1.1: The regulation of Karr’s hair would be an example of the dysfunction of law as it served the interest of a small number of individuals as opposed to the welfare of society. However, the judges argued just the opposite, by stating that hair length was threatening the welfare of society on various levels (distraction, reason for conflict, etc). This type of law falls under the conflict approach to law as it illustrates how the majority group wanted to oppress those who did not agree with the political situation at the time (Vietnam war). Student dress code regulation can be a slippery slope as they can be used to oppress not only difference in political opinion such as in the case outlined above but also have religious considerations in recent years (with places not allowing religious headscarves) as well as moral uproar over females not being allowed clothing too revealing that it would be a distraction for others. I would not give schools power to regulate student dress and would have ruled that Karr be allowed in school with long hair.

1.2:Under the belief of the consensus approach I would say that as a society we all agree that sexual assault is morally wrong. As such, the individuals deserve to be punished for their crimes. Jail/prison time is the sentence that most places impose, yet we also force these individuals to make themselves publically known for their crimes. I do believe to an extent this is justifiable, from the point of view that they might reoffend. However, then we would have to adjust the laws and report other criminals for their crime as well (as there is no link between those who sexually assault to also reoffend more often than others). These laws tell us that as a society we place greater value to some crimes than others, viewing that children need extra protection than adults. 

2.1:I would not grant them clemency because according to sociological jurisprudence it would not be consistent. Others that have been charged with the same crime were not granted clemency. This would give others ideas that this form of behavior is acceptable. According to functionalism the law is supposed to maintain an equilibrium. Clemency would not be serving the purpose of maintaining clemency.

2.2:According to utilitarianism individuals are supposed to maximize positive aspects for the majority of people. Looking at the example of Colorado, after the change in law not only are resources of the state not wasted on enforcing marijuana laws but the taxation is yielding money for the state (which can be viewed as beneficial for the people).

3.1: The Senate should not automatically approve of a president’s nominee as the appointment is for life and there should be more than one person involved in making the decision of who gets to regulate US laws at the court of last resort. This court is used for precedent cases and as such guides much of legal life in the US. Thus there should be more people involved in the election process. It is not wrong to vote for or against someone based on their judicial philosophy as any strong judicial philosophy geared to an extreme can affect the rulings in the cases. The job of US Supreme Court Justices is not to promote their own agenda but interpret the constitutionality of a law and decision.

3.2: Judges could either uphold the law or resign. They could also advise juries about how they should decide on a case. Judges should uphold the law but they should also be in sync with public opinions without being biased. These two ideas can be contradicting at times-is a judge’s role to simply apply the law or is it to also look at aggravating and mitigating circumstances and then reach a decision after considering these outside factors?

4.1: As a young associate in a law firm, I might be tempted to exaggerate my billable hours by saying that more than one person was working on the project. I might also include the hours that were spent to develop the background required to work on a client’s case into the billable hours, despite the fact that there is an understanding that this practice would not be done. Spending time on non-legal  matters pertaining to the case might be another way I would exaggerate my billable hours.

5.1: While the LSAT has shown (especially in combination with undergraduate GPA) to indicate those students that are capable of performing well in the first year of schooling I believe that there are more factors that one should consider when deciding whether to keep the test or not. Primarily, what is the connection between law school performance and later success in the practice of law? One must also consider that standardized tests have shown to discriminate against minority students, thus making them biased in their selection of successful candidates. Finding an alternative, or perhaps relying on more than just LSAT scores might be a more sensible option.

5.2: I do not agree with Tamahana as he is advising individuals to drop out of law school due to poor job prospects. One should consider more than just job opportunities. If an individual is realizing that they are not good at or do not enjoy practicing law, they might want to consider dropping out of law school as it does not serve their purpose. However, if students are simply worried about their job opportunities, they ought not to drop out of school and think of a career change due to better prospects in another field.

5.3:Wanting to cultivate a culture of social responsibility among young lawyers is a noble cause. However, asking aspiring lawyers to invest this amount of time at a period when they are pressed to study for the rigorous examination ahead of them might be too harsh. Requiring this after being admitted to the Bar would be more suitable. 

6.1: One of the reasons this case might have gotten so much coverage is that we are considered a litigicious society and this case might have been used as a good example of just that. Without the knowledge of the severity of the injuries this case sounds like a minor issue in which the complainant is focusing on small details regarding guidelines on how to handle coffee and seemingly attempting to extort money from a large corporation. This might be one reason why it was extensively covered by the media.

As a juror, I would have ruled in favor or Liebeck as the mere possibility of getting such injuries from a cup of coffee is preposterous, especially after knowing that McDonald’s already was aware of the issue with their coffees from numerous previous complaints.

6.2: As a “special master” I would have used the Feinberg formula to calculate the compensation. While one cannot place value on human life, this formula gives room for consideration of those who have remained living (dependent children for example). This compensation was used as a way to shield the airlines as well for they do have liability for safety of passengers. The Oklahoma City bombing and other terrorist acts might not qualify under the same category considering that they happened on public property where there is no guarantee of safety and no contractual obligation to provide safety.

6.3: I do agree that students should be provided with an informal hearing prior to being suspended. Education is a right that children are given and as such should not be interfered with so easily. If there is no procedure to be followed prior to suspension then arguably many officials can abuse the practice and unjustly jeopardize students’ educations. 

7.1: The easiest way to solve this problem would be to provide funding to the public defense office. However, since we do not live in a perfect world, some other solutions might be considered. In the absence of funding options, public defense offices can rely on help from prospective lawyers and practicing lawyers that are behind on their pro bono quota. Law students could be given class credit for devoting time to public defendants or for providing legal services for those who cannot afford a lawyer.

7.2: Prosecutors should most definitely be criminally prosecuted if they break the law. This might influence their decision making in such a way that it can make them think twice before breaking the law. In fact, considering what their profession entails ethically and considering how grave consequences of their misconduct can be, prosecutors should be prosecuted more harshly as they should be held to a higher standard than the average individual.

7.3: The exclusionary rule has positive and negative connotations. I am not opposed to the exclusionary rule as it might not prevent police misconduct but it might have some deterring effect. On the other hand, the exclusionary rule does allow individuals who are guilty of misconduct to escape punishment simply because of a technicality.

7.4: Rap music should not be admissible into evidence due to artistic freedom in creating. While music lyrics do portray stories (fictional or not) they are an artistic performance and as such might bend the truth. Rap music should not be admissible into evidence if the lyrics are alluding to murder because lyrics are not formal confessions and should not be treated as such. 

8.1: I agree with Butler regarding “jury nullification”. While the idea that jurors are expected not to look at the facts of the case but rather to insert their own thoughts suggests promotion of injustice, the criminal legal system is already rather unjust. When we have ample evidence of disproportionate incarceration of people of color and no remedy to the problem, perhaps until one is created, jury nullification can be justified as a substitute.

8.2: There are many things that contributed to the possibly wrongful conviction of Mr. Willingham. While juries are supposed to be impartial in their decision making process, during the trial they were exposed to things that could have clouded their judgment -the testimony of another convict who claimed that the defendant confessed to the crime. Not only may have this swayed the jury’s opinions, it should also not be practiced due to the fact that other convicts might have an incentive to lie about having knowledge pertaining to active cases so that they can reap benefit. Similarly, expert witnesses who have been discredited from their profession should not be allowed to testify in court.

8.3: As a judge I would impose the harshest punishment on these two individuals. They should be given prison time as well as being disbarred and prohibited from practicing law in the future. 

9.1: The government should not attempt to influence individuals’ diets in such a way as the government does not have the right to control our persons. This law would not prohibit individuals from consuming these beverages (as that prohibition is not constitutional) but it would make significant effort into coercing individuals into altering their lifestyle in the direction the government wants them to. Individuals should be allowed to make their own decisions regarding how much food and drink they consume.

9.2: Even under the assumption that criminal behavior is at least partly physiologically determined, we cannot call into question the reliance on legal punishment to deter crime. There are still those instances in which legal punishment does deter crime. Thus it is partly successful. Dugan should have received a longer sentence since the community should be protected from individuals who are likely to reoffend. However, there are many issues with the death penalty for me to come to the conclusion that that is warranted in this (or any) case.

9.3: Considering that obscenity is not constitutionally protected speech I would agree that violent portrayals of women may constitute sex discrimination. While the agenda behind them might be different there is a possibility that it serves that purpose. I would be wary of a local law that prohibits pornographic portrayals of women due to the fact that there is no clear link that they lead to sex discrimination.

9.4: I would not restrict the sale of violent video games to juveniles as there is no definitive evidence that they lead to more violence. However, I do believe that parents have the right to know what their children are consuming. Thus I do believe that warning signs and labels should be made to inform individuals of the level of violence portrayed.

9.5: It makes sense to hold Gupta accountable for his actions (not necessarily prison time). This serves as an example for others who might think of committing a seminal discretion.

9.6: Suicide bombers serve as an example how international violence can be difficult to control with the law. It extends borders and it is used as a coercion tactic that is difficult to control due to the fact that those that are engaged in it have a belief system that makes the practice highly desirable. As such, law cannot control it successfully. The successful suicide bombers cannot be held accountable for their actions, and those that are unsuccessful are already prepared to die, thus any prison sentence would be insignificant for them and would not serve as a deterrent for them. 

10.1: The sudden identification of bullying as a serious problem might be due to the increase in the types of bullying. With the increased use of computers and technology bullying has expanded into cyber space in addition to being a problem that has existed in our communities for decades. This might be one of the reasons why it has suddenly gained so much attention. Bullying can be addressed through laws, if there is an effort put into enforcing them. Schools and the legal system should be involved in bullying resolution rather than giving parents that liberty. If parents were expected to address bullying this could allow for more conflict (between parents or parents and other people’s children).

10.2: Studies should be conducted in those countries that have harsh laws intended to deter distracted driving in order for us to determine whether there is a deterrence factor. The use of phones while driving should be regulated by the law due to the grave consequences of being distracted by phone usage.

10.3: Prosecutorial overreaching is a common practice, so much so that simply going to trial as opposed to agreeing to a plea deal is called the ‘trial penalty’. This coercive tactic might not be completely ethical. However, one cannot hold the government liable for suicide if the individual was not coerced into actually committing that particular crime. 

11.1: Contractually they should be allowed to fire her. However, considering that there are laws against discrimination based on weight, this contract might not be legally binding.

11.2: Donald Sterling was banned for life from the NBA due to the remarks he had made in a public place, where privacy cannot be expected. In order to serve as an example Sterling should be stripped of his team. I agree with the US Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to cancel the protection to the logo as it is disparaging. Racism, no matter how private or subtle, should not be supported or publically endorsed.

11.3:  The law should prohibit discrimination based on economic class. Education ought to provide equal opportunities for students, no matter their socio-economic status.

11.4: Yes, the DREAM act ought to be supported. Undocumented immigrants that were brought to the US while minors should be given the same rights as juveniles are here-juvenile court is built under the principle that looks at what is best for the child. The same should be extended to undocumented immigrants. They should be allowed to enter higher education and have access to loans and grants in order to pursue an education.

11.5: I would convict the father of premeditated and deliberate murder. His reasons for killing his daughter were not something that has occurred over night. In addition, as a parent he is responsible for the well being of his child. By bringing his daughter to the States he himself has agreed to abide by the laws of the state. Murdering someone for adapting to their new environment after being brought there by another cannot be seen as a crime committed in the heat of the moment. 

12.1: As a judge I would not grant the defense of duress simply for the fact that Erdemovic joined the war willingly. However, it is difficult holding an individual accountable if it is more likely than not that they were threatened with death into doing a criminal act.

12.2: While the greater good of the society is important I believe that there should be a balance between sacrificing privacy for security. We have examples all over the world where the idea guided by the principle of greater good for society is being taken advantage of.

12.3: Children that have committed war crimes ought to be charged with them (in juvenile court) if these crimes were not a result of coercion from an early age, which is typically the case with child soldiers.  Otherwise they should receive counseling and therapy for they themselves are victims.

12.4: Yes, it should divert from the fossil fuel industry. Profit that comes at the cost to our planet does no good to the future generations that the universities are claiming to be investing for.

12.5: International law should have enforcement power in order to prevent such developments. As president I would urge allies around the world to sanction and put a stop to this practice in the safest, least destructive manner.

12.6: Torture should not be allowed. Limited torture is still considered torture. There should be a general consensus on what is considered torture and what is not considered torture. With these unified guidelines there would be no reason to have torture warrants. 

13.1: It depends on the clarity of mind of the individual that wishes to have assisted suicide performed. However, the practice does open the door to potential misuse by family members and practitioners.

13.2: Social media sights should be open to all types of postings that are protected by freedom of speech. Students should have the right to use technology in class as long as they are not disrupting the said class. Whether a student decides to pay attention or get distracted is their own issue so long as they are provided with equal educational opportunity what they do during class ought not to matter unless it is disruptive.

13.3: A national identification card sounds like it would simplify everyday activities for many individuals. As such I would have to say that I agree with Elzioni, we should adopt a national identification card as long as there are ways to ensure misuse and fraud.