FCC v. The States: Who Shall Regulate Intrastate Telecommunications?

The 1934 Communications Act established a dual system of federaland State telecommunications regulation. The act gave the FederalCommunications Commission (FCC) authority to regulate interstateand foreign telecommunications but not intrastate communications,a market reserved for the states. As part of its move to deregulatethe telecommunications market in the 1970s, the FCC sought toextend its jurisdiction by preempting state regulatory authorityover telecommunications activities traditionally consideredintrastate. In 1986, however, the U.S. Supreme Court, in itsdecision in Louisiana Public Service, restricted federal preemptionof state laws and reinforced the dual regulatory system. Withthe break-up of AT&T, the FCC has renewed its preemptionactivities, claiming that the preemption is necessary in orderto foster an efficient nationwide telecommunications system.Several cases now pending in federal courts will test the breadthand depth of the Supreme Court's holding in Louisiana PublicService, and thereby, the future of the dual regulatory system.     

Major study commencing into genetic discrimination in Australia

This article describes a nationwide empirical study that will be undertaken during the next three years into the newly emerging phenomenon of genetic discrimination. In particular, the study aims to investigate the nature and extent of genetic discrimination in Australia across three key perspectives: consumers, third parties and the legal system. Further, the study aims to examine the social and legal implications of genetic discrimination, with a view to making recommendations for use in the Australian legal and policy context. It is anticipated that the data produced from this multifaceted investigation will assist in identifying areas where legal or other reforms are required. It will contribute significant baseline data for facilitating ongoing assessment of the nature and extent of the problem, as well as for longitudinal evaluation of the impact and effectiveness of any reforms which may be introduced in the future to address the issue.     

Rethinking the Probative Value of Evidence: Base Rates,Intuitive Profiling,and the “Postdiction” of Behavior

It is argued that American courts may be routinely admitting evidence with little to no probative value and great potential for prejudicial impact. This may be particularly likely with regard to what is essentially intuitive profiling or stereotype related evidence, defined herein as evidence suggesting that the defendant (or other party), or his (her) behavior, fits intuitive profiles (or stereotypes) of the type of person likely to commit the crime or behavior in question. In other words, intuitive profiling evidence is admitted to postdict behavior. Formal empirically based profiling evidence (testimony regarding the fit of a defendant's characteristics or behaviors to formal or scientific profiles of the typical perpetrator of the crime in question for use to prove guilt is inadmissible in American courts. However, we suggest that everyday use of informal intuitive profiles underlies both judicial determinations of probative value diagnosticity, and thus admissibility, of evidence, and jurors' use of the evidence in determining guilt. Demonstrations of the use of base rate information to evaluate the probative value of such intuitive profiling evidence both as evidence of guilt and as evidence of innocence are provided. Demonstrations of both how to evaluate the actual probative value of evidence (when all necessary values are known), and the theoretical limit of its probative value (in circumstances where some values are not known) are provided. It is argued that such evaluations may provide the basis for (1) support of motions to either admit or to exclude evidence, (2) testimony to the jury to help them weigh or interpret evidence, (3) exculpatory profiling (profiling evidence of innocence), (4) pretrial research to establish probative versus prejudicial value of evidence, and (5) sufficiency analyses to determine maximum likelihood of guilt, given multiple items of evidence. Among these, the first two are considered most important, as it can be demonstrated that many profiling characteristics currently admitted in trial (such as evidence of battery to support a murder charge) are not probative of guilt.     

The Myth of Personal Security: Criminal Gangs, Dispute Resolution, and Identity in Rio de Janeiro's Favelas

This article examines the politics of how drug traffickers resolve disputes and maintain order in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro. Much popular discourse and some scholarly studies argue that drug traffickers play a major role in controlling crime and minimizing conflicts there. This article shows that traffickers enforce community norms under a variable political calculus in which well-connected and respected residents are less likely to be punished for rule violations than are individuals who are marginal to the life of the community. This allows many favela residents who conform to local norms to feel a degree of control over their own safety, a "myth of personal security" in otherwise violent neighborhoods.     

Struggling through the web of impunity—The Jorge Carpio Nicolle case

Through the lens of Guatemala’s Jorge Carpio Nicolle case I analyze the mechanisms that preserve impunity in Latin American nations struggling to emerge from violent conflict and embrace, the rule of law. I reveal how the infective influence of parallel powers, the ineffectiveness of the judicial process, and obstructive legal doctrine destroy domestic efforts to prosecute those responsible for human rights violations. The Carpio case exposes the role of international courts in providing justice when domestic courts fail to do so, and it demonstrates the importance of human rights groups in pursuing this justice. The author would like to thank Roxanna Altholz, Adriana Beltran, and Soraya Long for their invaluable assitance in conducting this research.