Unwillful Ignorance

Cases are driving me crazy. I eat, sleep and breath criminal cases. For every act I make, I begin to calculate crazy (often ridiculous) scenarios.

Would I have a criminal intent if....? Would I be making a voluntary act if.....? Would I be acting recklessly or negligently if.....?

For me, assessing rulings for criminal cases is still so volatile. Sometimes I'm right on the money about the issue at stake. Sometimes my thoughts are floating in a sea of brain mush. Thank goodness DJ is a teacher by profession-- commute time often becomes "tutor" time.

There are some students in the class that are so insistent about voicing an opinion on EVERY case. What makes them think they are so special that they should subject us to their opinions on every Supreme Court ruling? One man in particular is beginning to drive me nuts. He uses class discussion as an opportunity to rattle off his resume.

"The reason I'm telling you this is because I have extensive experience in this field." brag, brag, brag. I don't know why the teacher still calls on him. Each time the teacher does, quiet groans are emitted from the rest of the class.

Once he actually told the teacher, "No, you aren't getting the point at all." Talk about cahones... he is wearing his on his sleeve.

Today we were discussing a case involving automated weapons. He decided to enlighten the class about his expertise in guns by rattling off different types of rifles and how they pertain to the particular case. He then continued to outline the major elements of "gun" history since 1994. After hearing him repeat the same thought in five different ways with very similar sentences, I was ready sacrifice my body to oncoming traffic. He is now referred to by most of the class as "gun man". No one wants to make him mad....

I hate nothing more than I hate know-it-alls. Especially when I feel like I know nothing.

Here is a sample sentence from my text book that I re-read eight times before giving up and moving on:

"It is impossible to assert that a crime requiring intention or recklessness can be committed although the accused labored under a mistake negativing the requisite intention or recklessness unless precluding the negative that is required to exculpate."

If anyone speaks this language, please don't hesitate to translate for me.

caution: answers may vary

I come to each class with a list of questions to ask about our reading material. I leave with those questions unanswered and a head full of new questions.

It does not help that the professor poses new questions for us to consider. Giving us a taste of what one of the 50 multiple choice exams questions would be like, Prof. asked:

At the beach, a five year old girl runs into the surf and drowns. Who is more likely to be charged:

a) the lifeguard on duty- who happens to be chatting with a curvaceous blonde.
b) an olympic gold medalist in swimming competition who passes by, notices the girl, but does nothing.
c) the girl's mother who was chastising her older son at that moment and didnt notice the girl run into the ocean.
d) a surf boarder who was riding the wave that the girl ran into and hits her with his board.

We had just been studying "Duty of Care"- when and under what circumstances does someone owe someone else a duty of care? We learned that family relationships are typically the strongest argument for imposing a duty of care onto another.

A couple people shout "c" as the answer.

The surf boarder cannot be found liable because we don't have enough information to covict him. He likely did not notice the girl and it may be unreasonable to say he should have been aware of the possibility as a reasonable person. No relationship or connection to the little girl.

The olympic gold medalist (although a jerk) is not liable either. He may very well have saved the girl with ease. But the law imposes no burden or duty upon him to do so. In a society that prizes individualism and freedom- nothing obligated him to the girl. We don't want it to become precedent that anyone can be charged with murder if they are able to save someone but fail to do so.

The mother very clearly has a duty of care to the girl due to her relationship as mother. The mother was doing her duty as any mother would do. She was performing her motherly duty by chastising her older son. It is unreasonable to hold the mother accountable because for a brief second her daughter wondered off- the mother had reason to expect the girl not to do so in the brief moment she turned away. the mother also probably expected that the lifeguard on duty would be doing his job. By convicting the mother- we would be set the precedent for the government to convict mothers whose children die in accidents. PLUS- the punishment would do no good- it would not deter future behavior, it will not rehabilitate the mother, it will not keep her from harming society, in fact she has suffered enough with the loss of her daughter.

The lifeguard had a contractual duty of care through his job. He had the training and the skills necessary to save the girl. The fact that he was distracted from doing his duty- when a reasonable person would have been doing his job- makes him negligent and liable. As policy we would want lifeguards to take their duty seriously in order to keep beaches safe.

If all this inner thought is required for ONE multiple choice question.....I'm in trouble.

Pure Dicta

DJ is my commute buddy. I was shocked to learn that we are the only ones in our class commuting from the opposite side of the water.

DJ is a stellar example of the type of student that surrounds you in law school. I guess he is in his late thirties with a 16 year old daughter and younger son. He is an eighth grade teacher who wants to study law and eventually open his own alternative school with a friend. It is easy to feel out of place with this kind of peer group.

On the inside, part of me still goes into shock when our professor says the word "sex" or "prostitute" or when we discuss a wide range of sexual activity through the scope of criminal law. The other part of me embraces this bump up on the maturity ladder-- as a law student, I feel people in the real world, as well as my professor and fellow students, will grant me more credibility and respect.

In fact, there is a stigma of prestige in being a law student. People assume you are smart and driven and tend to look upon you with an undeserved admiration. For this very reason, I hate to tell people that I am a law student. If there is anything I hate, it is receiving undeserved admiration or credit.

Individuals begin to pop out in class from the sea of strange faces. By day three I have already identified the students who never run out of opinions to share with the class. There are two types of law students: 1) those who like to dominate class discussion in a way I can only classify as "showing off" and 2) those who sincerely ask questions and make comments in order to learn.

Law classes are a jumble of confusion. You ask the professor a question and he answers with another question. When the professor asks the class a question, all answers case you to second-guess your own opinions.

In law school, there are no answers.

Defining your parameters

I am really glad that I have the opportunity to ease into law school with one summer course.

The first thing I notice when I walk into class is that everyone looks much older than me. Everyone sounds much smarter than me. Eveyone seems ultra-competative. I feel like I have just been cast into the path of a wild buffalo stampede -- kill yourself trying to keep up or be squashed.

My fellow students are strangers. They all seem unusually quick, witty, and sharp-- sharp enough to cut me into pieces in debate. I will not lie, I am scared. I could always expect to get A's in college, but Law School is a game played by different rules- rules I do not know yet.

The room is silent except for the powering on of 70 laptops. Enters Professor. He is not at all what I expected. His face is warm and relaxed with maturity. His steps are guided by a walker-cane with a built in chair, despite the fact that he radiates a jovial energy and enthusiasm. Unbelievable and unexpected that my only source of comfort so far is the professor.

His name is James Bond. He frequently talks about his wife and grown children. With the utmost sense of decency- he can make outrageously inappropriate remarks and suggestions as we analyze criminal cases. "Let's say someone did something illegal to me with my consent- what if I asked you to cook and eat me and you did. You would probably need to add a lot of salt to this old guy....Should that be a crime?"

We ease steadily into the purpose and skills of a legal degree and then discuss the purpose of punishment. He calls on students -- all of whom use words too big for comfort. At the end of class I still feel small, but passionate. I feel a sense of uneasiness, but deep at my core rests a usual inner sense of confidence that assures me there is nothing I can't accomplish if I work hard enough.

Beginner's Luck

My law school experience is off to a positive and exciting start.

Just as I was lamenting the thought of forking over 75 bucks for a USED Criminal Law text book- I find the precious thing listed on e-bay- latest edition and all.

For just 99 cents.

Of course I assume that with two days left of bidding, the price will skyrocket out of control at the very last moment.

Two days pass. The bidding process ends. I am notified. I am the lucky winner of a 99 cent legal text book (boo-yah!).

Although my Criminal Law course will inevitably draw numberous frustrated breaths of hatred, uncountable late nights of reading, and moments where I want to slam my body into a fast-moving Wal*Mart delivery truck- I will experience overwhelming satisfaction every time I flip through the pages of my text book just knowing....

that is cost me LESS than any item on the McDonald's Dollar Menu.