In re Browning.

HELD: Prior judicial approval is not required for a surrogate to exercise the state constitutional right of self-determination of a patient who has become incompetent and who, while competent, specifically expressed her wishes regarding medical treatment decisions orally or in writing. The surrogate, in so exercising that right, must satisfy herself that certain requirements are met.     

“The Spectacle of Fearsome Acts”: Crime in the Melting P(l)ot in <Emphasis Type="Italic">Gangs of New York</Emphasis>

This paper explores the multi-layered representations of violence and crime in the recent Hollywood film Gangs of New York [Scorcese (2003) Miramax]. We use our exploration of this film to suggest that popular culture, even through its most mainstream products, can be seen as a critical criminological space where alternative views of law, crime and the state are made available. Rather than understanding Hollywood movies simply as vehicles for disseminating conventional mores, we suggest that they can furnish critical (and complex) points of view on law and crime and that the project of a critical criminology can be strengthened by engaging more forthrightly with these ubiquitous cultural forms.     

Indigenismo and the Avant‐garde: Jorge Sanjinés' Early Films and the National Project

Jorge Sanjinés' 1960s films Revolución and Ukamau challenge the class and ethnic hierarchies of Bolivian society by casting the proletarian and indigenous masses as revolutionary liberators. The new national imaginary they evoke is tightly bound to the experimental cinematic techniques they employ, since their rejection of rationalist, realist aesthetics signals a partial undermining of the linear time of the modern nation. Ukamau both recalls and resists previous Bolivian indigenismo, which sought to co‐opt the Indian into a national mestizo consciousness. Its exoticist portrayal of the Indian ultimately limits its political effectiveness, but textual and contextual analyses show subversive Indian agency leaking through.     

DOES DISPERSED PUBLIC OWNERSHIP IMPAIR EFFICIENCY? THE CASE OF REFUSE COLLECTION IN NORWAY

Corporate governance theory suggests that companies with dispersed and indirect ownership suffer from agency costs. A worst case is where several political authorities jointly own a company, which allows managers to operate with inferior efficiency. In political economy, the manager is not the major agency problem. Elected politicians may impair efficiency to improve their re‐election prospects. Since politicians have less influence in jointly owned firms, such companies are expected to perform better than those owned by a single public authority. Consistent with corporate governance – but not political economy – the empirical analysis suggests that dispersed municipal ownership impairs cost efficiency. In the Norwegian case of municipal refuse collection presented here, costs of dispersed ownership often outstrip gains from economies of scale. Use of jointly owned companies is not necessarily a proper response to efficiency problems inherent a fragmented local government structure.     

DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics: Recommendations on the interpretation of mixtures

The DNA commission of the International Society of Forensic Genetics (ISFG) was convened at the 21st congress of the International Society for Forensic Genetics held between 13 and 17 September in the Azores, Portugal. The purpose of the group was to agree on guidelines to encourage best practice that can be universally applied to assist with mixture interpretation. In addition the commission was tasked to provide guidance on low copy number (LCN) reporting. Our discussions have highlighted a significant need for continuing education and research into this area. We have attempted to present a consensus from experts but to be practical we do not claim to have conveyed a clear vision in every respect in this difficult subject. For this reason, we propose to allow a period of time for feedback and reflection by the scientific community. Then the DNA commission will meet again to consider further recommendations.     

The sentencing reform act of 1984: A bold approach to the unwarranted sentencing disparity problem

Conclusion In 1984, after years of study and thorough debate, a bipartisan majority of the Congress enacted perhaps the most far-reaching reform of the federal criminal justice system in the history of the United States. The Sentencing Reform Act and the federal sentencing guidelines are now beginning to produce data indicating that the objectives of avoiding unwarranted disparity and invidious discrimination are being achieved.After an uncertain beginning, the guidelines are gaining acceptance by courts and criminal justice practitioners. As one appellate court observed in admonishing lower courts that the guidelines must be respected:We have embarked on a new course. Only time will tell whether the use of the guidelines will result in an improvement over the old system. But unless we follow the spirit and written directions of the guidelines, we will never know if they have been given a fair test. They at least deserve that.Indeed, the bold new approach to sentencing that is being followed today in federal courthouses throughout the United States deserves an opportunity to succeed, given its many beneficial features and the lofty goals toward which the reforms are directed. While ample work remains for the United States Sentencing Commission to monitor and improve the guidelines, indications at this still early date are that the experiment is succeeding.An earlier version of this paper was presented at the fifth conference of the Society for the Reform of Criminal Law, Parliament House, Edinburgh, Scotland, August 5–9, 1990. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the United States Sentencing Commission.B.A., Davidson College 1964; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1967.B.A., Ohio State University 1974; M.S., Arizona State University 1980; M.A., University of California, Santa Barbara, 1983.B.S., Clemson University 1971; M.S., Clemson University 1975; J.D., University of South Carolina School of Law 1978.