论美国犯人的法律权利

被监禁罪犯的权利状况,在一定程度上可以展示一个社会的刑罚进化程度。但被监禁犯人的权利和优惠待遇是有区别的。在美国,宪法、制定法、判例、法规和国际法构成了犯人权利的法律基础。美国犯人的法律权利是通过大量诉讼和犯人权利运动获得的。美国犯人享有宗教自由权、言论自由权、获得法律帮助权、医疗权、受保护权、矫正机构惩罚和纪律方面的权利、平等保护权等7大类权利和大量的具体权利。这些权利具有实然性、多样性和具体性的特点。     

对基因技术发展的伦理与法律思考

基因技术的迅猛发展,相应地引发了一系列社会问题,对现有的伦理和法律都产生了极大,中击。从生命伦理学和法理学的角度,论述基因技术所引发的基因歧视、基因资源保护、基因制药与基因治疗等若干问题,提出要通过进一步加快我国的生物科技立法,依法合理规制基因技术的发展。     

美国上市公司私有化相关法律问题

近两年,中石油、中石化等纷纷对旗下的上市子公司发起了以终止上市为目的的要约收购,并宣称流通股股票终止上市交易后,收购人可能择机将这些上市子公司依法变更为全资有限责任公司或依法取消其独立法人地位,媒体称     

美国的法律家长主义理论与实践

在美国法上,法律家长主义是指法律为了当事人自身的利益而限制其自治。在理论上,对法律家长主义争论主要是从法律经济学和法律价值论两个维度进行的,对家长主义式的规定有无效率、法律是否应保持价值中立和自治这一价值在法律中的地位进行探讨。在实践中,法律家长主义在美国合同法、行政法和宪法中有着广泛的应用,对当事人的缔约自由、表达自由、平等权等进行限制,对市场经济和社会保障中的某些行为予以规制。     

美国专利法中的不正当行为问题

不正当行为在美国专利侵权诉讼中通常被用来作为抗辩理由.根据美国专利法,所有与专利申请的起草和审查直接相关的人员,都有义务向美国专利与商标局披露与专利授权相关的重要信息.因此,若法院判定有关人员存在实质性失实陈述或疏漏行为,并有欺诈美国专利与商标局之意图,构成不正当行为,则该专利将被认定为全部无效.     

“同源分流”与“殊途同归”——英美法律教育发展路向之比较

英国和美国都具有学徒制法律职业教育的传统,但是在本国法律文化和社会实际的影响下,英国和美国的法律教育后来又采取了不同的具体模式。虽然具体形式不同,但英美法律教育都最终走上了学术性与实践性相结合的道路。但是,单就法学院本身而言,英国和美国的法学院法律教育还存在性质、地位和教学等方面的巨大差异。     

Call for Papers: Ethical and Legal Issues in Clinical and Forensic Practice

Law and Human Behavior -     

人工智能算法的伦理危机与法律规制

进入网络时代以后,人们逐步形成了一种以技术性和流动性为核心的在线生存样态.人们日益被数据化和被算法化.技术平台往往会利用自身在数据处理和深度学习算法上的技术优势,生成一种隐性的支配权和控制权,从而形成人工智能算法独特的运行逻辑.人工智能算法独特的运行逻辑正在深刻地改变着以往的生产方式和生活方式,并诱发了一系列的伦理危机...     

美国对创意的法律保护方法

创意在今天某些产业尤其是娱乐业、广告策划业中是非常重要的。创意的这种重要性提出了保护的需求。美国法院已经探索用财产权方法、准合同或不当得利方法、合同方法、信任(秘密)关系方法、反不正当竞争方法和著作权方法来保护创意人的创意,这对我国的理论研究者、立法者和创意人均是一种有用的借鉴与参考。     

《美国联邦证据规则》中的关联性

关联性规则是英美证据法上的基本规则.有关联性的证据,通常具有可采性;没有关联性的证据,一般都不具有可采性.在很多情况下,具有关联性的证据也可因影响审判公正或者诉讼效率而被排除.同时,有些证据仅对案件事实的特定部分相关,因此只具有有限的关联性和有限的可采性.另外,有些证据关联性的有无有待于另外一些证据的出示,从而产生了附条件关联性和附条件可采性的规则.最后,<美国联邦证据规则>对于关联性的判断在立法上采取了逻辑关联主义的立场;在司法实践中,这一立场又体现为经验主义.所有这些因素都导致通过关联性规则排除证据变得十分困难.因此,仅仅通过关联性规则排除不可靠的证据显然是远远不够的.     

The Regulation of Xenotransplantation in the United Kingdom After UKXIRA: Legal and Ethical Issues

Xenotransplantation - the transfer of living tissue between species - has long been heralded as a potential solution to the severe organ shortage crisis experienced by the United Kingdom and other 'developed' nations. However, the significant risks which accompany this biotechnology led the United Kingdom to adopt a cautious approach to its regulation, with the establishment of a non-departmental public body - UKXIRA - to oversee the development of this technology on a national basis. In December 2006 UKXIRA was quietly disbanded and replaced with revised guidance, which entrusts the regulation of xenotransplantation largely to research ethics committees. In this article we seek to problematize this new regulatory framework, arguing that specialist expertise and national oversight are necessary components of an adequate regulatory framework for a biotechnology which poses new orders of risk, challenges the adequacy of traditional understandings of autonomy and consent, and raises significant animal welfare concerns. We argue for a more considered and holistic approach, based on adequate consultation, to regulating biotechnological developments in the United Kingdom.     

Symposium,Cannabis—Legal,Ethical, and Compliance Issues: Introduction

This introduction reviews six articles presented at the 2020 symposium, “Legal, Ethical, and Compliance Issues in Emerging Markets: Cannabis in the States.” Scholars from across the United States and Canada presented research using the lens of law and strategy, ethics, and compliance to focus on the U.S. cannabis industry. The articles are discussed within the framework of institutional voids common to emerging markets, which may include a lack of a fully developed regulatory system and issues related to financial markets. These institutional problems create complexity for consumers, producers, municipalities, and state governments in this industry, and make success for this market segment more challenging. The introduction contributes to the discussion by reviewing securities litigation involving the cannabis industry generally and specifically in light of some of the issues identified by authors in the special issue.     

Justices and Legal Clarity: Analyzing the Complexity of U.S. Supreme Court Opinions

Legal clarity is important to understand and measure because of its connection to the rule of law. We provide the first systematic examination of the clarity of Supreme Court opinions and discover five important results. First, certain justices systematically craft clearer opinions than others. Justices Scalia and Breyer write the clearest opinions, while Justice Ginsburg consistently writes the most complex opinions. Second, ideology does not predict clarity in majority or concurring opinions. Third, all justices write clearer dissents than majority opinions, while minimum winning coalitions produce the clearest majority opinions. Fourth, justices across the board write clearer opinions in criminal procedure cases than in any other issue area. Finally, opinions that formally alter Court precedent render less clear law, potentially leading to a cycle of legal ambiguity.     

Trauma and Psychological Injury: Practice, Clinical, Legal, and Ethical Issues

Psychologists need continuing education in areas pertinent to their practice. The area of psychological injury and law presents issues and conundrums that need careful ongoing evaluation for appropriate clinical practice, adherence to ethical standards, and functioning in the legal context. In this article, we prepared a series of vignettes that illustrate these difficulties in the practice, clinical, legal, and ethical spheres related to the area of psychological injury and law. The vignettes, together with accompanying commentaries, are meant for use in workshops, and they aim to educate, stimulate, and provoke. Furthermore, the article has been written with the aim of interaction with readers, in that we seek commentaries from readers both for purposes of publication and use in workshops.     

RANDOM ASSIGNMENT IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE RESEARCH Some Ethical and Legal Issues

Randomization techniques entail sound methodological means to assign participants to groups for experimental purposes. However, prior to applying this technique to criminal justice research, several ethical and legal issues must be considered. For example, in a legal context, the objectivity afforded by the randomization process may be interpreted as “arbitrary.” Similarly, depriving control group participants of the presumed benefits of a newly launched program may be regarded as unethical. It may be possible to adapt the randomization procedure to experimental contingencies. However, caution must then be taken in carrying out the adaptation, as the methodological rigor and hence the interpretability of the results may be affected.     

Beyond Pretrial Publicity: Legal and Ethical Issues Associated with Change of Venue Surveys

To combat the effects of pretrial publicity, a court may consider a change of venue, moving the trial to a jurisdiction that has been exposed to little publicity about the case. Social scientists can be of valuable assistance in measuring community attitudes regarding defendant level of guilt and case familiarity. This paper discusses obstacles faced by the authors when conducting change of venue surveys and presenting their findings to the court, including challenges to their ability to act and be viewed as scientists, and pressures to do that which contradicts empirical research in order to please the court. Future research should examine factors predicting judges' decisions on change of venue motions and issues associated with small venues and civil cases.