Pivotal issues

He studies security and privacy aspects of telecommunications and computers and is author of several works on arms production in developing countries and on national energy policy. He recently received his first patent for a call-holding alert system. All statements in this article represent the author’s own views, not necessarily those of Bellcore or its shareholders.     

The Corporate Crimes of Dow Chemical and the Failure to Regulate Environmental Pollution

A case study of Dow Chemical Company using scholarly research, journalistic investigations, and government documents reveals the existence of the criminogenic corporate-state. The Corporate-State manages and regulates itself with limited interference from the Environmental Protection Agency and in the form of Dow Chemicals is responsible for numerous environmental crimes both nationally and globally all of which have been linked to numerous health, labor and economic problems. Future researchers are encouraged to undertake similar case studies to expose the Corporate-State and the criminal harms done to ordinary citizens for the sake of profit.     

Legal Theory for Legal Empiricists

There is a widespread view that one does either theory or empirical work, and that theory and empiricism represent distant concerns, opposing worldviews, and perhaps distinct mentalities or personalities. This prevalent view has deep roots and is also the result of pragmatic and understandable tendencies toward division of intellectual labor. Against this view, this essay suggests that the relations between theory and empirical study ought to be understood as more intimate and that making legal theory an explicit focus can improve empirical scholarship. We pursue this claim by articulating a basis for legal theory and by showing how that basis illuminates both the application and design of empirical research on law. Legal theory, we argue, follows jurisprudence in interrogating the law as a set of coercive normative institutions. The upshot of this approach is a recognition that an interdisciplinary analysis of law must rely on both a theory (explicit or implicit) of the way law's power and its normativity align and an account of the way in which this discursive cohabitation manifests itself institutionally. We thus argue that legal theory is necessary in order to draw fruitfully on empirical research and further claim that legal theory provides guidance both for setting up an empirical research agenda on law and for designing research into specific topics.     

Gerrymandering Roll Calls in Congress, 1879–2000

We argue that the standard toolbox used in electoral studies to assess the bias and responsiveness of electoral systems can also be used to assess the bias and responsiveness of legislative systems. We consider which items in the toolbox are the most appropriate for use in the legislative setting, then apply them to estimate levels of bias in the U.S. House from 1879 to 2000. Our results indicate a systematic bias in favor of the majority party over this period, with the strongest bias arising during the period of "czar rule" (51st–60th Congresses, 1889–1910) and during the post-packing era (87th–106th Congresses, 1961–2000). This finding is consistent with the majority party possessing a significant advantage, either in "buying" vote options, in setting the agenda, or both.