A Multi-Theoretical Framework to Assess Gendered Stalking Victimization: The Utility of Self-Control,Social Learning,and Control Balance Theories

Despite recent advancements in the criminological study of stalking, few theoretical tests have been conducted to date to explain stalking victimization among men and women separately. The current study individually and simultaneously extends three criminological theories to the study of stalking victimization: self-control, social learning, and control balance theories. Among a sample of 2,766 university students, a series of models were estimated for men and women separately to assess each set of theoretical variables net of control variables. Results reveal consistent significant positive relationships between stalking victimization and low self-control for men; differential peer association (e.g. friends are stalking victims) for men and women; and several social learning variables for only women. However, the control imbalance variables do not explain stalking victimization among men or women, net of other theoretical and control variables. The utility of a multi-theoretical approach to future stalking victimization research is discussed.     

The Right to Appeal and Workable Systems of Justice

This article explores the practicalities of a right to appeal. Appeals and appeal systems are usually conceived of in terms of a top–down hierarchy, with appeals functioning as an instrument for superior bodies to correct the decisions of and otherwise to control inferior ones. A fuller appreciation of systems of appeal places at least equal weight on the need for appeal bodies to establish stable, workable relationships with the bodies which they supervise. The need for any appeal system to sustain a workable system of justice refocuses attention from hierarchical control to problems of deference by the superior bodies towards the inferior ones. This way of looking at appeals has the potential to illuminate many recent developments, and can be illustrated by describing recent reforms and reform proposals to both civil and criminal justice.     

Rules, Principles and Ombudsmen: Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v The Financial Ombudsman Service

The judgment in Norwich and Peterborough Building Society v the Financial Ombudsman Service ¹ provides good evidence of the drawbacks of rule based adjudication, and the need for ombudsmen to be able to rely on principles of fairness. Further, it demonstrates, to those who associate ombudsmen and general standards of fairness with arbitrary and subjective decisions, ² how such determinations are constructed through, and constrained by, the legal context of codes, rights, etc in which the assessment is made. The decision also demonstrates an attempt to create a division of labour when courts and ombudsmen operate alongside each other, with the courts having a monopoly on the interpretation of legal rules, and ombudsmen being left to determine, with only minimal restrictions, a principled basis for the assessment of fairness.     

Der Biodiversitätsschaden nach 21a des Bundesnaturschutzgesetzes

Zusammenfassung Im Mai 2007 wurde das Gesetzes zur Umsetzung der Richtlinie des Europ?ischen Parlaments und des Rates über die Umwelthaftung zur Vermeidung und Sanierung von Umweltsch?den verabschiedet, das seinerseits die Umwelt-Haftungsrichtlinie (UH-RL) in deutsches Recht umsetzt. Auf Grund von Art. 72 Abs. 3 S. 2 GG treten Gesetze auf dem Gebiet des Naturschutzes mit Ausnahme der abweichungsfesten Teile frühestens 6 Monate nach Verkündung in Kraft. Folglich sieht Art. 4 des Gesetzes vom 10. Mai 2007 vor, dass das Umweltschadensgesetz (USchadG) und die ?nderungen im Wasserhaushaltsgesetz und im Bundesnaturschutzgesetz zum 14. November 2007 in Kraft getreten sind.