Free and fair elections are the cornerstone for America’s democracy. In the last several election cycles there has been a prominent shift resulting in the introduction of legislation that places limitations on citizens’ most fundamental right. Restrictions implemented across the nation include shortening or eliminating early voting, repealing same day election registration and limiting registration drives, eliminating polling places, and perhaps the most taxing, requiring government-issued photo identification in order to cast a ballot. Currently there are over 30 states that require some form of proof of identification to be shown before a ballot is cast.[ii] The core problems with the voter ID laws are that they often place unnecessary obstacles on the voter without addressing any real problems; they disenfranchise legitimate voters, burden those with the least resources, and violate protections in national and state constitutions. These laws vary state-to-state and legal challenges have ensued across the country. One of the strictest was Arkansas’s Voter ID Law, Act 595 of 2013 that was declared unconstitutional weeks before the November 2014 election. In response to the decision, some legislators in Arkansas have vowed to push for ID requirements again.[iii]

The Voter ID Law in Arkansas was a reincarnation of similar bills that were not passed in prior legislative sessions. In 2013, the Republican controlled General Assembly passed the bill, which was vetoed by the Governor and then overrode the veto.[iv] The law, enacted January 1, 2014, required voters to show specific kinds of identification in order for their vote to count. Voters at the polls were required to present an Arkansas state or U.S. government issued photo ID with the voter’s full name. Absentee voters were required to send with each ballot a copy of a photo ID or other current document that showed the voter’s name and residential address, such as a utility bill, bank statement, or paycheck. Arkansas was one of only three states that required a strict proof of identity when casting an absentee ballot and the law had very few exemptions.[v]

The American Civil Liberties Union of Arkansas and Arkansas Public Law Center filed a lawsuit in April 2014 on behalf of four Arkansas voters challenging the constitutionality of the Voter ID Law and asking that it be enjoined. Violation of the Arkansas Constitution was the basis for their legal challenge of the Voter ID Law and two theories were asserted: (i) that it added a qualification to voting and (ii) that it impaired the right to vote. A hearing on the motion for injunctive relief was held May 2. The court ruled that the law was facially unconstitutional as it added a qualification to voting over and above those qualifications set forth in the Arkansas Constitution. The case was appealed to the Arkansas Supreme Court. On October 15, 2014 the Arkansas Supreme Court unanimously declared the Voter ID Law unconstitutional for adding an unconstitutional qualification for voting.[vi]

The Arkansas Constitution specifically outlines the necessary qualifications for voting, yet under the Voter ID Law, voters who met all the qualifications were still disenfranchised because they did not possess necessary ID. The Arkansas Constitution, unlike many other states, specifically prohibits the state legislature (or any power, civil or military) from burdening the right to participate in free and equal elections.[vii] With the Arkansas Supreme Court decision, the Voter ID Law was struck down and election officials were advised to follow the procedures prior to the enactment of the Voter ID Law, which require poll workers to ask for ID but allows voters to still cast a regular ballot if they do not have or choose not to show ID.[viii]

Secretary of State Mark Martin, an avid supporter of the Voter ID Law as well as one of the defendants in the case, stated that he was exploring all options with lawmakers about addressing the ruling, including legislative remedies and proposing a constitutional amendment requiring Voter ID for the 2016 elections.[ix] Despite studies that show voter ID laws are harmful, nationwide they are largely popular among the public. Surveys show that 70% of voters support some form of voter ID requirements.[x] This support stems from beliefs that Americans need an ID to participate in most activities and voting should not be the exception, that there are people voting who are not supposed to be voting, and that obtaining an ID is not difficult. Voters must already identify themselves and have their identities verified when they vote, though not always via photo ID and the other beliefs are also easily countered by facts described below.

When the Arkansas Voter ID Law was passed, the stated purpose was that it is needed to protect the integrity of elections and prevent election fraud.[xiii] However, national studies show that in-person voter fraud is virtually non-existent across the nation, and in Arkansas, not a single instance has been cited.[xiv] Arkansas requires verifications of voters’ identities before they are ever allowed to register.[xv] Several existing laws and checks on election process are in place in Arkansas that provide criminal penalties for voter impersonation and falsifying information.[xvi] Nationally, an investigation found a total of 10 cases of voter impersonation in the country since the year 2000. With 146 million registered voters in U.S., that is one out of fifteen million prospective voters.[xvii] In context, someone is 20 times more likely to be struck by lightning in the U.S. this year than for a single case of voter impersonation to occur in a nationwide election.[xviii] In his veto message, Governor Beebe highlighted the fact that there has been no credible study of election fraud or voter impersonation in Arkansas that would support the law.[xix] The handful of cited instances of fraud were not in-person voter fraud or impersonation but illegalities committed by candidates, election officials, or absentee ballot bearers, none of which were addressed by the Voter ID Law. Therefore, the need for this law is not only unwarranted but also irrational as it does nothing to prevent or address the types of election fraud that have occurred in Arkansas.

Voter ID laws burden those with the least amount of resources. In Arkansas, only a handful of elections took place during the ten month implementation, but well over a thousand voters were disenfranchised due to the law.[xx] It is estimated that 11% of voting age American citizens do not have current government-issued photo ID and in particular communities or populations, such as low-income, racial and ethnic-minorities, women, people with disabilities, and seniors, this percentage is even higher.[xxi] Government issued IDs are costly and the process of obtaining an ID is confusing and cumbersome. These particular groups are largely affected due to their lack of access, both financially and systematically, to photo ID. Some voters fall into a catch-22: in order to obtain an Arkansas ID they need to show documents that verify their full legal name such as a birth certificate, but obtaining a certified copy of a birth certificate requires a government issued photo ID.[xxii] Further, the Department of Finance and Administration, which issues state ID cards and driver’s licenses, has restricted availability as they are closed on weekends, have limited hours, limited locations and are often inaccessible by public transit even in cities that have public transit available. Arkansas only spends $1.38 per capita on public transportation and voters who reside in rural areas may be forced to travel over an hour roundtrip to obtain an ID.[xxiii]

During the passing of the Voter ID Law, the Arkansas General Assembly did not budget or appropriate any funds for education and outreach nor did the legislation require voter notification of the new ID requirements.[xxiv] Legislative reasoning for not appropriating money for education was that the law would have been criticized for expenditures on advertising and public education.[xxv] In his veto, Governor Beebe stated the law was going to burden taxpayers in future years. “At a time when some argue for the reduction of unnecessary bureaucracy and for reduced government spending, I find it ironic to be presented with a bill that increases government bureaucracy and increases government expenditures, to all address a need that has not been demonstrated.”[xxvi] Voter education and outreach strategies used in other states include video advertisements and public service announcements, radio and other broadcast media, direct mailings to voters, print advertisements, and internet-based information. The following is a list of states and proposed budgets for educating voters about the changes in one fiscal year: Indiana $600,000 (spent 1.6 million from 2005-2009), Minnesota $2.7 million, and Missouri $3.9 million in 2012 and $5.1 million in 2013.[xxvii]

Taking steps to protect voters and the integrity of our elections should be a priority for legislators across the nation. Appropriate and well considered regulations that promote free, fair, and equal elections are essential. However, the Voter ID Law and other restrictive legislation are not fulfilling this need. These laws are unnecessary as they do not address any real problem; they disenfranchise legitimate voters, and burden those with the least resources. Voting is a fundamental right that protects all other rights and the government should encourage people to vote, not create larger barriers, muddling a process about which many people are already apathetic.

[i] Jillian Fisher was born and raised in Topeka, Kansas, and received a Bachelor’s Degree in Sociology from Washburn University in 2010. She graduated from the Clinton School of Public Service in Little Rock, Arkansas in 2013 where she received a  Master’s in Public Service.  Her work and studies have focused on research, advocacy, and public policy on various social justice and human rights issues. Fisher assisted the ACLU of Arkansas in its challenge and defeat of Arkansas’s Voter ID Law by implementing effective advocacy, outreach, and education efforts.
[ii] (accessed Oct. 31, 2014).

(accessed Oct. 16, 2014).

[iv] .

[v] (accessed Oct. 31, 2014).

[vi] Martin v. Kohls, 2014 Ark. 427 (2014).

[vii]

[viii] (accessed Oct. 16, 2014).

[ix] (accessed Oct. 16, 2014).

[x]

(accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xi] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xii] Id.

[xiii] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xiv] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xv]

[xvi] Ark. Code Ann. §§7-1-103 and 104; 42 USC § 1971i (c) and (e); Ark. Code Ann. §7-5-305.

[xvii] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xviii] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xix] . (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xx] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xxi] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xxii] (accessed Sept. 24, 2014): (accessed Sept. 24, 2014).

[xxiii] (accessed Oct. 31, 2011).

[xxiv] ,

[xxv] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xxvi] (accessed Sept. 23, 2014).

[xxvii] ;  ; (accessed Oct. 31, 2014).

The post Voter ID Laws: Unnecessary Burden of Our Most Fundamental Right appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

My friend and I had somehow gone an entire day without paying a bribe. We were riding across Zanzibar, Tanzania on motorcycles and assumed that we would be easy targets for the notoriously corrupt police force. Sure enough, a police officer flagged us down towards the end of our journey and proceeded to explain why we owed him money for pulling over on the wrong side of the road. I felt as though the officer was being unethical in that I was being used as a means to an end and that I had my freedom greatly restricted in the process. In addition to this, I felt as though this officer had reduced the overall welfare of the island of Zanzibar. I would likely curtail my spending in the local economy to make up for the unexpected loss and had formed a slightly less positive opinion of Zanzibar culture in response to this act of corruption. The repercussions of this corrupt act are still being felt – you, the reader, are currently making your own judgments about Zanzibar that may or may not have negative impacts down the line.

While not all acts of corruption are as cut and dry as bribery from a state official, this example does stress the multifaceted ethical impermissibility of corruption. Michael Sandel explores different faces of justice and ethical permissibility in his book Justice: What’s the right thing to do? To do this, Sandel filters the most relevant literature and theorists into three fairly broad themes: welfare, virtue, and freedom (Sandel, 2009). This paper explores the issue of corruption using the same demarcations to address whether corruption could be ethically permissible within any of these three frameworks. After concluding that only radical libertarian ethics could possibly permit corruption, this paper offers solution that fit within each of Sandel’s three ethical categories. Finally, suggestions for effectively and ethically reducing corruption in modern society are drawn from the available solution space.

Definition

Corruption is the misuse of power for personal gain. Typically, this power comes from public office and most definitions of corruption reflect this commonality. Gray and Kaufmann, as quoted in Everett, Neu & Rahaman, argue that corruption is the “misuse of public office for private ends or private gain” (Everett, Neu & Rahaman, 2006). This definition is limiting, however, and should be expanded to those who hold private office. Is insider trading – using private knowledge and power for private gain and public loss – not corrupt? Expanding the definition of corruption makes it easier to address the ethical parameters of corruption without becoming disoriented in the individual nuances and manifestations of the phenomenon.

Ethical Framework: Welfare

Sandel’s welfare approach is essentially consequentialism; the notion that every decision should be made in light of the potential consequences (Sandel, 2009). In this ethical framework, the ends can justify the means if the action passes a cost-benefit analysis and it is clear that it served the “greater good” (Sandel, 2009). Sandel invokes the utilitarian theorists John Stuart Mill and Jeremy Bentham to illustrate this ethical conception.

Corruption rarely passes the utilitarian examination of a welfare-based ethical perspective. According to utilitarian scholars, an action is morally permissible if the resulting consequences create more benefit than cost, more happiness than sadness, or more pleasure than pain (Sandel, 2009). In examining corruption, then, the question becomes whether or not corruption is worthwhile on the “greater good” scale. Most scholars who operate in this utilitarian framework – particularly economists – attempt to approach the topic of corruption using empirical evidence. Through complex calculations and measurements, economists intend to prove that the overall impact of corruption is either beneficial or detrimental. If it were to be beneficial, then it would be deemed ethically permissible.

In Selcuk Akcay’s perspective, this divides the relevant scholars between efficiency enhancing and efficiency reducing factions. While Akcay acknowledges that arguments have and can be made in either group, his empirical collection and analysis of human development data as it relates to corruption indices shows that corruption is most often negatively associated with human development (Akcay, 2006). In most of the 63 countries observed there was a pattern that greater corruption levels correlate with slower human development rates. This was true regardless of status in the global economy; both developed and developing nations of varying economic strength were measured. The correlation seen in this study is strong, but the author wrongfully invokes causality in this study by claiming that “corruption in all its aspects retards human development” in the last sentence (Akcay, 2006). This cannot be drawn from the data – it could just as easily prove to be the case that sluggish human development, caused by other factors, creates corruption. As other scholars argue, corruption can actually be both the cause and the effect  (Everett, Neu & Rahaman, 2006).

Corruption will rarely result in “greater good” outcomes because it represents an equilibrium that lacks pareto efficiency. Pareto efficiency is a term borrowed from game theory, the field of study that explores decision-making when dealing with multiple imperfectly rational and self-interested individuals. Pareto efficiency occurs when the involved individuals or groups reach a stable outcome that creates the greatest possible overall good. One of the most famous thought experiments in game theory, the prisoner’s dilemma, occurs when there is an incentive to choose an option other than cooperation. In other words, while there is a benefit to cooperation, there is an even stronger benefit for that person to defect if the other cooperates. Unfortunately, because the actors in the dilemma cannot communicate with one another, they will almost always end up in a situation that is worse off for all parties involved – one that lacks pareto efficiency (Dixit & Nalebuff, 2010).

To use a practical example, it is widely known that traffic would flow much quicker without people changing lanes. Whenever traffic gets dense, drivers begin shifting lanes more often to try to find the lane that offers the fastest commute. Unfortunately, everybody else is also looking for the fastest lane and is switching at the same time. Not only does this decrease overall happiness by frustrating individual commuters, it also creates a slower commute for all individuals involved in this large-scale prisoner’s dilemma. If everyone were to stay in their own lane, it is likely that the average driver would arrive at their destination faster.

This is corruption. If everyone were to cooperate and be entirely lawful and just in their actions and interactions, it is likely that the utilitarian “greater good” would be improved. Instead, we are left with an outcome lacking pareto efficiency due to a personal incentive (or even need, as will be discussed in later sections) to defect and perform a corrupt act. This person then has the advantage over others, creating an inequality that fosters a system expecting corruption, thereby creating greater incentive to be corrupt because cooperation is not trusted or recognized. Eventually, the social contract disintegrates as the trust between state and citizen erodes.

Social contract theory, most famously explored by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, takes the principles explored in game theory and applies them to the modern nation-state. In order to escape the “state of nature” and rise above it in a just and civilized society, the citizenry must have a government structure that is for and by the people (Friend, 2004). Each individual relinquishes the same freedoms for the sake of an orderly and safe existence but is also expected to submit to the same restrictions (Friend, 2004). According to Rousseau, the only way to have a virtuous social contract is for these restrictions to apply to those in public office and people with authority as well. When it doesn’t, as is the case with most forms of corruption, then it is appropriate and expected of the citizenry to hold the government accountable. The French interpreted this virtue as cause for revolution – a more modern democratic approach would be to vote out the corrupt and vote in the righteous. The bitter injustice of corruption is that reform is not quite this easy. The corrupt remain in office through fraudulent elections and cronyism. The righteous tend to disappear.

Ethical Framework: Virtue

If corruption fails to meet the virtue-based stipulations of a just society, it holds even less water when each act and actor is examined using Emmanuel Kant’s categorical imperative. The categorical imperative suggests that a moral agent should consider if the action is universalizable – that if everyone adopted the action it would not lead to a worse off condition (Sandel, 2009). Using this rule, the moral agent would have to imagine a scenario where everyone was corrupt. A state of complete and universal corruption would create rifts in social and political fabric and a collapse in the state. Corruption actually requires non-corrupt individuals to be effective, so corruption fails to meet Kant’s rule of virtuous actions. The categorical imperative exists in the narrow space between the golden rule and utilitarianism but has applications beyond each of these notions. For example, the categorical imperative requires that the means are also appropriate and virtuous rather than just the corresponding ends (Sandel, 2009). This brings a different aspect of corruption to closer examination: could corrupt means to a beneficial end be ethically permissible and even virtuous? This requires a closer view of the means that corruption takes.

Nearly all corruption is based around self-interest in some form. Whether an individual commits a corrupt act for subsistence or for excess, it requires using another person as a means to an end. Kant would argue that this is ultimately unethical, even if the overall benefit outweighed the immediate pain caused by the corruption. Corruption is unethical because it cannot be made a universal rule and because it devalues humans. It is ethically impermissible even when a wealthy individual pays a bribe to a low-income government employee with hungry children. The very process of corruption is unethical regardless of the consequences because of the relationship it builds between humans. Freedom-based theories, on the other hand, might permit exceptions to this rule for the sake of preserving individual liberties.

Ethical Framework: Freedom

Some ethical authorities posit that all ethics are relative and that each individual person has the right to decide what to do with his/her person and property. It is only within this framework – of pure, unadulterated freedom – that corruption might be ethically permissible. Staunch supporters of individual liberty argue that we cannot restrict a person’s freedom in any way (Sandel, 2009). The actions they take will be harmonious with their own moral code and there cannot be any external force regulating what is and is not moral. This form of strict freedom-based ethics borders on anarchism and rarely takes serious form in ethical discussions. Instead, most loyalists to freedom-based ethics take a libertarian approach and suggest that there must be a governing force in place to ensure that people do not inflict any direct harm to one another and that contracts are upheld (Sandel, 2009).

In either approach – anarchism or libertarianism – it could be interpreted that corruption is a natural course for society and should not be regulated. Some libertarians view corruption as a sign that there is freedom and entrepreneurship in the private sector and that the market will be able to settle out any undue corruption (Jang & Hodgson, 2006). If the prices are unfair or the corruption unjust, then the competitive free market will set in and somebody will provide a less corrupt alternative. The tenets of modern libertarianism revolve around the notion that it is ethically impermissible for the government to restrict individual liberty. Many suggested solutions to corruption involve increased control and regulation – mechanisms incompatible with libertarian ethics (Nichols, 2009). While there might exist ethical permission for corrupt acts within a freedom-based moral code, it is often seen that practicing libertarians are against corruption.

In practical application of freedom ethics, libertarians are against corruption for two main reasons: they believe that corruption can cause direct harm to contracts and individuals and that corruption can limit freedom in the markets. Both reasons rely on a definition of corruption that is focused on public offices and government rather than the holistic definition that includes the private and social sectors (Eiras, 2003; Hodgson and Jang, 2006). With this fairly limited definition in mind, libertarians suggest that government is the cause of corruption. The first reason is the fault of the government for not upholding the rule of law (for not being controlling enough) and the second reason is to be pegged on cumbersome and inefficient regulations and unnecessary bureaucracy in the government (for being too controlling). Ana Isabel Eiras from the ­Heritage Foundation, a primarily libertarian think tank, argues that corruption is the result of restricted economic freedom. When freedom is restricted due to regulation (lengthy permitting processes) or inefficiencies (bribery), citizens will turn to an informal market that is naturally predisposed for corruption (Eiras, 2003). Whereas the strict libertarian or anarchist might see corruption as ethically permissible as part and parcel of individual freedom, the practicing libertarian would view corruption as limiting freedom and would actively seek out a solution to the corruption problem.

Solutions

Corruption is effectively ethically impermissible in all three major perspectives of justice and ethical conduct. As such, each perspective has a corresponding approach to reducing corruption and creating a more just society.

Welfare: Control Solutions

In order to maximize welfare and create a situation that results in the greatest good for the greatest number, those that take a welfare-based approach would favor what Everett, Neu, & Rahaman describe as “control solutions” (Everett, Neu & Rahaman, 2006). These solutions most often involve both state and non-governmental organizations pushing for increased control and regulation of activities that either qualify or cause corrupt acts. Through the rule of law, reform, and command-and-control regulation, all aspects of corruption (public, private, social) can be reduced. Control solutions are comprehensive but by no means easy and require concerted effort from all major societal stakeholders to ensure that trust is rebuilt in the state’s authority and that credibility is restored in the private sector.

Virtue: Voice Solutions

Those that view corruption as ethically impermissible because it is morally reprehensible for each individual to commit a corrupt act or use corrupt means would likely favor “voice solutions” (Everett, Neu & Rahaman, 2006). Voice solutions require increased accountability and transparency in business, governance, and society as a whole. By tracking and exposing corruption, virtue theorists expect that corruption will be eradicated as it becomes better understood. In exposing injustice, they intend to create societal shifts that will call for a less corrupt system – power through knowledge.  Transparency International has been keeping a Corruption Perception Index that red flags corrupt institutions with the hopes of shifting the flow of money and influence. A government with a high corruption score on one of these indices might lose aid funding or votes and a business with a high score might lose clients or investments (Everett, Neu & Rahaman, 2006). In addition to these organizational countermeasures, voice solutions include increased freedom of press and citizen information campaigns. All of these initiatives intend to empower those that are on the receiving end of corrupt acts and measures.

Freedom: Exit Solutions

Subscribers to a freedom-based code of ethics, or at least those that view corruption as a limit to freedom rather than an expression of it, support “exit solutions” (Everett, Neu & Rahaman, 2006). These solutions revolve around the libertarian hypothesis that government is entirely to blame for corruption. If government is the problem, than exit solutions advocate for the reduction of government to the bare necessities of maintaining an orderly state. Libertarians suggest reallocation of government resources so that the state becomes more effective at enforcing the rule of law and less effective at controlling the free market. This will shift business and public outreach to the formal economy, thereby reducing the corruption capacity that currently lies in the informal economy.

Discussion and Conclusion

Control solutions are the best option for reducing corruption. They rearrange the incentive structure in ways that the other two solution strategies cannot. People are not always corrupt because they are unethical. Corruption is often circumstantial and the other two solutions do very little to rearrange or change these circumstances. As seen in game theory and social contract theory, increased communication or a governing body are needed to create the incentive for cooperation in a society that has already experienced corruption.

Exit solutions are especially passive in their altering of the incentive structure. They believe that the state will naturally drift towards fairness and ethicality if the barriers to freedom are removed (Everett, Neu & Rahaman, 2006). Regardless of whether or not government and public institutions caused corruption, removing them is not going to alleviate it. The equilibrium without pareto efficiency that is a corrupt state might be imperfect, but it is stable. Corruption will maintain the default once it becomes the norm – corruption begets corruption. Slackening regulations will not help the system find a less corrupt equilibrium.

Similarly, voice solutions lack the authority or assertiveness needed to rearrange the incentive structure of a corrupt state. They come a step closer than exit strategies by opening communication and transparent flow of information but do not eliminate the incentive to defect. Voice solutions would be analogous to having a conference call among all commuters on a highway. Everyone could communicate with everyone else and come to the universal conclusion that they should not shift lanes. However, if there is a history of self-interested lane shifting and an individual benefit in doing so, there might not be the trust needed to uphold this sort of informal agreement. Agreement does not guarantee cooperation, and suspicion could easily lead back to massive defection and a pareto inefficient equilibrium. In the case of voice solutions, even if people became more aware of corruption and there was greater accountability for corrupt decisions, certain people (out of greed or need) might use corruption to maximize their utility. Voice solutions can increase the social pressures that denounce corruption but cannot eliminate it, especially if there is already a lack of trust.

Control solutions must be used to rebuild the social contract thereby ensuring that the public and private sectors are working for the people by the people. These will rearrange the incentive structure by either punishing actions that are corrupt or by rewarding cooperation. Any control solution will need to be especially mindful of the fact that corruption is most often circumstantial and a response to need – it should be nuanced to accommodate these circumstances (Nichols, 2009). However, as seen in the prisoner’s dilemma, the greatest total benefit comes from cooperation.

Control solutions do not rely on but are tolerant of virtue- and freedom-based reasons to avoid corruption. While Kant might take issue with the notion that acting virtuously is incentivized in that this might dilute the deontological duty for acting, the individual can still act out of duty and happen to receive a reward for doing so. For those that choose not to or cannot afford to use Kant’s virtue-based rational for avoiding corruption, control mechanisms will provide instrumental incentive and comply with the “greatest good” emphasis of utilitarian ethics. These solutions even comply with some of the more relaxed elements of libertarianism. While these rules and regulations might reduce freedom in the short term, they will ultimately increase individual freedom by improving the rule of law and decreasing the restrictive nature of corruption. Hardline libertarian policies and deregulation might be effective once confidence in the state has returned, the social contract has been mended, and society has been reminded of the benefits of universal cooperation.

References

Akcay, S.: 2006, ‘Corruption and Human Development’, CATO Journal 26(1), 29–48.

Dixit, A., & Nalebuff, B. (2010). The art of strategy. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.

Eiras, A. I. (2003). Ethics, corruption, and economic freedom. Heritage Lectures, (813).

Everett, J., Neu, D., & Rahaman, A. S. (2006). The global fight against corruption: A foucaultian, virtues-ethics framing. Journal of Business Ethics, 65, 1-12. doi: 10.1007/s10551-005-8715-8

Friend, C. (2004, October 15). Social contract theory. Retrieved from http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/

Jang, S., & Hodgson, G. M. (2006). The economics of corruption and the corruption of economics: an institutionalist perspective. Retrieved from

Nichols, P. (2009). Multiple communities and controlling corruption. Journal of Business Ethics, 88, 805-813. doi: 10.1007/s10551-009-0320-9

Sandel, M. (2009). Justice: What’s the right thing to do?. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

The post Ethically Impermissible: An Analysis of Corruption from Welfare, Virtue, and Freedom Perspectives appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

By Sarah Cowan

Just about anyone who sat through ninth grade Civics class can tell you that the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States prohibits cruel and unusual punishment.  But what exactly is cruel and unusual in contemporary American society?  Public executions have been outlawed since 1936. No one has been executed by hanging or firing squad since 1996 (with the exception of Ronnie Lee Gardner, who was famously executed in 2010–despite a 2004 mandate by the Utah legislature to halt firing squad executions–because of his choice to be “grandfathered” under the old system[1]), and, with a few exceptions, the comparatively humane method of lethal injection is widely used in the thirty-four states in which the death penalty has not been abolished.[2]

We know the ban on cruel and unusual punishment proscribes execution as punishment for certain types of people: minors[3], insane persons[4], and mentally retarded adults[5].  Second to the death penalty, life in prison without the possibility of parole is the harshest penalty the American judicial system imposes on offenders.  In consideration of its jurisprudence with regard to minors and the death penalty, the Supreme Court went a step further in Graham v. Florida, outlawing the possibility of life in prison without parole as a punishment for minors who commit non-homicide offenses.[6]

But what about a juvenile who is an accomplice to felony-murder, but did not participate in the killing?  Should this individual be immune to a sentence of life without parole as well?  Felony murder by its very name is a homicide offense, yet the implicated juvenile in this scenario has technically killed no one.  In such situations, should łŇ°ů˛šłó˛šłžâ€™s constitutional protection extend to these young defendants, or should the state be free to impose a punishment second only to the death penalty in terms of seriousness and permanence?  In Arkansas, this is no longer an “issue to watch.” Unfortunately, the Supreme Court of Arkansas recently held that juveniles may be sentenced to life without parole for serving as accomplices to felony murder.

On September 20, 2011, the Court upheld Lemuel Session Whiteside’s conviction for felony murder and his sentence of life in prison without parole.[7]  When Whiteside was just sixteen, he and another teen, Cambrin Sain Barnes, conspired to rob James London, age thirty.  Prosecutors did not argue that Whiteside fired the shots that killed London.  Barnes freely admitted to pulling the trigger, and pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and aggravated robbery in exchange for a forty-year sentence.  Whiteside refused to strike a plea deal with prosecutors, who argued at his trial that he had provided the gun to Barnes and told him where to find London.

If the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that life without parole is only a proper punishment for juveniles who commit homicide offenses, how then should courts deal with cases of felony murder in which the accused’s participation is limited to the underlying felony? In Whiteside’s oral arguments, his attorney, Thomas Sullivan, argued that the Supreme Court’s ruling in Graham v. Florida “leaves open this middle ground.”[8]  On the one hand, aggravated robbery is a non-homicide offense, suggesting that łŇ°ů˛šłó˛šłžâ€™s protections should extend to Whiteside’s sentence.  On the other, it could be argued that Whiteside’s decision to participate in the robbery subjected him to liability for any consequences that may have resulted from it, including London’s murder.  That is the logic behind the felony-murder rule, after all.

Where the nation’s highest court has explicitly outlawed the sentence of life without parole for juveniles who do not commit murder, however, the effect of the felony murder rule is that Whiteside has become tangled in an unfortunate loophole.  In the case of felony murder, juveniles lack the requisite state of intent present in true homicide offenses.  The effective result of Graham should be to impose the strictest punishment only on those juveniles who are truly dangerous to society and incapable of being rehabilitated.  Extending Graham to accomplices in felony murder is far too broad an interpretation.  As is often the case with adults charged with felony murder, juveniles in these situations are at the wrong place at the wrong time.  Incarcerating these individuals indefinitely deprives them of any opportunity to turn their lives around, while also depriving society of any benefit these juveniles may provide after serving their time.

Juveniles’ decision-making skills are not fully developed, and they lack the range of life experiences that may provide adults in similar situations with the foresight to reasonably anticipate the consequences of their decisions.  We have all heard the clichĂŠ “young, impressionable minds” at some point or another. While being young is certainly no excuse for committing armed robbery, most of us can admit that we did some things during our teenage years, often as the result of improper influences, that we now regret.   In his case, Whiteside was not even the victim of peer pressure, a feeling most of us experience at one point or another during adolescence, but was egged on by his own mother.  Whiteside’s mother phoned him on the afternoon of the robbery and resulting murder to inform him that there was a man at her residence in possession of $8,000.[9]  The opinion reveals that Whiteside asked her if “she wanted him to come over and rob someone,” to which she replied in the affirmative.[10]

Let me reiterate that there is no justification for armed robbery.  The Court’s opinion seems to suggest that Whiteside was a kid with inappropriate parental influences, access to firearms, too much time on his hands, and little, if any, regard for the law.  He was also sixteen.  This fact alone does not absolve him of guilt, nor should it allow him a reprieve from punishment.  But Whiteside’s co-defendant Barnes—the person who actually ended London’s life–received a mere forty years. Under Arkansas sentencing guidelines he could be out in as few as twenty-eight years.[11] Whiteside, meanwhile, who did not take a life, has essentially had his life ended by the state of Arkansas. He has no possibility of turning his life around or contributing something positive to society, aside from the good he may be able to do within the confines of a maximum security prison.

In December 2011, Whiteside’s counsel petitioned the Supreme Court of the United States for a writ of certiorari to hear the case.  While his case is certainly compelling, the Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions per year and is only able to hear a few hundred.  The odds of Whiteside receiving any relief from the Court do not look good.  Perhaps Whiteside is an evil individual who deserves to rot in prison.  Or perhaps he was a stupid kid who did a stupid thing. Perhaps he could have done something good with his life after serving a reasonable amount of time in prison for his crime.  It looks like we will never know.

The post Juveniles and Life In Prison Under the Felony Murder Rule appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

Expungement is the legal process by which a citizen can clear his or her record of a prior criminal conviction and start fresh. In Arkansas, when an individual’s record is expunged, the “conduct shall be deemed as a matter of law never to have occurred, and the individual may state that no such conduct ever occurred, and that no such records exist.”[i] Expungement allows a person to tell an employer that he or she has not been convicted of a crime; to become eligible for student loans, housing assistance, professional licenses and certificates; to secure credit; and to stop the embarrassment and fear that would otherwise be associated with background checks.

In Arkansas, expungement is a statutory right granted by the legislature. Apart from statutes that specifically provide for expungement, the courts have no power to expunge an individual’s record.[ii] The Arkansas legislature has provided a number of instances where individuals can get their records expunged pursuant to a specific statute. The following is a short explanation of some of the charges and convictions that can be expunged in this state.

Misdemeanors can be expunged when an individual has completed the actions required by the court.[iii] Misdemeanor such as negligent homicide, battery in the third degree, indecent exposure, public sexual indecency, sexual assault in the fourth degree, domestic battering in the third degree, or driving while intoxicated, require an individual to wait until five years have passed since the conviction to seek expungement.[iv] If, for any criminal offense, the charges are subsequently deemed nolle prossed (dismissed), or the individual is acquitted at trial, a person is then eligible to have records relating to the case expunged.[v] Individuals who plead guilty, nolo contendere, or are found guilty of possession of a controlled substance can have their conviction expunged if the individual has never before pleaded guilty nor been convicted of possession of a controlled substance.[vi]

Expungement is also permitted when an accused enters a plea of guilty or nolo contendere prior to an adjudication of guilt, and the individual has not been previously convicted of a felony. Expungement, however, is only permitted under these circumstances if the defendant is placed on probation for a period of not less than one year and has not been fined in excess of $3,500.00. An individual who is a habitual offender, has committed a serious felony involving violence, or is found guilty of or pleads guilty or nolo contendere to a sexual offense, incest, or child pornography shall not be eligible for expungement.[vii]

Arkansas does not, however, provide a method by which exonerees may have their records expunged. An exoneree is person who has been legally found wrongfully convicted. Astonishingly, most states refuse to expunge the criminal records of exonerees. Employers often decline jobs to exonerees because of their prior convictions, even once the circumstances are explained. The State of Arkansas allows people who have pleaded guilty to a crime to be eligible for expungement; however, a person whom the State has recognized was wrongfully convicted has no opportunity for expungement. The purpose behind legislatively-provided methods of expungement is to provide a party with a fresh start, without the encumbrances and hindrances of a criminal record. Where an individual has suffered the constraints of wrongful imprisonment, the legislature should provide a method by which the exoneree can free himself or herself from the stigma of a wrongful conviction.[viii]

Arkansas needs to remedy this injustice by providing a means for exonerees to have their criminal records expunged.  In doing so, Arkansas will act as an example to other states regarding the appropriate way to treat those whom our justice system has failed.

The post Fractured Justice: No Expungement for Exonerees appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.

When I graduated from college with a degree in Political Science, I soon realized that, like the many others that had not already landed a job, there were little options in my field other than going to law school or graduate school. I began to search for jobs in any field. I just needed a job; any job. One month after graduation, I found one. It was a great job for a heating and air conditioning company. I worked with great people, made great money, and had a great supervisor. Eventually, though, I realized that was not the place for me. So again I was back to the drawing board. I soon realized the truth in the statement, “It is not about what you know, but whom you know.” Through friends, I secured a job at a city-sponsored non-profit organization that provided housing for the needy. My first exhilarating experience was assisting a mother of four children who was also a victim of domestic abuse. I loved the mission behind the housing authority, and it was there that my interest in non-profit work grew.

After leaving the housing authority, I went to work for another non-profit organization. It provided child care assistance to parents that could not afford the costly expense of having a safe, secure, and state-regulated facility look after their children while they earned a living or pursued an education. In my time with this organization, I assisted a woman whose ex-husband, the father of her child, killed her parents and older son. When I began law school, I could not help but have non-profit organizations on the forefront of my mind. In fact, currently I work for a great non-profit, and eventually my goal is to serve as general counsel for a large non-profit organization.

Through my years of working for various non-profit organizations, their ample importance became apparent to me. Non-profit organizations provide some of the major necessities of life: food, shelter, education, and child care assistance, just to name a few. There are other non-profit organizations that enhance the quality of lives, such as organizations that help mend broken marriages, assist blended families in adjusting to their roles as stepchildren and stepparents, and allow children to participate in extracurricular activities through their local YMCA.  Almost everyone will come into contact with a non-profit, whether you need its services, choose to volunteer, or donate money. Nevertheless, many of us discount the value of these organizations in our lives.

When analyzing the economy, most analysts overlook the non-profit sector. However, non-profit organizations contribute to the economy just as much their profit-making counterparts. They employ 10.5 million workers―nearly ten percent of the private workers in the United States; they generate eight percent of the GDP; and they produce approximately $700 billion in annual revenues.[1] Non-profit organizations provide jobs, and these jobs, in turn, provide services that are a necessity to some, and an increase in the quality of life for others. The people who work for profit-making companies are, generally, the same type of individuals who work for non-profit organizations. They work to make a living.  They work to provide for their families. The only difference is that their work is going to the “greater good.” The reason they may have taken a pay cut to work for a non-profit organization is because they agree with the mission behind the organization.

With the economy in a downturn and for-profit industries reducing the number of positions created, non-profit organizations are increasing the number of positions in their organizations. Over the last three to four years, non-profit organizations have grown over five percent, while for-profit industry growth has declined over eight percent.[2] It could be argued that the increase among non-profit organizations is a result of the downward slope in the economy: people losing their jobs are starting to depend on the services that these organizations provide. This is a valid argument. Nonetheless, whether or not the economy is in a recession, there is still a huge need for these organizations. They supply education from a preschool level to a university level; they showcase the arts to the underprivileged; and they are often a safe haven to victims of domestic violence.

If given the chance to support any non-profit organization in any fashion, whether it is donating, volunteering, or having the privilege to work for them, I urge you to do so with excitement. These organizations need your support, and if you spend any amount of time involving yourself with them, I am sure your life will be enhanced because of it. Non-profit organizations need all of the support they can receive, but, more importantly, our society needs non-profit organizations.

The post Support Non-profit Organizations appeared first on The Arkansas Journal of Social Change and Public Service.