Violence Prevention and Targeting the Elusive Gang Member

Who do violence preventers target to achieve violence prevention? This fundamental question of selection is typically associated with law enforcement, yet gang labeling is critical in another context: nonprofit violence prevention. Eighteen months of fieldwork in a gang outreach organization find that (a) workers operationalize gang violence prevention as social service provision, but (b) services are only offered to those deemed “ready” for life changes. Readiness is an unwritten eligibility criteria leveraged as a rhetorical tool to focus recruitment on clients who demonstrate complicity. It is reaffirmed through external pressures to document program effectiveness; organizational‐level concerns for efficient resource allocation; the subpopulation of clients who actually want services; and workers’ own fears of “getting played”—losing face from free‐riding clients interested in street worker perks, but not formal services. While core gang members may be most at‐risk, their very centrality may deter, rather than justify, providing them services.     

The Impact of Judicial Opinion Language on the Transmission of Federal Circuit Court Precedents

Why do some federal circuit court precedents transmit across circuits when others do not? Does judicial opinion language influence which cases are more likely to transmit? Previous research on the transmission of precedents has focused primarily on attributes of the circuits or judges who wrote the decisions, without considering whether opinion language also influences citations. This study hypothesizes that precedents are more likely to transmit to other circuits when judges communicate their importance using features of opinion language such as the legal grounding, the amount of supporting evidence, and the decision to file a per curiam opinion. The results indicate that opinion language does influence the transmission of precedents, which suggests that judges who care about policy and are willing to take affirmative steps to encourage citations can use opinion language to enhance their impact.     

IF A THREAT OF VIOLENCE IS PRESENTED,WHEN DOES THE LAW REQUIRE FAMILY MEDIATORS TO BREACH CONFIDENTIALITY?

For a family mediator to protect his client, a third party, and/or himself from unlawfully disclosing a client's admission, the family mediator should use the principles set forth in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California when a threat of violence is presented by one of his clients, since many states have adopted these principles through case law and statute to protect third parties from acts of violence. The two most significant factors in determining whether to breach confidentiality are the identifiability of the victim and the likelihood of the potential physical harm. If a jurisdiction has not explicitly done so via statute, the family mediator should nonetheless follow these principles since they are likely to be adopted by that jurisdiction through case law, because the probability of a court's finding a special relationship between a family mediator and a client is relatively high.     

Attorneys,tell your clients to think before they post: Social media data may influence how evaluators view their parental fitness

Information from social media is used in evaluations of parental fitness with some regularity. Yet, research is lacking on perceptions of this information and no research has examined how social media data impacts forensic evaluators' opinions related to parental fitness. This study compared forensic evaluators' perceptions of data trustworthiness, usefulness, and initial opinion of parental fitness in a fictitious case in which parental fitness was questioned. Perceptions of a parent's behavior were compared across two types of data in which it was presented (an Instagram post or a medical record note) and across genders of the parent (mother or father) being hypothetically evaluated. As hypothesized, information documented on social media was viewed more critically than information documented by a healthcare provider. Further, information primarily referencing the father in the case was viewed as less trustworthy than information referencing the mother, which appeared influenced by evaluators' identified self-reported sexist attitudes. Results suggest that family law attorneys, regardless of which parent they are representing, should advise their clients of the risks to using social media.     

Sourcing from China: stopping the IP leaks from your clients' supply chain

Legal context: It is no secret that IP in China is a challenge. However, commercialactivity in or with China is now predictable enough that companiescan, and should, plan for it by taking control of their supplychain. This requires a combination of legal and practical measures.This article sets out some of these steps. Key points: In order to minimize the risks of IP leakage their supply chainsin China, there are three key stages of protection: (i) Pre-sourcing;(ii) Negotiating strong contracts with suppliers; and (iii)Managing the relationship with your supply chain. Practical significance: If your clients do business in China or source products fromhere and cannot answer the following questions, their IP isat risk of infringement. They need to take steps to proactivelymanage their supply chain.

• Do your clients know which factoryis producing their products?How many links are in your clientssupply chain, each one increasingthe chances for IP infringement?
• Do your clients' agreements with their suppliers adequatelyprotect their IP?
• Have your clients taken steps to prevent‘midnight productionruns’ and ‘backdoor sales’by their suppliers?
• How is the IP being provided to them?Do your clients need togive them everything for production?
• What steps have been taken post-production to ensure thatyourclients' suppliers don't continue to manufacture theirproducts?

     

Legal liability of universities for students

This article involves analysis of the nature of the legal relationship between universities and their students. The development of a general perception that students are consumers of services provided by the university or their clients responsible for paying their own fees has led to an increased likelihood of students seeking legal redress for inadequacies in their educational experience. Recognition of the contractual basis of the arrangement and the resultant legal remedy for breach of the contractual terms has provided the means by which rights can be enforced. However, there are also a number of areas of law (under statute and the common law) which can be utilised for this purpose. These areas are summarised and the difficulties associated with their utilisation identified. The need to reform the system of student complaints in universities and the legal framework for enforcing their legal rights is discussed and recommendations put forward.     

Strategic Anticipation of En Banc Review in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

The quest for empirical evidence of strategic judicial behavior has produced mixed results. This study finds such evidence in the decisions made while crafting an opinion. Central to any opinion is which precedents are cited and whether their scope is limited (negative treatment) or expanded (positive treatment). I look for evidence of strategic anticipation of en banc review in these decisions using an original dataset of published search and seizure cases from the U.S. Courts of Appeals from 1953 to 2010. A panel is less likely to negatively treat a precedent with which the full circuit is more closely aligned. Circuit preferences also have an effect on citation itself, but only when the panel is at least moderately aligned with a precedent. Moreover, the panel's own ideology is only a significant predictor of citation when the full circuit is favorably disposed toward a particular precedent.     

政务舆情回应策略对政府形象修复的影响 ——情绪认知视角的有调节中介模型

【问题】当前舆情危机事件频发,网络舆情既可以提升政府形象也可以对政府形象造成负面影响,关键在于政府如何应对舆情。舆情事件中政府采取什么样的回应策略才能有效维护和修复政府形象?【方法】本研究从情绪认知视角出发,以公众情绪为中介和以回应策略为调节变量构建了有调节的中介模型,并通过2(事件责任:大、小)×3(回应策略:否认、借口、道歉修正)的组间实验设计进行证实。【发现】研究发现,当公众认为责任大的条件下,采用道歉修正策略(与否认策略、借口策略相比)更能缓解公众情绪,进而修复政府形象;当公众认为责任小时,采用道歉修正策略和否认策略(与借口策略相比)更能疏导公众情绪,进而修复政府形象。【贡献】研究突破了传统SCCT理论基于认知视角探讨形象修复的框架,从情感视角提出即使不改变大众对舆情事件起因的归因认知,通过有效回应来疏导公众情绪,也能达到修复政府形象的目的。     

From Theory to Practice: Citizens’ Attitudes about Representation in France

French institutions, political culture and history have favoured a very abstract conception of representation: MPs are expected to embody collectively the French Nation, but little is known about citizens’ concrete views on representation. In this paper, data gathered through a citizen mass survey are used. To overcome the usual abstract considerations on representation, respondents were asked their opinion on an MP who would endorse amendments proposed by an interest group. In the questionnaire, two features were changed randomly: the MP's political leaning and the type of interest group. It is shown by means of an original experiment that the ‘general’ conception representation has disappeared from citizens’ attitudes: despite the enduring legitimacy of the general will approach in the public sphere, French citizens appear to promote a conception of representation close to the Madisonian views on pluralism involving a strong attachment to the logic of territorial electoral linkage.     

Poetic Justice: Why Sex-Slaves Should be Allowed to Sue Ignorant Clients in Conversion

In this article I argue that clients who purchase commercial sex from forced prostitutes should be strictly liable in tort towards the sex-slaves. Such an approach is both normatively defensible and doctrinally feasible. As I have argued elsewhere, fairness and equality demand that clients compensate sex-slaves even if one refuses to acknowledge that fault is involved in purchasing sex from a prostitute who might be forced. In this article I argue that such strict liability could be grounded in the tort of conversion, and not only (as argued elsewhere) in battery. Since the quintessential experience of sex-slaves is that of being treated as chattels, the appropriate legal response is to allow them to benefit from the strict liability imposed on those who interfere with an owner’s dominion over his property. Accordingly, sex-slaves should be viewed as both subjects and objects. As subjects they can sue clients for the violation of their sexual autonomy manifested by their treatment as objects. This approach is both advantageous to sex-slaves, in the sense it affords them protection that might not otherwise exist, and fair, since the ultimate response to the objectification of sex-slaves by clients should be to afford the former a proprietary-based claim against the latter. I further explain why my approach is not problematic on conceptual grounds, anti-commodification sentiments or feminist concerns with the symbolic message of my solution: that the law treats women as property.     

Should we trust the gatekeepers?: Auditors’ and lawyers’ liability for clients’ misconduct

Many corporate scandals of the past years (Enron, Worldcom) have made apparent the essential role of professional service providers, such as auditors, corporate lawyers, and securities analysts, in detecting and revealing corporate misconduct on the part of their clients [Coffee, J., Jr. (2006). Gatekeepers. The role of the professions in corporate governance. Oxford University Press]. Political and legal responses in the aftermath of those scandals have increased the level of regulatory intervention upon auditors and lawyers. For instance, several measures were introduced in the Sarbanes–Oxley Act of 2002, and were recommended by the European Commission.The imposition of duties of care and reporting on gatekeepers, conditional on their having observed an underlying wrongdoing or misconduct of their clients, is, however, more complicated at a theoretical level than believed by policymakers and commentators. Using framework similar to the one we have recently employed to analyze heterogeneous victims in terms of their costs of care [Ganuza, J., & Gomez, F. (2005). Caution, children crossing! Heterogeneity of victim's cost of care and the negligence rule [article 3], Review of Law and Economics, 1], we model the interaction as one in which the gatekeeper observes the state of the world affecting misconduct with a given probability, and Courts or regulators imposing duties or liabilities are unable to verify whether, in fact, misconduct had or not been observed by the lawyer or auditor. The wrongdoing by the client, however, is ex post costlessly verifiable by the Courts or regulators. Information on wrongdoing is thus verifiable but hideable. In this setting, we show that general (albeit maybe increased) standards of professional behavior by auditors or lawyers may well be sufficient as incentives. If those standards can be adequately set by Courts or regulators, in anticipation of the opportunities for strategic behavior derived from the imperfect observation and the unverifiability of actual observation, legal rules do not need to rely on more complex policies of trust or distrust towards the statements, or on the proofs, provided by the gatekeepers, concerning the actual observation of clients’ misbehavior. The implications of the model tend to imply that the distinction between voluntary violation (scienter) of duties, and mere negligence, contrary to existing Law, is not very useful in this context.     

Is the general data protection regulation the solution?

Never has a text been received with so many requests for amendments; never has the debate around it been so huge. Some see it as a simple duplicate of the Directive 95/46; others present the GDPR, as a monster. In the context of this birthday, it cannot be a question of analyzing this text or of launching new ideas, but simply of raising two questions. I state the first as follows: "In the end, what are the major features that cross and justify this regulation? In addition, the second: "Is the regulation adequate for today's digital challenges to our societies and freedoms? The answers given in the following lines express the opinion of their author. It is just an invitation for a dialogue to go forth in this journal where so many excellent reflections have been published on Digital Law, thanks to our common friend: Steve.     

More Sanctions – Less Prison? A Research Note on the Severity of Sanctions Proposed by Survey Participants and how it is Affected by the Option to Combine a Prison Term with Other Sanctions

Public opinion has come to be given an increasingly important role in the crime policy debate of western countries. The task of problematising different pictures that emerges from different studies of public opinion on appropriate sentences thus becomes an important task. In this article the question is whether survey respondents, in their choice of reactions to crime, tend to propose shorter prison sentences when they combine the prison term with other measures? If so, different response instructions can lead to different conclusions as to what survey participants consider to be appropriate sentences. Earlier research points at such tendencies to some extent. In order to examine this question, two comparisons will be made. In the first, survey respondents who chose to combine a prison sentence with other measures is compared with those who chose to propose a prison sentence as the only sanction. In the second, participant who were instructed to only propose a single sanction will be compared with those who were given the opportunity to combine two sanctions. Both comparisons are made with regard to the lengths of the proposed prison sentences. No systematic differences emerge. The correlation between the length of prison term proposed and the choice, or opportunity given, to combine the prison term with other measures varies, for example, across the different offences examined. The choice of appropriate reactions to crime is based on a more advanced deliberation than whether different sanctions may be combined.     

Court outcomes for clients referred to a community mental health court liaison service

Court liaison and diversion services come in a variety of forms, but the similarities and differences between these services are not well characterized. Findings from a six-year audit of the Newcastle (Australia) Mental Health Court Liaison (MHCL) service are reported, including client characteristics, offence and service contact profiles, court outcomes, and interrelationships among these variables. During the audit period, there were 2383 service episodes by 1858 clients (1478 males, 380 females). Drug and alcohol disorders (40.9%) and psychotic disorders (17.0%) were the most prevalent mental health problems, while assault (23.1%), theft (23.1%), offences against justice procedures (15.4%), driving offences (13.4%) and malicious damage to property (8.3%) were the most frequently recorded charges. Among service episodes with a finalized court outcome, 70.0% involved a punishment (bond: 49.5%; jail term: 29.7%). Females were less likely to be punished, but more likely to have their case dismissed under sections of the relevant Act that required further assessment and monitoring. Being married, or having an adjustment or drug and alcohol disorder, were also associated with an increased likelihood of punishment, while clients with a psychotic or bipolar disorder were less likely to be punished. Among clients who were punished, those referred from inpatient mental health services were more likely to receive a non-jail punishment, while unemployed clients were more likely to be jailed. A substantial proportion of clients had court outcomes that required an ongoing involvement with local mental health services. By being part of community mental health services, our MHCL service is able to work efficiently and effectively with the criminal justice system, while facilitating ready access to existing mental health services and continuation of care.     

In-house or in court? Legal challenges to university decisions

Every day, decisions are made in universities that affect students. When a decision adversely affects a particular student, what means of redress does that student have? The circumstances in which a student has a legal claim against their university are generally unclear. Courts have traditionally tended to draw a distinction between ‘purely academic’ decisions and disciplinary decisions. There has been reluctance on the part of courts to intervene in non-disciplinary decisions which involve academic judgment, for example, the grade to be given to a student's work. On the other hand, where the decisions are purely disciplinary, for example, in relation to a student's behaviour towards others or towards university property, the courts have made it clear that there is essentially no difference between this and disciplinary matters within any other public institution or organization. However, disciplinary decisions that are connected with allegations of academic misconduct, for example, cheating and/or plagiarism, have been more problematic for the courts. Historically, the debate was whether any such decision was justiciable in public law. Recently the question has also been whether an aggrieved student may succeed in a private law action against a university. The legal issues raised by university decisions affecting students have not yet been clearly resolved in all jurisdictions. Indeed, in some cases, judges have raised many more questions than they have answered. This article will review the framework for legal challenges to university decisions against a background of recent judicial attitudes in Australia, New Zealand, the UK and the US.