California Dream Act: Act Two. That’s the guy who did it!...I think?—Eyewitness error. And FilmWeek.
Act two of the California Dream Act
A key California state Senate committee approved AB 131 on Thursday, paving the way for the bill to move forward in the state Senate. The bill, part of the two-bill package known as the California Dream Act, would allow college students who are illegal immigrants and qualify for in-state tuition to apply for Cal Grants and other public financial aid. Governor Jerry Brown signed a companion bill last month which would allow undocumented students to apply for private aid. But based on his statements during an editorial board meeting with the Fresno Bee last week, the Governor, citing concerns over cost controls, would not yet commit to signing this portion of the bill. Many undocumented students were brought here by the parents as children, and have spent their entire lives in our education system. California businesses have complained that there’s a dearth of qualified college graduates coming down the pike, and some hail the Dream Act as a solid investment in the state’s economic future. Do you support this bill as an important step forward for undocumented students in California? Or do you oppose the idea of giving financial aid to these students - especially when the state is in such dire financial straits?
Guest:
Leslie Berestein Rojas, KPCC's Multi-American blogger
That’s the guy who did it!...I think?
For the first time in three decades, the U.S. Supreme Court will consider changing how eyewitness evidence is treated by law enforcement and the courts. Each year, more than 25,000 eyewitnesses wrongfully identify suspects in criminal investigations. That has led to thousands of suspects who have been wrongfully convicted. A plethora of research illustrating eyewitness error has poured in from academia over the last 20 years. Still, the courts have yet to put the new knowledge into practice. In fact, judges, lawyers and jurors give more weight to eyewitness testimony than other trial evidence. In 1981, Justice William Brennan quoted a leading study that said there is nothing more powerful “than a live human being who takes the stand, points a finger at the defendant, and says, ‘That’s the one!’” Those words are backed up by numerous studies illuminating the significant sway eyewitness testimony holds over jurors. Still, researchers contend that the testimony – in all its power – is highly unreliable, especially when one witnesses a crime that occurred quickly. So what kind of witness IDs warrant a closer look by judge and jury? The Court will weigh that soon in Perry v. New Hampshire. How should police treat eyewitnesses right after a crime has occurred? What about when they’re looking at a line-up? Of course, some eyewitness testimonies are completely accurate, so how should such evidence be weighed at trial? What type of ruling from SCOTUS could clear this up in practice? Why aren’t judges doing it already?
Guests:
Kirsten Dauphinais, Associate Professor of Law at University of North Dakota
Kathy Pezdek, Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate School; Head of the Cognitive Psychology Specialization
FilmWeek: Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, Colombiana, Our Idiot Brother, Higher Ground and more
KPCC film critics Tim Cogshell and Wade Major join guest host David Lazarus to discuss this week’s films including Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark, Colombiana, Our Idiot Brother, Higher Ground and more. Also, KPCC critic Peter Rainer will be calling in from New York to discuss his recent trip to the Montreal Film Festival.
Guests:
Tim Cogshell, film critic for KPCC and Box Office Magazine
Wade Major, film critic for KPCC and BoxOffice.com
Peter Rainer, film critic for KPCC and Christian Science Monitor
Is Hollywood taking fright films too far?
Director Guillermo Del Toro says the 1973 telefilm version of Don’t Be Afraid of the Dark is “the scariest movie” he saw as a kid. This might deter some from ever wanting to see it again. In Del Toro’s case, it made him want to be part of the remake. So the filmmaker, who is best known for his acclaimed films Pan’s Labyrinth and Hellboy, co-wrote and produced the new version, which comes out this week. The film isn’t meant for children, but it is about evil creatures that haunt a young girl, her father and his girlfriend. On the other hand, the Harry Potter franchise is largely aimed at kids. Those films, which began with Harry Potter and the Philosopher's Stone (2001) and culminated with Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows – Part 2 (2011), arguably grew darker and darker as they rolled out. This raised concerns among some parents that they might not be appropriate for kids. The much anticipated The Hunger Games, based on the popular book and set for a 2012 release, features young adults fighting for their lives in a dystopian future. All this begs the question: are movies aimed at children getting scarier and scarier? Or have they always been scary? What movies scared the be-jeepers out of you when you were a kid? Should parents allow children to see such haunting movies? Or are kids capable of judging for themselves just how much darkness they can handle?
Guests:
Tim Cogshell, film critic for KPCC and Box Office Magazine
Wade Major, film critic for KPCC and BoxOffice.com