UF Law Faculty in the News

Published: October 1st, 2007

Category: News

Kenneth NunnKenneth B. Nunn
Professor; Associate Director, Center on Children and Families

  • The Christian Science Monitor, Sept. 21. Quoted in an online article written about the recent questions of bias in U.S. justice regarding the “Jena 6” case in Louisiana. “The public at large basically thinks that these cases are aberrations, and that’s one reason why so much attention is paid to them,” Nunn said. “It’s the idea that it’s the redneck sheriff doing this and not the way we sort of stack the odds against black criminal defendants. We can point to a few bad apples, say, ‘See, it’s them,’ and the rest of us feel great because we’re demonstrating how we disagree with racism.” The article concluded with Nunn verbalizing his underlying belief with the criminal justice system, “The problem in the criminal justice system is the problem generally with the law. You always have great leaps forward and tiny steps backward.”

Christopher SloboginChristopher Slobogin
Stephen C. O’Connell Chair; Affiliate Professor of Psychiatry; Adjunct Professor, University of South Florida Mental Health Institute; Associate Director, Center for Children and Families

  • The Gainesville Sun, Sept. 20. Quoted in an article discussing his recent presentation about the Constitution and surveillance by the U.S. government. Slobogin discussed his three classifications of surveillance, the impact 9/11 has had on our privacy and how the government is eroding the 4th Amendment. “The Fourth Amendment, I think, requires the government to act reasonable,” he said. “(Ultimately), if the government wants to prosecute someone, it probably can.”
  • The Independent Florida Alligator, Sept. 20. Quoted in an article discussing the presentation he delivered on government surveillance. Slobogin said, “The government should have to provide a justification for surveillance that’s proportionate to the intrusion involved. As far as the constitution is concerned, there is virtually no limit on what the government can do outside of intercepting domestic communication.”