Revolution Blues: The Reconstruction of Health and Safety Law as ‘Common‐sense’ Regulation

This article reviews the last five years of coalition government policy making in relation to occupational health and safety law. It shows that the most significant and influential element of this activity has been the reframing of the wider regulatory system according to a dominant ideological paradigm of ‘common‐sense’ regulation, to the detriment of other considerations and interests. A social constructionist framework assists in setting out the means through which this new ‘symbolic universe’ of regulatory possibility has been constructed and promulgated within the policymaking arena. In particular, it identifies the key role played by processes of deliberative regulatory engagement in the construction and development of this approach, and identifies the inherent vulnerability of ‘thin’ forms of deliberation to this sort of application.     

Exploring the criminal histories of stranger sexual killers

Although sexual homicide is receiving increasing research attention, few studies have examined the criminal histories of sexual killers in any detail. This study examined the criminal histories of 81 British stranger sexual killers to determine whether they were generalist, specialists or both and whether their criminal histories reflected violent, sexual, marginality and over control pathways. Results found most stranger sexual killers were generalist offenders and sexual homicide was part of a varied criminal repertoire and non-sexual crimes predominate. This ‘antisocial orientation’ means future offending may not be limited to sexual violence. Criminal histories reflected the violent, sexual, marginality and over control pathways, but offenders in the violent pathway were more criminally orientated. The clinical and investigative implications of these findings were considered as they suggest knowledge of the criminal histories of stranger sexual killers is an important consideration for criminal justice professionals.     

Friends of the Court: Examining the Influence of Amicus Curiae Participation in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation

Amicus curiae participation is a staple of interest group activity in the U.S. Supreme Court. While a reasonably large body of scholarship has accumulated regarding the effectiveness of this method of participation, little attention has been paid to examining the reasons why amicus participation might increase litigation success. In this article, I test two separate, but not mutually exclusive, theories as to why amicus briefs may be effective. The first, the affected groups hypothesis, suggests amicus briefs are influential because they signal to the Court how many groups and individuals will be potentially affected by the decision. The second, the information hypothesis, proposes that amicus briefs are effective because they provide the Court with added information that buttresses the arguments of the direct parties. When subjected to empirical verification, the results indicate that not only does amicus participation increase litigation success, but also that this influence may be best explained by the information hypothesis.