Prisons or Problem-Solving: Does the Public Support Specialty Courts?

ABSTRACT

Recently, “problem-solving” courts have been developed as an alternative to imprisonment. They are often called “specialty” courts because they process and divert into treatment programs offenders who are seen as different from the general criminal population, such as those with mental health or drug problems, those who are homeless or veterans, and those who engage in domestic violence. Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 respondents, the current study examines overall public support for rehabilitation as a goal of corrections and then focuses specifically on support for different types of specialty courts. The analysis reveals that the American public endorses not only the rehabilitative ideal but also the use of problem-solving courts. Further, with only minimal variation, strong support for these courts appears to exist regardless of political orientation and sociodemographic characteristics.     

Zur Berücksichtigung des Denkmalschutzes im Bundeswaldgesetz

Die von Deutschland nach Art. 59 Abs. 2 GG ratifizierten europ?ischen und internationalen übereinkommen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz müssen in nationales Recht transformiert werden. W?hrend die L?nder im Rahmen ihrer Kompetenz (Art. 30, 70, 83 GG) Denkmalschutzgesetze erlassen haben, hat der Bund in einschl?gigen Gesetzen wie dem Bundeswaldgesetz den Denkmalschutz bisher nicht berücksichtigt. Dabei ist bei einem Waldanteil von 30% der Wald mit seinen historischen Kulturlandschaften und seinem Waldboden als Archiv der Natur- und Kulturgeschichte von besonderer Bedeutung. Da Deutschland 60 Jahre nach Kriegsende endlich auch ausdrücklich ein Kulturstaat werden soll, ist es an der Zeit, dass die Belange des Denkmalschutzes auch im Bundeswaldgesetz (z.B. §§ 1, 2, 9 oder 11 BWaldG) berücksichtigt werden. Einige Verpflichtungen zum Denkmal- und Kulturgüterschutz sind heute ohnehin bereits V?lkergewohnheitsrecht (Art. 25 GG).     

Balancing Security and Democracy, and the Role of Expertise: Biometrics Politics in the European Union

What is the relationship between security policies and democratic debate, oversight and rights? Does coping with security threats require exceptions to the rule of law and reductions of liberties? The inquiry that follows tries to answer such questions in the context of the European Union and takes the case of biometric identification, an area were security considerations and the possible impact on fundamental rights and the rule of law are at stake. Some hypotheses are explored through the case study: “securitisation” and “democratisation” are in tension but some hybrid strategies can emerge; the plurality of “authoritative actors” influences policy frames and outcomes; and knowledge is a key asset in defining these authoritative actors. A counter-intuitive conclusion is presented, namely that biometrics, which seems prima facie an excellent candidate for technocratic decision-making, sheltered from democratic debate and accountability – is characterised by debate by a plurality of actors. Such pluralism is limited to those actors who have the resources – including knowledge – that allow for inclusion in policy making at EU level, but is nevertheless significant in shaping policy; it explains the central role of the metaphor of balancing security and democracy, as well as the “competitive cooperation” between new and more consolidated policy areas. The EU is facing another difficult challenge in the attempt at establishing itself as a new security actor and as a supranational democratic polity: important choices are at stake to assure that citizens’ security is pursued on the basis of the rule of law, respect of fundamental rights and democratic accountability.     

Family-owned,limited close corporations and protection of ownership

Protected ownership and freedom of contracts are two basic parts of the institutional framework of successful countries according to Douglass North, winner of the Nobel Prize in 1993. The incentives to make long-term investments are strengthened if ownership rights are protected and freedom of contracts is a basic element in the process of efficient allocation of scarce resources. An important engine in prosperous societies is the family firm. Most companies in these societies can be classified as family firms and a major part of GDP is produced by family businesses. Consequently, how ownership is protected in family firms is an important issue.Three important factors of private ownership of property are the rights to determine use of owned assets, the return generated from them and to transfer the assets at mutually agreeable terms to a new owner(s).The incentives of a founder entrepreneur to put efforts into the establishment of a firm are determined by all the three factors. We will here pay special attention to the third factor, transfer of the ownership of the firm. The founder often places contractual restrictions on such transfers to ensure that the structure of ownership is stable and that the firm stays in the family. The possibility to do so is part of the freedom of contracts and is associated with the extent of ownership held as well as the incentives to invest in new businesses.This paper is primarily about how protection of family ownership can be achieved from a legal point of view and discusses the reasons to enforce these legal relationships in the future for second, third, fourth etc. generations of family owners.     

Zum Regelungsumfang des Art 16 Z 2 LGVÜ/Art 22 Z 2 EuGVVO

Klagen gegen einen internationalen Sportverband, die auf Feststellung der Unwirksamkeit einer Sperre eines bei einem nationalen Sportverband besch?ftigten Trainers von Wettbewerben dieses Sportverbandes und auf Unterlassung von Handlungen, die eine Akkreditierung verhindern bzw erschweren, gerichtet sind, unterliegen der ausschlie?lichen inl?ndischen Gerichtsbarkeit des Sitzstaates; eine Verbindung solcher Klagen mit einer gegen den nationalen Verband gerichteten gleichartigen Klage ist daher unzul?ssig. – Eine damit zusammenh?ngende Schadenersatzklage gegen den internationalen Verband steht auch nicht in dem von Art 6 Nr 1 LGVü geforderten Zusammenhang mit einer Klage gegen den nationalen Verband wegen Aufl?sung des Trainervertrages aufgrund der Sperre.     

Der Begriff der „Landeskultur“ im deutschen Recht

Der Begriff der Landeskultur umfasst alle Maßnahmen zur Verbesserung der land- und forstwirtschaftlichen Nutzung des Bodens einschließlich der Erhaltung der Kulturlandschaft. Landeskultur ist somit alles Planen und Handeln mit dem Ziel, die Umwelt als gegebenes Naturraumpotential, insbesondere Wasser, Boden, Luft und die dazugehörigen Natur-, Kultur- und Sachgüter optimal zu erhalten, gestalten und rationell zu nutzen sowie dieses Potential mit bestmöglicher Qualität als natürliche und kulturelle Lebensgrundlage für die Allgemeinheit nachhaltig zu sichern. Landeskultur dient somit auch der Belebung und Werterhöhung der gebauten und gepflanzten Umwelt. Dies schließt auch und gerade die kulturelle Seite einschließlich Kulturlandschaften mit ein. Dabei ist es bis zur Überprüfung durch das BVerfG noch hinnehmbar, dass der Begriff „Landeskultur“ in Art. 89 Abs. 3 GG wegen der Mischkompetenz von Bund und Land vom BVerwG enger ausgelegt wird als in anderen Rechtsvorschriften.     

Who Do You Trust? Ethnicity and Trust in Bosnia and Herzegovina

This article examines the question of trust in Bosnia and Herzegovina with a special focus on the role of ethnicity. We find generalised trust to be low and declining in Bosnia and Herzegovina. Moreover, generalised trust is negatively affected by the degree of ethnic heterogeneity in the region. However, a further examination of trust reveals a more complex relationship between ethnicity and trust: people tend to show low levels of trust in all other people irrespective of their ethnic belongings. We argue that ethnic distribution might capture some other regional specific characteristics that also affect the level of trust.