Measuring the severity of physical injury among assault and homicide victims

Criminologists seldom have attempted to measure the severity of physical injury to victims of aggravated assault and homicide, even though it is significant to many of their research efforts. Previous attempts have been neither medically accurate nor medically acceptable. In this paper the author discusses the shortcomings of these efforts and introduces an alternative method which is valid, reliable, and medically acceptable. In addition, the author discusses its applicability to research the impact of medical intervention on violent criminal assault, on factors which contribute to the severity of assaultive injury and the lethal outcome of violent assault, on specific questions regarding the patterns of offending and victimization, and on the administration of criminal justice.     

MUDDLING THROUGH THE MURKY WATERS OF TROXEL

A critical case in the area of third-party visitation rights was decided by the U. S. Supreme Court in July 2000 ( Troxel v. Granville ). A plurality in this case held that a Washington grandparent visitation statute was not facially unconstitutional but was as applied to the facts of that case. The author discusses the varying opinions of the Supreme Court justices in the Troxel decision. Next, he analyzes the plurality opinion to determine the appropriate standard of review in grandparent visitation cases. Following is a consideration of how the decision will affect other state grandparent visitation legislation. Examining these issues, the author concludes that future third-party visitation cases will be decided on a fact-specific, case-by-case basis.     

With the fourth sentence of the First Chamber on wrongful birth: is it possible to start talking about "jurisprudence"?]

Chamber number 1 of the Spanish Supreme Court of Justice has announced its fourth wrongful birth case decision dated December 18, 2003. The issue is whether we can state that with these four rulings there is a genuine law of precedent, that is, reiterated doctrine of the Supreme Court of Justice on this matter (Article 1.6 of the Civil Code).     

Prosecuting the press: First amendment balancing and state statutes that punish publication of information of crimes and official misconduct

The press has been sued and prosecuted under state criminal statutes prohibiting the truthful publication of information. These cases have involved the truthful publication of information of sexual assault victims, juvenile offenders and public officials under confidential investigation, as well as grand jury information. The Supreme Court generally has provided relief to the press, but has eschewed finding specific statutes facially unconstitutional. Instead, the Court has used an ad hoc balancing approach and rendered fact‐specific holdings. The article concludes that categorical First Amendment protection for truthful information of alleged crimes and acts of official misconduct is an appropriate goal.     

Gavels in the nursery: an Appellate Court shuts out parents and physicians from care decisions

This article explores a recent Wisconsin Court of Appeals decision in a medical malpractice case and its ramifications regarding Wisconsin's informed consent statute. The authors compare and contrast this decision with previous Wisconsin Supreme Court cases and consider the relevance of applicable federal law. The article presents a thoughtful analysis of how the Wisconsin Court of Appeals should have approached the issue, as well as how it created potential conflicts regarding the ethical duties of healthcare providers treating children.     

Liability for sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies

This article focuses on sexual harassment in criminal justice agencies from a legal perspective. The article briefly describes sexual harassment cases that address agency liability decided by the United States Supreme Court, discussing the standards of liability articulated in Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), Faragher v. City of Boca Raton (1998), and Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson (1986). A more precise understanding of when agencies are liable for the actions of their subordinates is developed through an examination of lower federal court decisions. Trends in the law are identified, as case law is categorized according to harassment by supervisors and co-workers. The article concludes by exploring the policy implications flowing from court decisions and by calling for further research on this troubling aspect of the criminal justice workplace.     

Hate Speech and International Criminal Law: The Mugesera Decision by the Supreme Court of Canada

On 28 June 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada rendered a decisionin Mugesera, bringing to an end the decade-long legal saga involvinga speech made by Leon Mugesera in November 1992 in Rwanda. Whilethe decision of the Supreme Court was handed down in the contextof an immigration case, its impact will be mostly felt in therealm of criminal law, as the court embraced international jurisprudencefor the international elements of crimes against humanity. Inaddition, the decision is important for three reasons: it (i)clarified the interrelationship between international and domesticcriminal law; (ii) examined the notion of hate crime; and (iii)analysed the concept of inchoate crimes.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">United States v Stevens</Emphasis>: Gnawing Away at Freedom of Speech or Paving the Way for Animal Rights?

This article examines United States v. Stevens, a case recently decided by the Supreme Court, and its relation to animal law and freedom of speech issues, specifically the contention between the two, caused by the statute in question at the heart of the case. While animal rights advocates wish to frame the case through an anti-animal cruelty perspective, those seeking to protect freedom of speech have made the statute an issue of First Amendment rights. Is 18 USC § 48 an imposition on free speech or a step in the right direction towards protection of animals and promotion of their rights? It is argued here that the Supreme Court should have recognized the Stevens case as an important development in animal rights and held that the statute is narrowly tailored, based on a compelling government interest, and that the protection of animals from harm overshadows any possible speech or expression that is found in crush videos, dog fighting videos, and the like.     

Roe v. Wade and the lesson of the pre-Roe case law

The attempt is made in this discussion to demonstrate that the Supreme Court in deciding the Roe v. Wade case should not have decided an abortion case when it did and that the opinion was almost destined to be bad in that the Court could find no persuasive rationale in the pre-Roe cases for each of the points in its decision. In 1973 political forces were actively debating abortion. Abortions had been prohibited by most states, except to save a woman's life, since the 19th century. In the 5 years immediately preceding Roe, 13 states had revised their statutes to resemble the Model Penal Code's provisions, which permitted abortions if the pregnancy threatened the woman's life, if it would gravely impair her physical or mental health, if it resulted from rape or incest, or if the child would be born with grave physical or mental defects. 4 states had removed all restrictions on the permissible reasons for seeking an abortion before a pregnancy passed specified lengths. In short, in many states the political process had yet to decide on abortion, but Roe's rejection of Texas's statute voided almost every other state's statutes as well. Between 1970 and 1972, a flurry of constitutional challenges hit the courts. 3 years was hardly sufficient time for the judicial system to evolve sound analysis for such an emotionally charged issue as abortion. The Court could justifiably have allowed the dispute to simmer longer in the lower courts. There is some indication that a sounder case law might evolved if given time, but that was prevented by Roe. The Court could not find a rationale in 1973, but it decided anyway, suggesting a legislative rather than a judicial process.     

Minor Discrepancies: Forging a Common Understanding of Adolescent Competence in Healthcare Decision‐Making and Criminal Responsibility

This article seeks to understand the divide between those who advocate for a broad belief in adolescent competence in the realm of healthcare decision‐making and those who advocate for a broad belief in adolescent incompetence in criminal law. After detailing various ways of understanding competence for adolescents and delineating how advocates and the Supreme Court have dealt with these issues, the article explores the possibility that contrasting views of adolescent competence are quite compatible. The author argues that the milieu in which young people make decisions, i.e., in formal versus informal settings, demonstrably affects the quality of the decision‐making process. As such, it is logical to conclude that the decision‐making process in formal healthcare settings leads to better decisions that the law should support than is the case in the informal settings in which young people decide to participate in criminal activities.     

Advocacy in Constitutional Choice: The Cramer Treason Case, 1942–1945

How did advocacy at each level of the federal judiciary help shape the leading decision in American law of treason? This article, adapted from a forthcoming biography of Judge Harold R. Medina, is a case study based on Justice Department archives and the personal papers of Medina, Charles Fahy, and seven Supreme Court Justices. It analyzes the whole case, from the lawyers’standpoint, to illuminate the role of counsel in transforming a minor wartime incident into the first treason case decided on the merits by the Supreme Court and the tribunal's only decision during World War II to limit constitutional war powers. Accenting litigation strategy and the use of history in constitutional interpretation, it is a story also of the struggle by counsel on both sides of the case to uphold high professional standards amid the passions of total war.     

Heterodoxy, iconoclasm and spuriousness: the limits of novel expert evidence

A difficult issue arises for courts' decision-making at common law and under statutory evidentiary regimes when expert opinions are significantly unorthodox, iconoclastic or methodologically flawed. This editorial analyses the relevant evidentiary principles and the Australian jurisprudence on the subject, giving particular attention to the decisions of the South Australian Supreme Court in R v Parenzee [2007] SASC 143 and R v Parenzee [2007] SASC 316 in which expert opinions about the existence, identifiability and transmissibility of HIV and its relationship to AIDS adduced on behalf of the defence in a criminal trial were found to be seriously wanting. A variety of factors indicative of low probative value in expert opinions are distilled.     

KENT V. UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JUVENILE CASE

As we went to press the decision was issued. Because of its significance the Journal will treat the case in two phases. The article that follows concerns itself with the facts and issues presented; the next issue will interpret the decision. This is the first time the U.S. Supreme Court has passed on the legality of juvenile court procedures.     

Social science in Supreme Court criminal cases and briefs

This article describes citations of social science research evidence in 200 criminal cases decided by the Supreme Court and in the briefs filed by the parties and amici curiae in these cases. It also examines the uses of social science authorities in samples of Supreme Court exclusionary rule and jury decisionmaking cases, and accompanying briefs. The correspondence between the social science references cited in the decisions and the briefs is used as one measure of the brief-writers' contributions to the Court's use of social science materials, and related contributions of the brief-writers are explored, as well. The justices appeared to locate the majority of social science references cited in their opinions without assistance from the briefs, and thus also presumably attempted to evaluate the research evidence on their own. Individuals and organizations with scientific expertise rarely filed amicus briefs in these cases, which may help explain why the Court so frequently was without assistance in locating or examining research evidence. It is suggested that the appellate judiciary's informed use of social science materials would be promoted if more social scientists, and their professional organizations, participated as amici curiae in cases presenting social fact issues within their competence.     

The Role of the United States Supreme Court in Shaping Federal Drug Policy

Through judicial review, the United States Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in deciding and/or interpreting the constitutionality of legislation. Since the passage of the Pure, Food and Drug Act in 1906, the Supreme Court’s role has been integral in formulating drug policy. In some instances, the Court’s decisions have limited the authority of the federal government, while in others have greatly expanded this authority. As a direct result of the decision-making of the Supreme Court, limitations have periodically been placed on Congress to regulate controlled substances. Many people, who were perceived as medical patients, became criminal drug users. The Court has restricted and later approved of the use of drugs during the free exercise of religion. Lastly, the Court has continually reinforced the supremacy of the federal government over the states, in turn limiting the ability of the states to consider marijuana legislative reform.     

Attribution and the Illegality Defence

In Jetivia SA v Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) all seven judges of the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeal by holding that the illegality defence could not be raised as a defence against the claim made by the company because the wrongdoing of the directors and shareholder cannot be attributed to the company. Although all the judges unanimously agreed on the outcome of the case, their reasoning concerning the approach to attribution and the different circumstances under which attribution should or should not take place differed. Further, the Supreme Court was divided on the issue of the correct approach to the illegality defence.     

Supreme Court upholds criminal prohibitions on possession of marijuana for recreational use

In two recent decisions, R v Malmo-Levine and R v Caine (decided together) and R v Clay, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the criminal prohibition on marijuana possession, in the absence of a regulatory exemption for medical purposes, is constitutional.     

Criminal history and social disadvantage as predictors of the severity of violent offending

ABSTRACT

Lethal violence is often seen as the tip of the iceberg and homicide perpetrators are seen as manifesting the most extreme number of various risk factors. This article explores whether that is the case. Using a unique data set combining data from several administrative registers with a nationally representative sample of different types of police-reported violence committed during 2010–2011 (N = 26,303 offenders) in Finland, we compare the offenders of five different types of violence (minor assault, assault, aggravated assault, attempted homicide, and completed homicide). In addition, we examine the association between the severity of violence and prior criminal history and different types of strain. The results give partial support to the hypothesis: the more serious the violence, the more crime prone and socially disadvantaged the offender. Yet, lethal offenders do not stand out alone; the division, rather, appears to be between offenders of serious (aggravated assault, attempted homicide, completed homicide) and less serious (minor assault, assault) forms of violence.     

论英国的犯罪信息公开制度——以加拉格尔案为切入点

在英国,犯罪信息公开制度一直是一个备受争议的话题。《欧洲人权公约》第8条规定,每个人都享有隐私权,任何侵犯隐私权的行为必须以“合法”和“必要”为前提。2019年初,在加拉格尔系列案的上诉程序中,犯罪记录披露措施是否违反《公约》第8条规定成为英国社会关注的焦点。在该案判决中,英国最高法院虽然支持了前科被披露人员的请求,驳回了上诉,但是,法官们对于犯罪信息公开制度是否符合合法性和必要性标准却存在明显的分歧。通过对该案的基本案情、主要争议点、英国最高法院法官的不同意见的分析,可以为发展和完善我国犯罪记录登记和查询机制提供参考依据。     

公司对外担保效力的实务解读

《担保法解释》暗含禁止公司为股东与个人债务提供担保之意。在中福实业公司担保案中最高人民法院的思路是:股东会决议通过的公司为公司股东债务提供担保有效。在幸福实业担保案中最高人民法院的立场是:公司股东会决议通过的公司为公司股东债务提供担保也一律无效。最高人民法院在公司对外担保效力问题的立场有些含混。