travisk811

Day 7: The Legislative Assembly

Today, we visited the legislative assembly and watch the senators of the judiciary committee debate three bills. The first two were minor corrections to previous laws that would make them easier to implement without disrupting the already established norms in those areas. Each of these bills passed without opposition. However, the next bill was a different story.

We learned of a change to the schedule of the judiciary committee 45 minutes before the actual meeting. They decided to push off two bills and add an abortion bill (a bill that would limit abortions based on sex, disability, and race) to the list, which was a surprise to Professor Markham and even the staff themselves. There were many tear-jerking testimonies about the bill, but it seemed that there was no debate from the senators. One senator strongly opposed the bill, but no one argued with her. I later found out that she was the only one that opposed the bill, so no one bothered to defend the bill against her criticisms. I found this very interesting and learned that senators do not always want a confrontation and sometimes even look to avoid a direct confrontation with one another.

-Travis

Days 5+6

I grouped these days together because they served the same purpose. I finalized my research and got ready to present my findings to Professor Markham and to speak to a think tank employee on Wednesday. During these two days, I formalized many questions about Senate Bill 300 and reached the pinnacle of my understanding of the bill. I also made notes on each of the sources I looked at so far to make sure that I was ready to talk in-depth to anyone we might meet at the legislative assembly and Professor Markham. To make sure I didn’t miss anything, I reread Senate Bill 300, and I realized I missed an entire provision that threw my own thinking out the window. A clause provided that a study in California in 2015 would be proof of the efficacy of SBM technology. In essence, the legislative branch is effectively legalizing the study’s findings and discrediting findings with opposite/opposing conclusions. I found this to be worrisome about the constitutionality of the bill, which I want to bring up on Wednesday.

-Travis

Day 4: Extensive Research

Today, we spent more time looking at Senate Bill 300, increasing our knowledge of state law, and learning about the intrinsic nature of rulemaking. I finished my research on the constitutionality of SBM monitoring, so I needed to take a step back, go back to Senate Bill 300, and come up with some more things to look at and research. Instead, I came up with more questions:

The first: How do criminal defendants not show up to court?

I was stunned that Senate Bill 300 touched on a problem I thought would have been fixed throughout the centuries of the North Carolina legislature. This loophole made me realize that Congress has to think about and set up each and every scenario possible for each law they make. Consequently, being in Congress is stressful and tiring, as members have to deal with individualized cases on a day-to-day basis. No one can think of everything, which is made apparent by the many loopholes in the system.

The second: How do early warning systems (a compilation of complaints, discharging of their firearm, vehicle collisions, and use of force against a police officer) limit the misconduct of police officers?

Although there is some research on the usage of early warning systems, no extensive and expansive research has been conducted. In one study, complaints against police officers went down from 2 per year to 1.5 per year. A 25% decrease in complaints is a good indicator of the success of the program, but a decrease in complaints does not show the complete picture. Long-term research needs to be conducted before my question can be answered.

The third and final question: How are the qualifications for becoming a police officer differ throughout the state of North Carolina?

All officers have to go through BLET (Basic Law Enforcement Training) but some are subject to mental health tests and other types of tests to ensure the safety of citizens, while other officers are not. This difference is key when determining the likelihood of an officer using deadly force when it was not required. These tests are administered by municipalities, but they all have different qualifications, making it hard for the state to determine who is a well-trained police officer and who is a civilian with no training carrying a badge.

-Travis

Day 3-More Research

Today, we did individualized research on a topic of our choice. My topic was the constitutionality of SBM (Satellite Based Monitoring) for people on parol in North Carolina. I looked through many documents pertaining to the 4th Amendment, specifically the searches and seizures clause, and the 8th amendment, specifically the cruel and unusual punishment clause. On one side, people argue that the SBM technology is cumbersome and infringes on the right to privacy given by the 4th Amendment. On the other side, people argue that the SBM technology prevents people on parol from committing another crime, which reduces the overall capacity of jails and fixes the nationwide problem of a growing prison population. While researching, I came across Professor Markham’s old blog posts at UNC Chapel Hill, which really helped me understand the topic better and learn more about SBM technology. Overall, the research that I did helped me understand that there are so many different regulations and laws in North Carolina, which are sometimes obscure, but always important to the safety of citizens.

-Travis

Day 2 Research

Today, we had no formalized meeting. Instead, we researched a specific section of Senate Bill 300. I focused on the satellite monitoring of recidivists and the benefits and detriments that satellite monitoring has on people on probation. Although complex, it seems that satellite monitoring is in an early developmental stage with limited use throughout the states. Some people believe that the devices infringe on the rights of prisoners, while others believe that the device will stop people from committing another crime while on parole. However, satellite monitoring has been successful in other ways, like helping the coast guard stop illegal fishing and preventing criminals from escaping the coast guard. In tomorrow’s research, I will be focusing more on the constitutionality of satellite monitoring, which is a very important part of Senate Bill 300!

-Travis

Day 1 Continued

Today, we also learned the nuances of the legal system, including some Latin terms, legal definitions, and some broad terms. Here is a list:

Res judicata (claim preclusion): A Latin term for ‘a matter decided,’ which means that a criminal or civil court case can not have an appeal because that specific type of case has already been dealt with by the courts. Today, Professor Markham stated that over 700 sex offenders have appealed to the courts about the use of satellites to monitor them. A judge will not want to hear all the cases, and will generally give a ruling that gives a ruling to all of them.

Recidivist: Someone that has committed more than one crime. In North Carolina, along with many other states, the more crimes you commit, the longer the prison sentence is. For simplicity, North Carolina has a table that lists the punishment for each level of crime (low-level misdemeanors to 1st-degree murder) and the severity of the sentence for each crime you commit.

Legislative Compromise: A compromise between members of Congress to pass legislation. For example, Senate Bill 300’s main focus is to reform the policing system in North Carolina and make people feel safer. However, the bill also explains that rioters should get harsher punishments, which has nothing to do with the overall focus of the bill. Professor Markham explained that members of the legislator will put random things into a bill to make it more acceptable for other members of Congress.

-Travis