How to Advance Social Rights without Jeopardising the Human Rights Act 1998

When the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) was drafted, governments grasped that human rights are needed as safeguards, not only against authoritarianism but also against the causes of authoritarianism. For this reason, the UDHR encompasses civil, political, economic, social and cultural rights. This holistic vision of human rights was obscured during the Cold War and more recently by economic neo‐liberalism. The UK government neglects social rights, which have a very low public profile, although there is evidence that the profile of these human rights is increasing. UK domestic law and practice is inconsistent with the holistic vision of human rights and the government's binding international social rights obligations. The UN Special Rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights recommends that the UK provides for ‘the legislative recognition of social rights’ which can be approached in various ways. One way is to proceed social right by social right (for example, the rights to housing, health and education), and sector by sector (for example, the sectors of housing, health and education). This administrative law approach advances explicit social rights without implicating or jeopardising the Human Rights Act 1998.     

Human Rights in Policing: The Past,Present and Future

This article seeks to demonstrate, largely from practitioners’ perspectives, the growing evolution in understanding and implementation of meaningful human rights standards within the policing context. In the early 2000s, human rights were perceived and treated as a rather restrictive framework in UK policing. They are now more readily seen as a set of tools that guide and help the police to balance the views and interests of all parties to the criminal justice process. Human rights values enable police in the UK to better endeavour to do the right thing, ‘without fear or favour’.     

Personalizing solidarity? The role of self-tracking in health insurance pricing

Can data-driven innovations, working across an internet of connected things, personalize health insurance prices? The emergence of self-tracking technologies and their adoption and promotion in health insurance products has been characterized as a threat to solidaristic models of healthcare provision. If individual behaviour rather than group membership were to become the basis of risk assessment, the social, economic and political consequences would be far-reaching. It would disrupt the distributive, solidaristic character that is expressed within all health insurance schemes, even in those nominally designated as private or commercial. Personalized risk pricing is at odds with the infrastructures that presently define, regulate and deliver health insurance. Self-tracking can be readily imagined as an element in an ongoing bio-political redistribution of the burden of responsibility from the state to citizens but it is not clear that such a scenario could be delivered within existing individual private health insurance operational and regulatory infrastructures. In what can be gleaned from publicly available sources discussing pricing experience in the individual markets established by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act 2010 (ACA), widely known as ‘Obamacare’, it appears unlikely that it can provide the means to personalize price. Using the case of Oscar Health, a technology driven start-up trading in the ACA marketplaces, I explore the concepts, politics and infrastructures at work in health insurance markets.     

过失犯中被害人的作为义务与自我负责的边界

被害人自我答责理论强调自我决定,从而保障个人自由。法所关注的领域,是交往性的契约领域。非契约领域,属于个体的自治空间。刑法并不关注发生在"自我管辖领域"内的"侵害行为和侵害结果"。在自治领域,被害人应当确保"结果的不发生"。对参与被害人"自我管辖领域"内的行为,立足于限制的正犯概念和共犯的二元参与体系的概念,能够在教义学上得到准确解读。义务人在事实上有防止结果发生的可能性、义务履行与利益损害不能显著失衡、不能以生命为代价履行义务、人身保护与财产保护义务的"强制力"应当有别,是考量作为义务边界的因素。超出财产保护义务履行范围的,义务人完全进入到了自我管辖的空间。对于造成的损害结果,由被害人答责。超越人身保护义务的,应区分职业义务人与非职业义务人,分别对待。行为人创设的风险与职业义务人伤亡之间存在紧密关联之时,属于急迫性风险,由行为人答责。职业义务人正常履行职业义务的,属于职业性管辖。职业义务人发生误判之时,不能由职业义务人自我答责。无义务者实施保护行为造成损害的,应该对侵害结果自我答责。     

犯罪着手的教义学重述:学说对决、命题重证与具体解答

形式客观说并未丢弃实质,故其本为形式与实质相结合说。是否立足于构成要件行为是法益侵害紧迫危险性的刑法定型,决定了形式客观说和实质客观说各自是否为犯罪着手认定提供了明确标准,且是否导致犯罪着手认定的过于提前或推迟,进而决定了是否背离罪刑法定原则。犯罪着手的认定标准,应抛弃脱离形式限制的实质客观说而仍坚持形式客观说,但其“开始命题”应通过“基于大数法则的类型化危险形成说”而将犯罪着手的认定标准予以实质性落实。通过“基于大数法则的类型化危险形成说”,形式客观说对结合犯、隔离犯、徐行犯和原因自由行为型犯罪的着手能够做出妥当解答。     

釜底抽薪:韩国现代化中的后期反腐败--韩国现代化进程中反腐败问题研究之二

20世纪80年代末以后,韩国的反腐败转入可以概括为"釜底抽薪"的阶段.这一阶段的反腐败措施是:把严惩与法制建设相结合;分析腐败滋生的根源和条件,从惩治为主到预防为主;推进民主化进程和行政管理体制改革以遏制腐败;建立起政府组织、民间组织和国际组织相结合的反腐败网络.从而有效地遏制住了腐败的泛滥,保证了韩国社会、政治、经济、文化的继续发展.     

Forty-five revolutions per minute: a qualitative study of Hybrid Order use in forensic psychiatric practice

Psychiatrists who recommend a Hybrid Order (Section 45A) as a disposal option at the point of sentencing accept that the convicted individual, as well as being mentally disordered and in need of treatment, is also culpable and deserving of criminal punishment. Ethical and clinical concerns have typically limited its clinical use. However, in 2015 the Court of Appeal specified in R v Vowles and others that the Hybrid Order disposal should be considered first in terms of potential mental health disposals. This judgement sets a high threshold for the use of the hospital order which has been the bedrock of inpatient forensic psychiatric practice since 1983. This study sought to explore the attitudes of consultant forensic psychiatrists towards the use of the Hybrid Order in the wake of the Vowles judgement. We interviewed 12 consultant forensic psychiatrists with longstanding experience of psychiatric sentencing recommendations. We found that the majority of consultants considered the Hybrid Order to be a valuable disposal option when used under specific circumstances. However, significant concerns were raised about its use in those with an enduring psychotic illness. Community aftercare arrangements for Hybrid Order disposals were viewed as inferior to community aftercare arrangements for Section 37/41 patients.     

The Juvenile Justice Reform Act of 2018: Updating the Federal Approach to Youth Involved,and At‐Risk of Becoming Involved,in the Juvenile Justice System

On December 21, 2018, the Juvenile Justice Reform Act was signed into law, marking the first update in 16 years to the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act of 1974, as amended. The reforms reflect much of the knowledge that has been gained through research and science over the past decade and strengthen the Act’s core protections for youth in the juvenile justice system. The changes also expand the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s role in research, and technical assistance, and provide for additional oversight for related programs.     

Therapeutic jurisprudence and mental health tribunals: changing patterns of demand and its impact

For decades the mental health system has been ‘in crisis,’ with too little funding, too much demand and fragmented services. In England and Wales, decisions made concerning the care and treatment of those suffering from a mental disorder is governed by the Mental Health Act 1983 (as amended) (MHA 1983). Detention under the legislation is fraught with conflict; patient and clinical views are often at odds. Mental health tribunals enable patients to seek a review of their case and the legality of their detention. This paper argues that with the increased use of formal detention under the MHA 1983, the caseloads of mental health tribunals have similarly risen. Whether it is possible to advance therapeutic benefit to psychiatric patients attending tribunals is open to question. While mental health tribunals have a role to play in generating a positive psychological impact on an applicant, there is a risk that time and resource pressures may inhibit the adoption of a therapeutic approach. This paper considers the key drivers that are currently pushing detention rates up, the impact this is having on mental health tribunal caseloads and whether it is possible to bring therapeutic jurisprudence to the patient.