What does “unwilling” to impose the death penalty mean anyway? another look at excludable jurors

The debate regarding the death qualification of juries usually concerns (a) whether death-qualified jurors have different attitudes and values to excludable jurors, or (b) whether death-qualified juries are more prone to convict. A pivotal question is whether excludable subjects in fact willever impose the death penalty. Subjects were presented with five grisly murder vignettes. Only 40% of excludable subjects refused to consider the death penalty in all of the cases, with the remaining 60% indicating they would consider the death penalty in one or more of the cases. It is argued that the majority of individuals currently being excluded from capital trial juries based on their reservations about the death penalty actually would impose the death penalty for serious enough offenses and that they should therefore be allowed to serve on such juries.     

‘period problems’ at the coalface

Menstruation leave for women workers brings into the public domain of mining ongoing debates around protective legislation for women. It brings into focus the presumed tensions between gender equity and gender difference with regard to women's economic citizenship. Large-scale mining in East Kalimantan in Indonesia has offered some opportunities to poor and unskilled rural women to find formal jobs in the mines as truck and heavy equipment operators. This paper presents a case study of women in mining occupations, considers the implications of current menstruation leave provisions on the employment of women in the mines and raises serious issues related to gender equity in the workplace. The involvement of women in a non-conventional workplace such as the mine pits, providing a novel site for contestation over the rights of women workers, illuminates a less-debated area in feminist studies, especially in view of the significant ongoing changes in the Indonesian framework for industrial relations.     

Doctrine and Decision: Navigating Labour's New Constitutional Position in the Lords

The 2015–17 Parliament was the first time in history that the Conservatives were in government with no easily assembled majority in the House of Lords. This has fundamentally altered the role that Labour is able to play in the Lords and, conversely, that peers are able to play in the Labour party. Yet the political significance of this situation has not yet been fully appreciated by a party which remains culturally antagonistic and constitutionally wary of the Lords. In this paper, we draw on interviews with Labour peers, particularly the late Baroness Hollis of Heigham, who have been able to use the essentially conservative powers of the Lords for social democratic ends. We suggest that the Labour party needs to incorporate the second chamber into both its practical and symbolic politics, and to find ways to use this new source of constitutional power without accommodating to it.