Hate speech and the Constitution
If he contributes nothing else to society, the infamous Fred Phelps has at least forced us to further examine the notion of free speech. At what point does offensive expression become punishable under the law?
Phelps is the leader of the Westboro Baptist Church, which has gained notoriety over the past decade as a result of its practice of protesting military funerals with signs that read “Thank God for IEDs,” “Thank God for Dead Soldiers,” and of course “God Hates Fags.” The group believes that our losses in the War on Terror (along with the suffering from Hurricane Katrina and from the economic recession) are part of God’s punishment for our tolerating homosexuality.
The Supreme Court will now hear Snyder v. Phelps, in which the family of a deceased Marine has sued for damages after Phelps et al showed up en force at their son’s funeral. Most Americans would universally and absolutely condemn the church’s actions. But should they be illegal? If the Court sides against Phelps, would that not open the door to further litigation and regulation of “unsavory” speech?
Truly, one of the law’s most difficult conundrums.
-Colin
Wrangling over ethics
What should come of Charles Rangel?
Charles Rangel, senior Member of the House of Representatives from New York and chair of the Ways and Means Committee (which writes tax laws), has agreed to relinquish his committee gavel after a months-long imbroglio involving allegations of privately-funded jaunts and failure to report income derived from real estate holdings.
What may seem less odd to congressional pundits and more odd to an ethicist is why so many are calling for him to give up his chairmanship as opposed to resigning from Congress altogether. Is there a method to the madness, or is everything political posturing? Read more
Is the homebuyers tax credit immoral?
Should government incentivize/disincentivize behavior?
My girlfriend dragged 
me to a bunch of open houses on Sunday. At each, the real estate agent eagerly advertised the federal government’s homebuyer tax credit, which gives up to $8000 in tax credits to first-time homebuyers and long-time homeowners buying a replacement principal residence before April 30, 2010.
The tax credit is an example of the government incentivizing certain behavior - in this case purchasing a home in order to stimulate the economy. And it got me thinking: what other kinds of behavior does the government incentivize…and should it? Read more
Foreign courts and government officials
Yesterday I discussed in depth whether American officials should fight the murder conviction by an Italian court of Amanda Knox. The NYT’s The Lede wrote last week on a British Court, which issued an arrest warrant for former Israeli foreign minister Tzipi Livni, alleging she committed war crimes during the 2009 war in Gaza. The case of Livni adds two new dimensions to this complex issue. First, does it matter if the alleged crime was committed by someone acting in their capacity as a government official? Second, does it matter if the crime they are convicted of occurred outside of the territory in which they are being prosecuted?
-Marc
Law & Order: Foreign Country Unit
Should American officials fight for the release of Americans convicted abroad?
A week and a half ago, Seattle native Amanda Knox was convicted in an Italian court of the November 2007 murder of her English roommate Meredith Kercher. Knox who was on study abroad from the University of Washington at the time, originally confessed, but later recanted, claiming her confession was made under duress and police abuse. Her conviction caused outcry in United States and elsewhere, with Washington Senator Maria Cantwell, saying she has “serious questions about the Italian justice system” and even securing a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to discuss the case.
This all raises an interesting question: under what circumstances, if any, should American politicians and diplomats challenge the convictions of Americans convicted of crimes abroad?
One position is that the U.S. government should never spend political capital challenging the conviction of Americans abroad. Each country has a right to create and enforce its own laws, the argument would go, and anyone traveling within that country has a responsibility to understand and follow its laws, just as we would expect foreigners in the U.S. to follow our laws.
But for most, I imagine, it is possible to find at least some situations in which we would want the United States to intervene. Read more
Moral luck & negligent driving
Bicycle advocates in my home state of Washington are arguing for tougher laws against reckless drivers who kill pedestrians. In many ways, these new policy proposals mirror the national trend, as the Department of Transportation held a September summit on the dangers of distracted driving, and states like Utah have dramatically increased the penalties for drivers who cause an accident while texting. Are these stricter laws justified, and how responsible should we hold an individual who makes a reckless and deadly mistake? Read more
The law and the death penalty
The New York Times has an interesting discussion on the criminal sentencing of juveniles and the mentally handicapped, a topic we’ve discussed extensively here. The article explores the difference between rules and standards in sentencing. For example, “if you commit murder even hours before your 18th birthday, you cannot be put to death for your crime. The same killing a few hours later may be a capital offense.” That is a clear rule about when to use the death penalty. A similar Supreme Court ruling bars the execution of the mentally disabled. According to the article, while this sounds like a rule, it is actually a standard, because determining mental handicap is somewhat subjective, as compared with proving age. In the end, all of these debates link back to responsibility – at what age and level of mental capacity can we call people responsible for the crimes they commit?
-Marc
Human dignity and incarceration
What’s the difference between torture and thirty years behind bars?
The vagueness of the term “human dignity” is matched only by its importance. It serves, in the Universal Declaration on Human Rights and many national constitutions, as the source or justification of individual rights. Dignity, at its core, relates to the notion that humans are incredibly special creatures, such that they must be treated with a certain (high) amount of respect and concern. From carbon, dust, etc. emerge these conscious, wondrous beings. Jeremy Waldron, political philosopher at NYU Law, has argued that dignity entails granting each person a very high social status or standing, along the lines of that accorded to European nobility in earlier centuries.
The content and details of this respect and concern will depend upon how a community fills in the details of the concept of dignity. That is, what the community believes it owes its members will depend upon why they believe people are special and worthy. So, in a liberal society, we think that one especially value-laden facet of people is their autonomy, their ability to make moral choices, their ability to make life-plans and carry them out, etc. To respect someone’s dignity, then, means enabling their autonomy or possibly not infringing it to some unspecified degree.
For dignity to gain analytical traction it has to mean something more than autonomy-and I think that is the case. Many people think, for instance, that one should not be able to freely choose slavery, since slavery compromises one’s dignity. In that case, free choice (autonomy) is at odds with dignity. There is also a famous French and European case where a judge ruled that dwarf tossing (exactly what it sounds like) was illegal because it infringed upon the dignity of the dwarf, even though the dwarf consented to (and was paid for) the experience. The slavery example is better.
How young is too young for a life sentence?
We’ve addressed the issue of punishment and imprisonment numerous times, for example here. The focus, however, has tended to be on punishment and the old or terminally ill. The Washington Post has an article today on the Supreme Court’s decision to consider the constitutionality of sending youth to prison for life. Huge moral questions here about the age at which humans become morally responsible (we’ve addressed this in the past too). The Supreme Court has already ruled that kids cannot get the death penalty. Is a life sentence much different? What do you think? Assuming life sentences are justified, how old is old enough to be sentenced to life in prison?
-Marc
School daze
Zero-tolerance, zero clarity
Last week, I wrote about the battle between local and federal control over schools when it comes to reform. Another related issue recently in the limelight has been the rise of zero-tolerance weapon policies in schools and their unintended consequences. After the rash of school shootings in the late 1990s, many school districts adopted zero-tolerance policies. Irrespective of intent, the possession of weapons such as knives and guns spelled expulsion or suspension.
Today’s New York Times tells the story of Zachary Christie. Only six years old, he brought a “3-in-one” fork, knife, and spoon silverware set used for camping to school. Now he faces a disciplinary hearing that could result in a 45 day suspension.
The current debate has focused on the practical consequences of zero-tolerance policies. At a time when school violence has dropped across the board, expulsions and suspensions are way up all over the country–leading many to suggest that the most at-risk students are put at even greater risk as they exit the system. African-American students have been hit especially hard.
Whether or not they work, are zero-tolerance policies ethical?
-
Follow us on Twitter
