The end of police prosecutions: Symptom of changing values in english criminal justice

This article contrasts the traditional English prosecutorial system, and its underlying values, with the new Crown Prosecution Service and the related values which have emerged from five years of official study and planning of prosecutorial reform. The traditional system reflected the English ideal of the amateur generalist. Under this system the police, acting as citizens, undertook most prosecutions, hiring legal assistance as needed. Ower the last twenty years, about three-quarters of the English police forces set up prosecuting solicitors departments. While these institutions give professional legal assistance to many police, they were purely local arrangements without statutory basis and legally similar to the traditional ad hoc arrangements. In 1986 the Crown Prosecution Service will be initiated. This is the product of a process of development which includes a Royal Commission, two governmental working parties, a white paper, a bill, and a managerial study. The result is a hierarchical structure of legal professionals independent of the police who will handle virtually all prosecutions. This prosecutorial structure exhibits the characteristics and values of modern rationalistic bureaucracy described by Max Weber. The adoption of these values in English criminal justice indicates the likelihood of change in other aspects of the system which rest on the conflicting traditional values.     

Improvisation and Negotiation: Expecting the Unexpected

Negotiators must improvise. As the negotiations process unfolds, they work with new information, continually making decisions along the way to achieve favorable results. Skilled improvisational jazz musicians and actors perform in similar ways: they repeatedly practice song chord progressions and notes or scene guidelines before a performance; then, during the performance, they work with the information or the music they hear in order to react and respond, making decisions along the way to produce dazzling music or a compelling scene. In this article, two experts in negotiation, a jazz-improvisation scholar, a former member of an improvisational theater troupe, and a psychotherapist versed in therapeutic improvisational techniques explore the improvisational nature of negotiation.
Several aspects of negotiation are similar to improvisation. Both negotiators and improvisational performers need to have a similar mind-set to be successful, both need to recognize and/or change that mind-set at times, and both must craft creative solutions. But there are some significant differences between improvisational performance and negotiation practice, which this article also notes. For example, personal charisma ("star quality") is a common attribute of successful performers, but not something negotiators may always rely on. Similarly, improvisational artists usually work as a team, while a negotiator is often on his or her own. Nonetheless, the incorporation of improvisation techniques into the negotiation skills repertoire holds great promise for practicing negotiators and is a worthy topic of future negotiation research and teaching.     

From watchdog to sneak: the UK's new trade mark notification regime

Legal context: This article discusses the move from ex officio refusal of trademark applications based on relative grounds, to a notificationregime. The order making power for this derives from Section8 of the Trade Marks Act 1994. Owners of qualifying earlier registered rights, in respect ofwhich registration of the subject application would be consideredto lead to a likelihood of confusion, will be notified of thelater subject application, and must decide for themselves whetherto oppose. Key points: The article examines the justification for such a shift, interms of the need for a proper evidence and submission basedevaluation of the respective marks, as well as the need to takeall market factors into account in any evaluation. It also addressesthe legal and cultural shift entailed in such a change. Finally,the article attempts to set out three objective measures bywhich an evaluation of success could be measured. Practical significance: The change will affect all those who already have, or will have,registered trade mark rights in the UK. The author's concernin particular is for those who will be receiving notificationletters and what their response might be - given that many willbe unrepresented. The author also believes that more notificationswill be sent out than marks that are currently ‘cited’.     

Public attitudes towards the death penalty

Responses to a general question regarding the use of the death penalty were compared with the sentences that respondents chose in a set of scenarios describing homicide cases. The percentage of respondents who assigned the death sentence in one or more of the following scenarios was higher than those who favored the death penalty in the abstract question, but there were inconsistencies in the answers. A majority assigned the death penalty only for the most heinous offender described, and the figures were lower for other crimes, even clear cases of first degree murder. At the same time, a manipulation involving information about methods of execution did not affect answers. These results strongly suggest that the abstract questions typically used in public opinion polls do not accurately reflect the public's feelings about use of the death penalty in specific cases. More generally, research on public opinion regarding criminal justice policies should survey a variety of specific circumstances.     

Deregistration issues in the US for foreign private issuers

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

• While the passage of Sarbanes–Oxley in the USwas just one of the many causes for the lack of competitivenessof the US capital markets recently, it served to focus the attentionof foreign private issuers in the US on the difficulty and sometimesimpossibility of exiting the US capital markets.
• Unlike manyother jurisdictions, the process of deregistering in the USis distinct from process of delisting. The current rules forderegistration of foreign private issuers focus on the numberof US shareholders, regardless of how or where those shareholderspurchased their shares. In addition, foreign private issuers,were subject to complicated rules for counting US shareholders,and deregistration often would only suspend (not terminate)their reporting obligations.
• As a result of pressure from foreignprivate issuers, the SEC proposed new rules at the end of 2005to liberalize the existing deregistration regime for foreignprivate issuers. . . . [Full Text of this Article]