Did you know that being LGBT is enough to have you removed from a jury? I didn’t, either.
This week, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments about a gay man who was removed from the jury in a case pertaining to the price of an HIV treatment drug. When the juror in question mentioned his same-sex partner, one of the pharmaceutical companies in the case asked that he be removed, presumably because he’d be considered “biased.”
It’s a question of who constitutes “a jury of one’s peers,” and unfortunately, it’s not a new debate.
What some have viewed as a snazzy get-out-of-jury-duty-free card is actually a confusing and contested legal practice. Courts have ruled both for and against excluding gay jurors, while some have argued that the 1986 U.S. Supreme Court decision barring race as grounds for juror dismissal should also extend to sexual orientation. …
This issue also draws from larger cultural debates about what an “impartial,” “normal” or “neutral” person looks like, and whether having any kind of identity marker besides those that are usually normalized into invisibility makes you inherently biased (the controversy over Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court is a good example). Juries are supposed to be composed of “peers;” questions about whether marginalized people belong on juries get to fundamental questions of equality and humanity, and whether the majority culture really considers marginalized groups its “peers.”
The debate over gay jurors is more than just a debate about one more instance of discrimination against gay people in a specific space; it’s about whether gay people should be allowed full access to the rights of American citizenship, about whether their identity means an inherent bias that keeps them from being able to weigh in on things meaningfully, and as the Abbott case illustrates, whether they should be allowed a legal voice on issues that affect them.
This Autostraddle piece about the case does a beautiful job of articulating why we should be doing more than just raising our eyebrows at a story like this. (It was also written by my favorite person in the world.) When a person can be deliberately left out of the judicial process simply for being gay, we’ve got a real problem.
Read the article and you’ll learn something. I definitely did.
"This issue also draws from larger cultural debates about what an ‘impartial,’ ‘normal’ or ‘neutral’ person looks like, and whether having any kind of identity marker besides those that are usually normalized into invisibility makes you inherently biased (the controversy over Sonia Sotomayor’s appointment to the Supreme Court is a good example). Juries are supposed to be composed of ‘peers;’ questions about whether marginalized people belong on juries get to fundamental questions of equality and humanity, and whether the majority culture really considers marginalized groups its ‘peers.’”
^that’s what i really got out of this. this is about gay rights insofar as it’s about all marginalized groups. it always amazes me when people accuse marginalized groups of being “biased” toward their own humanity while those same people never turn a critical eye to wealthy white cisgender heterosexual men who DEFINITELY go out of their way to protect the power they’ve been endowed with. this is about maintaining a particular power dynamic, IMO.
^ institutionalised misandry ^
And people want to tell me we don’t live in a matriarchy.
And what did I say?
Not but 5 minutes later
We found the MRA
THIS STUDY IS FAULTY. IT’S BASED ON A MODEL, NOT ACTUAL DATA. THE PEOPLE WHO DID THIS ARE ECONOMISTS.
Within our data set, the scarcity of observations on females and the preponderance of observations in the plea regime conspire to leave us with an insuFFicient sample size to properly apply FIML to estimate the sentencing determination model separately for females. In the decomposition developed here, we exploit an insight from Oaxaca and Ransom (1994) that allows us to decompose the male-female regime and sentencing differentials without actually estimating the model for females. Rather than comparing weights from a male only and female only model, we instead are able to compare the estimated parameters from the model for males with parameters estimated in a pooled model for males and females.
IT ALSO ONLY APPLIES WITH WHITE MALES AND WHITE FEMALES.
In order to abstract from sentencing issues associated with race and ethnicity, we have confined our attention to convicted white males and white females. (p 11)
Look at their methodology:
Lastly, they controlled for “aggravating circumstances” like “use of a weapon”, which neglects to account for this:Only males commit beating or strangulation homicides;women are more likely to stab or shoot their victims. Thisopens women to vastly harsher sentences with legalenhancements for use of a weapon in the commission ofthe crime.The average prison sentence of men who kill theirwomen partners is 2 to 6 years. Women who kill theirmale partners are sentenced on average to 15 years,despite the fact that most women who kill do so in self-defense.Currently, women are eight times more likely thanmen to be killed by their intimate partner. ( Rennison and Welchans 2000 ) Estimates of the number of women killed by husbands, boyfriends or former partners range from 1,000 to 4,000 per yearAs many as 90% of the women in jail today for killing men had been battered by those men.(Allison Bass, “Women far less likely to kill than men; no one sure why,” The Boston Globe, February 24, 1992, p. 27)Currently there are 2,000 battered women in America who are serving prison time for defending their lives against their batterers.(Stacey Kabat, Remarks from presentation at Harvard School of Public Health)Convicted Survivors -Elizabeth Leonard(Project Muse):When a woman survives a deadly assault by her male abuser by using lethal self-defense, she often faces a punitive criminal justice system—one that largely failed to respond to her earlier calls for help.In this book, Elizabeth Dermody Leonard examines the lives and experiences of more than forty women in California who are serving lengthy prison sentences for killing their male abusers. She contrasts them with other women prisoners in the state and finds substantial differences. Leonard’s in-depth interviews reveal that the women are slow to identify themselves as battered women and continue to minimize the violence done to them, make numerous and varied attempts to end abusive relationships, and are systematically failed by the systems they look to for help.While in jail, these women receive liberal dosages of psychotropic drugs, damaging their ability to aid in their self-defense. Moreover, trials and plea bargains feature little or no evidence of the severe intimate abuse inflicted upon them. Despite a clear lack of criminal or violent histories, the majority of women found guilty of the death of abusive men receive first- or second-degree murder convictions and serve long, harsh sentences. Leonard concludes the book with a discussion of policy implications and recommendations arising from this research.And of course, Marissa Alexander, who was denied the protection of the Stand Your Ground law for firing a warning shot against her abuser while pregnant and fleeing for her life, and who is now serving 20 years to life.And of course, CeCe MacDonald, who is serving prison time for surviving a hate crime, defending herself against violent attackers who cut open her face with a broken bottle.And of course thousands of other women serving sentences who are being misrepresented by the faulty and misleading study above.
Other additional faulty models of viewing sentencing discrepancies include looking at convictions for the same charge, without taking into consideration co-charges, case facts, priors, and plea bargains/charging discrepancies.
For example, men are far, far more likely than women to torture, rape, and/or kidnap their murder victims and are not always charged separately for these additional criminal actions but may find that they play a role in sentencing. Aggravating factors within the case are a big fucking deal because they can literally involve things like torture and rape.
Violent male offenders also have a high rate of having multiple victims, including victims that may not have seen their assaults charged, which gives them more priors and more documentation of interpersonal violence when it comes to sentencing.
Also, as a sidenote, can we talk about how men commit the vast majority of sexual assaults and how sexual assault sentences are generally far less seriously punished than nonviolent offenses that make up the majority of women’s convictions? It’s not the same charge, but damn it is a discrepancy of major proportions where the legal system supports male violence in terms of sentencing.
so my mom needed a dress for a wedding so she went to neiman marcus and tried this on and sneaked some pictures
then she showed them to my grandmother and with almost a 50 year…
Fuck the designer and their bougie nerd ass, a few scraps of fabric shouldn’t cost a kidney
You can’t copyright clothing designs is the US (there are a couple rules about speed of production of knockoffs for other chains, but they’re not super strict either) and US law has never included general copyright protection for fashion design.
That there is a long, long tradition of people in the US reproducing/modifying designs at home is typically seen as a strong argument against copyright protection of clothing.
Also, smaller designers argued against bills that would introduce copyrighting on the grounds that litigating the costly lawsuits involved in many other forms of copyright cases would be a brutal burden on smaller, less well funded design firms and on students. It has also been argued that lack of copyright encourages innovations, by pushing bigger designers to not rely forever on old pieces and by allowing students/smaller scale designers to modify pieces in novel and interesting ways.
I’m just saying, what one commenter said was “extremely disrespectful” to the designer is the cultural and legal norm for fashion in the US, especially in low income women’s spaces where self made clothes has traditionally been an important feature. Why the shock and scandalized response? It tends to be rich ass people in the US who think fashion copyrighting would be a good idea…largely because they want to make damned sure they can have nicer things than poor people.
^ look everyone I did get something out of my unfinished law school education…though profs at my law school had serious issues understanding my response of “I’m a Marxist” to questions about what the status of property law should ideally be.
via atrios: who notes, “Normally this would be a crime, but for some reason it isn’t. Nobody has any concern about prosecutions. The article doesn’t even raise the possibility.
Only corporations are people, human beings aren’t.
LGBTQ* Infographic / Law Graphics You Should See
This protection applies to Federal jobs/employments. One can still be fired in 34 states by private/state jobs for being Trans*.
Want to know more? Read Cornell Journal of Law’s article HERE.
Mia Macy and her wife, Trish (via MetroWeekly.com)
Fleeing police is not probable cause by itself for arrest or being taken into custody. Fleeing the police is not sufficient justification by itself for use of lethal force.
Unless cops have evidence of other crimes or other probable cause, they are breaking the law when they arrest people. When cops kill people for running, they are breaking the law, they are committing murder.
It’s a failure of the criminal law system whenever this is not dealt with properly and seriously.
Cops are the ones committing crimes, breaking the law, and murdering people in these situations. We shouldn’t let them reframe the situation by trying to claim that the people they chase, illegally detain, assault, and murder should not have protections because they are “criminals” when the police are engaging in blatant lawbreaking in most of these cases. The courts are failing to hold cops accountable for their lawbreaking, cops are the criminals getting away with violence with impunity, not the people trying to run away from them.
If you live in the US, go take a look at your state’s laws about probable cause and justification of lethal force by law enforcement. There are huge gaps here between what the law says (and must say due to Constitutional law in some cases) and what cops and most lower level courts say and do in regards to it.
Pennsylvania law exempted married and cohabitating women from legal protection against their partners who raped them into the 80s. I don’t know how this study defined rape, but if it used the then current legal definitions, this would explain the low levels of married rapists. Partner rape against women was legal in Pennsylvania at the time this study took place and for several decades afterwards (this isn’t PA specific, fyi, a number of states had marital rape and partner rape legal into the 80s here’s a law review piece from ‘81 arguing that marital rape/partner rape exceptions were a constitutional violation that has a good summary of the marital/partner rape laws at the time http://digitalcommons.law.ggu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1248&context=ggulrev).