BETWEEN PROPORTIONALITY & IMPUNITY: Confrontation⇒ Truth⇒ Prevention

The ideal of punishment proportionate to wrongdoing creates a criminal justice system that deters prevention. An alternative ideal is that crime should always be confronted with a presumption for mercy that is conditional upon participation in a truth-seeking process that identifies paths to prevention. Informally rewarding reconciliation and prevention is the basis of a more compelling rational choice account of crime control than proportionate formal punishment. A rational and emotionally intelligent criminal justice system might look something like the airline safety system.     

Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania: Mission‐Driven; Performance‐ Based; Outcome‐Focused

Since 1995, Pennsylvania's Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission has been the driving force behind Pennsylvania's reform and system improvement efforts. Pennsylvania has made strong and steady progress towards advancing this statutory mission and the related operational goals through policy, practice and programmatic enhancements over these past 20+ plus years. Three key events spurred forth this advancement: the legislative passage of Act 33 in 1995 that statutorily established the goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ), the Models for Change Juvenile Justice Reform Initiative–Additional Reform Momentum (2004) and the Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy–Evidence‐based Approach to the Reforms (2010).What follows is the story of how it all unfolded.     

Of ‘Landmark’ or ‘Leading’ Cases: Salomon's Challenge

This article seeks to question the two dominant conceptions of ‘landmark’ or ‘leading’ cases in English legal scholarship, using the House of Lords decision in Salomon v. Salomon Co Ltd. – the most famous case in corporate law – as a case study. It argues that neither the first dominant conception of ‘leading’ or ‘landmark’ cases, characterized by the analysis of the intrinsic merits of a case, nor the second, which looks at the historical contexts in which cases were decided, appears sufficient by itself to determine whether a case is landmark or canonical. Rather, we have to look at how the canonicity of a case is constructed by subsequent courts. The article seeks to advance the debate concerning the formation of landmark cases and aims to challenge certain prevailing views on the canonicity of corporate law's arguably most significant case.     

Hard Determinism and Punishment: A Practical <Emphasis Type="Italic">Reductio</Emphasis>

How can hard determinism deal with the need to punish, when coupled with the obligation to be just? I argue that even though hard determinists might find it morally permissible to incarcerate wrongdoers apart from lawful society, they are committed to the punishment’s taking a very different form from common practice in contemporary Western societies. Hard determinists are in fact committed to what I will call funishment, instead of punishment. But, by its nature funishment is a practical reductio of hard determinism: it makes implementing hard determinism impossible to contemplate. Indeed, the social practices that hard determinism requires turn out to be morally bad even according to hard determinism itself. I conclude by briefly reflecting upon the implications.     

Wasserverbandsversammlung: funktionale Selbstverwaltung; Demokratieprinzip

Keine Zusammenfassung     

‘Consumer’ versus ‘Customer’: The Devil in the Detail

According to the European Commission, the objective of EU competition rules is enhancing ‘consumer welfare’. In EU competition law, however, ‘consumer’ means ‘customer’ and encompasses intermediate customers as well as final consumers. Under Article 102TFEU, harming intermediate ‘customers’ is generally presumed to harm ‘consumers’ and where intermediate customers are not competitors of the dominant undertaking, there is no requisite to assess the effects of conduct on users further downstream. Using advances in economics of vertical restraints and, in particular, non‐linear pricing, this article shows that there are instances where the effect on ‘customer welfare’ does not coincide with the effect on ‘consumer welfare’ and the presumption can potentially lead to decisional errors. Thus, if the law is to serve the interests of ‘consumers’, the Commission should reconsider this presumption and its interpretation of the ‘consumer’ in ‘consumer welfare’; otherwise, it remains questionable whose interests EU competition law serves.     

Book Review: The Conflict Paradox: Seven Dilemmas at the Core of Disputes by Bernie Mayer

Bernie Mayer's latest book is an excellent journey into seven key dilemmas in conflict. Mayer devotes a chapter to each of the following dilemmas: Competition and Cooperation, Optimism and Realism, Avoidance and Engagement, Principle and Compromise, Emotions and Logic, Impartiality and Advocacy, and Autonomy and Community. In this review, I suggest that the book is a thorough guide through seemingly diverse and opposing conflict theories. I go through each chapter and detail how Mayer sees these concepts as interwoven instead of oppositional. He walks his readers through what have been thought of as distinctive, even opposing, approaches, theories, and concepts of conflict. The review uses points and quotes from all seven dilemmas to show the depth of Mayer's analysis and the numerous benefits to theorists and practitioners of reading and rereading his book.     

Two Meanings of ‘Reasonableness’: Dispelling the ‘Floating’ Reasonable Doubt

The ‘reasonable doubt standard’ is the controlling standard of proof for criminal fact finding in several jurisdictions. Drawing on decision theory, some scholars have argued that the stringency of this standard varies according to the circumstances of the case. This article contends that the standard does not lend itself to the ‘sliding‐scale’ approach mandated by decision theory. This is supported through investigation of the concept of ‘reasonableness’. While this concept has mostly been studied as it operates with reference to practical reasoning, scant attention has been given to the meaning that it acquires when referred to theoretical reasoning. Unlike in the former case, reasonableness does not in the latter depend on the reasoner's attitudes in favour of the outcomes of a decisional process. Therefore, since criminal fact finding is an instance of theoretical reasoning, the question whether in this enterprise a doubt is reasonable is not susceptible to a decision‐theoretic approach.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Peters Edition v. Batt</Emphasis>: The Intertextuality of Silence

The article deals, on the one hand, with a legal conflict between a musical performer/arranger, Mike Batt, and the estate of a composer of avant-garde music, John Cage, over copyright. It is also concerned with the field of intertextuality – how meaning is created in a text or in a work of art, whether it is visual, musical or verbal, through allusions and quotations to previous texts or works of art. The controversy, which did not reach the courts because of a pre-trial settlement, was over an author’s rights to silence, or, as in this case, a silent piece of music. The central issue discussed is the way in which silence may be considered – if at all, to be protectable.