The role of the sociologist as mitigation expert in a sentencing hearing

This paper examines Louisiana’s habitual offender statute and the role of a sociologist as a mitigation expert/criminologist in a specific case. The paper includes a summary of the habitual offender statute; the literature/theories used by the sociologist in his testimony; the trial judge’s decision; and the decision of the three-judge panel of the appellant court, particularly the minority opinion. The case has been returned to the district court for re-sentencing and the trial judge is under no obligation to accept the panel’s decision; but in practice must justify any lenient sentence. The use of sociology as mitigation in criminal cases generally is discussed. The author has worked in over 300 criminal cases since 1988, most of which were capital murder, but also include second-degree murder, manslaughter, armed robbery, rape, and habitual offender hearings.     

Poetry in Review

Visits from the Seventh , by Sarah Arvio
What Narcissism Meansto Me , by Tony Hoagland
Shattered Sonnets, love cards, and other off and back handed importunities , by Olena Kalytiak Davis     

After the congressional veto: Assessing the alternatives

Congressional choice of effective replacements for the recently banned legislative veto will require an accurate understanding of the actual results of the now unconstitutional device. The impact of the veto varied strikingly depending on, among other things, the type and target of the veto and on the principal sites of review in Congress itself. No single mechanism will suffice. Rather a variety of devices are available and under consideration. The underlying question raised by this analysis is which effects of the veto are worth perpetuating in light of past results and stated congressional objectives.     

The Consistency of WTO Rules: Can the Single Undertaking Be Squared with Variable Geometry?

The diversity of countries that negotiate commitments in theWorld Trade Organization (WTO), and the distinctions betweentheir legal and constitutional systems, implies important differencesin how agreements are approved, implemented, and enforced. Althoughconsistency is among the desirable attributes to which the multilateraltrading system should strive, it cannot be achieved at the expenseof all other desiderata. Among the reasons for relaxation ofthis goal is the need to accommodate the different legal systemsand levels of economic development among Member States, as wellas the demands for flexibility in negotiations. This paper reviewsthe development and current status of the debate over consistencyin the multilateral system, with special emphasis on the perspectivesof three different sets of participants: the United States,the European Union (EU), and developing countries. In the trade-offbetween the depth and the width of the trading system, the paperasks whether WTO Members should be more interested in expandingthe scope of globally agreed rules or in securing countries’adherence to them? It explores the possible consequences forthe Doha Development Agenda (DDA) if the US Congress cannotbe convinced to make a new grant of trade promotion authority(TPA) after the current one expires. It also discusses whetherthe single undertaking should continue to shape the terms ofthe DDA. In discussing the WTO’s approach to decision-makingand the possible need for reforms thereto, the paper also considershow best and on what grounds should new issues be introducedon the negotiating agenda. The paper argues that whether ornot the DDA is conducted on the basis of a single undertaking,and with or without TPA, the multilateral trading system willcontinue to provide for less than full consistency.