Don\u27t Break the Safety Valve\u27s Heart: How the Seventh Circuit Superimposes Substantial Assistance on the Mandatory Minimum Safety Valve\u27s Complete Truthful Disclosure Requirement

Congress passed the safety valve to mitigate the disparate and often harsh sentences mandatory minimums impose on low-level drug defendants. But judicial interpretation continues to impose disparate sentences. In 2014, in United States v. Acevedo-Fitz, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its position in an ongoing circuit split regarding the safety valve. The safety valve requires defendants to meet five criteria, the fifth—sometimes called the heart of the safety valve—requires defendants provide complete truthful disclosure to prosecutors prior to sentencing. Judges interpret this requirement as imposing a burden on defendants to prove they met all five criteria without requiring the government to prove a defendant failed to provide complete truthful disclosure. The circuit split regards whether a defendant may lie before telling the truth and still qualify for the safety valve. The Seventh Circuit holds one lie precludes safety valve relief. It imposes an additional restriction, essentially adding a prerequisite that defendants substantially assist prosecutors. However, Congress passed the safety valve because the substantial assistance provision failed to assist low-level defendants, and the plain language of the safety valve imposes no requirements that the truthful disclosure assist the government. This reading frustrates Congressional intent, as many other circuits recognize. To comport with Congressional intent, the Seventh Circuit should utilize a plain-language reading of the statute, and not superimpose a substantial assistance prerequisite on the fifth element of the safety valve

Go to Jail - Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Pay Civil Damages: The United States’ Hesitation Towards the International Convention on Cybercrime’s Copyright Provisions, 1 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 364 (2002)

The problem of combating copyright infringement increases tenfold when considered in light of today’s global and digital environment. As more authors seek copyright protection, others seek to get around it by evading jurisdictional reach. The Council of Europe has developed the world’s first International Convention on Cybercrime, which incorporates harsh substantive copyright provisions but neglects to include effective enforcement protocols. This Comment proposes that the United States not rush to adopt the Council of Europe’s Convention, but rather seek a more definitive and effective solution in a singularly-focused agreement on intellectual property rights in a global economic context

Don\u27t Break the Safety Valve\u27s Heart: How the Seventh Circuit Superimposes Substantial Assistance on the Mandatory Minimum Safety Valve\u27s Complete Truthful Disclosure Requirement

Congress passed the safety valve to mitigate the disparate and often harsh sentences mandatory minimums impose on low-level drug defendants. But judicial interpretation continues to impose disparate sentences. In 2014, in United States v. Acevedo-Fitz, the Seventh Circuit reaffirmed its position in an ongoing circuit split regarding the safety valve. The safety valve requires defendants to meet five criteria, the fifth—sometimes called the heart of the safety valve—requires defendants provide complete truthful disclosure to prosecutors prior to sentencing. Judges interpret this requirement as imposing a burden on defendants to prove they met all five criteria without requiring the government to prove a defendant failed to provide complete truthful disclosure. The circuit split regards whether a defendant may lie before telling the truth and still qualify for the safety valve. The Seventh Circuit holds one lie precludes safety valve relief. It imposes an additional restriction, essentially adding a prerequisite that defendants substantially assist prosecutors. However, Congress passed the safety valve because the substantial assistance provision failed to assist low-level defendants, and the plain language of the safety valve imposes no requirements that the truthful disclosure assist the government. This reading frustrates Congressional intent, as many other circuits recognize. To comport with Congressional intent, the Seventh Circuit should utilize a plain-language reading of the statute, and not superimpose a substantial assistance prerequisite on the fifth element of the safety valve

The Need to Criminalize Revenge Porn: How a Law Protecting Victims Can Avoid Running Afoul of the First Amendment

Revenge porn occurs when someone posts sexually explicit images of their former paramour on the web, often with contact information for the victim’s work and home. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of victims. Victims lose or quit their jobs; they are harassed by strangers; some change their name or alter their appearance. Some victims resort to suicide; others are stalked, assaulted, or killed. Civil suits fail to remove the images or deter perpetrators. Current criminal laws are insufficient in several common instances. These shortcomings mean there is a need to criminalize revenge porn. Revenge porn is obscene and falls under a categorical exception to free speech. Even if revenge porn were not deemed obscene, a sufficiently clear law would avoid running afoul of the First Amendment. This article provides a model statute and a checklist to avoid Constitutional concerns. The government has a compelling interest in protecting privacy and in protecting individuals from harm. The time is ripe to protect privacy, particularly the right to keep personal sexual behavior private when the sole purpose of disseminating images and information regarding a person’s sexual behavior is to harass or humiliate

The Need to Criminalize Revenge Porn: How a Law Protecting Victims Can Avoid Running Afoul of the First Amendment

Revenge porn occurs when someone posts sexually explicit images of their former paramour on the web, often with contact information for the victim’s work and home. There are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands, of victims. Victims lose or quit their jobs; they are harassed by strangers; some change their name or alter their appearance. Some victims resort to suicide; others are stalked, assaulted, or killed. Civil suits fail to remove the images or deter perpetrators. Current criminal laws are insufficient in several common instances. These shortcomings mean there is a need to criminalize revenge porn. Revenge porn is obscene and falls under a categorical exception to free speech. Even if revenge porn were not deemed obscene, a sufficiently clear law would avoid running afoul of the First Amendment. This article provides a model statute and a checklist to avoid Constitutional concerns. The government has a compelling interest in protecting privacy and in protecting individuals from harm. The time is ripe to protect privacy, particularly the right to keep personal sexual behavior private when the sole purpose of disseminating images and information regarding a person’s sexual behavior is to harass or humiliate