Law and Justice

Posts Tagged ‘Should’

It is essential in an ordered society to believe that citizens who do wrong can be rehabilitated. This must be true for a society to function properly. In the U.S., our sentencing structures and guidelines are built with this very thing as a foundation.

However, there is a small portion of our society who despite all opportunities to rehabilitate, do not. This small portion of society who willingly choose to continue their lives of crime after having multiple types of intervention such as prison time, probation, alternative sentencing, drug court, inpatient drug treatment, etc…, are recognized as career criminals.

For several decades, studies have been conducted on crime and causalities by various bodies including major universities, criminologists and even the U.S. Department of Justice. These studies have found that approximately 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all criminals. Some of the studies have provided slightly different numbers but all of them have found that a small group of criminals commit a vastly disproportionate number of crimes than their peers. (Wolfgang et al ., 1972; Petersilia et al ., 1978; Williams, 1979; Chaiken and Chaiken, 1982; Greenwood with Abrahamse, 1982, and Martin and Sherman, 1986).

These criminals are very antisocial and refuse any form of rehabilitative programs. The only time they might participate in such programs is when they are having their prison sentences shortened or risk of going to prison decreased because of their participation. They call it “buying time” because they know they are getting time off their sentences by participating in rehabilitative programs.

It is not uncommon for law enforcement officials all across the U.S. to encounter criminals on the streets who have amassed 10 or more felony convictions and that have been to prison 3, 4, 5 or more separate times in their past. When their background is examined, it is always found that these criminals have benefited from weak plea deals on cases, dismissals of cases in exchange for guilty pleas in other cases and various other forms of settlements of cases based on judicial economy rather than the two things that should be considered the most, protection of society and punishment.

Knowing all of this, it therefore seems to be common sense that law enforcement and the justice system should focus greater energy and resources toward those that commit the majority of the crimes. This is the very purpose of habitual criminal laws; to address the recidivists. In all 50 States and on the Federal level, there are habitual criminal laws of one kind or another. Some are very effective and some are not. 26 states currently have habitual criminal laws that include sentences of life without parole.

California has what is probably the most publicized campaign against habitual criminals known as the three strikes law. There is plenty of evidence that the laws in California have provided significant benefits both in protecting citizens from further harm but also in fiscal impact to the California prison system.

Calculations based on the California Crime Index indicate that between March of 1994 when three strikes was first signed into law and the summer of 2004, there was a dramatic drop in California’s crime rate. Whether or not such a decline over those 10 years could be attributable to the three strikes sentencing scheme, other sentencing legislation enacted during the decade, changes in demographics, economic trends, or a combination of these factors, the crime rate in California fell by approximately 45% during this 10-year period. (Prosecutors’ Perspective on California’s Three Strikes Law – A 10-Year Retrospective, published 2004)

The prison system in California has seen its prison population numbers stabilize and has actually seen a massive reduction in the rate of increased spending in the budget for corrections. During the 10 years preceding three strikes (1984 to 1994), state expenditures for corrections increased nearly 220%. This is more than four times greater than after the enactment of three strikes.

“Many police officers, corrections officers and others, both inside and outside the criminal justice system, have noted that criminals fear three strikes. These people have also found that some criminals have modified their behavior. For once felons are worried about the criminal justice system and that has proven to be a deterrent factor. Despite predictions that the law would incarcerate many youthful offenders, for the 83 three-strikers sentenced to date (1997), the average age is 37 years old. These are career criminals, not likely to “outgrow” their antisocial behavior with added maturity”. (Washington Policy Center, “Three Strikes You’re Out; A Reform that Worked”, published 1997)

The U.S. Supreme Court has frequently recognized that a State may punish persistent criminal offenders more severely than it punished other offenders:

Solem v Helm, 1983

Rummel v Estelle, 1980

Oyler v Boles, 1962

Graham v West Virginia, 1912

Even more recently on March 5th of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed a California recidivist statute in Ewing v California. The finding was, habitual criminal sentences do not violate the Eighth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution which prohibits “cruel and unusual punishment”. The court noted “…it reflects a rational legislative judgment, entitled to deference, that offenders who have committed serious or violent felonies and who continue to commit felonies must be incapacitated.”

In Nevada, there are habitual criminal laws that are similar to those in California. At the end of February 2009, there were 525 inmates in the Nevada prison system that were serving habitual criminal sentences that essentially vary from between 5-20 years, 10 years to life or life without parole. This is only 3.9% of the total Nevada inmate population. Based on the decades of criminological studies showing that 80% of all crime is committed by 20% of all offenders, shouldn’t the number of inmates in prison who are serving habitual sentences be closer to 20% or even higher since this is the special breed of criminal that needs to be incarcerated the most?

One prime example of the positive effects of the habitual criminal laws in Nevada is a 2006 case on a defendant named Daimon Monroe, aka Daimon Hoyt (8th District Court of Nevada, case # 06-C-228752). Monroe had previously been convicted of 15 felony counts in a criminal case in 1992, 2 felony counts from a criminal case in 1993 and 2 felony counts from a criminal case in 1996. Almost all of his felony convictions involved him committing commercial burglaries. One of his prior convictions was for being an ex-felon in possession of a firearm. Another was for evading a police officer which arose from a car chase that resulted in a roll over crash. Monroe had been to prison two times before.

Monroe completed his second stint in prison and got out in 2001. Monroe returned to committing commercial burglaries almost immediately after getting out of prison. Monroe continued committing commercial burglaries between 2001 and 2006 without being caught by law enforcement.

It is conservatively approximated that Monroe had committed several hundred burglaries which was substantiated by testimony of his longtime girlfriend. The investigation resulted in the seizure of approximately $2,000,000 in stolen property from Monroe. Monroe had also amassed close to $200,000 in bank accounts from the sales of stolen property, which was seized. Monroe was arrested in 2006 and was convicted of over 30 more felony counts in three different jury trials.

In 2008, after the second of three different trials on Monroe, he was sentenced as a habitual criminal by District Court Judge Stewart Bell. At sentencing, Judge Bell told Monroe that in his 30 plus years of experience in the justice system that Monroe was the most prolific criminal he had ever encountered or had heard of. Judge Bell sentenced Monroe to consecutive terms of life without the possibility of parole.

To finish this story on Mr. Monroe, it should be known that he has also since been tried for soliciting the murder of a District Court Judge, a Prosecutor and the Police Detective who investigated him. He was convicted by a jury on three counts of soliciting murder and is awaiting sentencing. He is now a 48 time convicted felon and has never shown even the smallest hint of remorse whatsoever. He will also be standing trial in the near future for the sexual abuse of two juvenile female family members.  Also, in late 2009, one of the cases that Monroe was convicted in was overturned on a legal technicality and sent back for re-trial. So it seems that his courtroom affairs will continue on for quite some time.

Is this the kind of criminal that can be rehabilitated? Is this the sort of person that should be granted some kind of leniency and allowed to exist in society? Monroe is not a lone wolf. Stories like his dot the map across the country. These truly dangerous and inalterable criminals cannot exist in society without them trying to find various ways of taking advantage of others to the point of committing serious crimes against them.

Another defendant who received life without parole was Gregory Hermanski (8th District court of Nevada, case # 00-C-167783). Hermanski had previously been convicted of 12 felonies including multiple separate times for armed robbery and bank robbery. Hermanski had served 6 prior prison terms in Florida and in Federal prison prior to being treated as a habitual criminal in Nevada. Hermanski was convicted of Robbery with a Deadly Weapon and Burglary with a Deadly Weapon and was sentenced in 2003.

A presentencing report on Hermanski stated, “Mr. Hermanski has been afforded numerous opportunities to cope with his personal problems. He has been psychologically evaluated on repeated occasions. Counseling and coping mechanisms have been offered to him in virtually every form of therapeutic milieu. However, the defendant has refused to cooperate with any agency that has made an attempt to assist him. As a result, he has compiled an extensive criminal record. A review of that record is reflective of an individual who is a very serious threat to the safety of others.”

Is this the sort of individual that our system of jurisprudence should trust to exist in society? Would the justice system bear some responsibility if this person was ever released from prison and someday ended up harming someone? The Police, Prosecutors and Judges are empowered and entrusted by the people of their communities to protect them from these very kinds of predators.

The argument of barbarism often comes up when people discuss life sentences of criminals. I believe that it is a privilege to live in the United States of America. In many countries, these kinds of criminals would have been executed long before they established their prodigious rap sheets. It is not barbaric to separate predators from the prey. I argue that it is barbaric to continue letting the predators feast mercilessly on innocent people.

For those of you who live in jurisdictions that have strong habitual criminal laws, you should be thankful. For those of you that live in jurisdictions without, you should write your lawmakers.

Bradley is currently Co-Authoring a true crime story entitled “Repeat Offender; The true story of how the biggest thief Las Vegas ever knew was brought down”.

Check out the website: http://www.repeatoffenderonline.com 

or check it out on FaceBook: 

http://www.facebook.com/RepeatOffenderonline

Disclaimer:  The opinions in this article are not necessarily the official position of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and the author is not representing the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department in any official capacity with the contents of this article.

Incoming search terms:

Breaching a contract is bad, bad, bad…isn’t it? Well, not always, at least not in the eyes of the law. The purpose of contract law is not to spank naughty promise-breakers, but to increase economic efficiency.

Suppose, for example, that you own some real estate. Buyer 1 wants to live in your house and offers you what you consider to be a good price for it, and you enter into a contract with Buyer 1 to sell it to him. Then Buyer 2 calls you. He wants to buy your real estate to build a shopping center on it, and he is willing to pay you twice as much as Buyer 1. You contact a lawyer and he tells you that even if you pay full damages to Buyer 1, with what Buyer 2 is paying you you’ll still come out way ahead. You respond by breaching the contract with Buyer 1, paying him the amount he lost on account of your breach (known as “expectation damages”), and selling the house to Buyer 2. Should you contact a priest to confess your sin?

Not necessary. By paying Buyer 1 full expectation damages, you put him in as good a position as he would have been in had you performed your contract with him. Therefore he has no legitimate complaint. Furthermore, by selling your real estate to a developer whose development will increase the economic value of your real estate far more than Buyer 1 would have, you have done your part to increase economic efficiency. So pat yourself on the back, take a trip to Maui, whatever. You have just committed what is known as efficient breach, and Uncle Sam is happy with you because the property taxes on your former real estate will undoubtedly increase, and so will your income taxes.

The point is that when it comes to civil law (as opposed to criminal law), morality takes second place to economic efficiency. That is why someone who robs a house is guilty, but someone who breaches a contract to sell a house is merely liable (of course, you can be guilty and liable at the same time!).

Incoming search terms:

Advertising is a relatively recent development in the legal profession. Not all firms advertise it is advisable for every law firm to take note of the important resource the internet has become to consumers seeking services. Even among lawyers and firms that chose not to advertise, the importance of the internet as a consumer resource should not be overlooked. An internet presence can give a law firm more credibility. It is a non-intrusive way for a law firm to begin building trust with potential clients. In fact in some ways a law firm without a presence on the internet may be at a disadvantage and some may not even consider them a reputable business if they do not have a website.

A law firm with its own website can accomplish a number of things. Most people conducting a random search for an attorney are not certain of the law regarding their problem, and concerned about cost. Moreover, there exists today a widespread skepticism about attorneys, especially among the uninitiated. A website can ease some of those uncertainties, and thus invite contact from the potential client.

The website can describe the firm’s areas of legal focus. It acts as an educational tool, explaining the basics of selected areas of law and suggesting some initial steps for the potential client. Eventually the client will end up in a lawyer’s office somewhere, so providing some initial online education will give the law firm a benign and positive first impression.

As with other forms of media, defense and personal injury attorneys are the most likely to be found using the web as an advertising service. Most law firms with other sorts of specialties that use hosted websites tend to be a little more subtle, stressing the firm’s longevity or stability, its successes and perhaps providing biographies of the firm’s principal members.

There are at least four national listing services for personal injury attorneys, and others for family law, criminal law and so forth. These listing services and much more can be readily found through all the major search engines.

All law firms are faced with the choice of developing a web page to represent their firm. Often this concept goes against the values of more traditional law firms. However the internet is a fast evolving place where information on almost all businesses can be readily found. Law firms will most certainly follow this trend in a bigger way in the future.

Hi, Adam!

My husband and I recently purchased a white German Shepherd. She is 12 weeks old today and quite a handful. Sometimes she can be so sweet, but other times she is actually quite vicious.

Well, I don’t know if vicious is the right word, but when I tell her “No!” she just gets more agitated and lunges at me with her teeth bared.

I got a small pinch collar since she’s a puppy but I have a question as to how it should fit. When I take 2 prongs out it is snug against her neck and I worry about it being too tight. When I only take 1 prong out, it sort of slides down her neck a little bit and she constantly scratches at it and it circles around her neck and doesn’t stay put. Which is the right fit?

She is really a handful and I think the pinch collar is a great tool, but I want to make sure it fits right so as not to cause her any discomfort.

You say in the book that you should be able to slide half a finger in there, but I guess I am just confused as to how you should judge the fit.

Please help! I’m afraid my time is running out to get her to start obeying me. She doesn’t see me as the Alpha dog quite yet and it is very frustrating to be with her for long periods of time. When I say “Duchess, come” she only comes when she feels like it. With the pinch collar, what is the best way to make sure she comes each time I call her? I don’t want to go around yanking on her neck, but at the same time she needs to respect me. Any tips you can give me on making sure she sees me as the boss would be very helpful!

Thanks,

Cassidy

Dear Cassidy:

When I refer to “half a finger space” in regard to the proper fitting of the pinch collar, what I mean is:

- If the average person’s finger is ½ inch wide, then there should be aproximately ¼ inch of space between the end of the prong and the skin of the dog’s neck.

So, why don’t I just say, “1/4 inch of space”? Because it’s easier to judge by sticking your finger beneath the prong than it is to break out your old high school ruler.

Many of you (newsletter subscribers) are no doubt wondering why I would recommend a pinch collar for a puppy. And my answer is: I’m not. At least not for most puppies.

But there are some puppies who will not respond to a simple diversion or verbal, “No.” They will bite and cause puncture wounds on your legs and arms if they are not corrected for this behavior. So, if you’ve tried the other methods for dealing with “puppy nipping” that I’ve outlined in the book, then you’ll need to progress to a small pinch collar. (Also described in the book.)

“But aren’t they too young for a pinch collar?” you’re probably thinking.

The answer is: No.

They ARE too young for formal obedience training. (I.E., Sit, Down, Come, Heel, Stay). [This should start when you see the adult teeth come in... at aproximately 4 to 5 months of age.]

But a puppy SHOULD be corrected for biting… if you’ve found that diverting his attention to a chew toy or another activity is not working.

Why? Because the mother dog would not allow the puppy to bite her. If the pup bites her too hard, she will turn and bite the puppies neck.

From the puppies perspective, THIS HURTS.

But it does not cause damage.

And that’s why the puppy chooses not to bite the mama dog any more. Because it doesn’t feel good.

This is the same reason that it’s okay to correct a puppy for excessively hard biting with the pinch collar. The pinch collar replicates the mama dog.

Trust me on this: I’ve seen 11 week-old Rottweiler puppies and 10 week-old Jack Russell Terrier puppies who had bitten through (literally) their owners fingers with their needle-like teeth. The owners are almost in tears with the idea that they may have to put their puppy to sleep. They’ve tried all the nonsense garbage your read in the dog magazines.

Stuff like shrieking in a high-pitched voice. Or putting the puppy in the crate. Or turning your back on the dog. But none of it works on a puppy who is intent on biting down as hard as he can on your soft, human flesh.

Getting back on course… When you correct the puppy, just use common sense. Simply because your car can accelerate up to 140mph does not mean that you should or need to drive that fast. The same goes for the pinch collar. If you’re an adult and you can employ reason and common sense, then you should be able to tailor the intensity of your correction to appropriately match your dog’s temperament.

How do you do this? You test.

If you correct the puppy for biting, then next you should immediately offer him your hand again. If he immediately bites you again… then you now know that your correction wasn’t meaningful.

That’s all for now, folks!

Adam

We should have a review of our Constitution.

Dalip Singh Wasan, Advocate,

Formerly employment Officer P.E.S. II.

E.Mail. dalipsinghwassan @ Yahoo Co.In.

We must accept that our Constitution had accepted all good items available in Constitutions of other countries and therefore, it is a comperhensive document and shall be guiding us for all the times to come. We have been conducting review and there had been some amendments in this Constitution. Still we need more amendments because uptil now we could not provide that only competent people should come forward in the houses. We could not provide maximum age uptil which they shall be in the houses. It would have been better if people who are more than 70 years age should not be present in the house and we should have abolished all the state level legislative assemblies because one Parliament is enough to represnt us. We are one country and we have got one types of our problems and the situations and conditions are also the same. We have got one nation and when we have a deep look, all the provinces have created so many problems for us. These units have given birth to religious and regional political parties and now these parties are taking more than due place in the centre too. Had there been one Parliament in this country, there were chances that there could have been two to three political parties there were chances that these parties would have taken competent people in them. All and sundary would not have been allowed to enter these two to three parties and there were chances that these parties would have adopted the path of giving us shadow cabinets and we, the people of India would have been given a chance to elect ministers direct. The present system of appointing ministers by the Prime Minister is not healthy because here we are obliged to appoint ministers as their share in the government and merit is no consideration. That is the reason there is no unity in the cabinet and they just work. Since ministers are not appointed on the basis of merits, they are not in a position to hold charge of people working under them. Rather they work under the bureaucracy and in most of the cases orders are passed by the bureaucracy and signed by the ministers. Such government cannot be called a

democracy.

We should think of establishing one Public Service Commission for the whole country and similarly there should be Subordinate Services Selection Board for whole of the country. We should see that the Employment Exchanges are also allowed to function and if candidates appointed through these agencies are found fit their services should be regularised without rooting them thrrough the Subordinate Service Selection Boards. Recruitment to all offices should be made through these agencies and even establishments in private sectors be invited to utilise the services of these organisations. We should not disturb and put into difficulties our unemployed people and they should be tested once and given job as per their performance in the competitive test.

We should abolish all schools and colleges which are estrablished on religious basis and there should be educational institutions as national institutions and none should be allowed to preach his own religion through these institutions. We should limit the religious institutions in the country their numbers be fixed by the state and the state must have an eye on these institution so that they may not be giving birth to fundamentalists who can cause danger to our unity and integrity.

We should have one law for the whole of India so that the people must be in a position to understand law and they also start believing that people of one part are not better placed. Whole of India must be open to all of us and none of the state be allowed to see that people of its own area are getting jobs under the state and people from other states are not allowed to participate in competitions.

We should ensure that each one of us has got proper education, proper training and proper adjustment at work from where each one is carrying adequate income with which he is able to run his family administration. We are more than 100 crore in number and therefore, we need a working force of about 40,00,00,000 and if such an assessment is carried out, we shall be short of workers. There had been some defect in our plannings that we could not develop such a structure in which each one of us should have been at work and none should have been dependant upon others.

We may allow to the people religious libirty, but time has come when we shall have to see that people who are living on charity should not be allowed to increase in number. even to day this number is on higher side and we must try to see that no one is allowed to live on charity alone and everyone should be at work because when a nation has got a large number of people living on charity, more and more people shall be joining this line and thus burdon on working people is increased and this is not a healthy sign. We should have an introspection and must see that this number is decreased.

We should see that people of one religion should not be allowed to concentrate on one place. They must be asked to disperse and locate themselves amongst people of other religions because people of one religion are located at one place, they start demanding something which our Constitution dies notallow. We should have one common civil code in which system of marriage and divorce should be one and similarly we should be having one succession law with us. We should see that the family should be bound to look after the infirm and old people and every child must get proper education and proper training. The nation must look after the child through his or her parents, but none of them should be allowed to go astray.

Till we have one spirit, we shall never become a nation and till we attain the status of a nation all these terrorism and riots shall be hampering our progress and we shall remain a backward country. Therefore, we should see that each one of us must get all these fundamental rightws automatically and is not is compelled to fight for these rights in Courts.

Everyone has heard the old line “there are too many lawyers”.  While this may be true, the next question one must as is…why?  Why is pursuing law such a popular path to follow and what exactly are the benefits and negatives of pursuing a law degree?  In this article I’ll explore the ‘right’ reasons and also some ‘wrong’ reasons to pursue this time consuming and expensive undertaking.

The Love of Law

The first and ‘best’ reason to pursue a Law Degree is of course that you absolutely LOVE the law.  Do you sit up late at night debating controversial legal issues with your friends?  Do you find yourself getting into heated arguments over the right to fair trial of non-citizen combatants in the Iraq war or perhaps the various ethical and legal sides of the abortion issue.  Is your favorite channel C-span or Court TV and is your book shelf full of books about famous legal cases or issues? 

If this sounds like you then you might be law school material.  The best lawyers…and law students have a PASSION for the law.  They don’t look at reading 500 pages of a constitutional law book as work, they relish it.  While there are certainly other good reasons to go to law school, perhaps no other is as good a predictor of success as your love of the subject matter. 

Critical Thinking

One of the often overlooked but perhaps most important skills you learn by attending law school is the development of your critical thinking ability.  The ability to look at an issue from its various sides, do the research to fully understand the intricacies of an issue and the ability to argue and defend your position are incredibly valuable skills that will serve you for the rest of your life in and outside of the law field. 

Many attorneys find that the research and critical thinking skills help them in areas they never even considered from personal relationships to managing employees and building a business.  Of course these skills are crucial in the legal profession itself, but a legal education can be a great exercise in improving one’s ability to handle the complex negotiations of life.

Career Dynamite

Obtaining a law degree can be a tremendous asset when paired with a degree or specialized knowledge in another field.  By using your specific knowledge and experience and having a law degree you then are perfectly tailored to work as legal counsel for a plethora of fields. 

For instance a pharmacy degree paired with a law degree makes you a great asset as counsel in a firm that specializes in pharmaceutical firms.  Architecture, real estate or construction experience teamed with a law degree can make you a great real estate attorney.  The real world experience you possess in the specific field makes you an invaluable asset to law firms that might have top notch attorneys but little hands on, practical experience in that field.

Wrong Reasons

It is very important to be aware of the wrong reasons to pursue a law degree…and there are many.  Some people decide to go to law school because they simply don’t know what else to do.  Besides being an obvious waste of time, most often these people do not end up even working in the legal profession. 

Others want to become an attorney not because they really like law, but because they want the perceived ‘prestige’ that having a law degree attaches.  People that go to law school for this reason tend to have self-esteem issues and are looking to fill a void with the ‘title’ of lawyer even though they really have very little passion for the profession.  They often don’t really know what they want to do and think spending three years in school is a way of either staying out of the ‘real world’ or that they’ll ‘figure it out’ in law school.  Law school is so work intensive that is highly recommended you don’t attend unless you really know you want it for the right reasons.

Finally, there’s the money.  While any profession is ultimately responsible for giving you a pay check, potential law school candidates should be aware that the vast majority of lawyers don’t make gobs of money.  While it is true that if you attend a top, Ivy League school and get into a top firm you can make a very good living, this is really only something that a very small percentage will accomplish.  The big money starts if you make Partner in a firm, which is highly competitive and can take many years.  For those simply looking to make good money, there are other professions that are comparatively easier to accomplish this in finance and banking and without the need to attend law school.  However, if your passion is the law then there are certainly great financial rewards for those that position themselves correctly.  For more great articles and insights please visit www.TopTenLawSchools.com.

Intellectual property (IP) is a catch-all term that covers creations of the mind, or intellect, that are both commercial and artistic in nature.

There are two categories of such property, the first of which includes creative works such as books, movies, music, paintings, photographs and software. These are covered by copyright laws, which offer copyright holders the exclusive right to control the adaptation or replication of the works for a certain statutory period of time.

The second category, known as “industrial properties,” includes those things created for industrial or commercial uses. Patents give the inventor and/or patent holder the right to stop others from using the invention unless they pay a license fee (again, for a certain period of time). Trademarks, also a kind of industrial property, are distinctive signs that reduce the confusion among similar kinds of products.

“Intellectual property rights” includes, as a subset, industrial design rights, and these protect the particular appearance, design, form, style or design of industrial object from various kinds of infringement, such as being cloned, copied or counterfeited. Another type of intellectual property is a trade secret, meaning proprietary, normally confidential information about the commercial products or practices of a business. Disclosing trade secrets to the public without permission is illegal in most jurisdictions.

A short history lesson
If creators of intellectual property were not protected, they would have little incentive to continue researching and developing products for public use, and would tend to keep things secret. Therefore, economic growth in the industrialized nations is, to a large extent, dependent on the protections afforded inventors, writers and artists by IP laws.

According to some economists, some 60-70% of the value of large U.S. corporations is attributable to intangible assets. Even more important is the recent finding by a UN study group that found “a positive correlation” between stronger IP legislation and subsequent growth of the economy. Of course, correlation is not causation, but the observation is an important one. Clearly, the establishment of a legal framework to protect intellectual property is an important step in the maturation of the younger, Pacific Rim economies, as well as the countries of the former Soviet Union.

In point of fact, intellectual property rights are really a simple form of temporary monopoly that is enforced by the government, and subject to the legal proceedings of that government’s judicial system. The more mature and ingrained this outlook is in a nation and economy, the better.

Types of goods
Rights in intellectual property are normally limited to what are called “non-rival” goods, meaning goods that are used by a number of people at the same time, where use by one person neither prevents nor excludes use by someone else. On the other hand, “rival” goods, such as clothing, are used by just one person at a time. By way of analogy, any number of people can use a math formula or a cake recipe simultaneously. This explains some of the objections to the term “intellectual property,” as some legal experts assert that the term “property” can only be applied to rival goods, or that it is not possible to “own” property of any other kind.

Because “non-rival” goods can be copied, for instance, by many people at the same time – in economic terms, “produced at zero marginal cost” – creators have no incentive at all to develop such works. Of course, monopolies also have their own inefficiencies, as some producers will raise prices and reduce production in ways that are not “maximized” for social benefit.

The intellectual property rights system, then, is best thought of as a trade-off, one meant to balance societal interests with monopoly power in the creation of non-rival good. In other words, the developing IP structures encourage research, development and creation of new things, new products, new ideas, and new processes.

Making these trade-offs and strategizing IP issues, as an industry or even a nation, is a daunting task. The best hope we have is that a string of judicial decisions and business actions will chart a course through the confusion. In the meantime, it is important to remember that the existing framework is not set in stone, and is subject to changes both subtle and dramatic. The best advice for those working in this milieu is to have a good lawyer, stay on top of the IP court decisions and document everything – research, rulings, recommendations and, finally, a comprehensive listing of IP rights as they continue to take shape in the U.S. and around the world.

OK, I understand that applying to law school can be a frightening proposition and that you are looking for all the help you can get – and that’s why you are scouring the internet and the book stores for law school personal statement samples.

Well stop it.

You don’t need samples to show you how to write your law school personal statement. Each and every application you are completing tells you exactly what you need to know. The school has defined the rules, including how long the law school personal statement should be, what topics should be addressed, and frequently what topics should be avoided.

But, many ask, shouldn’t I look at what others have done to give me an idea of how to do it? While this is often good advice – and is something I frequently do in my law practice – I fervently believe that it is something that should be avoided when it comes to the law school personal statement.

The main reason you should avoid reading law school personal statement samples is that they all look the same, and you run the very real risk of looking the same if you follow those samples. In every area of life the great reward go to the outstanding people – not the good, or even excellent performers. To be outstanding, you need to do things differently than every one else.

The problem is that everyone is scared to death of screwing up their law school application by not giving the admissions committee what they expect. This kind of thinking probably won’t hurt you, because 99% of the law school personal statements they review are exactly the same. Such thinking will definitely, however, not help you because you cannot be outstanding if you look like everyone else.

Let’s face it, if you are shooting for the moon and trying to get into a law school that is not going to accept you based on your grades and LSAT scores alone, then turning in a bland personal statement isn’t going to do anything for you. You need to do something to set yourself apart, and the personal statement is one of the few areas you have an opportunity to do that.

I’m not recommending that you be crazy and violate the rules set down by the school, but I am recommending that you use those rules as your boundaries and fashion something truly personal, and different. By avoiding the same samples that every one else is reading you stand a better chance of falling in with the sheeple you are competing with.

Your goal is to get into a good law school and its my job to help you achieve that goal. One of the most important pieces of advice I can give is to encourage you to stand out, so make that personal statement yours and not someone elses.

This article may be freely reprinted or distributed in its entirety in any ezine, newsletter, blog or website. The author’s name, bio and website links must remain intact and be included with every reproduction.

My long time friend and mentor H. Jefferson, Jr. is an expert on on law school admission, having applied to and been admitted by 11 of the top law schools in the United States. To learn more about the the techniques and strategies you can use to get into the law school of your choice, visit lawschoolacademics.blogspot.com

Incoming search terms: