Criminal defense counsels,district attorneys,and the insanity plea: A modest difference of opinion

This research examines differences between samples of 166 city and county prosecutors and 118 defense attorneys from Virginia, Tennessee, and Kentucky concerning their views toward the insanity plea in felony cases. Currently, tests for insanity used by the states are the M’Naghten rule, the ALI Model Penal Code test, and the Smith “irresistible impulse” test or combinations thereof. Defense counsels greatly favor the prosecution bearing the burden of proving a defendant’s sanity, while a majority of prosecutors believe that this is the defense counsel’s responsibility. Twenty-five percent of the prosecutors surveyed believed that it is the prosecutor’s responsibility to show by clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt, that defendants are sane and capable of bearing the responsibility for their crimes alleged. Philosophical and practical arguments about the burden of proof issue are examined. Preferences of defense counsels and prosecutors for different insanity tests are explored, finding that a majority of attorneys favor the more recent ALI test.     

Valuing life: a plea for disaggregation

Each government agency uses a uniform figure to measure the value of a statistical life (VSL). This is a serious mistake. The very theory that underlies current practice calls for far more individuation of the relevant values. According to that theory, VSL should vary across risks. More controversially, VSL should vary across individuals -- even or especially if the result would be to produce a lower number for some people than for others. One practical implication is that a higher value should be given to programs that reduce cancer risks. Another is that government should use a higher VSL for programs that disproportionately benefit the wealthy -- and a lower VSL for programs that disproportionately benefit the poor. But there are two serious complications here. First, bounded rationality raises problems for the use of private willingness to pay, which underlies current calculations of VSL. Second, the beneficiaries of regulation sometimes pay only a fraction or even none of its cost; when this is so, the appropriate VSL for poor people might be higher, on distributional grounds, than market evidence suggests. An understanding of this point has implications for foundational issues about government regulation, including valuation of persons in poor and wealthy nations.     

Return of the fetish: a plea for a new materialism

This essay argues for a renewed form of critique based upon a non-deflationary realist and materialist understanding of the nature of objects. Such an understanding is set against the deflationary conception of materiality common nowadays, one that sees ‘signs’ in the place of powerful objects (exemplars, charms, fetishes), adjudicates against the latter as mere relics of the past and can only conceive of material relations and causality in representational terms, as co-relative to our self-positing powers. Such a conception is responsible for our present inability to think the role of radical claims, thick attachments and religious objects in modern secular societies. The argument is developed from within a phenomenological tradition that includes Hegelo-Marxian themes and connects them with more and less recent insights from anthropology and elsewhere concerning value and objectification in modern times.

Bounding reasonable doubt: implications for plea bargaining

A bound for reasonable doubt is offered based on the cost of type I and type II errors. The bound increases with the punishment, hence its use as a conviction threshold may leave too many offenders of severe crimes at large. Plea bargaining addresses this limitation but introduces strategic interaction between concerned parties. Considering strategic interaction between defendants and judge/jury, it is shown that to any plea offer there corresponds a unique equilibrium. Moreover, all equilibria share the same conviction threshold, given by the reasonable doubt bound. The latter property ensures that the plea bargaining procedure is consistent with the ‘equality before the law’ principle. The former property (that to any plea offer there corresponds a unique equilibrium) bears implications for the design of plea bargain schemes.     

Bad medicine: prescription drugs, preemption, and the potential for a no-fault fix

For decades, federal regulation of pharmaceutical drugs and medical devices has worked hand in hand with state tort claims to protect the health and safety of the American public. Now, a new trend toward preemption endangers this scheme. In recent years, the Supreme Court has given increasing deference to agency assertions about their preemptive authority and has found preemption in an increasing number of cases. In the process, the Supreme Court has preempted claims for medical device injuries and left claims for pharmaceutical harms in a precarious position. The elimination of common law claims for drug and device harms will leave holes in the FDA's regulatory scheme, endangering the health and safety of Americans. It will also prevent ordinary Americans from seeking compensation for their injuries--even those injuries caused by manufacturer malfeasance. This Article proposes that Congress create a no-fault compensation scheme for drugs and medical devices to close these gaps. Such a scheme could be both practical and politically possible, satisfying manufacturers, tort reformers, patients, and plaintiffs' lawyers alike.     

Insanity plea: Relationship to victim and defendents

Conclusion The results of this analogue study clearly indicate that subjects' attitudes toward defendants, as measured by the type of disposition selected are influenced by their relationship to either the victim or the defendant with the most liberal alternatives occurring when the defendant is a relative and the most harsh alternatives chose when the victim of the crime is a relative. Although the present study was concermed with the insanity plea, it seems probables that similar findings might also transpire when other controversial matters in the criminal justice system as investigated, such as probation, parole, and mandatory jail sentences for persons convicted of driving under the influence.     

Unnatural death investigation in India. A plea for the introduction of a medical examiner system of inquest

The inquest upon a dead body is the basis of the scientific crime investigation and administration of criminal justice. The pivotal issue in any inquest is the initial visualization of the body and its surroundings at the scene of incident by a team of investigators and experts. This must be carried out meticulously, since the subsequent course of the case, and its success or failure in the court of justice, essentially depends upon its proper execution. Unfortunately, such an important step as the inquest is generally the most neglected part of any crime investigation process as it exists in India today. It is quite often left entirely to the inspired guesswork and seasoned experience of the lowest ranking police officers and more often than not to a Head Constable of a police station or substation. Nevertheless, while the coroner's system has proved to be utterly unsuitable for Indian conditions, we have failed to find an alternative solution to the growing challenge of scientific crime investigation in India, by involving the forensic pathologist in inquests held upon dead bodies, by including him in the first crime investigation. A strong case is made for adoption of the medical examiner's system of inquest, wherein the forensic pathologist plays the pivotal role and leads the "unnatural death investigation team."     

Why public opinion changes: the implications for health and health policy

Research on stasis or change in public opinion toward health, health policy, and medical care tends to focus on short-term dynamics and to emphasize the impact of discrete messages communicated by individual speakers in particular situations. This focus on what we term "situational framing," though valuable in some respects, is poorly equipped to assess changes that may occur over the longer term. We focus, instead, on "structural framing" to understand how institutionalized public health and health care policies impact public opinion and behavior over time. Understanding the dynamics of public opinion over time is especially helpful in tracking the political effects of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 as it moves from the debate over its passage to its implementation and operation.     

赌博罪、赌博中的违法行为与娱乐活动的界定

赌博,是指用财物作注比输赢,以偶然性的胜负争财物或财产利益得失的行为。对赌博罪、赌博中的违法行为与娱乐活动进行界定,可以使我们正确区分罪与非罪,赌博罪、赌博中的违法行为与娱乐活动的界限以及认清赌博中的犯罪与违法的特殊形态和表现形式。