The Empirical Slippery Slope from Voluntary to Non-Voluntary Euthanasia

This article examines the evidence for the empirical argument that there is a slippery slope between the legalization of voluntary and non-voluntary euthanasia. The main source of evidence in relation to this argument comes from the Netherlands. The argument is only effective against legalization if it is legalization which causes the slippery slope. Moreover, it is only effective if it is used comparatively-to show that the slope is more slippery in jurisdictions which have legalized voluntary euthanasia than it is in jurisdictions which have not done so. Both of these elements are examined comparatively.     

A Study of Methadone Maintenance For Male Prisoners: 3-Month Postrelease Outcomes

This study examined benefits of methadone maintenance among prerelease prison inmates. Incarcerated males with preincarceration heroin dependence (n = 197) were randomly assigned to (a) group educational counseling (counseling only); (b) counseling, with opportunity to begin methadone maintenance on release (counseling + transfer); or (c) counseling and methadone maintenance in prison, with opportunity to continue methadone maintenance on release (counseling + methadone). At 90-day follow-up, counseling + methadone participants were significantly more likely than counseling-only and counseling + transfer participants to attend drug treatment (p = .0001) and less likely to be reincarcerated (p = .019). Counseling + methadone and counseling + transfer participants were significantly less likely (all ps < .05) to report heroin use, cocaine use, and criminal involvement than counseling-only participants. Follow-up is needed to determine whether these findings hold over a longer period.     

Presidents, Political Regimes, and Contentious Supreme Court Nominations: A Historical Institutional Model

Before the nominations of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, scholars consistently pointed to the presence of divided government as an underlying reason for conflict in the confirmation process for U.S. Supreme Court nominees. However, the importance of party unity and coalition-building appointments—each of which highlights the role of the president in the process—should not be underestimated in these confirmation battles. Moreover, an examination of the sixty twentieth-century nominations reveals that a presidency-focused political regimes model provides significant explanatory force for understanding when and what types of nominees are likely to face the most resistance in the Senate. It does so by incorporating Stephen Skowronek's analytical framework for understanding presidential authority to explain how and why different periods of political time affect presidential attempts to shape the U.S. Supreme Court through appointments. In turn, the model places recent conflict in the confirmation process in historical context.     

Lawyers,Justices, and Issue Salience: When and How Do Legal Arguments Affect the U.S. Supreme Court?

A good deal of scholarly evidence suggests that the decisionmaking of the U.S. Supreme Court is affected by legal argument. At the same time, it seems clear that in a great many cases the justices have enduring, strongly held views. In such cases, they should be impervious to the effects of advocacy. When are the justices apt to be influenced by the Court's legal community, and when will lawyers be less relevant? The answer, we think, has to do with the salience of the issue before the Court. We suspect that in nonsalient cases the justices have less‐intense preferences and therefore are open to the persuasion of lawyers. In salient cases, by contrast, the content of legal policy matters much more to the justices. As a result, they are less amenable to legal argument and adhere more strictly to their personal policy preferences. Our empirical tests support this orientation.     

Dollars and democracy in Hong Kong: Understanding the logic of Chinese policy

Recent disputes between China and Great Britain over political reform and airport financing in Hong Kong have helped clarify the logic of Chinese policy toward the territory. Despite appearances to the contrary, the disputes are only partly about democracy and money. For the PRC, they are fundamentally about creating the conditions for the Chinese government to exercise sovereignty after 1997 and about the fear that Great Britain will do anything possible to complicate China’s establishment of authority over the territory. This article thus rejects as inadequate several conventional explanations for China’s Hong Kong policy. Its conclusions hold significant implications for Hong Kong’s future and for our understanding of China’s foreign policy calculations elsewhere.     

Hong Kong Court declares Hennessy trade marks well known on a default basis

Société Jas Hennessy & Co. (‘Hennessy’)has successfully persuaded the Hong Kong Court of First Instanceto grant a declaration that the ‘Hennessy’ trademarks are well known on a default judgment basis.     

Racial and ethnic perceptions of injustice: Testing the core hypotheses of comparative conflict theory

Comparative conflict theory is a theoretical statement proposed by Hagan, Shedd, and Payne (2005) to explain racial and ethnic variation in perceptions of injustice. Their theory asserted that White respondents perceive considerably less injustice than both African Americans and Hispanics (the racial-ethnic divide hypothesis) and that African Americans perceive less injustice than Hispanics (the racial gradient hypothesis). They also proposed that prior criminal justice experiences serve as a “tipping point” for Hispanics in that Hispanics with prior negative criminal justice contacts will perceive more injustice than African Americans with similar prior negative experiences. This study tested these three hypotheses, finding support for the racial-ethnic divide and racial-gradient hypotheses, but not the differential sensitivity hypothesis. In addition, this study explored the racial and ethnic identity of Hispanics (i.e., “White Hispanic” and “Black Hispanic”) and found that Hispanics, who were younger, less educated, and perceived some forms of injustice were more likely to identify themselves as being both Hispanic and Black.