that can be applied to the virtual world of social media is to not break the law. Crimes committed on Facebook do result in real consequences.

Therefore, Facebook should not be used for:

• Coercion – when someone is compelled to do an act contrary to his/her will: 19 year old Anthony Stancl was just sentenced last week to 15 years in prison for deception and coercion  by pretending he was a female and having 31 male classmates send nude pictures to him. Stancl threatened to release the nude photos to their high school if the boys didn’t  perform sexual acts for him.
• Harassment – repeated, intrusive, or unwanted acts, words, or gestures that are intended to adversely affect the safety, security, or privacy of another, regardless of the relationship between the actor and the intended target: Jessica Zamora-Anderson had her ex-boyfriend Paul Franco arrested last week after he took her “Facebook account hostage, changed her sexual preference to gay, and demanded cash for her profile’s safe return.”

While it’s certainly disheartening to see some use Facebook for malicious intent, it is refreshing to see that real consequences can and do apply to the virtual crimes some may commit. In fact, Facebook is proving to be such a beacon of safety for some that its even helping preempt nonexistent crimes. Just yesterday, Ardsley School District in New York shut down for the day when a parent called the authorities after viewing another student’s post that stated “combine” and “revenge”. It turns out that “’combine’ is not an abbreviated version of Columbine, but an in-school competition for members of the football team scheduled for [Monday].” Nevertheless, authorities thought it would be wise to allow enough time to conduct a thorough investigation, so they erred on the side of safety and closed the schools.

When logging on to social networking sites like Facebook with an axe to grind, here are a couple of things to consider before you strike:

1. It’s not wise to threaten or harass another user through Facebook. If you’re using your real name, you can be caught and prosecuted. Or, if you’re using an alias, your IP address can provide your whereabouts to authorities.
2. Facebook has an entire section under their Security terms about “Reporting abuse on Facebook”. Clearly, this has happened enough times for them to create some guidelines to help victims of Facebook abuse.

Although social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter seem to be good places for consumers to vent their frustrations about airlines, businesses, or media, it’s not proving to be the best place to air personal grievances with real-life friends or enemies. If a “friend” upsets you that much, then simply block or hide them, and maybe you can civilly salvage your relationship offline.

Posted by Adrienne on March 2, 2010 at 1:12pm.

Back in September of 2009, we wrote about Bank of America’s legal troubles due to paying out $3.6 billion in bonuses to Merrill Lynch employees before the buy out. As an update, Bank of America’s Chief Operating Officer, Kenneth Lewis, was sued by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, and the bank agreed to pay $150 million to settle.

Although settling a lawsuit is some clear indication of making a wrong right through financial compensation, are those responsible and liable for bad decisions during tough economic times able to just pay their problems away? Are they too big to go to jail?

Posted by Adrienne on February 17, 2010 at 2:48pm.

Michael Jackson.  Brittany Murphy.  Heath Ledger.

Three celebrities whose recent deaths were the result of, or incidental to, their use of prescription drugs.  But the problem that their deaths signal is widespread.  Just last week, my local news outlet reported on a high school principal who contacted his students’ parents to warn them of the risks from prescription drug intoxication following incidents of students sent to the ER after overdosing on prescription meds.

And, now, came the news that Michael Jackson’s personal physician, cardiologist Conrad Murray, has been charged in the King of Pop’s death.

The district attorney for Los Angeles released the following statement in a press release:

Dr. Conrad Robert Murray, 56 was charged in case No. SA 073164, filed at the Airport Branch of Los Angeles Superior Court. The count alleged that Murray “ did unlawfully, and without malice, kill Michael Joseph Jackson…in the commission of an unlawful act, not amounting to a felony; and in the commission of a lawful act which might have produced death, in an unlawful manner, and without due caution and circumspection.

What makes Dr. Murray complicit in the death of Jackson when the physicians supplying Brittany Murphy and Heath Ledger avoided such censure?  Let’s take a look at a portion of Jackson’s autopsy report (released by TMZ).  Yes, I know that is ghoulish.  But, it’s necessary, and you can’t say you aren’t curious yourself, right?

1.      Circumstances indicate the Propofol and the benzodiazepines were administered by another.
2.      Propofol was administered in a non-hospital setting without any appropriate medical indication.
3.      The standard of care for administering Propofol was not met. Recommended equipment for patient monitoring, precision dosing and resuscitation was not present.
4.      The circumstances do not support self-administration of Propofol.

But, let’s get down to the nitty gritty:  analyzing the content of the press release.

Criminal law is a type of statutory law, codified at the state level.  The state statute outlines the elements of a crime.  But, it always comes down to actus reus and mens rea.  Ugh.  Yes, that’s right, I am throwing Latin phrases around.  I had to suffer through law school professors throwing them out regularly, so I might as well pass that knowledge on to you.  Who knows, it might win you a trivia competition some day.

Actus reus means “guilty act,” or the physical element of committing a crime.  But, to be charged with a crime, one must possess the requisite mens rea, as well.  Mens rea means “guilty mind,” and stands for the intent to commit some wrongful act.  In order for someone to be held culpable for a criminal act, the person committing the criminal act must possess the requisite mental state at the time that the act is done.  The Model Penal Code, on which most state criminal laws are based, adopts a four-tiered hierarchy of culpable mental states, arranged from highest to lowest below:

1.         purpose,
2.         knowledge,
3.         recklessness, or
4.         negligence

The actus reus element can consist of an action, the threat of an action, or much more rarely, the failure to act by a person with a duty to act.  Here, the press release describes that the good doctor has been charged with murder, which is defined as the unlawful killing of a person.

The seriousness of the crime – murder – is based on the intent of the person committing the criminal act.  Here, the press release mentions two important phrases: “without malice” and “without due caution and circumspection.”  These phrases indicate that Dr. Murray was, in essence, reckless in administering MJ’s milk (Jackson referred to Propofol in this way because of the powerful anesthetic’s milky white appearance).  If only the effects of MJ’s milk were as benign as the actual dairy product’s, no?

Here, the press release describes that the good doctor has been charged with murder.  However, if murder had a scale on which someone’s intent to commit the crime was logged, Dr. Murray’s would be in the less serious category, “without due caution and circumspection” which really equates with recklessness.  Dr. Murray, as a medical professional, must ascribe to certain, acceptable medical standards.  The coroner’s report makes clear that Dr. Murray’s conduct fell below such standards.  It will be up to Dr. Murray’s defense team to present an expert at trial to dispute the expert testimony of the coroner.  In other words, get ready for dueling experts to attempt to define what medical standards surround the use of Propofol and to opine if the cardiologist breached his duty of care.

Brittany Murphy and Heath Ledger also died as a result of prescription drug usage.  Neither was injected with an anesthetic.  Both actors, however, were provided with numerous prescriptions for drugs which – if mixed – had the potential for deadly consequences.  How, then, did either prescribing physician avoid criminal charges?  Weren’t these physicians just as reckless as Dr. Murray?  I would argue that they were not.

As a nation, we look to pills first and foremost to cure our ills.  Medical professionals have become used to writing out scripts, passing the buck for possibly harmful interactions to pharmacists filling prescriptions.  Were Brittany and Heath’s doctors too generous in handing out meds?  Possibly.  Probably.  However, their conduct was not as grievous as Murray’s, who prescribed a surgery-strength anesthetic as a sleeping potion for a drug addict with multiple health issues.

Commentators have speculated for weeks that the physician treating Jackson would be charged for administering Propofol.  Now that he has, is anyone really surprised by the charges?  The Jackson family is outraged and believes that the charges are not serious enough.  What do the rest of you think?  And do you think that the circumstances surrounding MJ’s death differ sufficiently from the circumstances of Murphy’s and Ledger’s deaths to result in a manslaughter charge against Conrad Murray but not the prescribing physicians of the other two celebrities?

Posted by Krystyna on February 16, 2010 at 11:23am.

First off, happy Presidents Day! I hope you all have a chance to commemorate this federal holiday with a day off from work to catch up on your Daily Tackle entry reading.

I bet few, if any of you, knew that polluting can send a person to jail, right?  Or that a corporation can be found guilty of committing environmental crimes?

Recently, a New Hampshire man plead guilty to lying to federal regulators, after the U.S. EPA discovered that in the course of his employment as an environmental coordinator at Aero Dynamics Inc., a company that performs metal finishing and metal plating for military and commercial uses, either falsified or underreported pollutant content of the company’s wastewater discharge in its Clean Water Act reports. According to U.S. Attorney John Kacavas, he is to be sentenced in April, 2010, and can face a maximum of 5 year imprisonment. He’s not alone in being charged with an environmental crime.  See the recent developments in other cases here, here,  and here.

In 2004, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”), assisted by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance’s Criminal Investigation Division, secured the single largest criminal penalty and longest jail sentence in an environmental crime to date. The case was filed against AAR Contractors, Inc., an asbestos removal company owned by Alexander and Raul Salvagno, a father and son.  Because of the men’s knowing disregard for human safety in exposing their workers to asbestos in more than 1,500 removal project over a ten year period in New York State, Judge Howard Munson sentenced:

Alexander Salvagno to 25 years imprisonment; ordered him to forfeit to the United States of America $2,033,457.70 in assets that were illegal proceeds resulting from their RICO activities, including multiple acts of obstruction of justice, money-laundering, mail fraud, and bid-rigging; and ordered him to pay $23,039,607 in restitution to the victims. His father, Raul Salvagno, was sentenced to 19 years in prison; $1,707,156.40 in forfeiture; and $22,875,575.46 in victim restitution. AAR Contractors, Inc. also forfeited $2,033,457.70 to the U.S. Government and was ordered to pay $22,875,567.46 in restitution.

Environmental crimes refer to the violation of laws meant to protect human health, safety, and the environment.  These laws govern the disposal of waste and hazardous materials and ensure air and water standards.   But, at the heart of the matter, environmental crimes are really white collar crimes.  And, they’re huge business.  Organized crime syndicates are involved, as are small businesses.  Because noncompliance is more cost-effective than obeying the law, environmental crimes reach broadly across the spectrum to include:

• illegally importing restricted substances into the US,
• illegally discharging  pollutants,
• foregoing safety regulations during asbestos removal projects, and
• tampering with drinking water supplies.

It can also extend into other domains:

• mail fraud,
• wire fraud,
• conspiracy, and
• money laundering

The government generally adheres to a system of carrots and sticks in promoting behavioral modification with respect to environmental standards.  For example, a good and proactive environmental steward may become eligible for certain tax breaks or grants.  That is the carrot approach.  The government is rewarding individuals for ushering in positive changes.

But what about that stick?  Generally, to discourage individuals from taking actions that maltreat the environment and ignore public safety and human health, the government institutes stiff civil penalties  intended to offset the financial allure of illegal activities.  But, where the behavior is committed with knowledge and the conduct is egregious, the government – with the DOJ acting as lead prosecutor – may pursue probation, jail time, or a combination of these punishments mixed in with the forfeiture of misbegotten profits and the payment of the previously mentioned civil penalties.

The acts that can constitute an environmental crime are far-ranging. Here is a short list of examples:

• Littering
• Improper waste disposal
• Oil spills
• Destruction of wetlands
• Dumping into oceans, streams, lakes, or rivers
• Improperly handling pesticides or other toxic chemicals
• Burning garbage
• Improperly removing and disposing of asbestos
• Falsifying lab data pertaining to environmental regulations
• Smuggling certain chemicals, such as CFC refrigerants, into the U.S.
• Bribing government officials
• Committing fraud related to environmental crime

Ironically, the regulations intended to prevent such environmental crimes might actually be responsible for an increase in them.  And to deter environmental crimes, the USA frequently punishes its environmental criminals more harshly than other countries, with the exception of some European countries.  But the circle often continues unbroken.

Regulations and laws create an environment in which companies must expand more financial resources to meet federal, state, and local regulations.  Sometimes, it’s simply more expedient and more economical for them to circumvent the regulations. But in the long-run, companies do get caught.  Some business owners who fail to comply may get away with their crimes for years.  After all, a large portion of environmental compliance is based on self-reports and self-audits. That was true for the Salvagnos, and it proved true for the Atlantic States Cast Iron Pipe Company.

In 2009, Atlantic States was fined $8 million for environmental, health and safety offences while four of its senior managers were sent to jail for conspiring over an 8-year period to pollute air and water resources on the East Coast, for exposing its employees to dangerous work conditions, and for obstructing federal investigators. The jail terms ranged from 6 to seventy months in jail.  This is why environmental crimes are considered white-collar crimes.  They are often motivated by greed, an eye on the bottom line, and devised by upper management far removed from the actual workers committing the crimes.

Were the actions of these companies worth it?  How do you balance the need for environmental regulations, the protection of natural resources and the environment against the ability of a corporation to operate profitably in the United States?  Is it a foregone conclusion that a company that is ahead of the curve on environmental compliance must not be profitable?

Posted by Krystyna on February 15, 2010 at 10:25 am.

This will be a birthday that Gilbert Arenas will never, ever forget .  Last week, on his 28th birthday, the Washington Wizard’s star was served with an indefinite suspension from the NBA.   The reason?  Arenas apparently brought guns into the Wizard’s locker room and may or may not have pulled those guns on teammate Javaris Crittenton.  It has been reported that, after playing a game of poker, Arenas ended up owing Crittenton over $25K…but refused to pay him.  Thus, an argument between the two ensued and guns were, supposedly, pulled.  NBA players and gambling debt – oh, the drama.

Even if the two players had a ‘beef’ with each other, did Arenas really need to result to using guns as a way to ‘settle’ their dispute?  After all, the suspension means that Arenas will miss out on $147,200 for each game that he does not play.  Worth it?  Probably not!  Perhaps someone should have informed Arenas of the numerous other non-violent dispute resolution tactics available (not that Arenas would have been able to fully avail himself of these tactics since his conflict involved gambling debts, which is illegal).

However, for those of us with conflicts of a legitimate-nature, let’s examine a few of the different tactics below:

• Litigation – Litigation is probably the most well-known (and expensive) dispute resolution tactic.  The dispute is formally brought into a court of law with each side usually represented by attorneys.  The plaintiff states that they received some type of damages from the defendant.  Then, the defendant must respond to the plaintiff’s claim and  and a decision is reached after hearings or a trial in front of a judge and/or jury.

The following 4 items are all described as Alternative Dispute Resolution methods (or “ADR”‘s):

• Negotiation -  Negotiation emphasizes a neutral, third party faciliating discussions among the disagreeing parties in an attempt to reach a solution or make a bargain.  Examples of these professional negotiators  include union negotiators, hostage negotiators and even diplomats.
• Mediation – A third party (or mediator) is used in order for both sides to gain a better understanding of the conflict, the other party’s point of view and what solution would be practical/beneficial.  The mediator does not give any legal advice; instead, they are used to walk both parties through the problem solving process.  The two parties work together to determine the most optimal settlement and/or outcome.  The mediator does not impact or affect the resolution at all.  Mediation is used in a wide array of cases, including prenuptial agreements, harassment in the workplace, landlord/tenant disputes and contract disputes.
• Arbitration – The parties in dispute turn their case over to an ‘arbitrator’, who then decides upon a resolution for both sides.  The decision of the arbitrator becomes legally binding for both parties.  Arbitration is commonly used when the situation calls for a  ’technical’ decision and, thus, needs the opinion of someone well-versed in that specific area. Many business contracts also specify that in the event of a dispute, the matter would be submitted to binding arbitration in order to avoid potentially lengthy and expensive litigation.
• Conciliation – Again, a neutral, third party is used in conciliation to attempt to reach a resolution.  However, conciliation differs from mediation in that the third party generally meets with each party separately (in an attempt to lower possible tension that might arise if  parties meet face-to-face).  Further, conciliation differs from arbitration in that the resolution reached by the concilitator is not legally binding.

Although it is highly unlikely that we will find ourselves in a situation similiar to Arenas’, we should nonetheless be aware of the different resolution tactics available to us.  For more information on Alternative Dispute Resolution, visit http://www.hg.org/adr.html.

Posted by Melanie on January 18, 2010 at 1:35 pm.

Last month, we wrote about ex-judge Herman Thomas out of Mobile, Alabama being accused of pressuring inmates to perform sexual favors with him in exchange for lighter sentences.

It turns out that that Thomas was acquitted on all charges of sex abuse, sodomy, and assault.

His reputation may have been cleared; but after such accusations, can Thomas’ legal career ever be resurrected?

Posted by Adrienne on November 6, 2009 at 4:42 pm.