Image provided by: Texas A&M University
About The Battalion. (College Station, Tex.) 1893-current | View Entire Issue (June 21, 2000)
Wednesday, June 21,Hi lead fans into joining the ouId die. In retrospect, the ngeles are mere gamesof ; are not acceptable, they re- :iety. Though peopleinmot are socially advanced, the j little has changed.Thedil- now the steps to end such taught all of us, knowing!) Shaun Fitzpatrick junior English mij Wednesday. June 21,2(XX) □) THE BATTALION Page 5 Peer pressure When minors are charged as adults, jury should have members of defendant's own age group I Jeff Smith/Thf. Bathi wish I had 15 Perots all 15 and play themattig offensive line and defers im said, ocum also signed two h al All-American offensive!: Kasey Cheshier helped canville High to thehASt npionship as a junior. G garter is from New Braun: ,vill be competing intheupc California/Texas High Ah’! >tar game. ocuni said he was satisfied:'' urrent linebackers anddith as many as in past yearsis npson of Tyler Lee couldh her inside or outside linebae eBrandon Sheppard was: A Defensive Player of the! e playing for Lufkin Hi y Cardoza played both side )all at Mission High, andis 1 ed to play outside linebad he Aggies. locum said sometimes a vin in spite of a quarterback quarterback makes a bi] . He said freshman Dustin! quick feet and a quick rek college football is a bi; i Port Neches, Texas. Vhile playing for Port 1 /e, Long led the team to thek >n 11 State Championships was named Offensive Play? {ear by the Houston Chronicle ieith Joseph was signed' aing back out of Houi tar, and Mathus Gill isai c from Brenham. n English legal tradition, an accused person is granted a fair trial by his or her peers. The U.S. Constitution ex panded this idea by giving all peo ple the right to a speedy and public tri al. The trial must, in all instances, con sist of people representing the defendant's best interests. Many peo ple believe the system fair, giving each plaintiff and each defendant equal, but consequential, rights. However, as ju ries and courts follow the laws and continue to adjourn cases with guilty and not guilty verdicts, one large por tion of society suffers — children. Part of a defense attorney's job is to select a jury more inclined to decide in the client's favor. On the other hand, the prosecutor plans to select a jury less sympathetic toward the defen dant. A person's life is left in the hands of the common man, the attor neys and the negotiation. In order to reach a fair verdict, a fair jury is necessary. Women serve on the jury when the defendant is a woman, and minorities serve when the defendant is a minority. Why, when children are tried as adults, are children not represented in the jury? The Constitution dictates that only citizens between the ages of 18 and 70 are subject to jury duty. If an age limit is not placed on a violator, how can it be justified to limit the ages of poten tial jurors? Some argue that because children are being tried as adults, they should be only heard by an adult jury. That is not the way of a fair judicial sys tem. Common sense would suggest that allowing correct age representa tion and a mixture of ages on the jury would lead to a more fair and logical decision. Whether the defendant is 13 or 90, he or she deserves a fair trial. According to English tradition, a fair trial includes a jury of an accused person's peers. For example, in Lake Worth, Fla., a 13-year-old boy could be facing adult charges for charges of shooting and killing a middle-school teacher on the last day of school. Because there is an inevitable generation gap between adults and children, a jury judgment in this case might be more effective if a 13-year-old were included as one of > the jurors. The 13-year-old is facing adult conviction, as many young chil dren have. The most justifiable way to determine an accurate verdict and sen tence is to include the perspective of jurors close in age to the defendant. The framers of the Constitution probably never imagined that kids as young as 13 would face murder-trials. They probably never thought that age equality on the jury would be an is sue. But in today's world, it is almost impossible to keep from trying kids as adults and invoking the same type of sentence as adults when it is the same type of crime. As ABC News corre spondent, Ted Koppel, said, "The con sequences of being shot by a boy are no different than the consequences of being shot by a man." There is a solu tion to this age discrimination — de fendants should be represented in the jury by people their own age, whether that age is 13,30 or 90. Something must be done to ease the tension that society feels when children are tried as adults. Society does not seem ready to accept the fact that children can and will be convict ed as adults. But, one cannot ignore the drastic increase in serious crimes committed by minors over the past few years. For example, the number of murders committed by 15-year- olds has increased 207 percent. For justice to truly be served, even a child, when tried as an adult, should have age-equivalent representation on the jury. Cai/la Carr is a junior speech communication major. RUBEN DELUNA/Tiii: Battalion Future of digital music in the hands of companies, not consumers C ontrol is a power ful thing. The per son who has it gets to shape events while those without are forced to idly watch and wait. Thankfully, control is fluid and changes hands frequently. In the world of digital music, consumers shocked record companies and other facets of the music establishment by taking control of online audio distribution. College students, a demographic with the dangerous combina tion of techno know-how and empty wallets, led the attack by quickly putting their CD burners and high-speed Internet connections to work and started the spreading and mas sive sharing of copyrighted music. The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) has spent the past few years trying to regain control of their copyrighted material by suing anything and everything associated with MP3s, the file format riding the wave of pirated music. With lawsuits against Winamp, various MP3 Websites and, most recently, Napster Inc., the record execu tives did not seem to realize they simply could not stop MP3 technology. Unfortunate ly for college students everywhere, the RIAA has gotten a clue. In February 1999, the RIAA, in partner ship with more than 100 companies from music and technology fields, started the Secure Digital Music Initiative (SDMI). The group has been creating a plan to re claim control of online mu sic. The problem with the SDMI is that it is limited to the elite of the music and technolgy industry. SDMI members have forsaken the valuable input and per spectives of the consumer. Most MP3 listeners do not realize the control they so proudly boast is, at this moment, being quietly wrested from them. The SDMI roster reads like a who's who of high-profile music and technology compa nies. With a $20,000 annual membership fee, the SDMI is a digital country club for major Most MP3 listeners do not realize the control they so proudly boast is, at this moment, being quietly taken away from them. players like America OnLine (AOL), Mi crosoft, Sony and BMC Entertainment, which are all participants. The general public and media are left out of the loop and cannot at tend SDMI meetings, let alone have a say in them. By limiting enrollment and meeting at tendance to the "white men in black suits," the SDMI is blatantly ignoring the publics voice. As a result, the future of music on the Internet will be shaped soley by one side of the argument. SDMI has the ambition and financial and legal support to make its agenda the accepted stan dard and dominant choice for digital audio. SDMI members state that they are keeping consumer wants in mind. However, the idea of giant corporations like AOL and Microsoft preserving their best interests does not appeal to many consumers. The decisions made by SDMI will very likely set the rules for all users of online mu sic. Making those rules without seeking input from the same people who are forced to fol low those rules is almost diabolical. Consumers are also being blatantly misled at the store shelves. Many portable digital music player manufacturers like Creative Labs, Sony and Diamond Multimedia have already released products compliant with SDMI's first phase. Now these players can play all MP3 files unconditionally. If and when SDMI's phase two goes into effect, SDMI-compliant players such as Creative Lab's Nomad 11, RCA's Lyra and Sony's Memory Stick Music Player, will play all cur rent MP3s and future MP3s ripped from CDs the user actually owns. However, while this restricted usage is the ideal purpose of portable MP3 players, con sumers do not always look for purely-legal functionality. If a person buys one of these ex pensive players with the intention of playing MP3s "borrowed" from a friend, he or she will be sorely disappointed. The buyer now owns a stylishly geek-chic accessory, but spent somewhere around $200 on a player that will not play all the files he or she thought it would. SDMl-watermarked MP3s not ripped from a person's own CD will be crippled by SDMI's second phase . The SDMI's secrecy is keeping current and poten tial MP3 player buyers from making an in formed decision about what types of MP3s a player will and will not accept. Instead of keeping consumers dumb to their workings, the SDMI should work with consumers to make sure both parties get what they want out of their digital music. MP3s used to be obscure files from even obscurer bands that traded hands amongst only the most techno-savvy of computer geeks. That has changed. MP3s used to be played only on personal computers, but that too is changing. Now that practically every one with an Internet connection and a disdain for copyright laws has MP3s on their hard drive, the next step is for MP3s to move off of the computer and onto portable audio de vices. Whoever controls MP3s stands to pros per, but the future does not belong to record companies alone. SDMI members and con sumers should stop trying to quietly steal control from each other and work together for a mutually satisfactory digital future. Eric Dickens is a senior English major. LOW Studenl Xirfare! Europe • Africa sia • South America More Than )0 Departure Cities Eurailpasses Bus Passes Study Abroad srudenL. univers •com s YOUR WORLD. EXPLORE 1 tudentUniverse.cof 800-272-9676 — ^ Alcohol-free residence halls not the answer T he office of student af fairs is currently consid ering a proposal to make all 6n-campus residence halls alcohol free. If approved, the . alcohol ban would begin in Fall 2001. Although this ban might seem the best way to deal with the on-campus alco hol problem, it is simply not practical. The propos al is both unfair to students of legal drinking age and impossible to enforce. It is wrong to punish students of legal drink ing age for the University's problems enforcing its current rules. Even though, statistically speaking, few students 21 or older live in the dorms, their wishes should not be ignored. Many of these students, such as Corps of Cadets members, are not necessarily on campus by choice. They are required to live on campus, and they should be able to go home, relax and drink a beer at the end of the day. The alternative is to force these students to leave campus to consume alcohol, thus requir ing them to drive home. As long as the students are of legal age, the University does not have the right to make lifestyle choices for its students. Some University officials argue that alcohol-free housing could reduce negative secondary effects on other students in the hall, expressing concern that people influenced by alcohol might hinder stu dents' sleep and study habits. But alcohol is not the only cause of disruptions in the dorms. One does not have to be drunk to play the radio, television or electric guitar too loud ly. In addition, anyone who has ever lived on cam pus can attest that it is far more annoying to be awakened early Saturday morning by a blaring ra dio than it is to have a drunk person bawl out an occasional, "Hey, baby!" Also, most dorms already have designated quiet hours, usually between 9 p.m. and 9 a.m. Anyone causing a disturbance during this time will be disci plined accordingly by the residential adviser (RA). This method is more fair than punishing the 22- year-old college senior who is quietly relaxing in his room drinking a beer. Some proponents of the ban feel making alcohol illegal regardless of age will cut down on underage drinking, but this is highly unlikely. Many 21-year-old drinkers would refuse to provide alcohol for underage students with or without the ban. On the other hand, those who are willing to act as alcohol providers will probably continue to do so de spite new rules. Likewise, many students smuggled alcohol into the dorms prior to turning 21. These same students will probably continue to break the ban, even after they reach legal drinking age. The current alcohol ban for underage students is difficult enough to enforce. It is preposterous to ex pand the rules to include even more students, but expect enforcement to become easier. Currently, most students who smuggle alcohol into dorms are never caught, simply because it is impossible for a RA to baby-sit dozens of students and still maintain full-time student status. RAs who are currently inclined to look the other way will be even more so when their job is made more difficult by University staff. In addition, po lice officers may be hard put to keep a straight face when they are called off Northgate, where real laws are being broken, to write a 21-year-old a ticket for illegal possesion of alcohol. Banning alcohol will not automatically make the residence-hall environment a utopian society or solve the on-campus alcohol problem. If students think a rule is unfair, it is unlikely they will obey it. Banning alcohol on campus will not solve the problem, but will only create more enforcement problems. Jessica Crutcher is a junior journalism major. Mail Call Parking lot moves upsets students In response to Adrienne Balia re’s June 20 article. Once again, PITS, you’re do ing what you do best — enrag ing the students. This new policy of moving all off-campus student parking to West Campus (with the excep tion of Zachry) is outrageous. Over 30,000 students live off campus. You’re now going to force those who buy blue tags to park farther away from their classes than before? Unless blue tags will be discounted to compensate for this outrage, they’ll be worth toilet paper when the fall starts. Where did you get the idea that doing this would cause less pedestrian traffic on Wellborn? This action will now result in hundreds of students crossing the street at a time, many times every day. Next time you decide to do something this ludicrous and stupid, I would suggest asking your paying customers what they think about the proposal. After all, it’s our tuition and tax dollars you use for your schemes. Greg Oberg Class of ’00 Accompanied by three signatures The Battalion encourages letters to the editor. Letters must be 300 words or less and include the author’s name, class and phone number. The opinion editor reserves the right to edit letters for length, style, and accuracy. Letters may be submitted in person at 014 J Reed McDonald with a valid student ID. Let ters may also be mailed to: The Battalion - Mail Call 013 Reed McDonald Texas A&M University College Station, TX 77843-1111 Campus Mail: 1111 Fax: (409) 84S2647 E-mail: battletters@hotmail.com