Who Cares? Welfare and Consent to Child Emigration from England to Canada, 1870–1918

Liverpool Law Review - From the 1870’s, children in the care of charities or state provided institutions, including workhouses and industrial schools, were subject to the practice of...     

Climate change and national laws across Commonwealth countries

This paper furthers the Commonwealth agenda on climate action by exploring the kinds of ‘practical and swift action’ that might be taken through national legal frameworks to implement the Paris Agreement. The paper reviews national laws of Commonwealth member countries as they currently apply to and intersect with climate change. The paper investigates legal measures that relate directly to implement climate change policy, including climate change legislation and regulatory instruments such as emissions trading schemes and energy efficiency measures. It also considers indirect legal measures that can provide ‘co-benefits’ in relation to climate change policy, such as waste legislation and air quality measures. The paper presents examples of these different kinds of climate intersections in different Commonwealth legal systems, highlighting examples of what has worked well and what has not worked well to date, within different legal, economic and political cultures, and in different geographies and climates.     

THE RACE/ETHNICITY DISPARITY IN MISDEMEANOR MARIJUANA ARRESTS IN NEW YORK CITY

RESEARCH SUMMARY: This article examines the growth in marijuana misdemeanor arrests in New York City (NYC) from 1980 to 2003 and its differential impact on blacks and Hispanics. Since 1980, the New York City Police Department (NYPD) expanded its use of arrest and detention for minor offenses under its quality-of-life (QOL) policing initiative. Arrest data indicate that during the 1990s the primary focus of QOL policing became smoking marijuana in public view (MPV). By 2000, MPV had become the most common misdemeanor arrest, accounting for 15% of all NYC adult arrests and rivaling controlled substance arrests as the primary focus of drug abuse control. Of note, most MPV arrestees have been black or Hispanic. Furthermore, black and Hispanic MPV arrestees have been more likely to be detained prior to arraignment, convicted, and sentenced to jail than their white counterparts. POLICY IMPLICATIONS: In light of the disparities, we recommend that the NYPD consider scaling back on MPV enforcement and reducing the harshness of treatment by routinely issuing Desk Appearance Tickets when the person is not wanted on other charges, so that most MPV arrestees would not be detained. Furthermore, we recommend that legislators should consider making smoking marijuana in public a violation and not a misdemeanor. Lastly, we suggest ways that NYC could monitor the effectiveness of these policy modifications to assure that the city continues to meet its goals for order maintenance.     

Adjudicating reasonable and necessary funded supports in the National Disability Insurance Scheme: A critical review of the values and priorities indicated in the decisions of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Beyond the initial euphoria of the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS), tough choices will be needed for sustainability. Although the spirit of the NDIS is to deliver choice and control, the Australian government's objective is to ensure that rights and aspirations are proportionate to expectations of best practice, aptness of mainstream services and cost effectiveness. The position in this paper is that this test of ‘reasonable and necessary’ when determining funded supports, raises value dilemmas for government and citizens. The objective is to demonstrate this through a critical scrutiny of the reviews and decisions regarding reasonable and necessary funded supports of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). In this paper, a synthesis and critique of 35 appeals to the AAT and one Federal Court Appeal are used to make explicit the decisional ambiguities and contestations in the scheme and the values and priorities that are currently dominant in the allocation of reasonable and necessary support. This in turn is used as a basis for a discussion about the operation of rights in the scheme and what counts as legitimate support. The benefit is for scheme transparency and fairness but also broader debate about core principles and values to inform decisions about scarce resources in society.