Retributivism and Over-Punishment

Law and Philosophy - Lately it has become a commonplace to complain about the injustice of mass incarceration. I share the sentiment that this phenomenon has been an injustice. But it also has...     

Rent-seeking with non-identical sharing rules: An equilibrium rescued

Nitzan's (1991) analysis of differential sharing rules in a collective rent-seeking setting is reconsidered. Two groups, each with more than one member, are presumed to use different linear combinations of two sharing rules, one based on an equal-division of the prize, and the other on each member's relative effort. We show that an equilibrium always exists for this type of game, and then characterize the equilibrium. Our result is contrary to Nitzan's claims that (a) in the general case an equilibrium often does not exist, and (b) an equilibrium never exists when the groups use the polar extreme rules.     

In Search of Peace: Structural Adjustment, Violence, and International Migration

The authors analyze the effects of structural adjustment and violence on international migration from selected countries in Latin America by estimating a series of event history models that predicted the likelihood of initial migration to the United States as a function of the murder rate, economic openness, and selected controls in the country of origin. Although several theories posit a connection between structural economic change and violence, such a pattern held only in Nicaragua, where the homicide rate increased as the economy was opened to trade and average incomes deteriorated. Moreover, only in Nicaragua was lethal violence positively related to out-migration. In Mexico, Costa Rica, and Guatemala, rising violence reduced the likelihood of emigration. Violence does not appear to have uniform effects on patterns of international migration but depends on broader social and political conditions within particular countries.     

Barking Mosque and Quintessential Insight: Overcoming the Problematic Government/Community Counterterrorism Partnership in the UK

This article looks specifically at the front end of the radicalization problem and argues that vulnerability to political violence is first and foremost a social problem. The article explores the historical counterradicalization approach in Britain and the government/community relationship, and argues that addressing the disaffection that comes with social vulnerability is the key to building resilience to radicalization. Last, the article profiles a holistic counterradicalization response undertaken by Quintessential Insight and the Barking Mosque whereby social vulnerability is reduced, individuals and communities are empowered, social and political agency is maximized, social contracts are restored, and resilience to radicalization is increased.     

Book note

Postgraduate Fieldwork in Developing Areas: A Rough Guide. Edited by E. Robson and K. Willis. Oxford: Developing Areas Research Group of the Institute of British Geographers, 1994. Pp.vi + 162. NP. ISBN 0 9466 8905 9     

An Argumentation Interface for Expert Opinion Evidence

Tribunals have come to depend increasingly on expertise for determining the facts in cases. However, current legal methods have proved problematic to work with. This paper argues that, as a special model of public understanding of science, assessing expertise should consider source credibility of expertise from internal aspects, including scientific validity and reliability, and external aspects involving the credibility of experts. Using the Carneades Argumentation System we show that the internal and the external aspects are mediated by the structure of the argument from expert opinion with its matching set of critical questions.     

Pragmatic Maxims and Presumptions inLegal Interpretation

The fields of linguistic pragmatics and legal interpretation are deeply interrelated. The purpose of this paper is to show how pragmatics and the developments in argumentation theory can contribute to the debate on legal interpretation. The relation between the pragmatic maxims and the presumptions underlying the legal canons are brought to light, unveiling the principles that underlie the types of argument usually used to justify a construction. The Gricean maxims and the arguments of legal interpretation are regarded as presumptions subject to default used to justify an interpretation. This approach can allow one to trace the different legal interpretive arguments back to their basic underlying presumptions, so that they can be compared, ordered, and assessed according to their defeasibility conditions. This approach allows one to understand the difference between various types of interpretive canons, and their strength in justifying an interpretation.