Radicalization of U.S. prisoners

Research Summary
Concern has been expressed that prisoner radicalization poses a high probability threat to the safety of the United States. Although the threat of terrorist acts planned in prison is known to be above zero because of a nearly executed terrorist plot hatched in a state prison, the central finding of this research is that the actual probability is modest. The reasons for a modest probability are fourfold: Order and stability in U.S. prisons were achieved during the buildup period, prison officials successfully implemented efforts to counter the "importation" of radicalism, correctional leadership infused antiradicalization into their agencies, and inmates' low levels of education decreased the appeals of terrorism.
Policy Implications
The prison environment permits a great deal of information to be collected on the activities and, more difficult to detect, planned activities of inmates after they are released. This environment requires the attentive observation of staff, collection of information from inmates, and efforts at different levels of a correctional agency to assemble, collate, and assess information; much of it is likely to be false and some will be vital.     

Metaphor and Metonymy: An Analysis of R.A.V. v. city of St. Paul Minnesota

International Journal for the Semiotics of Law - Revue internationale de Sémiotique juridique -     

U.S. v. Glatfelter and NCR Co. v. George A. Whiting Paper Co.: Seventh Circuit's Latest Interpretation of CERCLA Liabilities

Although a crucial part of the federal government's legal arsenal against polluters in environmental enforcement actions, the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) is nevertheless an ambiguously and confusingly drafted statute requiring constant judicial interpretations of its application in litigation. Last year, several decisions delivered by the Court of Appeals of the Seventh Circuit have provided the latest interpretations, particularly further distinguishing between sections 107 and 113 claims, as well as clarifying apportionment and allocation of liabilities. This article discusses these decisions and tries to analyze their impact on future CERCLA litigations.     

对"牛吃麦"案例的另一维度的解释——英、美土地制度和财产制度的变迁

科斯定理是从经济效益的角度来分配权利的,它的"拍卖式"法律价值取向贯穿于美国土地制度与财产制度的发展历程.在与科斯定理相关的"牛吃麦"案例上,美国初始选择了"圈出"规则,后又转向"圈入"规则,其规则的变动始终遵循着"经济效益最大化"原则;而英国自始至终选择了"圈入"规则,早期是为了维护公共财产利益,之后是为了维护私有财产利益,在这过程中,"权利保护原则"是其不变的宗旨.科斯定理纯粹从经济效益的角度来解释有着相同法治渊源与传统的英、美两国在"牛吃麦"案例上所适用规则的差异性,欠缺历史维度的法律分析.     

美国麻省州紧急情况应对委员会

根据1997年2月27日通过、1998年12月17日修订过的地方法规定,设立州紧急情况应对委员会(SERC)的目的和授权依据,是1986年的超级基金修正案及再授权法的第三款以及“应急规划和社区知情权法”中所列明的。其职责如下:协调超级基金修正案及再授权法第三款中规定的培训、教育、技术指导和向基层提供服务。划分各地的紧急情况应对责任区,指定并协调地方的紧急规划委员会并评审其应急规划。建立接收和处理紧急情况报告和其他信息,如监控设施的存货情况材料等的机构和处理程序,回应政府机构和公众对于信息的索取要求。为此,应指定一个官员从事信…     

Review of S. B. Chetverikov,Who Makes U.S. Policy and How

This book is devoted to current problems in the working of the organs of government and administration of the United States, the functioning of the mechanism for the development, adoption, and implementation of its political decisions, and the interrelation and coordination of the actions of various links in its governmental machinery. It is a thorough investigation of questions of public law in the United States. The author makes clear the distinguishing features of the development of the governmental mechanism in the USA during the present period, the internal processes occurring in the political system of the imperialist state, and the contradictions inherent in it. Chetverikov directs the reader's attention to a number of issues in the present development of the system of governmental administration in the USA that have been inadequately treated in the Soviet legal literature. They include the rising political role of the bureaucracy and the tendency for it to elude control by the higher authorities, including the president; the unique character of the present stage of the fusion of the government machinery and the monopolies; the formation of a "triple alliance" made up of permanent bureaucracy, monopolist "interest groups" (consisting of lobbying organizations exercising "influence" favorable to the monopolies on government bodies), and the working machinery of Congress; the inflation of the governmental machinery and its "monopolist degeneration."     

The Politics of Appointment and the Federal Courts'Role in Regulating America: U.S. Courts of Appeals Judgeships from T.R. to F.D.R.

Historians and political scientists have noted that appointments of judges to the U.S. Courts of Appeals are not determined by senatorial courtesy alone. What has not been adequately explained is why and when a president defers to a senator's choice rather than seek to control the selection. This article attempts to understand the politics of federal appellate court appointments. The author first identifies a major change in the work of the courts of appeals during the years 1900-1945—the growth in review of the actions of newly created federal regulatory agencies. Then, by examining Justice Department files and presidential correspondence, he discoveres three patterns of appointment emerging in the same period. The patterns vary with presidential perceptions of the role of the federal government and of the courts of appeals' ability to affect accomplishment of administration goals. Appointments during the first years of the presidencies of Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt and during the Harding and Coolidge administrations were dominated by patronage concerns. Those administrations yielded to the recommendations of senators and demonstrated no interest in the policy-making potential of these courts. In the two other patterns the White House played a more active role, with senators more often deferring to the president's selection. Concerns about professionalism dominated selections in Taft's and Hoover's administrations: because they recognized the policy importance of those judgeships but saw the role of government as limited, they sought judicial craftsmen who would make policy only incrementally. Policy concerns dominated selections during Wilson's administration and the latter years of both the Roosevelts' administrations: Justice Department officials screened nominees to determine their policy orientation, because federal appellate court judgeships were perceived as crucial policy positions that could affect the president's ability to implement his reform programs.