Fugitives in the United States

Little is known, empirically, about fugitives in the U.S. There is no research describing basic facts such as the prevalence of warrants or how features of warrants vary across geography or demographics of fugitives.PurposeTo (A) describe the prevalence of warrants in the U.S., including variation in warrant features across geography as well as demographics of fugitives (age, race, and gender). In addition, the paper (B) models a key feature of warrants (extradition limits) as a function of legal and extra-legal factors.MethodsThis study draws on the Wanted Persons file—the central operational database maintained by the National Criminal Information Center (NCIC) for tracking warrants from all jurisdictions in the United States. Warrant factors are described across demographic groups via bivariate comparisons. Extradition is modeled via a multivariate fixed effects logistic regression framework (i.e., within state comparisons)ResultsThe data show approximately 2 million warrants are active on any given day. Warrant features vary significantly across states (per capita), and fugitive demographics. Extradition varies as a function of legal (e.g., crime seriousness) and extra-legal factors (e.g., race of fugitive).ConclusionsWarrants may provide an important new avenue for scholarship on disparity, criminal carreers, and the administration of justice.     

Gun control in the United States

A.B., University of California, Berkeley, 1964; Ph.D., University of California, Irvine, 1970.     

Community Penalties in the United States

The author discusses some background matters concerning the US criminal justice systems that may provide useful context for non-US readers, and summarises the main general conclusions about the operation of community penalties from two decades' research. He also briefly summarises research concerning each of the major penalties that have been attempted. Why American jurisdictions have been comparatively unsuccessful at use of community penalties as alternatives to incarceration and whether that lack of receptivity can be changed is discussed in the conclusion.     

美国律师管理工作简况

一、美国的律师制度 美国律师业是一个相对比较古老的行业,已有近200年的发展历史。目前,美国律师现有从业人员将近200多万人,近1000人中就有1名律师。美国律师几乎参与到国家政治、经济、文化和公民社会生活的各个方面。参议员、众议员大多数都是律师出身,     

美国司法中死刑的适用及其问题

死刑的保留和适用,不但在美国本上引起颇多争议,而且也受到了欧美国家和"世界人权观察”、"大赦国际”等国际组织的密切关注和尖锐的批评.本文将简要介绍美国适用死刑的基本情况及严重违反人权的问题,或许有助于我们认识美国"司法公正”的真相.     

Physicians' conflicts of interest in Japan and the United States: lessons for the United States

Japanese health policy shows that even with physician ownership and the absence of for-profit, investor-owned health care, physicians' conflicts of interest thrive. Physician dispensing of drugs and ownership of hospitals and clinics were justified in Japan as ways to avoid commercialization of medicine. Instead, they create physicians' conflicts and fuel patient overuse of services. Japan's Ministry of Health and Welfare (MHW) has responded by introducing per-diem payment, thereby creating incentives to decrease services in ways similar to those of American managed care organizations, but with none of their benefits, such as coordination of care, oversight of physicians practices, and quality assurance. Although the United States and Japanese health care systems are organized and financed differently there is convergence in the source of their physicians' conflicts and the way they are addressed. The United States is starting to integrate institutional and physician payment and align their incentives, in a traditional Japanese way. In so doing, the United States creates new physicians' conflicts and reduces the role of countervailing incentives and power, an advantage of previous policy. Japan, in turn, has combined incentives to increase and decrease services, thus moving closer to the U.S. policy.     

Foreign trading screens in the United States

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• Remote trading screens allow investors to trade onexchanges located in other jurisdictions. The Securities andExchange Commission (‘SEC’) has generally prohibitedthe placement of foreign trading screens in the United Statesunless the associated exchange complies with US regulatory requirements.While the SEC defends its position as an essential investorprotection, European officials complain that SEC requirementsconstitute an unfair barrier to trade.
• This article arguesthat technological advances have largely mooted this contro-versy.Current requirements do not protect US investors as much asthe SEC claims nor do they inhibit competition as much as theSEC's critics assert.
• To the extent that alternative tradingmechanisms already give US investors de facto access to unregulatedforeign exchanges, the SEC may well choose to revisit its positionon foreign trading screens, particularly as US and Europeanfinancial markets become more integrated and disclosure requirementson both sides of . . . [Full Text of this Article]