Study Abroad in Germany This Summer

overview_2016-participantsThe campus of the Justus Liebig University in Giessen, Germany will be the location of the Ninth Annual Summer Session in International and Comparative Law offered jointly by Marquette University, the University of Wisconsin, and the Justus Liebig University- Giessen.  This program brings together up to sixty students from law schools all over the world to take classes in comparative and international law over a four week session lasting from July 15 through August 12. In addition to students from the United States and Germany, over the years the program has attracted students from Russia, India, Columbia, Brazil, South Africa, Ethiopia, Spain, Vietnam, Italy, the United Kingdom, the Dominican Republic, Korea, Australia, Indonesia and Kazakhstan, among other countries.  Class instruction is in English, and the international student body provides for a unique learning experience.

Faculty will be drawn from the U.S. and Europe.  Each student will select two courses (each course worth 2.0 law school credit hours) out of a total of four courses in the curriculum.  In addition to coursework, the curriculum includes two overnight field trips to Berlin and Hamburg to visit courts, other governmental institutions, and historical sites.  In addition, the program includes speakers on a variety of topics including a panel discussion on differences and similarities in legal education and practice around the world and a discussion of opportunities for further legal study and internships in Europe.

Classes will be held Monday through Thursday, during the day, over the four weeks of the program.  This schedule leaves students with time to explore the cities, villages and countryside around Giessen and nearby Frankfurt, and the opportunity to travel throughout Europe.  Paris to the west and Berlin to the east are a mere 300 miles from Giessen.

Past participants in the program have given high marks to both the substantive learning experience and the opportunity to form international friendships.  Enrollment is open to students who have completed one year of instruction in any U.S. law school.  Students enrolled in law schools outside of the United States should apply through the Justus Liebig University.

A general program overview, travel and tuition details, course descriptions and faculty biographies can be viewed online.  An application form can be downloaded here.  Apply now and I will see you in Germany this summer!

Continue ReadingStudy Abroad in Germany This Summer

Judicial Challenges to the Collateral Impact of Criminal Convictions: Is True Change in the Offing?

galler_hornsgatan_2012aMy recent article, “Judicial Challenges to the Collateral Impact of Criminal Convictions: Is True Change in the Offing?,” examines judicial decisions that reflect an increasing dissatisfaction with harsh criminal penalties and severe collateral consequences for nonviolent offenders.  Here is the abstract:

Judicial opposition to disproportionate sentences and the long-term impact of criminal records is growing, at least in the Eastern District of New York. With the proliferation and harshness of collateral consequences and the hurdles in overcoming a criminal record, judges have asked for greater proportionality and improved chances for past offenders to get a fresh start. The combined impact of punitiveness and a criminal record is not only debilitating to the individual but also to their families and communities. A criminal case against a noncitizen who will be subject to deportation and a decade-long ban on reentry and three different requests for expungement will demonstrate how three federal judges struggled with the long-term effects of the current sentencing and collateral consequences regime. These cases exemplify both judicial creativity and judicial impotence, as the courts have to call upon the support of other actors within the executive and legislative branches for change, in these individual cases and systemically.

These judicial critics of the current approach argue within an emerging normative framework that is coming to dominate the societal discourse on punishment. Increasingly some offenders are deemed “worthy” of receiving our assistance in reintegration. They are generally nonviolent first offenders, those with an unblemished record save for the offense of conviction, those who have been gainfully employed or desperately want to work, and those who have cared for their children. They present no danger to the community, and their continued punishment may negatively impact them, their surroundings, and ultimately the country. On the other hand, those labeled violent or sex offenders or terrorists are being considered dangerous, unredeemable, and deserving of the harshness the criminal justice system has brought to bear on them. The specific categorization of offenses, the definitions of terms, and the categorization of offenders remain fluid, contingent, and subject to constant revision. Still, these judicial efforts expand on the incipient efforts at full reintegration of some of those with a criminal record. Whether their challenges will resonate with their colleagues and in other branches of government remains to be seen.

A full copy of the article can be downloaded at the New York University Law Review Online.

Nora Demleitner is the 2016 Boden Visiting Professor at Marquette University Law School.

Continue ReadingJudicial Challenges to the Collateral Impact of Criminal Convictions: Is True Change in the Offing?

Electoral College – Keep or Toss?

electoral-college-2016By Mathew O’Neill

During the Twilight craze, the country was split between Team Edward and Team Jacob.  The battle was over Bella Swan’s heart.  Edward, a 200-year old vampire, was devastatingly handsome, kind, chivalrous, and his skin sparkled in the sun.  Jacob, a teenage werewolf, was brash, muscular, impulsive and fiercely protective of his tribe and Bella.  Oh, and Edward murdered a few thousand people but felt badly about it, while Jacob only killed vampires but had a bad mullet.  I was decidedly Team Jacob.

After the 2016 election, the country is split about the Electoral College.  There are again two camps: Team Keep and Team Toss.  Before going into the merits of each, some brief background.

As of this writing, Donald Trump won 56% to 44% in the Electoral College (290 to 232), while Hillary Clinton leads in the popular vote count 62,523,844 to 61,201,031.  So, while Trump romped to an 11-point Electoral route, he actually got clobbered by 1,322,813 votes.  What gives?  I thought this was a democracy.

This anomaly is the work of the venerated Electoral College.  The College was created in Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution, which states in part:

The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.  He shall hold his Office during the Term of four Years, and, together with the Vice President chosen for the same Term, be elected, as follows:

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole number of Senators and representative to which the State may be entitled in Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

The Congress may determine the Time of chusing the Electors, and the Day on which they shall give their Votes; which Day shall be the same throughout the United States.

The 23rd Amendment granted at least three Electors to the District of Columbia, bringing to 538 the total number of current Electors: 435 Representatives, 100 Senators and the D.C. trio.

The Constitution does not direct how the states must “chuse” their Electors.  In colonial times, most states did not call for a popular election to select their Electors.  Instead, party bosses made those decisions.  Eventually the cigar-smoke cleared, and today all states and D.C. hold a general election for President and Vice President, and nearly every state (48 of 50) has chosen to award all of its Electors to the winner of that state’s popular votes.  Thus, because the margins in various states can differ (Clinton won California by 3.5 million votes; Trump won Florida by 20,000 votes), it is possible to win the Electoral College, and thus the keys to the White House and a cool plane, while at the same time lose the overall popular vote.

Which raises the question: is this acceptable?

Continue ReadingElectoral College – Keep or Toss?