Probing the Depths of the Responsible Corporate Officer’s Duty

Many criminal law scholars have criticized the responsible corporate officer doctrine as a form of strict and vicarious liability. It is neither. It is merely a doctrine that supplies a duty in instances of omissions. Siding with Todd Aagaard in this debate, I argue that a proper reading of the cases yields that the responsible corporate officer doctrine is just duty supplying, and does not allow for strict liability when the underlying statute requires mens rea. After analyzing Dotterweich, Park, and their progeny, I probe the depths of this duty-supplying doctrine, including to whom the duty is owed, whether the duty is grounded in statute, cause of peril, or contract, and what the content of the duty is. Although the responsible corporate officer doctrine unveils questions we may have about duty generally, it is no more problematic than other duty-supplying doctrines in the criminal law.     

The role of a small town in rural development: A Sierra Leone case study

The distribution of services, personnel, and infrastructure in rural development projects has not usually been subject to a thorough scrutiny. Locational decisions have been arbitrary, without reference to the needs and mobility of the rural population. This study advocates one particular revision of past policies: the incorporation of small towns into programs designed to improve agricultural production and economic opportunity in rural regions. When such towns already function as a center for political activity, marketing, employment, and service provision, a development project can reinforce these linkages in ways that enhance productivity. A case study is used to illustrate the efficacy of this proposal: the town of Panguma, Kenema District, Sierra Leone and its role in development programs. Panguma has several features that make it an ideal focal point, but it has not been incorporated into regional projects in any systematic way. This town and its hinterland provide an illustration of how rural-urban interaction at a local scale can further the achievement of rural development goals. C.A.R.E.     

Increased safety and specificity in the thin-layer chromatographic identification of marihuana

We are reporting what we believe to be a safe, rapid TLC system and spray for the identification of marihuana. The use of Fast Blue 2B salt greatly enhances the specificity of the TLC analysis of suspected marihuana samples.     

Provocateurs

When a provocateur intentionally provokes a deadly affray, the law of self-defense holds that the provocateur may not use deadly force to defend himself. Why is this so? Provocateurs are often seen as just one example of the problem of actio libera in causa, the causing of the conditions of one’s defense. This article rejects theories that maintain a one-size-fits-all approach to actio libera in causa, and argues that provocateurs need specific rules about why they forfeit their defensive rights. This article further claims that provocateurs need to be distinguished from their cousins, initial aggressors, as initial aggressors engage in conduct that grounds the permissibility of the defender’s behavior whereas the provocateur’s behavior does not justify the respondent’s use of force against him. In addition, this article rejects that the basis of this forfeiture can be found in the doctrines surrounding when and why mitigation for provocation is appropriate for the respondent. Provocateurs forfeit their defensive rights for the very simple reason that they start the fight. This forfeiture occurs when they behave culpably, meaning that they subjectively appreciate that they are running the risk of causing force to be used against them and they engage in this behavior without justification or excuse. The question of when the provocateur’s behavior is justified is incredibly complex. It requires analysis of when it is that one is justified in increasing the risk of another’s wrongdoing. Any analysis of this justification must take seriously the liberty rights of the potential provocateur to engage in otherwise permissible behavior. Moreover, the determination of whether the provocateur is justified will turn on whether the later acts that he puts into motion are themselves justified. Thus, when Charles Bronson in the movie Death Wish presents himself as a victim so that muggers will attack him, the justifiability of his conduct in appearing as a vulnerable victim will turn on whether he is entitled to engage in this conduct, intending to later defend himself. This article argues that in Death Wish-type cases, the reason that the provocateur is not justified is because he becomes a vigilante, thereby usurping the role of the state and undermining rule of law values.     

Some Sound and Fury from Kaplow and Shavell

Law and Philosophy -