FROM THE PRESIDENT

In lieu of a president?s page, we reprint Judge Fort?s timely analysis of the National Crime Commission Report which appeared in Judicature, January, 1968.     

THE MANPOWER CRISIS IN THE JUVENILE COURT

The Joint Commission on Correctional Manpower and Training, strongly supported by state governors and with wide bipartisan backing in Congress, is the first attempt at a unified national approach to the increasingly serious problem of correctional rehabilitation. It has undertaken a far-ranging threeyear study which will lead to a series of action programs and legislative recommendations on federal, state and local levels. Our National Council is a member. The author is our representative on the Commission.     

THE CHALLENGES OF ECONOMIC PROOF IN A DECENTRALIZED AND PRIVATIZED EUROPEAN COMPETITION POLICY SYSTEM: LESSONS FROM THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE

Since the announcement in late 2002 of the Modernization Plan,and continuing in 2005 with the release of the Green Paper ondamages actions, the European Commission has been committedto a significant restructuring of the EU's approach to enforcingcompetition laws. Under the revised system as envisioned bythe Commission, national competition authorities and privateparties will assume a far greater role in supplementing thework of the Commission, which for 50 years has been the predominantcompetition policy enforcer in Europe. The goal is not onlyto produce a system of shared enforcement authority, but topromote the continued evolution in Europe of a "culture of competition,"while avoiding the creation of a "culture of litigation." Ifnational competition authorities and private parties acceptthis invitation, however, they are likely to face the same kindsof demands for substantial economic evidence from their nationalcourts that the EC has faced from the Court of First Instanceand the European Court of Justice in some of its most complexand challenging recent cases. This paper asks whether nationallevel enforcers, public and private, will have the proceduraland evidentiary tools necessary to respond to demands for sucheconomic proof. Drawing on the Commission's recent experiences,as well as lessons from the U.S. experience, it asks whetherthe Green Paper's treatment of economic evidence is adequategiven the importance that economic proof plays today in competitionlaw cases. It then urges the Commission to devote additionalattention to identifying and advocating reforms that will moreactively facilitate the disclosure, development, and presentationof economic evidence. This paper particularly questions theGreen Paper's preference for the use of court-appointed expertsin lieu of party-secured expert witnesses. It argues that partyand court-appointed experts can perform very different functionsin competition law cases and should not be viewed as substitutes.Moreover, it suggests that the Green Paper may significantlyunderestimate the degree to which party-secured expert economicwitnesses will be necessary if national level enforcers—publicand private—are to be adequately equipped to meet theburdens of proof they will face. If national enforcers systematicallyfind that they lack the procedural tools necessary to developthe economic evidence they need to meet those burdens, theywill reduce or abandon their efforts to initiate competitionlaw actions and it will be less likely that the promise of decentralizationand privatization can be realized.     

Habeas Corpus as <Emphasis Type="Italic">Jus Cogens</Emphasis> in International Law

For hundreds of years procedural rights such as habeas corpus have been regarded as fundamental in the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence. In contemporary international law, fundamental norms are called jus cogens. Jus cogens norms are rights or rules that can not be derogated even by treaty. In the list that is often given, jus cogens norms include norms against aggression, apartheid, slavery, and genocide. All of the members of this list are substantive rights. In this paper I will argue that some procedural rights, crucial for the fair functioning of criminal proceedings, such as habeas corpus, should also have the status of jus cogens norms. I will begin by explaining what it means for a right to have jus cogens status. And I will follow this with a defense of having procedural rights like habeas corpus added to the list of jus cogens norms. I will then rehearse some of the debates about the jus cogens status of procedural rights in the European Commission on Human Rights. At the end of this paper, I will look at the attempts to deal with the abuses at Guantanamo by the American Commission on Human Rights, and by the US and Australian courts, as a way to understand why there needs to be a stronger support for habeas corpus than is today provided by regional courts.     

THE LANGUAGE OF STIGMATIZATION AND THE MARK OF VIOLENCE: EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE ON THE SOCIAL CONSTRUCTION AND USE OF CRIMINAL RECORD STIGMA

After years of stagnation, labeling theory has recently gained new empirical support. Simultaneously, new policy initiatives have attempted to restructure criminal record stigma to reduce reintegration barriers, and subsequent recidivism, driven by labeling. For example, in a recent Department of Justice (DOJ) language policy, person‐first terms (e.g., “person with a conviction”) were substituted for crime‐first terms (e.g., “offender”). The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has also issued guidelines to structure how decision‐makers use criminal records. Unfortunately, little is currently known about the social construction and use of criminal record stigma or the potential effects of such policy changes. In the current study, we provide two unique empirical tests. In study 1, we examine the social construction of stigma by testing DOJ's language policy with experimental data from a nationally representative sample of American adults (N = 996). In study 2, we use a separate nationwide experiment (N = 1,540) to examine how the contextualization of criminal records influences social exclusion decisions. Across both studies, we find consistent evidence of a “mark of violence.” The public perceives that individuals with violent convictions are the most likely to commit future crimes, and it is more supportive of excluding these individuals from employment. Crime‐first terms exacerbate perceived recidivism risk for individuals with violent convictions.     

New Zealand: Public Registers Report

In September 2007, the Commonwealth Law Bulletin (Vol. 33, No. 3), published an article on the New Zealand Law Commission’s Issues Paper on Public Registers (IP 3, 2007), including the four options for reform that the Commission was putting forward for consideration by interested persons.

The Law Commission’s Public Registers Report ¹ 1 New Zealand Law Commission’s Public Registers Report, NZLC R 101 2008. (the Report) has now been published, completing stage 2 of the Law Commission’s four stage Privacy Review.

It is available on the Law Commission’s website at http://www.lawcom.govt.nz.     

Electricity Market Restructuring and Energy Contracts: A Critical Note on the EU Commission’s NEA Decision

As highlighted in the economic literature, contracts are crucial policy instruments to organize and manage restructured electricity markets. In the early 90’s, during the restructuring of the electricity market in UK, the three main Scottish electricity generators stipulated a long-term, “take-or-pay” contract, the Nuclear Energy Agreement, which contained provisions for the trade of wholesale electricity in Scotland.The European Commission scrutinized such contract in order to derive the congruity of the agreement to European laws. Whilst the NEA was awarded an exemption under Article 85, paragraph 3 of the EU Treaty, the Commission recognized the inner anticompetitive content and potential effects of the contract.In this paper, we criticize the Commission NEA decision and economic reasoning and provide an alternative reading and analytical approach, which lead to opposite results and conclusions (the NEA contract is not anticompetitive and it enhances efficiency in competitive electricity markets). Given that the restructuring process in the EU electricity market is still in fieri, we select the NEA contract as a benchmark-case, in order to provide an alternative reading and a case-study for eventual, future energy contracts administration and authority decisions.JEL K, K2, K230     

Social Citizenship,Housing Wealth and the Cost of Social Care: Is the Care Act 2014 ‘Fair'?

This article assesses the extent to which it is ‘fair’ for the government to require owner‐occupiers to draw on the equity accumulated in their home to fund their social care costs. The question is stimulated by the report of the Commission on Funding of Care and Support, Fairer Care Funding (the Dilnot Commission) and the subsequent Care Act 2014. The enquiry is located within the framework of social citizenship and the new social contract. It argues that the individualistic, contractarian approach, exemplified by the Dilnot Commission and reflected in the Act, raises questions when considered from the perspective of intergenerational fairness. We argue that our concerns with the Act could be addressed by inculcating an expectation of drawing on housing wealth to fund older age: a policy of asset‐based welfare.     

THE ATTEMPTED MERGER BETWEEN GENERAL ELECTRIC AND HONEYWELL: A CASE STUDY OF TRANSATLANTIC CONFLICT

The thwarted merger of General Electric and Honeywell standsout, so far, as the only merger between US companies to be derailedsolely by the European anti-trust authorities, while being clearedby the US Department of Justice (DoJ) and 11 other jurisdictions.In this paper, the authors examine the European Commission'sdecision, and the theories underlying it and compare the Commission'sapproach with that followed by the DoJ. They observe that theCommission and the DoJ had a different assessment of broadlysimilar facts, and attempt to understand the source of the divergence.The authors find that (1) the horizontal effects identifiedby the European Commission rely on a particular perspectiveof market definition, which is debatable (and leaves some questionsunanswered); (2) the anticompetitive effects in the bundlingand Archimedean leveraging theories are not sufficiently robustthat they could be presumed (Accordingly, their likelihood shouldbe supported by strong evidence, but the evidence presentedby the Commission was far from compelling); (3) the deal mayhave involved significant efficiencies that were overlooked.These observations raise the suspicion that the Commission'sdecision may have been affected by bureaucratic capture, suchthat civil servants did not follow the mandate that had beenassigned to them. We find that the procedure enforced at thetime was vulnerable to capture and that the Commission had anincorrect perception of the standard of review that the Courtwould apply to its decision in the context of an appeal. Theaccountability to which the Commission felt subject was thusbiased downwards and enlarged the scope for capture. In addition,some (admittedly casual) evidence regarding the actual unfoldingof the procedure, as well as subsequent reforms of process andprocedure undertaken by the Commission, would support the viewthat significant problems arose in this area.     

To block or not to block – European child porno law in question

The EU Commission has proposed a new Directive on combating sexual abuse, sexual exploitation of children and child pornography. The updated piece of legislation proposes to block access to child pornography websites. After months of negotiation, the Council, Parliament and Commission have agreed on a compromised text which generates more confusion and has been lambasted as meaningless. The compromised text is a result of powerful lobbying by Hollywood porno industry, Internet Service Providers and civil libertarians. The compromised text brings to highlight the tension between freedom of speech and protection of children.     

Changing the meaning of ‘vulnerable’ under the homelessness legislation?

The Supreme Court judgement in Hotak v Southwark London Borough Council (Equality and Human Rights Commission and others intervening) [2015] UKSC 30; [2015] 2W.L.R. 1341 appears to have significantly altered prevailing understandings of the meaning of ‘vulnerability’ within the homelessness legislation’s concept of priority need. This paper analyses Hotak’s doctrinal effects, and questions both the adequacy of the court’s reasoning and the likelihood of those formal doctrinal changes leading to a concomitant alteration to the content of the decisions that local authorities reach.     

THE POWER OF DIVERSION: INTERMEDIATE SANCTIONS AND SENTENCING DISPARITY UNDER PRESUMPTIVE GUIDELINES*

Fiscal constraints and shifting political climates in corrections have recently led to a renewed interest in intermediate punishments. Despite their growing prevalence, though, relatively little empirical research has examined the judicial use of alternative sanctions as a sentencing option. By using 3 years of data from the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing (PCS), this study investigates little‐researched questions regarding the use of sentencing alternatives among offenders and across contexts. Results indicate that male and minority offenders are the least likely to receive intermediate sanctions, both as a diversionary jail or prison sentence and as a substitute for probation. The probability of receiving an intermediate sanction also varies significantly across judges and court contexts and is related to county‐level funding for these programs, among other factors. Findings are discussed as they relate to contemporary theoretical perspectives on the perceived suitability of intermediate punishments and on the unique role that offender agency plays in the sentencing of these cases. Directions for future research are discussed.     

Collusion and Facilitating Practices: A New Perspective in Antitrust Analysis

A systematic revision of the notion of facilitating practices is put forward in this paper, with the purpose of relaxing the long-debated tension between economic and legal perspectives on oligopoly. Whereas the law knows of just one collusive illegal conduct, namely agreements, in economic theory the focus on internal enforcement makes the distinction between agreements and other behaviour resulting in the collusive outcome irrelevant. However, the tension may be relaxed, at least in a number of relevant circumstances, provided the focus of competition law shifts from straightforward co-ordination on market strategies to the firms' concerted efforts in the design and implementation of given organisational arrangements of the oligopolistic industry, to which an anticompetitive object can be attached. The theoretical analysis is extensively supported by examples drawn from some recent decisions of the European Commission and the Italian Competition Authority.     

Introduction

Most of the previous issue of Communication Law and Policy was devoted to articles written by some of the participants in a two‐day symposium organized by Prof. Helle at the University of Illinois which commemorated the 50th anniversary of the Hutchins Commission and its report, A Free and Responsible Press. Reprinted here is part of Prof. Helle's introduction to that issue.     

On the unification of legal rules in the European Union

Unification of legal rules in Europe is not a new phenomenon. However, nowadays, Europe is still an area with many different jurisdictions. This paper studies the process of unification of legal rules in the European Union within a non-cooperative game-theoretical framework. This paper contributes to the understanding of the process by concentrating on the role of the European Commission. In the law-and-economics literature, it is argued that national legal rules will converge more or less spontaneously through the works of legislators and judges. But legal convergence in the European Union is not inevitable: preferences toward legal rules differ across nation-states; substituting a legal system for another one is costly; a coordination problem may arise. We first study the interactions of two nation-states who choose non-cooperatively their legal rules. We shall argue that the action of the Commission is, at first sight, likely to eliminate the coordination problem (under certain conditions). Two factors are at work. First, the Commission has a certain expertise which enables it to propose new and perhaps more efficient rules (so that the choice of unification does not reduce to select a particular nation-state legal system). Second, the Commission may use a system of fines that induces nation-states to abide by its rules (once these rules are adopted by nation-states). Next, we refine our first model: the process of legal unification is viewed as a game where nation-states choose the game that they will play. They choose if they will try to reach an agreement without resorting to the actions of the Commission, or if they will play the game implicitely proposed by the Commission. This captures more precisely the action of the Commission, its ‘right of initiative’’, the publication of proposals in ‘green’’ or ‘white papers’’. In this second model, a coordination problem may arise. JEL Classification C72 · K00     

Wiping the Slate Clean: Reforming Scots Law's Approach to Evidence of the Accused's Bad Character

This paper discusses the Scottish Law Commission (SLC)'s Report on Similar Fact Evidence and the Moorov Doctrine, which proposes revolutionary changes to the way in which Scots law deals with evidence of the accused's bad character, including his previous convictions. The article sets these proposals in context by explaining the existing Scots law, and comparing it to the English provisions on bad character evidence contained in the Criminal Justice Act 2003. This comparison reveals similarities between the responses of the two jurisdictions. It is remarkable that the SLC did not consider English law to be a viable model for reform, choosing instead to propose legislation which would simply deem certain pieces of bad character evidence relevant in criminal trials. The second part of the paper explains why these proposals should not be implemented.     

Age spots: Gender sensitivity and the Hutchins Commission

The language of the Hutchins Commission report, A Free and Responsible Press, written in 1947, is sexist. The language flaws the report, but certainly does not destroy its value. Language must be separated from content, such as in Plato's and Kant's writings. Although the Hutchins Commission uses unfortunate language, its message goes beyond mere toleration to a supererogatory duty: The ideal of the marketplace of ideas shall be made concrete. Just as Plato's vision of women ruling in equal numbers has yet to become reality and just as Kant's ethical vision of every human's liberation from mistreatment has yet to be realized, the Hutchins Commission's call for a chorus of voices remains unfilled. The call has been echoed and in some case intensified, such as in Carol Gilligan's work on the voices of women. But the goals remain undiminished beacons that remind us—educators as well as the media—that we still have much work ahead in order to achieve inclusiveness.     

COMPLEMENTARITY AND COOPERATIVE JUSTICE AHEAD OF THEIR TIME? THE UNITED NATIONS WAR CRIMES COMMISSION,FACT-FINDING AND EVIDENCE

Today, many international criminal lawyers claim that the future of international law is domestic. The example of the United Nations War Crimes Commission (UNWCC) shows that this might not only be the future, but also the past. This article analyzes the practice of the Commission (1943–1948), with a particular emphasis on facts, evidence and interaction with domestic authorities. It argues that the UNWCC marked an early counter-model to the idea of military justice that prevailed in many World War II accountability initiatives, and an alternative to the centralized and situation-specific enforcement model under the umbrella of United Nations (UN) peace maintenance. The Commission represents a cooperative approach to justice and sovereignty that has got lost in the course of the second half of the twentieth century. In the mid-1940s, attention shifted quickly, and perhaps too early from the UNWCC itself to the idea of centralized enforcement under the umbrella of an International Criminal Court. The work of the Commission foreshadows many core dilemmas of contemporary international justice, including debates over independent investigative authority, proprio motu powers, the labelling and origin of core crimes (e.g. aggression, crimes against humanity), the treatment of group criminality (e.g. attribution of conduct) and evidentiary standards in proceedings. Similar structures are gradually re-emerging in the context of regional integration (e.g. ‘mutual trust’ under the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice) or the operationalization of complementarity under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). But in terms of cooperation between major powers and use of international expertise and advice in criminal proceedings, international criminal justice is still in search of a modern UNWCC 2.0.     

Judicial use of social science research

American courts use social science research in three distinct ways: to make law, to determine facts, and to provide context. In this article, we review and critique the approaches that courts have traditionally taken to dealing with each form of social research. We also summarize and integrate a body of work offering a different perspective that treats law-making research associal authority, fact-finding research associal fact, and context-providing research associal framework. We end by proposing a coherent sequence of steps that courts should take when confronted with an empirical question about human behavior.This article was prepared under the auspices of the Task Force on Judicial and Regulatory Decisionmaking of the Carnegie Commission on Science, Technology, and Government. The views expressed are those of the authors rather than of the Task Force or the Commission. We are grateful to David Z. Beckler, Associate Director, for his comments. Requests for reprints should be sent to either author at the School of Law, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901.