Meeting in the Middle: A Review of Joint JD/PhD Programs

In recent years there has been a vigorous debate in the discipline of criminology and criminal justice, concerning the role of faculty members in Criminology and Criminal Justice departments who hold a Juris Doctorate (JD), but lack a PhD. Some argue that faculty members with a JD possess sufficient credentials to be tenure-track faculty members within a department; however, others believe that a tenure-track faculty member within a department should hold a PhD. Two primary arguments in the debate concern the discrepancies in the hour requirements for degree certification, as well as the dissertation requirement for completion of a PhD. Although it seems both sides are entrenched in their respective beliefs, one plausible method of attempting to bridge this gap is to encourage interested students to enroll in joint JD/PhD programs. These programs are designed to overlap degree requirements and allow students to concurrently earn both degrees in a shorter period of time than if both degrees were earned separately. To analyze JD/PhD programs, a survey of the 201 American Bar Association (ABA) accredited law schools with joint degree programs within criminology and criminal justice (as well as other academic disciplines) was conducted. Of specific interest was the process of program integration and combined curriculum requirements.     

The Role of the United States Supreme Court in Shaping Federal Drug Policy

Through judicial review, the United States Supreme Court has played a pivotal role in deciding and/or interpreting the constitutionality of legislation. Since the passage of the Pure, Food and Drug Act in 1906, the Supreme Court’s role has been integral in formulating drug policy. In some instances, the Court’s decisions have limited the authority of the federal government, while in others have greatly expanded this authority. As a direct result of the decision-making of the Supreme Court, limitations have periodically been placed on Congress to regulate controlled substances. Many people, who were perceived as medical patients, became criminal drug users. The Court has restricted and later approved of the use of drugs during the free exercise of religion. Lastly, the Court has continually reinforced the supremacy of the federal government over the states, in turn limiting the ability of the states to consider marijuana legislative reform.     

OxyContin and a Regulation Deficiency of the Pharmaceutical Industry: Rethinking State-Corporate Crime

On May 10, 2007, three executives of the pharmaceutical company Purdue Pharma pled guilty in federal court to misleading doctors and patients about the risk of addiction and potential for abuse of OxyContin. Additionally, Purdue Pharma paid over $600 million in fines and other payments to the United States government and the Commonwealth of Virginia. The drug OxyContin was first introduced to the market in December of 1995. Warning signs of the drug’s potential for abuse were almost immediate, and there were reports of copious amounts of the drug being diverted into the black market for recreational use. In some cases, criminologists have argued that if the government fails to protect its citizens from the harm of a corporation then such behavior should be considered state-corporate crime. We critically evaluate the case of OxyContin to see if it falls under the state-corporate crime paradigm. Further, we argue the state-corporate crime paradigm can benefit from an increased focus on the organizational structures of regulation agencies.