Volume 5, Spring 2008, Issue 3

  • Jennifer Colangelo

    In 2003, the Supreme Court upheld the right of the government to forcibly medicate mentally ill defendants in order to make them competent to stand trial, and created a four- factor test to determine when the state interest in bringing a defendant to trial outweighs the defendant's right to privacy in his own body. Previous cases had already established the government's right to forcibly treat mentally ill individuals – overriding an individual's right to refuse treatment – based on the state's interest in the health, welfare and safety of its citizens. The most recent case, Sell v. United States, gave much more specific guidance about how to balance an individual's rights with a state's interest. View More

     

  • Lalena J. Turchi

    As an employee benefits consultant, I have been exposed to the perils of the health insurance industry in our country. My career requires a commitment to my client, the employer, to structure an employee benefit plan in a way that maintains competitiveness for employees, while maintaining costs associated with offering such benefits. A major portion of my client’s bottom line is dedicated to providing health insurance to its current and prospective employees. I also have a commitment to the employee to maximize the positive impact the participant experiences in utilizing their health insurance benefits. View More

     

  • Christina Kubiak

    Living in a home that is not accessible to a disabled person is like living in a prison cell. Likewise, visiting the home of a friend can contain impossible barriers if you are unable to get your wheelchair in the bathroom door or up a few steps. There has been a long history of physical and mental discrimination to the disabled, whether it is through inaccessible buildings to those in wheelchairs or preventing the disabled from living meaningful lives in society. Despite what people believe, research shows that disabled housing does not cause adverse effects in neighborhoods and does not increase crime. People do not want the disabled living in their neighborhood because they are different and this discrimination is promulgated by stereotypes and misconceptions. The problem doesn’t seem to be getting better as housing discrimination complaints from the disabled increased by eight percent in 2005 and there are an estimated two million situations of housing discrimination occurring each year. According to discrimination reports by Liberty Resources, Inc., the biggest problem results from landlords telling the disabled that they are too disabled to live independently and thereby requiring them to live in their particular housing. Complaints must be filed to identify the discrimination and make changes. However, fear of retaliation, difficulty in filing complaints, and general mistrust of the government often keeps people from filing these complaints. View More

     

  • Anthony J. Vecchio

    New Jersey has long served as a leading state in the gay and lesbian civil rights movement. This trend is most evident in the recent developments of New Jersey courts dealing with the rights of same-sex couples. The most notable recent developments are the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Lewis v. Harris and the legislation that followed. View More

     

  • Andrew J. Hughes

    New Jersey must revamp its Megan’s Law legislation as it applies to juvenile offenders. The New Jersey Legislature hastily enacted its Megan’s Law scheme in 1994 and failed to consider several important differences between adult sex offenders and juvenile sex offenders, including their respective recidivism rates and amenability to treatment. The current legislation violates the substantive component of the Federal Constitution’s Due Process Clause because it infringes upon the fundamental right of juveniles to be free from wide-scale, state- imposed stigmatizations. View More

     

  • Amy Keseday

    The Brown v. Board of Education decision and the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) sit as pillars in our society of education as it stands under the law today. On their faces, both call for equal education. A deeper analysis reveals, however, that the two differ greatly in their approach. And yet, both appear to have had the same result to date, namely, an inability to cure the problem of unequal education amongst students of different races in our country. View More