Deliberative layering: Explaining diverse interest mobilization across the European Parliament's Policy Cycle

Drawing from work on deliberation and information‐access, this paper conceptually frames why and when different types of interests mobilize across the parliamentary policy cycle. We posit that each policy stage holds its own deliberative purpose and logic, leading to a variation in the type and volume of information demanded. The legitimacy of the expertise interest groups provide is affected by their organizational characteristics. To ensure the smooth flow of the policy process, members of parliament encourage groups that legitimately hold relevant information to mobilize at each policy stage, while lobbyists choose to mobilize when their expertise allows them to better influence policy‐makers' debates. We test our argument in the context of the European Parliament, following a unique survey of the 8th legislature (2014–2019). The responses lend support to our model. In a policy process that contains various stages of deliberation, different organizations hold an information‐expertise key that gives them access at different stages. Significantly, less studied groups, such as think tanks and consultancies, mobilize well ahead of others in the cycle's initial phases; while lobbyists representing public constituencies dominate in the final stages. The paper contributes to broader theoretical discussions on pluralism, bias, and deliberation in policy‐making.     

National Solidarity,Global Impartiality,and the Performance of Philosophical Theory. The Example of Migration Policy

This paper explores the issue of whether an international system of nation-states can be defended from a global perspective of impartiality. At present, it seems as if the nation-state were the only suitable institutional location for the realization of effective systems of social justice. Provided that national politics is indeed disposed to promote the freedom and well-being of its citizens, a decentralized system of nation-states is likely to produce beneficial effects. Experience, however, teaches that national politics has in many instances had decidedly negative effects. For that reason, the existing system of nation-states cannot be defended from a global point of view. Hence, the question turns on whether a system of nation-states could conceivably find the support of rational persons if it incorporated substantive restrictions on national politics. This paper discusses the liberty to migrate as one of the many options potentially available for the correction of the existing international regime. As the closer inspection of the underlying philosophical question reveals, the problem can only be resolved with reference to a normatively relevant understanding of the kind of persons we take ourselves to be. From the conclusion that the freedom to migrate is to be understood as a fundamental liberty, the discussion then turns to the legitimate limitations that might be imposed by national immigration policies. It is argued that—in order to accommodate what is demanded by both global impartiality and national solidarity—open admission policies must not in effect place at a disadvantage those who are already relatively worse off under a present distribution, for this would violate basic conditions for the development and confirmation of socially acquired self-esteem     

Outpatient commitment and coercion in New Zealand: a matched comparison study

BACKGROUND: It has been hypothesized that a degree of coercion is a necessary component in using outpatient commitment to attain therapeutic outcome for those people subject to mental health law. However, what degree of coercion is required and how it is sustained is poorly understood. There is speculation that patients' recognition of beneficial as well as unwanted aspects of outpatient commitment (ambivalence) maybe an indicator that the necessary level of coercion has been achieved to facilitate a therapeutic outcome. AIM: The aim of this study was to determine the level of coercion perceived by those under outpatient commitment in New Zealand. Emphasis was given to consideration of the presence of ambivalence and the role of interactive processes, including procedural justice, in influencing patients' perceptions of coercion. METHOD: A cross-sectional comparative study was undertaken to compare the perceptions of coercion of patients on outpatient commitment (n = 69) to a matched sample of voluntary outpatients (n = 69), using the Perceived Coercion Scale. The influence of a range of variables, including patients' knowledge of and beliefs concerning outpatient commitment, were considered. RESULTS: Although the level of coercion for involuntary outpatients was relatively low, it was significantly higher than that experienced by voluntary outpatients. Yet involuntary outpatients were more likely to espouse benefits of outpatient commitment. Although there was an inverse correlation between perceptions of procedural justice and perceived coercion, procedural justice did not feature in the linear regression analysis. DISCUSSION: In the New Zealand context, involuntary outpatients hold contrasting views to outpatient commitment. We suggest that this ambivalence is an indicator that the degree of coercion is suffice to achieve therapeutic outcome. Furthermore, this study suggests the impact of procedural justice on patients' perceptions of coercion may be more crucial during admission to hospital than in the context of on-going community care.     

McTear v Imperial Tobacco: understanding the role and limitations of expert epidemiological evidence in scientific litigation

The use of epidemiological evidence in litigation presents a range of challenges for both litigants and the courts. Given the complex statistical basis of epidemiology itself, it is possible that the technical and factual constraints associated with such evidence may fail to be properly considered by a trier of fact. The recent Scottish decision in McTear v Imperial Tobacco Ltd [2005] Scots CSOH 69 sets a high standard for the future use of epidemiological evidence and thoroughly evaluates the strengths and weaknesses of epidemiology generally. While epidemiological evidence remains controversial, and cannot in itself prove direct causation (nor causation in the individual), it is likely it will continue to be adduced as indirect evidence of general causation. It is also likely, however, that both the subjective and objective processes involved in epidemiological study design and reporting will be questioned by courts more thoroughly than has historically been the case. Further, failure by a party to adduce primary evidence (ie original data sets and interpretation thereof) of an epidemiological study which it seeks to rely on at trial will most likely undermine the value of adducing such evidence in the first place.     

American Indians and sentencing disparity: An Arizona test

Although a proliferation of research exists examining the extent to which African American criminal defendants receive more harsh sentences relative to Caucasians, comparatively little research has examined the issue of discrimination in relation to other minority groups. This article examines disparities in sentence length received between American Indian and Caucasian inmates incarcerated in Arizona state correctional facilities. Regression analyses were used to predict the sentences received by American Indian and Caucasian inmates convicted of six crimes (homicide, sexual assault, robbery, assault, burglary, and larceny). After prior felony record and other demographic variables were controlled in these crime-specific models, the crimes of robbery and burglary were the only crimes in which American Indians received longer sentences than Caucasians convicted of the same offense. Caucasian defendants received significantly longer sentences than American Indians for cases of homicide. A defendant's prior felony record was the only variable that consistently increased the length of sentence received by defendants across all types of crime. These findings are discussed and interpreted using various theoretical arguments.