Mirror of Justice

The Tryanny of Experts (part Ii) – Experts and Civil Society

July 18th, 2009 at 02:54am Under Civil Rights Law

Experts are valuable, necessary contributors to our diverse and specialized society. But they cannot and should not be used to constitute or replace civil society. Indeed, the idea that anyone can claim to be a civil society expert is troubling. Civil society needs to be composed of a broad and diverse array of people throughout our societies. The internet offers us an opportunity to radically expand civil society, to debate all of the ideas and ideologies that shape the world, and to publish our speech around the world. We cannot abandon this field to experts, particularly not the much vaunted experts of civil society.

What is an expert? Experts and expertise are usually recognized through degrees earned, publications, experience and notoriety. There are good reasons for each of these things. But each of them can also be troubling. If degrees and titles make experts, then we need to carefully, critically examine the curriculum, the quality, and the ideological biases of our degree offering institutions. If publications make experts, we need to be aware of the obscurity or audience of journals and the public and private funding sources for research. Experience is very valuable; but there are plenty of rich political donors who have become consular officials without a shred of expertise. Notoriety is the most troublesome of the signs and symbols of expertise. Famous experts are often assumed to be better experts – false. Famous people and celebrities often mistake themselves for experts and think we ought to care what their expert pronouncements are – really false! In addition, experts tend to congregate together and pat each other on the backs by awarding one another fellowships, grants, distinctions and prizes. The Ivy League is the country club of expertise. The longer you hang around, the more your expertise will be burnished, brightened and expanded by all of your expert pals who slap you on the back. Finally, success begets success. People who gain degrees, earn awards, grants and fellowships will earn more of them. If you have not broken into this club by the first year of graduate school, you are unlikely to join it later. Civil Society Experts

A wide array of civil society experts are called in to analyze, explain and advocate prominent policy issues. From the scientist and the statistician, to the economist and the literature professor, to the historian and the constitutional lawyer, to the retired general and the retired ambassador; there is no shortage of experts to tell us how to think and act and vote in this complicated world of ours. Now we even have technocrats – those elite experts who blend modern technological training with state power to produce utopia in developing nations like China and Chile, well, eventually maybe. Then there are the experts who are not experts. Politicians and rich people, reporters and pollsters get tired of having to ask the experts or hire the experts or hunt around for someone with an advanced degree to advocate their position. So they step up to the mike themselves and are transformed into pundits. But in the end, none of these civil society experts provide us with civil society, or solutions to the problems we must work together to solve.

In the last generation we have seen the rise of a new expert – the technocrat. This is the ultimate melding of expertise with power. Now instead of simply elevating the powerful to power, we elevate (powerful) experts to power. Hey, I love meritocracy. But let us not confuse engineering, business or science degrees with the ability to lead nations and states. Scientists, engineers and CEOs are no better or worse than anyone else at voting with principle, debating important issues, or leading communities.

Perhaps most prominent among civil society experts are scientists and statisticians. Statistics is an important tool for making valid conclusions based on small data sets. But statistics is also undoubtedly the most commonly misused tool for lying in politics, the media and civil society. Next, scientists are specialized professionals who master specific tools and methods for investigating specific, narrow questions. They arrive at provisional, evidence-based answers to those questions. They do not claim to discern truth, morality, wisdom or sound public policy. If you hear a scientist claiming any of these latter findings, then you are listening to a person, who happens to hold a PhD, who also holds an opinion that may or may not be informed, effective, wise or true. Scientists and scientific research are also very expensive, and so they are paid by someone or other. The sources of funding do not determine scientific results, but they can reflect policy analysis and advocacy.

Social scientists form a lower tier of civil society experts. These can include – Political scientists: who analyze politics and may try to tell you how to vote. Economists: who analyze the economy and may try to predict the future (with predictable results). Sociologists: who may or may not perform experiments on small groups of people, then tell you what is wrong with your society and what to do about it. Historians: who analyze the past then complain that you do not know about your past and that everything you think you know about the past is wrong. Anthropologists: who used to study remote cultures and now study ritual in any culture and will tell you how your culture is oppressing some other culture. And so forth. In related fields, literary and cultural critics abound in English, foreign language, and comparative literature departments. Scholars of literature and the arts consider themselves the primary experts on culture, mediators of high culture, and interpreters of all discourse, rhetoric and cultural expression. As a historian myself, I love social scientists and scholars of the humanities. They are often passionately devoted to civil society. But that does not make them experts on civil society.

Lawyers, constitutional lawyers, and law school professors form another common array of civil society experts. These people are trained to think critically, to read and write carefully, and to debate with acumen and rhetorical skill. Lawyers are legal experts, and so if you have legal problems, they come highly recommended. But in other circumstances the society of lawyers tends to make communication incomprehensible, extremely expensive, combative, and fraught with hidden landmines (read any small print lately?). The central problem with trusting a lawyer-expert is that you can find a lawyer who will argue any position. They may believe passionately in it, or they may simply believe in the virtue of arguing for their client. In short, lawyers are useful people to pay to support your position; but that does not make them civil society experts.

Finally, former government officials and diplomats are ubiquitous civil society experts. Former domestic or foreign policy advisors-now pundits, former generals and military officers-now private contractors or military advisors, former ambassadors-now think tank fellows, former congressmen-now lobbyists, former spies-now novelists, former bureaucrats-now whistleblowers. These people may or may not have done effective service for their governments in the past. They may indeed have garnered very useful experience. But you may be sure that these particular civil society experts certainly cultivated well placed friends, political favors, and public notoriety. Listen to such experts with care. Experts who aren’t

There are a variety of people who by virtue of their professions or positions voice their opinions and ideas with great authority – as if they should be listen to, believed and followed. Many of these experts are not experts at all.

First, politicians – Politicians are experts of campaigns and fund raising. They may be statesmen or stateswomen; they may be wise or principled; they may be experienced or expert in some field; but they are not necessarily any of these things. Generally, politicians (as politicians) are not experts. Elected government officials deserve respect on two levels. First, they have succeeded at communicating their ideas, marshalling personal and monetary support, and managing a campaign in order to attract democratic votes. This is a real achievement; but it does not make them a civil society expert. Second, successful politicians eventually accrue a great deal of experience in the halls of government. This is a mixed blessing in that these politicians have opportunities to contribute toward functioning governance and to help solve societal problems; but they just as frequently take those opportunities to perform bad governance, to fail to solve societal problems, and occasionally to become part of the problem. Few politicians are experts.

Rich people and celebrities – wealth, power and notoriety do not grant expertise. Celebrities are almost never experts and should not speak any louder than anyone else. Rich people are able to buy and broadcast louder speech, but it does not make them experts. (And then there is the stray expert who somehow gains celebrity. Expert-cum-celebrities sometimes deserve their notoriety. Some of them have gained celebrity through a lifetime of achievement crowned with high awards – Nobel Prizes, medals, honors, etc. These people mark an exception to the celebrity rule, but their celebrity is usually fleeting. How many Nobel Prize winners for the sciences can you name?)

Reporters and pundits – the press has become increasingly openly ideological. As the media has opened its ideological content, journalists, columnists, news analysts and pundits of all kinds have proliferated and expressed their opinions in ever increasing volume. Reporters and pundits are often widely informed by virtue of their interviews and reportage; they are also often very good rhetoriticians. Personally, I believe that open, honest, ideological expression by the press is much better than veiled or even unconscious bias contained in misleading headlines or buried ledes. But being published in print or being broadcast on cable does not make anyone an expert.

Pollsters – the ultimate non-experts. These are people who are paid to ask a representative sample of regular people what they think, then to use statistics and their analytical powers to discern what everyone thinks. Well, polls can be interesting; they might even in some cases be beneficial to policy makers or civil society. But how any of this makes pollsters experts is beyond me. Nevertheless, pollsters have become increasingly common media experts who provide journalists and pundits with a window into the mind of the common woman on the street. Where is the expert here? Wizard of Oz, we see you behind your curtain!

Finally, there is the all too common spectacle of the expert parading in public who establishes their credibility by lambasting their field of expertise – the expert insider critic or expert whistleblower. Have you seen the accredited psychologist who attacks the field of therapy or psychoanalysis right before lathering their audiences with a thick layer of relationship advice? What of the conservative scholar (tenured) who bravely eviscerates academia from within? Or the anti-medicine MD? How about the government civil servant whose civil rights (and political views) were so trampled that he had to give hundreds of media interviews to show how reactionary the government is? We could multiply examples. These experts are remarkable because they attack the root of their expertise, while all the time utilizing the same expertise to convince us we ought to trust and listen to them. Most remarkably, the slickest exploiters of the expert-insider-critic shtick actually manage to make us trust them more than other experts, even as they savage the root of their expertise. Your Civil Society

One of the major critiques of new media on the Internet is that it accumulates much noise and little substance – too much riff raff and too few experts. Wouldn’t it be better to gather quietly at the feet of wise experts, rather than sift through all of the shouting, competing voices in new media echo chambers? Oh, I have heard elderly reporters wax lyrical as they recalled the days when everyone listened to Cronkite and read the New York Times, because back then we knew that was the way it was. This common, elite meme argues that we actually need fewer media broadcasters, fewer experts, fewer points of view, and a lot fewer people speaking. But to the contrary, our civil society needs more people to be more engaged, to speak more openly, to broadcast their voices further, to test and debate more ideas, new ideas.

If Ideology Forum is to succeed in helping strengthen our civil society, together we need to enable a very wide range of people to thoughtfully engage one another about as many ideas and principles and movements and causes as possible. Doubtless, some will criticize saying that regular people – common internet users – lack the expertise to make newsworthy, publishable, original contributions to the big issues and debates that shape our world. In other words, ‘Shut up and listen to the columnists, pundits, politicians, professors, scientists – the experts.’ But civil society must be broad and inclusive; it ought to be active and democratic; the Internet makes that increasingly possible; and Ideology Forum strives to make that civil society real. We need more people to throw off the tyranny of experts and speak.

California Women’s Rights Attorney Says Employment Discrimination Lawsuits Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 Will Finally Get Women Equal Pay

July 13th, 2009 at 09:01pm Under Uncategorized

As a result of the first bill signed by President Obama, women finally have a much greater chance of receiving pay that is equal to what men receive for the same work from an employer. However, it is still likely to require the filing of numerous lawsuits before employers come to grips with the fact that they can no longer get away with paying less money to women.

 

On January 29, 2009, President Obama signed into law, the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act of 2009, the first bill signed into law by the President paving the way for these lawsuits to require that equal pay be given to women, by way of seeking back pay awards for the difference they were paid and what men were paid for the same work.

 

If you have been discriminated against in your employment in California by receiving less pay for the same work performed by persons of the other gender, even though the statute of limitations has been extended by this Act, you still need to speak with a women’s rights lawyer or an employment attorney as soon as possible.

 

If you are a woman and you’ve been receiving less pay than men are receiving for the same work from the same employer, visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

 

Prior to the Act becoming law, as a result of a Supreme Court ruling, women were required to file suit within 180 days after first being paid unfairly, even if the discrimination of being paid less than male workers in the same jobs continued.

 

And if a woman failed to discover that male workers were being paid more for the same work, a woman still could not hold her employer accountable if she didn’t learn of the unfairness and take action within 180 days of first being paid the lesser rate.

 

Under the Fair Pay Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama, the statute of limitations of 180 days starts with each discriminatory paycheck, rather than when the employer starts to discriminate. So long as a woman in CA files her claim within 180 days of receiving any discriminatory paycheck, not just the first one, she is considered timely in bringing her claim.

 

An important aspect of the Act is that the effective date of the Act is retroactively set at May 28, 2007, which will allow it to apply to all compensation discrimination claims that have been filed on or after that date.

 

Women can sue for back pay awards for up to two years before she files her employment discrimination claim under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The Fair Pay Act of 2009 does not change the two-year back pay limit.

 

The Fair Pay Act is a major victory for women in California who have long been discriminated against in the pay they receive for the same work that men perform and are paid substantially more in many places. It has been determined that women have been earning only 77 cents for every dollar a man earns. This Act will likely go a long way in addressing that unfairness, although it will likely require a good many lawsuits to hammer this home to employers who discriminate against women in their pay guidelines.

 

With the signing of this Act into law, initial victories in CA against an employer will likely lead to settlement of other lawsuits for co-employees who have been discriminated against in the same manner by the same employer.

 

Those who would say that the Act will lead to the employment of less women in such positions by employers fearful of such lawsuits simply don’t understand the anti-discrimination laws in this country and the greater risk employers would be taking if they adopted such a discriminatory stance in their hiring practices.

 

Even with the retroactive effect of the Act, employers in California may be slow to increase the salaries and hourly rates of their women employees until lawsuits begin to fly. Employers who have previously gotten away with discriminating against women in CA may only react in more numbers when they begin to feel the full weight of the law themselves or see large judgements against other employers who have discriminated against women.

 

Visit our website at http://www.sebastiangibsonlaw.com and call us if you have been discriminated in your pay from an employer in California based on your being a woman, compared with the pay received by men for the same work

 

The votes in favor of the bill in the Senate included every Democratic senator except Senator Edward Kennedy who was absent because of his health, and all four Republican women senators. Every Republican male senator except Arlen Spector voted against it. If that won’t come back to haunt the Republicans in the next election, it is hard to imagine what else they will do to alienate themselves more from the women’s vote.

 

Under the Act, an unlawful practice occurs when a discriminatory compensation decision or other practice is adopted, when a person becomes subject to the decision or practice, or when a person is affected by the decision or practice, including each time wages, benefits or other compensation is paid.

California Hispanic Discrimination Lawyer And Latino Civil Rights Attorney Discusses Discrimination Against Hispanics, Latinos And Mexican-Americans

July 12th, 2009 at 02:54am Under Civil Rights Law

As the economic downturn worsens and unemployment rises in America, civil rights advocates and lawyers and Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American discrimination attorneys in California fear the result may be an increase in discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans in the U.S.

If you have been the victim of discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans, visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us at any of the numbers easily found on our website.

While America has always stood for being a country with diverse ethnic cultures that make us great, the fear is that those who have the least, may suffer the most in this economic downturn as unemployment rises and jobs, even those that were previously unwanted, now become a precious commodity.

At the Law Firm of R. Sebastian Gibson, California Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American Discrimination Lawyer, Sebastian Gibson has always stood for the protection of the civil rights of everyone living in the U.S. We fight for the rights of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans to be treated with the same respect and the protections afforded to them under the law as every one else should be in America. And we are concerned that in these uncertain times, Hispanic, Latino and Mexican-American families do not become the object of discrimination when we should all be pulling together to help each other in times of need.

While African-Americans in this country have for many decades, always suffered the most unemployment, Hispanics and Latinos are not far behind. And while African-Americans can now look to President Obama as an inspiration to what a person can do of any race, Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans as well as other minorities, still suffer from discrimination in the work place and in daily life.

Instead of becoming a society where the rich cultures of Hispanics and Latinos are shared with other cultures in America, too much of the country remains segregated where Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans either choose to live or can only afford to live where the majority of their citizens are concentrated in parts of cities away from where Caucasians, African-Americans or other minorities live. There are many causes of discrimination, all of which are idiotic, but the less interaction different cultures have, the more likely it is there will be discrimination by those who do not relate to each other.

Studies have found that nearly three in every ten Hispanic workers feel they have been discriminated against in their employment. Some report being referred to with racial slurs at work while one in four feel they are paid less and have reduced career advancement prospects than their Caucasian counterparts. In many organizations, there is a scarcity of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans in management positions.

FBI statistics show a dramatic increase in anti-Hispanic hate crimes. And sadly, hate groups are increasing due to anti-illegal immigration concerns.

One would have thought that as a result of this situation, that there would be a flood of civil rights advocates and anti-discrimination lawyers fighting for the rights of Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans. Yet, that is not the case.

A symbol of discrimination to many Hispanics, Latinos and Mexican-Americans is the construction of the U.S.-Mexico border fence which is actually several separation barriers designed to prevent illegal movement of goods and people across the U.S. and Mexico border.

The U.S.- Mexico border fence is reportedly nearing completion as this article is being written in March 2009. While much of the purported reasoning for the multi-billion dollar fence was based on preventing the entry of terrorists into the country, many feel that reasoning is flawed while our border with Canada remains open. While the efforts have also been aimed at stopping the flow of drugs into the U.S. a secondary effort is to prevent the flow of weapons bought in the U.S. and smuggled into Mexico.

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano has said that even the fence will not stop illegal immigration along the border with Mexico, although it may help prevent those who are crossing illegally from blending immediately into some town populations. However, the fence is not continuous and where there are gaps, surveillance technology must be utilized. And then, there remains the fear that tunnels will be used even more extensively than in the past.

Over forty tunnels have been found since 2001 and some have been extremely sophisticated. One such tunnel from Tijuana to San Diego was half a mile long, sixty to eighty feet deep, and eight feet tall. It had drainage, electricity and a concrete floor, and its entrance from the California side was in a modern warehouse. The entrance to the tunnel in Mexico was in another building.

It should be noted that the border with Mexico is 1,951 miles in length. The fence that is reportedly nearing completion was only completed for approximately 600 miles in February 2009, when news reports came out that the fence was nearly finished.

As a result of the construction of the barrier, there has now been an increase in the number of people trying to cross in such areas as the Sonoran Desert and over the Baboquivari Mountain in Arizona where no fence exists. This requires crossing 50 miles of inhospitable terrain to reach the Tohono O’odham Indian Reservation, which many fear may lead to an increase in migrant deaths along the U.S.-Mexico border if the smugglers try these more difficult routes.

In the last thirteen years, there have been around five thousand migrant deaths along the border. The U.S. Border Patrol Tucson Sector reported on October 15, 2008 that its agents saved 443 illegal aliens from almost certain death after being abandoned by their smugglers. Without the efforts of these border patrol agents, many more deaths would have occurred and may occur in the future.

The U.S.-Mexico border fence has been controversial, to say the least, since its inception. It has been condemned by the government of Mexico and opposed by many in the U.S. as well. Tribal lands of three American Indian Nations will be divided by the border fence and the campus of the University of Texas at Brownville will be divided into two parts according to a vice president of the university. A section of the barrier was even mistakenly built inside Mexican territory requiring its removal and rebuilding at a cost of over three million dollars.

Visit our website at http://www.CaliforniaAttorneysLawyers.com and call us if you have been the victim of discrimination toward Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans.

There is no excuse for discrimination in America. If you have been the victim of discrimination against Hispanics, Latinos or Mexican-Americans, call California Civil Rights Lawyer Sebastian Gibson for a consultation.

CIVIL RIGHTS

July 11th, 2009 at 02:54pm Under Civil Rights Law

I  INTRODUCTION

Civil Rights and Civil Liberties, political and social concepts referring to guarantees of freedom, justice, and equality that a state may make to its citizens. Although the terms have no precise meaning in law and are sometimes used interchangeably, distinctions may be made. Civil rights is used to imply that the state has a positive role in ensuring all citizens equal protection under law and equal opportunity to exercise the privileges of citizenship and otherwise to participate fully in national life, regardless of race, religion, sex, or other characteristics unrelated to the worth of the individual. Civil liberties is used to refer to guarantees of freedom of speech, press, or religion; to due process of law; and to other limitations on the power of the state to restrain or dictate the actions of individuals. The two concepts of equality and liberty are overlapping and interacting; equality implies the ordering of liberty within society so that the freedom of one person does not infringe on the rights of others, just as liberty implies the right to act in ways permitted to others.

II  HISTORY

Wartime Discrimination in Canada Canadian naval officers at Esquimalt, British Columbia, confiscate a Japanese Canadian fisherman’s boat in 1941. During World War II the Canadian government confined thousands of Japanese Canadians and seized their assets.   The concept that human beings have inalienable rights and liberties that cannot justly be violated by others or by the state is linked to the history of democracy. It was first expressed by the philosophers of ancient Greece. Socrates, for example, chose to die rather than renounce the right to speak his mind in the search for wisdom. Somewhat later the Stoic philosophers formulated explicitly the doctrine of the rights of the individual (see Stoicism). Traces of libertarian doctrine appear in the Bible and in the writings of the Roman statesman Marcus Cicero and the Greek essayist Plutarch. Such ideas, however, did not gain a permanent place in the political structure of the Roman Empire and all but disappeared during medieval times.

A  Early Development

Bill of Rights Because the Constitution of the United States granted the federal government so much power, as compared with the earlier Articles of Confederation, several states demanded a list of amendments to guarantee individual rights against intrusion by the federal government. The first ten amendments, known as the Bill of Rights, embody libertarian ideas in the United States. The amendments protect such rights as freedom of speech (First Amendment), right against unlawful search and seizure (Fourth Amendment), and the right to a public criminal trial by jury (Sixth Amendment).  Individual freedom can survive only under a system of law by which both the sovereign and the governed are bound. Such a system of fundamental laws, whether written or embodied in tradition, is known as a constitution. The idea of government limited by law received effective expression for the first time in the Magna Carta (1215), which checked the power of the English king. The Magna Carta did not stem from democratic or egalitarian beliefs; rather, it was a treaty between king and nobility that defined their relationship and laid the basis for the concept that the ruler was subject to the law rather than above it. The development of constitutional government was slowed by the persistence of the ideas of absolutism, the belief that all political power should be in the hands of one individual, and divine right, which held that kings derived their power from—and were accountable only to—God. These beliefs were widely held throughout Europe until the 18th century. The notion that the people have the right to be asked to consent to acts of government did not arrive without a protracted struggle. The reigns of the Tudor and Stuart monarchs in England were marked by fierce conflicts between the Crown and Parliament.

On the European continent the struggle between authoritarian and libertarian principles developed around religious rather than secular issues. During the Reformation, freedom of religious belief and practice was a primary concern. Tolerance was rare; as late as 1612, for instance, members of the Unitarian sect were burned as heretics in England (see Unitarianism). Not until the end of the 18th century did the ideals of religious toleration become firmly established in Western civilization.

Boston Massacre Revolutionary wars in France, England, and the United States led to the incorporation of libertarian principles in the governments of each of these countries. Among these principles was the idea that people should have a voice in their country’s government. Before any of these principles could be written into the constitutions of these countries, however, each was ravaged by terrible wars. The Boston Massacre, as depicted in this print, was one of the smaller battles in the American Revolution. The event was not actually a massacre, but a street fight between a mob and a squad of British soldiers that ended with the death of five colonists. As a result of the English, American, and French revolutions, libertarian ideals were embodied in the structure of national governments. In England, the struggle between Parliament and the absolutist Stuart monarchs culminated in the so-called Glorious Revolution of 1688. King James II was expelled, and the new king, William III, gave royal assent (1689) to the Declaration of Rights (English Bill of Rights), which guaranteed constitutional government. Subsequently, the monarch’s prerogatives were limited by statute and custom. The idea of a constitutional system is described in the writings of the English philosopher John Locke, which profoundly influenced the leaders of the American colonies.

The 17th century was marked also by the growth of individual freedom in Great Britain. In the common law courts, for example, the judges became more concerned for the rights of those accused of crime, and procedural safeguards were established.

B  Spread of Civil Liberties

British colonists brought the concepts of limited government and individual freedom to the New World. The early laws of Virginia, Massachusetts, and other colonies reflected interest in the reform of criminal procedure that was emerging in Great Britain. A notable event in the history of civil liberties was the successful defense (1735) in New York by the Philadelphia lawyer Andrew Hamilton of the printer John Peter Zenger, who had been charged with seditious libel for criticisms of the colonial government in his publication the New York Weekly Journal. Hamilton established the principle that the government may not punish truthful publications of matters of public concern. See The Trial of John Peter Zenger.

The events leading to the American and French revolutions inspired writings that laid the foundations for modern ideas of civil liberties by such authors as the French philosophers Voltaire and Jean Jacques Rousseau, the British reformer John Wilkes and the philosopher Jeremy Bentham, the Anglo-American writer Thomas Paine, and the American statesmen Thomas Jefferson and James Madison. The Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen in France and the Bill of Rights of the Constitution of the United States formally established libertarian principles as a foundation of modern democracy.

Although civil liberties are often considered an integral part of democratic government, the principles of limited government and personal freedom were developed in England at a time when political power was held by an aristocratic upper class. Similarly, in the American colonies, many founding fathers did not favor democracy in the modern sense. Indeed, the framers of the U.S. Constitution provided a method of electing the nation’s president that avoids a direct popular vote. Conversely, history offers numerous examples of countries in which political power is formally vested in representative assemblies, but enforcement of law is arbitrary or despotic, and minorities have few safeguards against the tyranny of majorities.

III  CIVIL RIGHTS AND CIVIL LIBERTIES IN THE UNITED STATES

The civil rights and liberties of U.S. citizens are largely embodied in the Bill of Rights (the first ten amendments to the Constitution) and in similar provisions in state constitutions. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech, press, assembly, and religious exercise as well as separation of church and state (see Speech, Freedom of; Press, Freedom of the; Religious Liberty). The Fourth Amendment protects the privacy and security of the home and personal effects and prohibits unreasonable searches and seizures. The Fifth through Eighth amendments protect persons accused of crime; they guarantee, for example, the right to trial by jury, the right to confront hostile witnesses and to have legal counsel, and the privilege of not testifying against oneself. The Fifth Amendment also contains the general guarantee that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law (see Due Process of Law). Originally these amendments were binding only on the federal government. However, decisions by the Supreme Court of the United States have established that the Due Process Clause of the 14th Amendment (ratified in 1868) applies many of the guarantees in the Bill of Rights to actions by state and local governments.

Law as Career

July 11th, 2009 at 11:37am Under Administrative Law

Law as a profession is in great demand these days. Due to the changing economic and social scenario and the ever-increasing regulatory role being undertaken by the government there is a growing demand for the lawyers. Besides being financially lucrative, Law is an adventurous and thrilling career option.
Some of the personal characteristics that one needs to have to become a good lawyer are: good intellectual ability, the ability to assimilate and analyze facts quickly, excellent communication and presentation skills, self confidence, and physical and mental stamina to cope with the long hours of work and work related stress.Law Courses in IndiaB.A. L.L.B: This is a 5-year course and the students can pursue this course after passing Class 12. L.L.B.: This is a 3-year course, open for graduates.L.L.M.: This is a postgraduate course in Law. The duration of the course is 2year. Students can pursue this course after completing B.A. L.L.B. or L.L.B.
There are various specialized branches of Law. These include:

Here is a list of some of the top Law Colleges in India:

For better guidance contact your nearest Employment Exchange

Computer Forensics is Different for Police and Other Law Enforcement

July 11th, 2009 at 08:55am Under Computer Law

Copyright (c) 2008 Steve Burgess
Computer forensics practices and procedures can diverge significantly depending upon whether the investigation is criminal or civil litigation. Standards for data collection evidence can be different, as can the process of data collection and imaging. Furthermore, the consequences of the case may have dramatically different impacts.
A couple of quick definitions may be in order. Criminal law deals with offenses against the state – the prosecution of a person accused of breaking a law. These offenses may include crimes perpetrated against an individual. “The People”, in the form of a state representative (for instance, the District Attorney) makes formal charges and the accused must then face the government’s full resources. Guilty outcomes can result in fines, probation, incarceration, or even death.
Civil law covers everything else, such as violations of contracts and lawsuits between two or more parties. The prevailing party often is entitled to payment, property or services from the loser. Imprisonment is not at issue in civil cases. As a result, the standard for evidence is not as high in civil cases as in criminal cases.
For the law enforcement computer forensics specialist, a certain amount of extra care should be taken in collecting data and producing results, for the standard of proof is higher. There are advantages on the data collection end, however. For once a court has authorized a search warrant, an officer (and possibly several) with badge and gun can go seize the defendant’s computer by surprise and by force. Once the computer has been seized and imaged, all data is accessible and may result in additional charges being brought against the defendant.
By contrast, in a civil case, there tends to be a lot of negotiation over what computers and what data can be inspected, as well as where and when. There is not likely to be any seizing of computers, and quite a long time may take place between the time the request to inspect a computer is made and the time the computer is made available to be inspected. It is common for one party to have access to a very limited area of data from the other party’s computer. During this time, a defendant may take the opportunity to attempt to hide or destroy data. The author has had several cases wherein the computer needed for analysis was destroyed before the plaintiff had the opportunity to inspect. Such attempts at hiding data are often discovered by the digital forensic sleuth, who may in turn present evidence of such further wrongdoing in expert witness testimony.
Opportunities for learning techniques and interacting with other professionals may differ as well. While some computer forensic software suites and training, such as Access FTK, EnCase, or SMART Forensics are available to most who can pay, others, such as iLook are available only to law enforcement and military personnel. While many support and professional organizations and groups are available to all, some, such as the High Technology Crime Investigation Association (HTCIA) are not open to professionals who provide for criminal defense (with a few minor exceptions).
Police, Homeland Security, and other law enforcement personnel’s goal is to generate a body of evidence significant enough (presuming such evidence exists) to find the criminal defendant guilty. The standard for information presented to the court and jury in such a case is fairly high. From the time digital data or hardware is seized and acquired, Rules of Evidence must be kept in mind (Cornell University has the complete and voluminous code on its website). Law enforcement personnel must follow accepted procedures or evidence could be thrown out. Acquisition of data and discovery in criminal cases often must follow sometimes strict and differing procedures depending upon whether the jurisdiction is federal, state, or municipality and at times depending upon a judge’s preferences.
The expert in a civil case may not analyze all of the data on a computer at a very deep level Initial efforts may rather be a kind of fact-finding mission, intended to determine the value of digging deeper and at greater expense. As such, the initial presentation of data may be fairly informal, and be just enough to induce the parties to settle the case. On the other hand, the data found may be so minimal the line of inquiry into electronic evidence is dropped.
Although we use many of the same tools, computer forensic professionals in private practice and those in law enforcement are held to different standards, have access to different resources, and their work results in substantially different outcomes between the criminal and civil cases to which they contribute.