In West Virginia, chickens outnumber people almost eight to one. ¹ Unfortunately for West Virginians, however, the creation of a state board in 2010 greatly reduced state citizens’ say in how those chickens live. ² This might not matter all that much if all chickens roosted in lovely red barns ³ and were raised by farmers with at least as much concern for animal well-being as for personal profit. Nationwide, because this balance is distinctly not the case, several confinement practices—including the confinement of chickens to battery cages—have been questioned and banned in a handful of states. ⁴

If West Virginians were to decide that they too opposed the confinement of chickens or other livestock, they now have an additional burden above and beyond soliciting their state representatives to address the issue. Citizens either must convince the West Virginia Livestock Care Standards Board to promulgate new rules or convince the state legislature to bypass the board, something quite unlikely to happen given how contentious confinement improvements are; indeed, some have asserted that Livestock Care Standards Boards were created for the distinct purpose of removing power from the public to make laws on this subject matter. ⁵ This Essay argues that Livestock Care Standards Boards unnecessarily remove power from the public because (1) consumer autonomy should trump farmer autonomy, (2) confinement issues evoke more than merely irrational attention, and (3) consumers are capable of making the primarily economic assessment involved in improving livestock living conditions.

Ninety-two million Americans have a criminal record—nearly one in three adults. ¹ This criminal record can include an arrest that did not lead to a conviction, a conviction for which the person did not serve time in prison, or a conviction for a non-violent crime. ² All can have a similar impact on an individual’s job prospects and on local economies. Incarcerating adult Americans costs a combined $68 billion annually at the local, state, and federal levels. ³ The cost of lost wages and lost financial contributions to society by ex-offenders is even higher.

This financially immobilized population of former offenders may be permanently unemployable. In response, a majority of states have created statutes to permit select offenders a new chance. ⁴ These states grant that after a waiting period and good behavior, ex-offenders may apply to have their convictions sealed or “set aside.” ⁵ These expungements remove the conviction from public records, lifting the stigma and the resulting barriers to employment. ⁶

– The Honorable O.C. “Hobby” Spaulding, Putnam County, West Virginia, Circuit Court Judge ¹

Twenty-year-old Amanda Knox, an American student studying abroad in Perugia, Italy, sits alone in an Italian police station interrogation room. Days earlier, on November 2, 2007, her roommate Meredith Kercher, a British exchange student, was found brutally murdered—Knox and her Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, are the prime suspects. ² Over the next few days, Knox is heavily interrogated by several Italian police officers when suddenly, on November 5th, the case breaks. ³ Alone, without an attorney, without food or sleep, and speaking in a language she is not entirely fluent in, Amanda Knox confesses—at 1:45 am and 5:45 am—to murdering her roommate. ⁴ Her confession, despite an Italian law mandating it, is not recorded. ⁵ As Amanda Knox vehemently maintained her innocence throughout her ordeal, ⁶ it begs the question—why confess to a crime you never committed?