The Causal Mechanism Theory of Legal Causation

Theories of legal causation that identify the concept with probability-raising generate false positives where the defendant's conduct raises the probability of harm but brings about that harm in the wrong kind of way. Moreover, what the law seeks to deter is not conduct that raises the probability of harm, but rather conduct that is dangerous. A legal or proximate cause is one that harms the plaintiff through the causal mechanism that sustains the lawful generalization that the defendant's conduct was dangerous.     

The consumption of lawyer independence

This paper assumes that lawyer independence is a component of the rule of law and that, as such, it deserves as much protection as does independence of judges. The author posits that lawyer independence can only be protected if lawyers govern lawyers. England and Queensland are cited as examples of jurisdictions that have undermined lawyer independence by adopting lawyer regulatory measures aimed at consumer protection. Canada is cited as a jurisdiction that seeks to preserve lawyer independence by recognising that lawyers who have committed to act in the public interest can satisfactorily regulate other lawyers. The author suggests that lawyer independence is a public trust, that all lawyers are the trustees and that they must resist the implementation of regulatory arrangements that compromise lawyer independence. He proposes a method for dealing with corrupt or complacent lawyer regulators.     

Two Misunderstandings About Public Justification and Religious Reasons

Two important objections have been raised against exclusivist public reason (EPR). First, it has been argued that EPR entails an unjust burden for citizens who want to appeal to non-public reasons, especially religious reasons. Second, it has been argued that EPR is based on a problematic conception of religious reasons and that it ignores the fact that religious reasons can be public as well. I defend EPR against both objections. I show that the first objection conflates two ideas of public justification (public justification as a conception of political legitimacy and public justification as an ideal of civility) and that the second objection conflates two ways to understand and identify religious reasons. Ultimately, it turns out that those who defend such objections actually share the concerns that justified EPR in the first place. In other words, if we are clear about the idea of public justification and the kind of religious reasons that EPR is really about, it appears that justificatory liberals are in fact all exclusivists.     

Statutory interpretation, capture, and tort law: the regulatory compliance defense

The regulatory compliance defense holds firms liable whose productsor product warnings fail to satisfy federal regulatory standards,but does not exculpate firms that comply. Rather, complianceis relevant evidence for a jury to consider in a products liabilityaction. This article argues that the defense should exculpatecompliant firms as a matter of law. A Congress that thoughtabout the matter would prefer this judicial construction ofan unclear safety statute. To defend this view, the articleargues that a legislature can have intentions in a normativelymeaningful sense, that claims that a Congress or its agenciesare captured by special interests should be nonjusticiable,and that, when a court is in doubt as to what a legislatureintended, it should adopt that construction of the relevantstatute that would be easiest for the legislature to correctif the court errs. In this case, it is easier for Congress tocorrect a construction that it intended to exculpate compliantfirms than a construction that it did not.     

Rethinking Criminal Libel: An Empirical Study

The prevailing view of criminal libel among communication law scholars in the United States is that there are very few prosecutions, that most of the prosecutions are about politics or public issues, and that none of the prosecutions are necessary because victims of defamation can sue for civil libel. The results of an empirical study of all Wisconsin criminal libel cases from 1991 through 2007, however, suggest that criminal libel is prosecuted far more often than realized, that most criminal libel prosecutions have nothing to do with political or public issues, and that the First Amendment is an effective shield on the rare occasions when a criminal libel prosecution is politically motivated. This article concludes that criminal libel can be a legitimate way for the law to deal with expressive deviance that harms the reputations of private figures in cases that have nothing to do with public issues.     

In Defense of Criminal Possession

Criminal law casebooks and treatises frequently mention the possibility that criminal liability for possession is inconsistent with the Voluntary Act Requirement, which limits criminal liability to that which includes an act or an omission. This paper explains why criminal liability for possession is compatible with the Voluntary Act Requirement despite the fact that possession is a status. To make good on this claim, the paper (1) defends the Voluntary Act Requirement, (2) offers an account of the nature of omissions of the kind that need be included in that for which criminal liability is imposed in the absence of a voluntary act, and (3) argues that possession is a status that is constituted in part by an omission of this sort. The result is that to hold people criminally liable for possession is to hold them criminally liable both for a status and for an omission, an omission that is part of what it is to have that status. The paper also distinguishes possession from vagrancy, which is not a proper object of criminal liability, precisely because of constraints placed by the Voluntary Act Requirement. And the paper argues that possession incident to dispossession is not a proper object of criminal liability because it does not involve an omission of the kind that other forms of possession involve.     

Top 10 greatest "hits": important findings and future directions for intimate partner violence research

In this article, the author highlights her choice of the 10 most important recent findings from the intimate partner violence research literature, which include (a) the creation of the Conflict Tactics Scale; (b) the finding that violent acts are most often perpetrated by intimates; (c) a series of findings that indicate that women also engage in intimate partner violence; (d) the finding that intimate partner violence typically evolves out of relationship dissatisfaction; (e) the finding that there are different subtypes of domestically violent men; (f) physiological measures that have added to our knowledge of intimate partner violence; (g) the evolving intergenerational transmission of violence theory; (h) the finding that verbal abuse, neglect, and psychological abuse need to be studied alongside physical violence; (i) research on leaving abusive relationships that may inform policy about sheltering battered women; and (j) the finding that alcohol plays an important role in the production of intimate partner violence. In the conclusion, the author describes a dyadic cycle of violence that may characterize some abusive couples. She also argues for a multimodal theory that links findings obtained from individual, relationship, intergenerational, gender-specific, and cultural perspectives.     

Abortion and the Beginning and End of Human Life

The doctrine that it is wrong to end the existence of something because it is a human life (unless special circumstances obtain) I call "the standard view." I argue that attempts by proponents of abortion choice to avoid the implications of the standard view by suggesting that we don't know when life begins or by suggesting that fetuses are only potential lives fail. Nevertheless, opponents of abortion choice should not base their arguments on the standard view, for the standard view is false. I propose a substitute for the standard view that avoids the difficulties with it, that explains why most people believe that the standard view is true and that also underwrites opposition to abortion choice.     

Individuality and Human Beginnings: A Reply to David DeGrazia

The author argues that individuality does not require indivisibility and that twinning can be explained as the reprogramming of blastomeres that already have begun to differentiate in accordance with the needs of the unified organism that originates at conception.     

Public perceptions of police misconduct and discrimination: Examining the impact of media consumption

The media portrayal of policing is juxtaposed with both positive and negative representations. As a result, a complex relationship exists between media consumption and public attitudes towards the police. The purpose of this study was to test the impact that media consumption had on attitudes toward police misconduct and discrimination. The findings revealed that heavy consumers of network news were more likely to believe that police misconduct was a frequent event. This was especially true for minority respondents. Similarly, minority respondents that frequently viewed network news were more likely to believe that Whites received better treatment by the police. Finally, the findings revealed that frequent viewers of police dramas believed that the wealthy received preferential treatment from the police. Conversely, frequent viewers of crime solving shows believed that the wealthy did not receive preferential treatment.     

Deradicalization: not soft,but strategic

The present article considers deradicalization programs. It is observed that deradicalization is primarily a strategic tool, that it was already used in the 1970s, that it can occur spontaneously, and that is should be differentiated from physical disengagement. An evaluation of existing deradicalization programs lead to the propositions that 1) deradicalization programs in the area of right-wing extremism primarily focus on changing behavior not thoughts, that 2) currently there is insufficient insight in what motives people to deradicalize, and 3) that insights from psychology are still insufficiently used to increase effectiveness of deradicalization. Research can make an important contribution to optimize efficiency of deradicalization for counterterrorism purposes.     

The Need for a Positive Psychological Approach and Collaborative Effort for Improving Practice in the Interrogation Room

The White Paper suggests important reforms that will reduce the likelihood of false confessions resulting from police interrogation. The research underlying these suggested reforms has yielded significant advances in our understanding of factors associated with false confessions. As we move forward, we encourage the development of empirically based approaches that provide a viable alternative to current practice. In doing so, we suggest that researchers pursue a positive psychological approach that involves partnering with practitioners to systematically develop interrogative methods that are shown to be more diagnostic. By taking such an approach, we believe that the recommendations offered in the current White Paper can be supplemented by methods that carry the support of both scientific and law enforcement communities.     

Caldwell Recklessness is Dead, Long Live Mens Rea's Fecklessness

The House of Lords has recently reiterated its preference for a purely subjective doctrine of mens rea by overruling the Caldwell test of recklessness. It is argued that while the subjective basis of mens rea is essential to ensure that it is the accused's culpability that is being judged, courts must be prepared to accept that there is a residual objective element that is part of mens rea and it is that which determines whether the accused is morally blameworthy. Unless this is formally accepted, mens rea will never be restored to its proper normative role; that of determining whether the 'mens was rea'. ¹     

Less is Sometimes More: Consequences of Overpayment on Job Satisfaction and Absenteeism

This article investigates the responsive and purposive consequences of overpayment by studying changes in job satisfaction and absenteeism over time. Overpayment is defined as the positive deviation from the net earnings subjectively considered being fair. Two theoretical approaches are tested providing differing predictions: The self-interest model predicts that any increase in earnings always increases individual job satisfaction and that no changes arise in the number of days absent. The justice model predicts that overpayment reduces individual job satisfaction, and that absenteeism decreases in the period that follows. These predictions are tested with longitudinal data from a large-scale survey by means of fixed-effects regression analysis. The results show that increases in pay that are perceived as overpayment decrease job satisfaction and reduce absenteeism in the subsequent period.     

The Limits of the Preponderance of the Evidence Standard: Justifiably Naked Statistical Evidence and Multiple Causation

The preponderance-of-the-evidence standard usually is understood to mean that the plaintiff must show that the probability that the defendant is in fact liable exceeds 1/2. Several commentators and at least one court have suggested that in some situations it may be preferable to make each defendant pay plaintiff's damages discounted by the probability that the defendant in question is in fact liable. This article analyzes these and other decision rules from the standpoint of statistical decision theory. It argues that in most cases involving only one potential defendant, the conventional interpretation of the preponderance standard is appropriate, but it notes an important exception. The article also considers cases involving many defendants, only one of whom could have caused the injury to plaintiff. It argues that ordinarily the single defendant most likely to have been responsible should be liable for all the damages, even when the probability associated with this defendant is less than 1/2. At the same time, it identifies certain multiple-defendant cases in which the rule that weights each defendant's damages by the probability of that defendant's liability should apply.     

New Jersey Appellate Division Affirms Allocation to Insured for Pre-December 2004 Insolvencies

The New Jersey Appellate Division has held that in long-tail allocation cases, the policyholder remains responsible for amounts allocable to insurers who became insolvent before December, 2004, and that the rule announced in Farmers Mutual Fire Ins. Company of Salem v. N.J.P.L.G.A. does not apply to such insolvencies because the Legislature specifically provided that the statutory amendments that formed the basis for the Farmers Mutual decision applied prospectively from their effective date. The decision confirms that for insolvencies that took place before the amendments' effective date, New Jersey's common law rule that the policyholder bears the risk of insolvencies and is responsible for shares allocable to them still applies. The Court's decision strengthens insurers' arguments that Farmers Mutual did not alter the common law rule for policies that are not subject to the 2004 amendments to New Jersey's Property-Liability Insurance Guaranty Association Act or Surplus Lines Insurance Guaranty Fund Act.     

Discourses of Political Policing in Post-patten Northern Ireland

This article critically examines discourses of political policing in contemporary Northern Ireland (NI). Recognising the post-conflict and post-reform climate that policing now occurs within, it argues that these environmental factors have conditioned discourses of policing that are directly tied to how legitimate political opposition to the political status quo in post-Good Friday Agreement (GFA) NI is policed. The article asserts that political policing discourses have taken a new trajectory that departs from traditional ethno-nationalist interpretations of the issue to instead reflect a broader structuralist interpretation of state-police power relations. It concludes with the argument that political policing discourses have evolved to reflect common class-based disillusionment with the post-GFA state across the political divide that sees the matter rooted in police protection of a system of devolved governance that has failed to tackle structural exclusion and socio-economic deprivation.     

Rethinking Regime Politics

Many recent studies of “regime politics” argue that judicial review is ultimately used to promote the interests of the dominant governing regime. I explore this claim by evaluating whether the invalidation of federal laws by the US Supreme Court fits the empirical expectations of the regime politics approach. I find that the Court frequently invalidates statutes when (1) the ideology of the Court diverges from that of the sitting elected branches (suggesting that the Court does not fear sanctions or nonimplementation), and (2) the ideology of the sitting elected branches converges with that of the elected branches that enacted the statute (suggesting that the Court is defying the sitting elected branches). My findings suggest that the Court does not primarily use judicial review to promote the interests of the dominant governing regime.     

Expressed sexual assault legal context and victim culpability attributions

Legal scholars have argued that laws have an expressive function, specifically that sexual assault laws may convey social-level messages that victims are culpable for crimes against them. In a university sample, we conducted the first experimental test of legal scholars' proposal, hypothesizing that legal messages-specifically their clarity and effectiveness in conveying that sexual assault is a crime-affect victim culpability attributions. Results demonstrated that greater culpability was attributed to a victim of sexual assault within a context expressing unclear and ineffective sexual assault law than within a context clearly and effectively expressing that sexual assault is a crime. We also garnered empirical support for a mediation model, that is, negative affective reactions to a victim statistically accounted for the relationship between expressed legal context and victim culpability attributions. Implications for future psycholegal research and potential legal reforms are discussed.