Criminal justice as an academic discipline: Costs and benefits

One of the stages through which any new field must pass is academic legitimation. The field of criminal justice is presently in this stage of striving for acceptance within the academic community. Recently, criticism of the field as well as legitimizing activities seem to have increased. In the course of the debate about the appropriate location and identity of criminal justice, it can be expected that the issue of disciplinary status for criminal justice will gain prominence.The issue of disciplinary status for the field of criminal justice is considered in terms of the advantages and disadvantages of disciplines. Also, assets of a multidisciplinary status are presented and “cost” comparisons are made between disciplines and multidisciplinary fields.While there seem to be points in favor of disciplines, an analysis of some of the weaknesses of disciplines suggests that continuance of a more synthetic and open approach is preferable for the field.     

Costs and benefits of informal economy: shuttle trade and crime at Cherkizovsky market

According to IMF and OSCE reports, informal economic transactions in Russia and other states of the former Communist Bloc have cushioned the shocks of economic and political transition of the 1990s by quickly satisfying the consumer demand and providing unofficial jobs to the population faced with transition recession. As these analyses extensively emphasise the advantages of informal entrepreneurship and its positive contribution to stimulating economic growth, this article explores the phenomenon of shuttle trade – a system/form of informal trade outside state control that does not comply with state regulations – as an issue of concern for criminologists. This article investigates the convergence of shuttle trade and criminal activities and the relationship of shuttle trade to the formal regulatory environment. It offers insights into selected criminal activities at Cherkizovsky market in Moscow before its shutdown in 2009 and an evaluation of the policymaking decisions the shutdown triggered.     

论行政领导的职位责任与社会责任

行政领导的职位责任可细分为三个层面:政治责任、法律责任、工作责任,但作为个体的行政领导担负的职位责任并非是作为群体的政府所担负的义务责任的简单个体化。任何一个行政领导其行政角色都会被打上深刻的社会烙印,其行政活动也都直接同社会的其他过程紧密结合,因此行政领导所拥有的双重角色定位与其社会责任同样不容忽视。本文阐述了行政领导的职位责任、社会责任以及二者之间的关系,并进一步探讨了二者之间的理论基础与实践环节。     

Legal obligation as a duty of deference

An enduring question in political and legal philosophy concerns whether we have a general moral obligation to follow the law. In this paper, I argue that Philip Soper’s intuitively appealing effort to give new life to the idea of legal obligation by characterising it as a duty of deference is ultimately unpersuasive. Soper claims that people who understand what a legal system is and admit that it is valuable must recognise that they would be morally inconsistent to deny that they owe deference to state norms. However, if the duty of deference stemmed from people’s decision to regard the law as valuable as Soper argues, then people who do not admit the value of the state would have no duty as such to defer to its norms. And, more importantly, people who admit the value of the state would have a duty not to defer to particular norms, namely those norms which violate the values that ground their preference for a state. This critique of Soper operates within his parameters by accepting his claim that moral consistency generates reasons to act. Even on those terms, Soper’s defence of legal obligation as a duty of deference is unpersuasive. I wish to thank John Tasioulas, Joseph Raz, Bill Edmundson, Adam Cureton, the editors and referees of Law and Philosophy, and the participants of the Society for Applied Philosophy 25th anniversary conference, July 2005, St Anne’s College, Oxford.     

Liability for failing to rescue

Should there be civil liability when a person who could easily and without risk rescue another fails to do so? It is argued that the failure to act does not cause the harm that follows, and that the misfeasance/nonfeasance distinction provides no basis for liability. In spite of this, it is maintained that there can sometimes be a duty to rescue, and even a right to be rescued, even in the absence of a voluntary undertaking or an explicit assumption of responsibility. There are convincing arguments for some sort of legal recognition of a duty to rescue, but these arguments do not support tort liability. Nor is a case for tort liability made with the argument that a growth of tort law in this direction would be compatible with the values most centrally involved in the division between torts and contracts. Furthermore, there is a case against tort liability — namely, that the purpose of tort liability is to compensate, that there are certain sorts of situations in which compensation is apposite, and that failure to rescue does not fit into these categories. Criminal liability is the appropriate way for the law to recognize a duty to rescue.     

Bundaberg and beyond: duty to disclose adverse events to patients

Although much excellent work has been done in Australia and elsewhere to improve the safety and quality of health care provision, the practice of medicine is inherently risky--adverse events sometimes occur. In Australia, practical guidelines for the open disclosure of adverse events to patients have been developed and are being implemented. State and Territory medical boards have recently adopted Codes of Conduct which include disclosure provisions, although the Australian Medical Association's Code of Ethics does not yet contain express patient disclosure provisions. There is a dearth of authority concerning legal obligations to disclose known or suspected adverse events. Although many Australian jurisdictions have introduced statutory protection for those who apologise or express regret to patients following an adverse event, there is no corresponding express statutory disclosure obligation, unlike in some parts of the United States. The Bundaberg experience illustrates the complex ethical, practical and legal issues which arise in this area.     

Oriental medicine professionals' duty to inform patients

Oriental medicine has constituted a significant portion of health care in Korea, but discussion regarding the legal duties of Oriental medicine professionals has been marginalized. This article proposes the first step in discussing the duty of Oriental doctors and pharmacists to inform their patients about the medicine they provide. It begins by introducing the only decision the Supreme Court of Korea has made regarding the legal obligation of Oriental medicine professionals, where the Court held that the Oriental medicine retailer had a duty to provide information about the medicine being sold. This article supports that decision of the Supreme Court and further argues that other primary providers of Oriental medicine-Oriental doctors and pharmacists-should also bear the duty to inform. The conclusion is driven from the fundamental principle of the Korean Constitution: that everyone is entitled to the right to self-determination. In discussing the scope of information doctors and pharmacists should provide, this article notes the unique features of Oriental medicine used in Korea. The author concludes that Oriental doctors and pharmacists should inform their patients of the nature and effect of the medicine being provided, detailed usage instructions, potential risks associated with the medicine, and information regarding combined use with conventional medicine. As for restorative Oriental medicine, doctors and pharmacists should particularly provide instructions regarding its unique restorative purpose.