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