The United States’ practice of mass incarceration is detrimental for many reasons. The article by Jennifer Rubin for The Washington Post called “Mass incarceration is bad law enforcement policy. It’s bad for the economy, too” discusses why mass incarceration is a counter-productive and harmful practice. One reason why mass incarceration is unjust is because the justice system has unfairly targeted minorities in the United States for decades. This racial inequality also leads to economic inequality, with many ethnic groups earning less money and having a higher unemployment rate. Ex-convicts and their families aren’t just feeling the economic effects of mass incarceration; the American population feels the effects too. Money spent per inmate adds up quickly, and the government loses billions of dollars of taxes. Although some argue that mass incarceration is necessary to keep the nation safe, mass incarceration is harmful because it unjustly targets minority groups, negatively affects the United States’ economy and further perpetuates wealth disparities amongst families.  

Mass incarceration unfairly targets minority groups. Rubin adds that mass incarceration disproportionately locks up Black and Latino Americans in her article for The Washington Post. Rubin elaborates by displaying The Sentencing Project’s research found. It was found that “[b]lack men are six times as likely to be incarcerated as white men and Latinos are 2.5 times as likely. For Black men in their thirties, about 1 in every 12 is in prison or jail on any given day.” This statistic shows just how real and evident the racial breakup is of prisons. The article by Greg Howard called “America Is Not For Black People” discusses Howard’s perspective on how minorities, specifically black Americans, are treated. Howard states, “[t]here are reasons why white gun’s rights activists can walk into a Chipotle restaurant with assault rifles and be seen as gauche nuisances while unarmed black men are killed for reaching for their wallets or cell phones, or carrying children’s toys.” According to Howard, black Americans are viewed as more dangerous and violent than white Americans. When viewed as more dangerous, they are more likely to get incarcerated than white Americans. This proves true when looking at the statistics of minorities arrested versus white Americans. A similar viewpoint is articulated in Charles Mill’s The Racial Contract. In this reading, Mills discusses how America’s systems stem from white supremacy and its values which still affect black Americans’ lives today. He highlights the social power that black Americans lack. Mills’ perspective reflects how governmental systems can unfairly target minority groups. Mass incarceration is a government system that targets minorities, so Mills’ point holds true. 

In the article “Mass Incarceration is Bad Law Enforcement Policy. It’s Bad For The Economy, Too”, Rubin introduces the economic effects the nation endures due to mass incarceration. One key point Rubin makes is that the more people are incarcerated, the fewer people are paying taxes. Since people are unemployed in prison most of the time, they don’t pay certain taxes that most Americans pay. The lack of taxes negatively affects the U.S. government, making it harder to afford social programs and infrastructure projects. Mass incarceration also means larger numbers of unemployment. North Texas Daily’s article called “The Negative Effects on the Economy Caused by Mass Incarceration” talks about mass incarceration’s consequence on the American economy, specifically unemployment. As stated in the article by North Texas Daily, the American economy loses between around fifty-seven billion dollars and sixty-five billion dollars yearly due to the unemployment of prisoners and ex-prisoners. Interrogating Justice states that the United States spends an average of thirty thousand dollars a year per inmate. In some states like California, this number goes up to eighty thousand dollars per inmate. This is a heavy cost to not only individual states but also the federal government. 

Wealth inequality and disparities are linked to mass incarceration. In the article “Mass incarceration is bad law enforcement policy. It’s bad for the economy, too”, Rubin talks about wealth disparities amongst different racial groups in the prison system. The article, “High Incarceration Rate Is Drag on U.S. Growth, Fed Official Says” by Bloomberg Equity found that incarceration rates have contributed to the wealth difference between white and black Americans. The statistic showed “the difference between the White unemployment rate, at 5.2%, and the one for Black Americans, at 9.2%.” Black Americans experience a higher employment rate than whites after their time in jail ends. This inevitably causes wealth disparities amongst the racial groups. Prisoners’ families also experience wealth disparities. The financial ramifications for these families are huge. The American Action Forum estimates that the cost to families of prisoners is “more than $100 billion.” This cost considers health issues and the mortality rates of an inmate’s child. This number is significant because it shows how prison negatively affects both inmates and their families socioeconomically. There is a noticeable income disparity between those who have been imprisoned and those who haven’t. The Brennan Center For Justice’s article called “Mass Incarceration Has Been a Driving Force of Economic Inequality” considers the effect a prison record has on an ex-con’s income. Latinos and Blacks lose nearly $360,000 and more than $510,000, respectively, when compared with socioeconomically similar Black and Latino people who have not been to prison.” Ex-convicts, specifically those of color, can lose hundreds of thousands of dollars of income throughout their lives. 

Some may argue that mass incarceration prevents crime. The article “Keep’ em Off the Streets: Tough Prison Sentences Mean a Safer Society” by Intelligence Squared discusses what seems to be a benefit of mass incarceration. The article states that “the prison population of England and Wales, for example, has more than doubled in 20 years – but our crime rate has steadily fallen.” The source attributed this decline in crime to the uptake in incarceration. The article added that the “fundamental purpose of prison is to protect the public, and to punish those who have done wrong.” Many think mass incarceration keeps criminals off the street and that prison’s purpose isn’t to rehabilitate but to punish. While the crime rate may have fallen due to mass incarceration, sufficient evidence supports that mass incarceration has had virtually no effect on the prevalence of violent crimes. Vera’s article called “The Prison Paradox: More Incarceration Will Not Make Us Safer” discusses how most people in prison have been convicted of non-violent crimes like drug-related offenses. With this in mind, “increasing incarceration rates for those convicted of nonviolent, marginal offenses does nothing to impact the violent crime rate.” Violent crime rates have been shown to remain the same, even with mass incarceration. Along with the violent crime rates staying the same, it has been shown that mass incarceration doesn’t help overall crime. Equal Justice Initiative discussed a study that showed the ineffectiveness of incarceration. The study found that “since 2000, the increased use of jails and prisons accounted for nearly zero percent of the overall crime reduction.” This study highlighted just how unsuccessful mass incarceration is at reducing crime.  

Although some argue that mass incarceration is necessary for a safe society, mass incarceration is very harmful because it perpetuates racial inequality, affects the U.S. economy, and further affects wealth disparities between ex-con’s and their families. Statistically, it is shown that minorities are more likely to get arrested than white Americans. Many sources have also shown that the U.S. economy takes a hit due to mass incarceration. Many things like the lack of taxes, the high unemployment rate, and the sheer cost of incarceration negatively affect the economy. Another unfortunate effect of mass incarceration is the effect on ex-con’s income. With this, the already prominent wealth disparity increases and affects prisoners and their families. It’s vital to understand the harms that mass incarceration causes so that leaders can come up with better systems to rehabilitate convicts.

This blog post is part of the CIMA law group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA law group specializes in Immigration law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations. 

 Russian figure skater Kamila Valieva’s drug test for the Winter Olympics came back positive for trimetazidine commonly known as TMZ. Kamila is a 15-year-old figure skater that was expected to pull the gold for her team. But with the supposed anxiety surrounding talks of her disqualification for illegal doping she fumbled during her routine, Falling multiple times and executing jumps poorly. These accidents led to her placing fourth in the women’s individual figure skating event and her teammate, Anna Shcherbakova, taking first. While Kamila is the center of the scandal, the team of adults that surround her are the ones in the spotlight. 

 Trimetazidine is a commonly used drug in some parts of the world, used mainly by older people to treat angina. Angina is a chest pain caused by low blood flow to the heart, TMZ increases this blood flow and eases the pain. When given to a 15-year-old figure skater, it is suspected but not proven to increase endurance. This possibility of endurance gain is also met with side effects of the drug that include nausea, dizziness and fatigue. All symptoms that are less than ideal for athletes. 

Kamila is suspected to have accidentally taken the drug from her grandfather who is on the medication. TMZ is normally given in pill form so her team has argued that there is a possibility she drank from the same glass as him, or it was dissolved in something and she drank it without knowing. All of these excuses have holes in how they could be true or not but, the International Olympic Committee (IOC) and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) decided that because she is a minor, taking her out of the competition and taking a normal course of action that would be taken with an adult competitor would cause irreversible damage to her future career, so she was allowed to continue competing.

Kamila Valieva’s coach Eteri Tutberidze is known for being Russia’s best figure skating coach. Having her students train for 12-13 hours a day, and being incredibly strict with them, known as the “Iron Lady” to past skaters. Few of these students have been asked if doping her skaters is something she would do to get an extra edge in the competition but they have all said that it’s not something she needs to or would do. On the other side of her team is their doctor, who has in the past been found guilty of illegal doping. Filipp Shvetsky was the team doctor for the Russian rowing team in 2007 and was banned by Russia for his illegal practices. Many suspect that if she did take the drug with or without knowing she did, it was because of him.

This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group Blog. If you are in need of legal help, the CIMA Law Group is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona which specializes in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.

In recent news, Harvard Law Review has just appointed their first Latina president Priscila E. Coronado in over 135 years. This comes after Hasaan Shahawy was elected as the first Muslim President for the Law Review back in 2016. Although Priscila is not the first Hispanic president, the Harvard Law Review had elected Andrew Crespo back in 2007. Unlike Crespo, she has opened up a door for future Latinas in law to be able to fulfill positions of power. 

Priscila E. Coronado is a California- born native from Downey. Her parents are Mexican immigrants and she is the first in her family to attend college and obtain a degree. In Priscila Corondao’s early education she attended Rio San Gabriel Elementary, Doty Middle School, and in 2015 she graduated from Downey High School in the top 3%. Furthermore, she received her bachelor’s degree at the University of California Los Angeles and has worked at the Disability Rights Legal Center in Los Angeles. Coronado is currently involved in many organizations including La Alianza, which is specifically for Latinx students and has a board position in the First Class organization that supports low-income students attending Harvard University. Priscila’s resume does not stop there, as the summer approaches she will be working as a summer associate at Munger, Tolles & Olson which is one of the top-ranking and elite law firms in the United States.

However, Coronado does not want to be known as the “model-minority narrative”. Most of the time highly elite institutions use minorities to prove they are diverse, and this can take away from their qualifications for the position. Priscila E. Coronado is proving the dominant narrative of Mexicans being lazy or uneducated to be untrue. In fact, her story is the counter-narrative proving Mexicans are highly educated and hardworking. In addition, she recognizes the privileges she did have growing up in a well-established community. Furthermore, it should be noted, just being a woman alone taking over a male-dominated area is just as equally impressive as being a Latina in her role.

This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group Blog. If you are in need of legal help, the CIMA Law Group is a law firm in Phoenix, Arizona which specializes in Immigration Law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.

Schools and public libraries all over the country are banning books from their libraries. This isn’t just an issue that is happening in one state, it’s an issue that is happening across the country. These books are being banned if they are being found as, “problematic.” Anything that deals with very “heavy” issues such as race, sexual identity, and religion has seen some push back on it.

There was a study that was conducted asking students opinions on the book ban and the majority was overwhelmingly in aggreeance. They believe that they have a right to read about the uncencored parts of history and that the books help expose them to all diffrent points of views and it makes them think critically. Adults believe that this book ban can harm student’s education journey. They believe that book bans shield kids from understanding reality and it gives them a warped view on the world.

It’s unfair for these books to be banned and students have no say in it. A Missouri district recently removed eight books from their school liabraries and two students filed a lawsuit against the Missouri school district. The district’s main purpose for bannining these books is because of the “ideological disagreemet” that certain district and community memebrs have against these books.

Texas especially has been banning a multitude of books. It’s not just coming from district memebers either a majority of them are coming from the parents. These “contreversal” books are a very heated subject right now and Govenor Greg Abbott had even went as far to propose instating criminal charges against any school staff memeber that gives children the access to these materials. This is a very contreversial topic across America right now but the clear solution is that students should have access to these diverse books. It comes to a point where its almost violating the freedom of the press for students because it’s only giving them access to a limited ideology.

This blog post is part of the CIMA Law Group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA law group specializes in Immigration law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations. 

World Atlas estimates that around five percent of Americans are vegetarian. Despite the vegetarian community being small, this population lives with the many benefits of vegetarianism. One of these benefits is the decreased chance of getting diagnosed with cancer or heart disease. Another benefit of eating a veggie-based diet is the positive environmental impacts like saving water. An additional benefit is how vegetarians tend to live longer than carnivores. Even though some may argue that vegetarian diets can’t be healthily maintained due to a lack of animal protein and its elements, it has been proven by numerous studies that plant protein has its own elements that allow vegetarians to flourish. Although some may argue that meat is necessary for a healthy diet, more people should be vegetarian because the benefits include the lessened risk of developing cancer and heart disease, the positive environmental impacts, and the potential for living a longer life.  

People should follow a vegetarian regime because following a vegetarian diet reduces the risk of getting diagnosed with cancer and heart disease. The book Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists and Other Vegetarians by Gary E. Fraser discussed the difference in mortality rates amongst vegetarians and meat-eaters. What he found was that vegetarians had much lower mortality rates than carnivores when diagnosed with Coronary heart disease (Fraser 180). This indicates that eating only vegetables has positive effects on your health and your ability to fight off potentially deadly diseases. Another disease that causes millions of deaths is cancer. The World Health Organization states that cancer is linked to almost ten million deaths worldwide. Fraser highlighted that many studies have found that health-conscious vegetarians have much lower mortality rates from cancer than their non-vegetarian counterparts (Fraser 196). This hasn’t only been found by Fraser; many studies have found that eating primarily vegetables is the best way to prevent cancer. The book called The Food Revolution by John Robbins and Dean Ornish discussed the impacts food has on the human body. Robbins and Ornish noted research done by the American Institute for Cancer Research that found that the most powerful way to prevent cancer is to eat a primarily vegetarian diet (Robbins, Ornish, 86). Specifically, the study found that eating predominantly legumes, veggies, and fruits is the best way to prevent a cancer diagnosis (Robbins, Ornish 86). The most preventative way to maintain health and avoid these debilitating diseases is eating and sustaining a vegetarian diet. This research shows how vital a vegetarian diet is and how impactful it can be in preventing individuals from deadly diseases that kill millions.  

A vegetarian diet is better for the environment than a carnivorous diet, and therefore, more people should eat veggie-based diets. The article “Eat to Beat Climate Change” by Vegetarian Society, states that vegetarian diets release 2.5 times fewer carbon emissions than a carnivorous diet. According to the EIA, carbon emissions directly increase the planet’s temperature and contribute to global warming. Since vegetarian diets directly release less carbon, they are better for balancing the planet’s temperature. The EIA also mentions how if someone follows a vegetarian diet for a year, they will save the same amount of carbon emissions as a small car not being on the road for six months. Comparing the emissions saved by eating only veggies for a year to not driving a car for six months shows just how drastically positive a veggie-based diet is for the environment. The article “Eat to Beat Climate Change” by Vegetarian Society also notes that water is saved when someone doesn’t eat meat, specifically chicken. The Vegetarian Society identifies how one chicken breast takes over seven hundred liters of water to produce. By not eating chicken, one person could save “enough water to fill up your bathtub 4.6 times.” Seven hundred liters of water per person is a significant amount of water saved by not consuming chicken. If just eating one chicken breast saves this much water, imagine how much water would be saved if most people ditched chicken and became vegetarian. 

More people should follow vegetarian diets because they can help people live longer. According to Sanitarium, an Australian food company, living a vegetarian lifestyle can add an extra ten years to someone’s life. The article “Can Eating a Vegetarian Diet Really Help You Live Longer?” by Sanitarium cites a study by Loma Linda University that found that vegetarian men live a median of ten years longer than men who are meat-eaters. Women were found to live an average of six years longer. These findings show how vegetarianism adds longevity to the lives of both males and females. The book Diet, Life Expectancy, and Chronic Disease: Studies of Seventh-Day Adventists and Other Vegetarians by Gary E. Fraser includes a study done by Oxford University that researched the difference in mortality rates and health amongst non-vegetarians and vegetarians. This study found that the people who didn’t consume meat products were less likely to develop high blood cholesterol (Fraser 182). This is a significant upside to following a strict vegetarian diet. High cholesterol leads to all sorts of diseases, and according to WebMD, it is linked to around 2.6 million deaths a year in the U.S. alone. Eating a vegetarian diet prevents individuals from developing high cholesterol and being part of the staggering statistic. 

Some argue that people that eat a vegetarian diet are deficient in protein, and therefore, vegetarian diets are not sustainable. The Healthy Food Guide’s article called “Why Do Vegetarians Need More Protein?” discusses why vegetarians are protein-deficient. The article elaborates by saying that plant proteins are deficient in key elements that make vegetarian diets less than adequate. While plant proteins differ from animal proteins, it has been shown that plant proteins have strong elements that animal proteins lack. According to Medical News Today, plant proteins encompass phytonutrients and certain antioxidants that meat is deficient in. These phytonutrients are beneficial to those who consume a plant-based diet. WebMD states that plant-based diets are full of more proteins that fight germs, fungi, and other things. These are proteins that are more prominent in plants than animals. It’s important to note that Medical News Today also indicates that people who are vegetarian can get meat-like protein from dairy products, eggs, grain, and nuts. There are many other ways for an individual to get protein in their diet besides eating meat. The research done by these medical sources shows that vegetarian diets do not prevent people from having an adequate protein intake, and they also provide additional benefits that animal proteins do not. 

Although people argue that going vegetarian will make someone deficient in protein, more people should follow veggie-based diets because the benefits include: a lower risk of dying from cancer and heart disease, helping the climate, and more life longevity. Studies have shown that vegetarians who get diagnosed with cancer or Coronary heart disease have lower mortality rates than meat-eaters. The climate also benefits from more people committing to vegetarian diets as water is saved, lives are saved, and less carbon is released into the atmosphere. The higher life expectancy is another significant benefit to vegetarianism. Many argue that vegetarianism isn’t a healthy diet because of the lack of animal protein, but medical sources find this claim to be false. In fact, it has been found that plant proteins have vital elements that animal proteins are deficient in. More people should commit to vegetarianism because being a vegetarian helps not only the person who follows the diet, but it helps the planet as well. 

This blog post is part of the CIMA law group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA law group specializes in Immigration law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations. 

HBO’s Euphoria, first aired in 2019, has become one of the most popular TV shows of 2022, with a combined 14 million total viewers. This teen drama follows Rue Bennett, a teenage drug addict fresh out of rehab with no plans to stay clean. With a plethora of diverse side characters, Euphoria viewers are more than likely to find someone they relate to. Deadline says Euphoria’s characters “are also vehicles to create emotional engagement with stories. And it’s one thing to feel connected; another entirely to see yourself reflected in a character that doesn’t just share your physical attributes, but also your experiences, your culture, and your lifestyle.” Jules, played by transgender actress and model Hunter Schaffer, is the sweet girl next door who befriends Rue. With a diversified cast of biracial and lgbtg+ characters, Euphoria’s season 2 is raking in the 5-star ratings. Labrinth, the talented artist behind euphoria’s soundtrack, is “THE artist you should remember,” according to Just Focus.  IndieWire says, “Labrinth’s voice really does become an unseen ethereal thread connecting all of the central figures in Euphoria.” As much as euphoria follows Generation Z teen drama, it also follows older generations featuring stories from decades past. With a superior soundtrack and cast of talented actors and writers, Euphoria should be added to your watch list immediately

 Rue Bennett, played by Emmy award-winning actress Zendaya, is the main character and fan favorite. Viewers have been taken along with her on her rocky journey to sobriety. Both seasons have given the audience an inside look at how hard drugs and addiction can affect families, friendships, relationships, and mental health.  This lesson can be truly beneficial for teenagers, although it can be hard to watch at times. At the beginning of the first season, we get flashbacks from Rue’s overdose, and the viewers witness Rue’s family experiencing the trauma that comes with that. Esteemed sources such as Vulure, Junkee, and Grazia have all praised Euphoria’s accurate depiction of drug addiction. 
Although Euphoria’s diversity has received mixed reviews, for the most part the cast is groundbreakingly different from most shows.Her Campus highlighted the importance of “casting a real transgender woman to play a transgender woman character in the show.” The show also showcases somebody diversity which is considered rare in teen dramas. Barbie Ferrera, model, and actress, plays Kat, a body-conscious teen who starts the school year looking to change her reputation. Most movies and shows depict a fat character as self-deprecating and shy, but Euphoria’s Kat is badass and confident. Entertainment Weekly describes her as “smart, cunning, kinda rude, and has her own rich life away from any skinny character.” In many ways, Euphoria is extremely original and “privileges real issues that warrant time,” according to Wired.

This blog post is part of the CIMA law group blog. If you are located in Arizona and are seeking legal services, CIMA law group specializes in Immigration law, Criminal Defense, Personal Injury, and Government Relations.