We take a look at the Supreme Court's 2016 term - high profile criminal cases, questions about racial bias, and the still empty seat after the late Justice Antonin Scalia; two lawyers discuss the ethics and legality behind releasing rape accusers' names in court; what Prop 65, 67 and 57 mean for California's ballot; Plus, why we don't talk to strangers on the subway and one group campaigning for a change.
Supreme Court 2016 term: Criminal appeals, racial questions, one empty chair
In a rare departure from recent years, the Supreme Court will hear several appeals focused on criminal prosecutions within the first weeks of its new term.
Among the high profile criminal cases is Buck v. Davis. Stemming from Texas, the originating death penalty trial included an expert witness, presented by the defense, who said black men are more likely to present a risk of future danger. The high court is being asked to consider whether Buck may challenge his death sentence based on the ineffectiveness of his trial lawyer.
The court will also weigh racial bias among jurors in Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado. Plus, the standard for mental competency in death penalty cases will be argued in Moore v. Texas.
Recently granted cases include Lee v. Tam, which features a rock group known as The Slants whose right to patent their name is being challenged because of the corresponding racial slur, and Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District in which parents want a higher level of free education for their autistic child.
Guest:
Margaret Russell, Professor of Law at Santa Clara University. Her areas of expertise include constitutional law and the Supreme Court
Lawyers debate ethics, legality of releasing names of rape accusers in court
A woman who has anonymously accused NBA player Derrick Rose of sexually assaulting her in Los Angeles three years ago will have her name made public in court.
A federal judge ruled Monday that the woman, who filed suit under the name ‘Jane Doe,’ that her name would be put on record in the courtroom. “The public does, of course, have some interest in [her] true identity, especially in light of the publicity surrounding this action,” U.S. District Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald wrote in his ruling. “The public has an equally strong interest, however, in encouraging victims of sexual assault to bring claims against their assailants.”
It’s not uncommon for plaintiffs to file complaints anonymously, and in the past judges have allowed certain people in certain types of cases to remain unidentified during trial. But keeping the accusers’ name secret is difficult, especially considering how fast information spreads and that the Internet isn’t necessarily bound by the same rules as major news organizations, which usually don’t release the names of rape accusers. In this case, the argument is complicated even more by Rose’s celebrity status as a pro athlete. The accuser and her attorneys worry that if her name were made public, Rose’s fans might harass or even threaten her and her family.
The allegations stem from a night in August 2013 during which the accuser says Rose and two of his friends drugged her, then drove to her apartment after she left and had sex with her while she was incapacitated. Rose and the other two men say they did have sex, but that it was consensual.
Guests:
William Weinberg, criminal defense lawyer based in Irvine, California
Laura Dunn, Esq., victims’ rights attorney and executive director of SurvJustice, an organization based in Washington, D.C. advocating justice for survivors of sexual assault
SoCal Colombian-Americans react to a defeated FARC peace treaty
The peace deal between the Colombian government and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC, was voted down on Sunday, despite previous polls which showed approval of the treaty.
A treaty was signed last week between Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and FARC leader Timoleon Jimenez. It was the focus of much controversy because of how it handled the treatment of FARC members. Other members of the group would be given alternative punishments to incarceration under the deal, if they confessed to war crimes. The terms are largely what caused a rift among Colombian voters, leaving a narrow margin with 50.2 percent opposed to the deal and 49.8 percent in favor of it.
So what happens now, and how are Colombians and Colombian Americans in SoCal reacting? Larry Mantle speaks to Gimena Sanchez of the Washington Office on Latin America and Julia Symmes Cobb, a reporter in Bogotá, to get an inside perspective on the outcome of the vote.
Guests:
Julia Symmes Cobb, Bogotá-based freelance journalist; she co-wrote the recent New York Times article, “Colombia peace deal defeated, leaving a nation in shock”; she tweets
Gimena Sanchez, senior associate for Colombia and Haiti at the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), a research and advocacy organization for human rights in the Americas; she tweets
CA ballot breakdown: Props 65, 67 duel over plastic bags, plus what Prop 57 could mean for prisons
Plastic grocery bags have long been a topic of debate in California.
Currently, under SB 270, they are banned from being given to customers at major retailers throughout the state. However, two propositions on this November’s ballot could potentially change what happens to the money collected from selling carry-out bags, or even repeal the ban altogether.
Proposition 65 leaves the plastic bag ban in place and goes a step further in stipulating that money collected from the sale of bags at grocery stores (i.e. the 10 cents you pay when you forget to bring your reusable bags) would go to a fund that would be managed by the state Wildlife Conservation Board, and could be used for things like recycling, litter pick-up, and even drought mitigation.
Proposition 67, meanwhile, is a referendum on the plastic bag ban, with a ‘yes’ vote being in support of upholding the ban and a ‘no’ vote in support of repealing it. Even though both measures appear on the ballot, only the proposition that has the most support will be enacted.
Also on the November ballot will be Proposition 57, an initiative backed by Governor Jerry Brown that, if passed, would give inmates more parole and good behavior opportunities. It would also shift the responsibility of deciding whether to charge a juvenile as an adult from prosecutors to judges. It, like Prop 47, is designed to lower the number of inmates in California’s overcrowded prisons, but opponents say the measure isn’t well-drafted and would let people in prison for crimes like rape or human trafficking to be released early.
Today on AirTalk, we’ll break down each of these three measures and tell you who’s supporting the props, who isn’t and why.
Guest:
Marisa Lagos, reporter for KQED’s California Government and Politics Desk
Why we don’t talk to strangers and how one campaign is trying to change that
Londoners traveling on the city's often overcrowded Underground subway system are not known to be particularly outgoing, but there's a campaign afoot to change that.
An unidentified group is giving out Tube Chat badges encouraging people to strike up conversations with their fellow passengers. They've already earned the ire of Transport for London, which said it is unhappy that the group has appropriated the Underground's official logo on the badges without permission. The badges are being distributed with a flyer stating people will benefit from a daily chat.
"I do think that talking with strangers, when it’s voluntary and situational, is a great thing, says Kio Stark, who describes herself as a 'stranger enthusiast.' "It has emotional benefits for the individuals who are talking. It can have social benefits for the public good as people come to greet each other and think of each other as more human, the more we interact with one another."
Stark adds, however, that no one likes to be told what to do, and she thinks that a campaign like this might come off as somewhat tone-deaf in London because the English have a different relationship with public interaction than Americans do.
Behavioral psychologist Susan Weinschenk thinks it could be hard to make this work in an urban setting where there are constantly lots of strangers.
"First of all, you’re going to have to be constantly thinking about what kind of interaction it’s going to be. Should you smile? Should you look at them or not look at them? It uses up a lot of resources in your brain to have to do this."
Weinschenk and Stark both say that another obstacle is how certain people view and value what they see as their alone time on the subway or bus ride home, and worry that making people feel obligated to talk with strangers instead of just listening to music or reading a book could disrupt social norms and create awkwardness.
AirTalk listener Edda in Hollywood Hills says she talks with strangers all the time and never gives it a second thought.
"I’m from Europe, and I used to do it there. I talk to people on the elevator, I will compliment women, I will comment on men. I talk to people when I’m standing in line and it’s always something positive or funny, and everyone walks away smiling and waving. I’ve never come across anything but positive feedback!”
Emily in Silver Lake, however, called to share some skepticism about how successful this campaign would be.
"I think talking should be such a natural habit and I don’t think we need to wear a badge. The badge we wear is our body language. If somebody is facing open to you and their chin is up, you can strike up a conversation easily. I think having a forced campaign is doing the opposite of what we want to do, which is be humans."
Then, there are those like Anne in Sherman Oaks, who called to say that for her, silence is golden.
"I’m a highly-sensitive introvert. There’s 20-30 percent of us in the country that are like that. I actually feel that the world is already way too social and way too loud. To have something like this campaign implemented would be horrific for me."
Instead of a badge and a campaign, Weinschenk offers up a couple of other suggestions for ways to increase stranger interaction.
"I think instead of the badges, what I’d be more inclined to try is one of two things: one is to actually have things happen, like music, an event, or a performance that everyone is experiencing and might want to talk about together. Or, why not do an augmented reality like Pokemon [Go], you know? You could do electronic badges.”
Would you participate in a campaign like this? When are you open to talking with strangers and when are you not?
*With Files from AP
Guest:
Susan Weinschenk, a behavioral psychologist and author of How to Get People to Do Stuff; she tweets
Kio Stark, self-described stranger enthusiast and author of the forthcoming book, When Strangers Meet; She writes, teaches, and speaks around the world about stranger interactions; she tweets