Novel Way to Get to Law School...T14 perhaps, too! Forum

[BigFatPanda]

I would welcome this guy with open arm. This is a rare instance where the system actually succeeds in accomplishing its stated goal: reforming a criminal into someone who benefits society. If he cleanse himself of his past sins, he should be granted every opportunity that is available to everyone else. In fact, he can be classified as an URM (minority of model reformed criminals).

[vanwinkle]

I would welcome this guy with open arm. This is a rare instance where the system actually succeeds in accomplishing its stated goal: reforming a criminal into someone who benefits society. If he cleanse himself of his past sins, he should be granted every opportunity that is available to everyone else. In fact, he can be classified as an URM (minority of model reformed criminals).

[trutherd]

but this man could very easily have taken an innocent life, regardless of his intent when he entered the bank

Do you think people who get behind the wheel of a car while drunk and risk innocent lives (despite the best intentions) deserve to go to law school?

I like fish, but have yet to aquire a taste for Red Herring

Remember those questions on the LSAT that asked you how the argument proceeds and one of the options was "the argument draws on an analogy..." Then remember how when this was the credited response the problem didn't mention a flaw in the argument? Well they didn't because there is no flaw. The analogy absolutely pertains to your argument and is completely valid. The only issue here is that your position is so weak that your only response is to make a lame joke about an informal logical fallacy that in no way relates to the counter-argument. With that in mind, do you want to know what's really funny? YOUR RESPONSE WAS ITSELF A RED HERRING ARGUMENT!

I think you would have an entirely different take on the article if you or a family member were on the working-end of Mr. Hopwood's 45 cal.

Of course he would! That's why we have a justice system! By this logic we should give the death penalty to the boy who picked on my sister on the playground because if it were up to me I would have ripped his head off. Nice faulty appeal to emotion here.

your robbery and detainment of innocent individuals at gunpoint becomes a speed bump.

A speed bump? I'm 26 years old; if I imagine having spent every day since I got my driver license locked in prison, speed bump is the last thing in the world I would use to describe it.

I'm all for rehabilitation, but if this fool is admitted to a prestigious law school and lauded for his "accomplishments" behind bars then something is wrong.

The only things wrong here are your ridiculous notion of justice and pathetic attempts at constructing arguments for your unjustified beliefs.

[GATORTIM]

I'm not saying that this guy didnt learn his lesson. I am saying that I do not think (aka my opinion) that he should be able to attend graduate school at the expense of tax-payers. There are a myriad of civil liberties that have been stripped from felons, I'm only saying that I think/feel/believe (insert word that implies I am not the one making the GD decision in regards to this mans life, but am only imparting my opinion on the story)

Why do you keep saying 'at the expense of tax payers'? Is he getting money from some special pool set aside for redeemed felons?

Isnt UM a public school? Again, in no way am I suggesting this guy should be thrown back in prison, but I think all of us are judged by our successes and failures. We all grow, learn, evolve, etc, but that should not discount egregious lapses in judgement over an extended period (he was not sent to prison for one 10 second bad decision, but for pre meditated and violent acts and theft of gov't insured money). Should he be allowed to secure employment and contribute to society? Yes. Should a space be held for him at Michigan Law? No. Should he be able to secure student loans from the govt? No.

[Panther7]

Here are my thoughts on the matter:

Shouldn't everybody want this guy to succeed? I mean, this guy is the archetype of the reformed felon. Do we want to give people positive things to look forward to so that if they change and learn to contribute we will accept them into society, or do we want to label them, "once a felon, always a felon"?

The government pays for the education of so many graduate students. It's going to end up paying for a huge chunk of mine if I go into PI work, and I'm just some guy. It pays for the educations of many others who end up wasting that money, dropping out, or taking the money and then bolting to higher-paying corporate work as soon as they've fulfilled their government obligations. Why shouldn't it pay to educate ex-cons, especially if it helps those people be this productive and stop being harmful toward society?

I'd rather taxpayers fund his education than end up having to fund his reincarceration.

bingo.

[Kohinoor]

I'm not saying that this guy didnt learn his lesson. I am saying that I do not think (aka my opinion) that he should be able to attend graduate school at the expense of tax-payers. There are a myriad of civil liberties that have been stripped from felons, I'm only saying that I think/feel/believe (insert word that implies I am not the one making the GD decision in regards to this mans life, but am only imparting my opinion on the story)

Why do you keep saying 'at the expense of tax payers'? Is he getting money from some special pool set aside for redeemed felons?

Isnt UM a public school? Again, in no way am I suggesting this guy should be thrown back in prison, but I think all of us are judged by our successes and failures. We all grow, learn, evolve, etc, but that should not discount egregious lapses in judgement over an extended period (he was not sent to prison for one 10 second bad decision, but for pre meditated and violent acts and theft of gov't insured money). Should he be allowed to secure employment and contribute to society? Yes. Should a space be held for him at Michigan Law? No. Should he be able to secure student loans from the govt? No.

Public schools still cost money which he'll have to pay. If your argument is that he shouldn't receive benefits of enterprises that are in any way subsidized by the government, wouldn't that apply with equal force to stuff like him getting to drive on roads?

[Panther7]

Should he be allowed to secure employment and contribute to society? Yes. Should a space be held for him at Michigan Law? No. Should he be able to secure student loans from the govt? No.

Why not? Isn't this the kind of soft that transcends a poorer LSAT or GPA?

[jelizabeth88]

Damn, wish I was going to Michigan. This guy rocks.

[vanwinkle]

I'm not saying that this guy didnt learn his lesson. I am saying that I do not think (aka my opinion) that he should be able to attend graduate school at the expense of tax-payers. There are a myriad of civil liberties that have been stripped from felons, I'm only saying that I think/feel/believe (insert word that implies I am not the one making the GD decision in regards to this mans life, but am only imparting my opinion on the story)

Why do you keep saying 'at the expense of tax payers'? Is he getting money from some special pool set aside for redeemed felons?

Isnt UM a public school? Again, in no way am I suggesting this guy should be thrown back in prison, but I think all of us are judged by our successes and failures. We all grow, learn, evolve, etc, but that should not discount egregious lapses in judgement over an extended period (he was not sent to prison for one 10 second bad decision, but for pre meditated and violent acts and theft of gov't insured money). Should he be allowed to secure employment and contribute to society? Yes. Should a space be held for him at Michigan Law? No. Should he be able to secure student loans from the govt? No.

UM Law, like many top "public" schools, receives practically 0 state funds. I remember there was even a little bit of discussion about whether the law school could actually be taken private as a way to avoid the Grutter v. Bollinger ruling if it came out badly for them. Since that ruling didn't affect them too negatively they didn't have to, but they easily could.

So people who commit crimes should not be allowed to take out student loans to fund an education, even if that education is the clearest path to them reforming and becoming non-criminal members of society? How does that logic make any sense at all? Don't you want these people to have a reason to stop being criminals after they've served their sentence?

[moonmaster3]

My previous post explained that I felt he should be given the opportunity to go to law school but he'd better have a really good reason for his sudden interest in applying the law where it was clearly lacking before. I agree that the system could adversely effect someone who has in the past committed a crime and that that could very well give them the motivation in, interest in, and respect for the application of the law that they'd need.

But it's ridiculous to just set aside a seat for them. Because my above statement still stands.

Sudden? The article implies he's been at the very least learning/interested in the law since 2002.

[vanwinkle]

My previous post explained that I felt he should be given the opportunity to go to law school but he'd better have a really good reason for his sudden interest in applying the law where it was clearly lacking before. I agree that the system could adversely effect someone who has in the past committed a crime and that that could very well give them the motivation in, interest in, and respect for the application of the law that they'd need.

But it's ridiculous to just set aside a seat for them. Because my above statement still stands.

Sudden? The article implies he's been at the very least learning/interested in the law since 2002.

Yeah, 8 years ≠ "sudden". Sibley makes a good point that completely fails to apply to this case.

[Luis Gomez]

Good for him. He might have to sell the Mercedes but in his case it is well worth it. Top 14 education + previous legal work +experience at the supreme court might just make him marketable despite his criminal record.

[vanwinkle]

Good for him. He might have to sell the Mercedes but in his case it is well worth it. Top 14 education + previous legal work +experience at the supreme court might just make him marketable despite his criminal record.

I'm pretty sure that if he can pass the bar, Supreme Court experience automatically trumps criminal record and most other people's resumes. People are hating on this guy because they don't want to have to compete with him for jobs in 2013.

[Borhas]

Thought this would drive everyone NUTS...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/us/09 ... terstitial

good soft

[poprox]

My previous post explained that I felt he should be given the opportunity to go to law school but he'd better have a really good reason for his sudden interest in applying the law where it was clearly lacking before. I agree that the system could adversely effect someone who has in the past committed a crime and that that could very well give them the motivation in, interest in, and respect for the application of the law that they'd need.

But it's ridiculous to just set aside a seat for them. Because my above statement still stands.

Sudden? The article implies he's been at the very least learning/interested in the law since 2002.

Yeah, 8 years ≠ "sudden". Sibley makes a good point that completely fails to apply to this case.

I agree - it is a good point but does not apply to this case.

[vanwinkle]

Thought this would drive everyone NUTS...

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/09/us/09 ... terstitial

good soft

I should save this link and paste it into any thread where someone talks about having been student government vice president and did an internship for course credit at a local homeless shelter. It makes the point so much easier; instead of having to try to explain it, you can just go, "No, those are okay softs. THIS is what good softs look like."

[AgentSCo]

I think the entire situation is ridiculous. This guy robbed five banks AT GUN POINT and now he's having his seat reserved at a premiere law school?! It's not exactly like he was arrested for possession of marijuana or some other minor offense. Rather, I'd consider armed robbery - let alone FIVE of them - to be a pretty major deal.

Also, was I the only person thrown off by this quote: "His gratitude for the quality of his life," the professor said, "is that of someone who has come back from a near-death experience." Wait, HE came back from a "near-death experience"?! That's quite an exhaggeration - if anything, ask those tellers about a "near-death experience."

[starstruck393]

I really don't see what the big deal is. He made some mistakes, went to prison for a long time, has been rehabilitated and now appears to have an amazing legal mind. Some of you talk as if he should have been executed on the spot. What's the point of our criminal justice system in your eyes if you're going to bitch and moan whenever a felon turns his life around and tries to find success? He paid his debt, as laid down by the court, and now he's moving on with his life. As someone headed to Michigan this year, I'd be honored to have him as a classmate...

[Dignan]

Guy should get a second chance...but reserve him a seat? Thats where I have a problem. Let him earn his way in like everyone else don't reserve him a seat.

THIS.

What does it mean to "earn" a seat? With the exception of certain race-based considerations, law schools may use whatever criteria they wish in evaluating candidates.

The subject of the article had two cert petitions granted by the United States Supreme Court, and one of those certs was described as "one of the best cert. petitions I have ever read" by a former US Solicitor General. In just a few years in prison, this guy had more success in appellate law than most of you will have in a lifetime.

I don't have a problem with him getting admitted to any law school that wants him.

[Rawlsian]

I think the entire situation is ridiculous. This guy robbed five banks AT GUN POINT and now he's having his seat reserved at a premiere law school?! It's not exactly like he was arrested for possession of marijuana or some other minor offense. Rather, I'd consider armed robbery - let alone FIVE of them - to be a pretty major deal.

Also, was I the only person thrown off by this quote: "His gratitude for the quality of his life," the professor said, "is that of someone who has come back from a near-death experience." Wait, HE came back from a "near-death experience"?! That's quite an exhaggeration - if anything, ask those tellers about a "near-death experience."

I wrote this in the sister topic:

Yes, but he served his time. Should he no longer be allowed to integrate back in society? Moreover, he obviously has the skills and ability which could greatly improve our society, and he possesses a unique lens which should enable him to see things that 'those who did it right' cannot.

Think about having this kind of experience in the classroom: imagine the discussion, the counterpoise of perspective, the diversity of thought. These are the kinds of students that make a classroom dynamic.

I understand these situations breed resentment. After all, we find a coherency to our life and use well-disciplined approaches--hard work, sacrifice, ect--to realize our ambition. And these success stories make a mockery of everything we've done; or, at least they do until we let go of the bitterness we hold towards our own struggle

[tridentz]

Nice is this the new law school admission standards now? BREAKING NEWS YOU NOW NEED MURDER/RAPE/ROBBERY/ARSON/ETC FOR YOUR SOFTS. Wow....

[AgentSCo]

I guess I can't get pass the seriousness of the crimes. FIVE armed robberies seems a little excessive.

One last question: where does "reintegrate into society" equate to "seat reserved at Michigan"?

[poprox]

Nice is this the new law school admission standards now? BREAKING NEWS YOU NOW NEED MURDER/RAPE/ROBBERY/ARSON/ETC FOR YOUR SOFTS. Wow....

Michigan Law is not considering letting him attend because of a crime he committed. It's because of the other things he has done, namely the two successful petitions of cert. at the federal level, and being one of a very small minority who come out of our criminal justice system as a much better person (and better contributor to society) than when they entered the system.

[poprox]

I guess I can't get pass the seriousness of the crimes. FIVE armed robberies seems a little excessive.

One last question: where does "reintegrate into society" equate to "seat reserved at Michigan"?

That's only one fact of the case; you're ignoring others in the overall set of facts here.

[ChrisC]

After successfully winning Grutter v. Bollinger I guess Michigan has decided it wants to again be at the vanguard of the NEW affirmative action. Affirmative action will no longer be race based; rather, it will be criminal history based.


In all seriousness, I do believe in second chances. I don't believe he should be admitted to the bar, though.