Online Journal — Columbia Undergraduate Law Review

Mitigation, Time, and the Immorality of Death

The death penalty is a widely contested form of punishment plaguing legal theorists, juries, and society as a whole today. Current death penalty jurisprudence in the United States, which developed as a reaction to the brief abolition of the death penalty following Furman v. Georgia in 1972, has created an arbitrary and immoral system that relies upon a balance between aggravating and mitigating factors. An aggravating factor is “any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act,” [1] and a mitigating factor is “any fact or circumstance that lessens the severity or culpability of a criminal act.”

Mandatory Million-Dollar Donations: Examining Cy Pres Settlements

In 2014, six institutions received approximately $5.3 million total for the purpose of educating the public on Internet privacy. [1] This was not spurred by a kind donation or an altruistic, astute public relations move; rather, the District Court for the Northern District of California ordered Google to do so as part of the settlement of a class action lawsuit in which these institutions had no part. This practice of distributing money from class action settlements to third-party non-profit organizations is known as cy pres (pronounced “sigh pray”), [2] and Rule 23(e) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure states that these settlements must be “fair, reasonable, and adequate.”

Decoding Our DNA Regulations: An Analysis of Protective Genetic Privacy Legislation

23andMe. AncestryDNA. MyHeritage. With the fast-paced development of genetic technology on the rise, these services have taken the biotechnological industry by storm, reaching the everyday American faster and more easily. Private citizens are able to access their entire genetic history, ancestry, and the exact specifics of their DNA with just a click of a button or a quick visit to a specialist.

In Favor of Restorative Justice: A Look at Victim Impact Evidence

“I am here to face you Larry, so you can see I’ve regained my strength, that I’m no longer a victim, I am a survivor,” said Olympian Aly Raisman in the courtroom as she confronted her abuser, Larry Nassar, who sexually abused her throughout her gymnastics career.

Jake GrayDecember 4, 2018criminal justice, larry nassar, Supreme CourtComment

The Age of Cyber Federalism

Rebecca Buckwalter-Poza woke up one morning in 2017 to find she had been blocked by @realDonaldTrump on Twitter. Dani Bostick woke up to the same news later that year, as did Annie Rice, an author, William LeGate, a tech entrepreneur, and Caroline Orr, a researcher. Soon, a contingent of Twitter dissenters emerged who all had been banned from the president’s official Twitter page.[1]

Jaden SchneiderNovember 11, 2018Donald Trump, First Amendment, Knight First Amendment Institute, Constitutional law, technologyComment

Revising the Approach of Mandatory Minimums

The Eighth Amendment states, “Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.” This promise of protection against unjust punishment remains relevant and is subject to reinterpretation, especially in light of the drastic changes to the American penal system since the nation’s founding. Although directly contradictory case precedent exists that demands sentencing practices consider the character and actions of individual offenders, mandatory minimum sentencing remains permissible and frequently practiced.

Possible Violations of the U.S. Code by West Virginia

Does West Virginia actively discriminate against former federal government officers through its tax exemption policies? James Dawson, a retired state marshal, believes so. While filing his taxes, Dawson learned that the West Virginia Tax Commissioner grants a tax exemption to retired state officials, but not to retired federal agents: violating 4 U.S. Code Section 111 (4 U.S.C. § 111), which allows for such exemptions as long as “the taxation does not discriminate against the officer or employee because of the source of the pay or compensation.”[1]

Students v. The Pledge of Allegiance: Increased Nationalism in American Public Schools

The practice of students calling upon their First Amendment right to free speech when attempting to protest on school grounds has a long history in the United States. One of the most widely known cases of this premise is Tinker v. Des Moines (1969), when several students faced school suspension due to wearing armbands in protest of the Vietnam War—and subsequently filed a lawsuit against their school district. In this case, the Supreme Court ruled in a 7-2 majority that the school’s punishment of the students violated their First Amendment rights on the grounds that, “...the students did not lose their First Amendment rights to freedom of speech when they stepped onto school property.”[1]

Problems and Paradox of Restrictionist Immigration Law: An Economic Study of the Law

US immigration is now, more than ever, at the forefront of a polarized debate that implicates both enforcement and economics. The Trump administration embarked on an unprecedented strengthening of immigration enforcement that reduced refugee admissions to its lowest mark since 1980.[1] Between President Trump’s first day in office on January 20, 2017 to the end of the 2017 fiscal year, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) deported 61,000 immigrants from within the country, marking a 37% increase from the same time in 2016.[2]

Cheryl WangNovember 11, 2018ICE, immigration, Castro v. U.S., Supreme Court, Trump, Department of Homeland Security, NAFTAComment