Stanford law & policy review最新文献

{"title":"No Prisoner Left Behind? Enhancing Public Transparency of Penal Institutions","authors":"A. Armstrong","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2324387","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2324387","url":null,"abstract":"Prisoners suffer life-long debilitating effects of their incarceration, making them a subordinated class of people for life. This article examines how prison conditions facilitate subordination and concludes that enhancing transparency is the first step towards equality. Anti-subordination efforts led to enhanced transparency in schools, a similar but not identical institution. This article argues that federal school transparency measures provide a rudimentary and balanced framework for enhancing prison transparency.","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"25 1","pages":"435"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-07-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2324387","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68104348","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Judges as Framers of Plea Bargaining","authors":"Daniel S. McConkie","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2405270","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2405270","url":null,"abstract":"The vast majority of federal criminal defendants resolve their cases by plea bargaining, with minimal judicial input or oversight. This presents significant issues concerning transparency, fairness, and effective sentencing. Federal prosecutors strongly influence sentences by the charges they select. The parties bargain informally outside of court and strike a deal. But defendants often plead guilty without a realistic understanding of their likely sentencing exposure. Instead, they plead guilty based on their best guess as to how judges will resolve certain issues and their own fear that they could get an unspecified but severe post-trial sentence. The judge is often reluctant to reject the parties’ deal, partly because the judge may have little information about the case, and partly because the judge lacks the resources for courtroom-clogging jury trials. What is needed is a public, court-supervised, advocacy procedure early in the case to guide the parties in considering key sentencing issues and fashioning a just and reasonable sentence based on the judge’s feedback. This article explores a proposed procedure that would do just that. Early in the case, and upon the defendant’s request, the parties would litigate a pre-plea motion procedure similar to sentencing proceedings. As part of those proceedings, a pre-plea, presentence report would be prepared with input from the parties. The motion would educate the judge about the case and enable the judge to issue two indicated sentences: one for if the defendant pleaded guilty as charged, and another for if the defendant were convicted at trial. This increased judicial participation through a regularized, advocacy procedure would allow judges to help frame the parties’ discussion of sentencing issues and likely sentencing consequences earlier in the case, all without involving the judge in the parties’ plea discussions. Several benefits would flow from this: the plea bargaining process would become more transparent, resulting in increased public accountability; the defense attorney would have greater incentives to properly investigate and present key issues; and the defendant could make a more informed decision about whether and on what terms to plead guilty. In short, plea bargaining is here to stay, but criminal justice would be greatly improved by bringing more of the plea bargaining process back into the courtroom where the judge could help frame the key issues for the parties.","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"26 1","pages":"61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2014-02-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.2405270","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68183789","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"산림관련 법제의 문제점과 개선방안 연구","authors":"서갑수","doi":"10.36727/jjlpr.25.1.201903.009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36727/jjlpr.25.1.201903.009","url":null,"abstract":"산림은 공익적 가치뿐만 아니라 개인의 재산권과 밀접한 관계가 있는바, 공익과 사익의 조화를 바탕으로 국가의 산림정책을 규정하고 있는 산림관련 법령에 대한 국민의 관심은 농업생산용지로서 보전목적인 농지 못지않다고 볼 수 있다.\u0000현행 산림관련 법률은 27개의 법률 이외에 관련 하위법령으로 52개의 대통령령 및 총리령･부령이 있으며, 고시 등 약 220 여개의 행정규칙으로 방대하게 구성되어 있다. 산림관련 법령체계를 성격별로 구분해 보면, 기본법, 산림자원관련 법령, 산지관련 법령, 산림경영체관련 법령, 산림보호관련 법령, 산림이용 관련 법령, 기타 법령 등으로 구분할 수 있지만, 그 방대성에 비추어 법령의 체계화는 미비상태이다.\u0000더구나 임야는 산림과 산지로 구성되어 문화와 휴양자원으로서의 이용을 위한 산림문화휴양법이 제정 되었을 뿐만 아니라, 최근 재생에너지 정책에 따른 태양광 산업의 발전과 더불어 그 인식이 달라져가고 있는 것은 사실이다. 그 동안에는 대지, 공장용지, 농지 등 다른 용도의 토지에 비하여 보전용도 성격이 강한 임야의 가치가 상대적으로 작아 또 다른 보전용지인 농지의 거래규제에 비하여 약하였다.\u0000이제는 임야가 도시의 공장용지와 마찬가지로 생산용으로도 사용이 가능함에 따라 법적 체계에서부터 규제에 이르기까지 전반적인 검토가 필요한 시점에 이르렀다고 볼 수 있다.\u0000산림은 재해예방, 수원함양, 대기정화, 휴양 등의 공익적인 가치를 가지고 있고, 국토의 62%를 차지하고 있는 가장 면적이 큰 토지이다. 이러한 토지는 국가나 지방자치단체 소유의 국･공유지뿐만 아니라 사유지도 있으므로 국민의 기본권인 사적 재산권과도 밀접한 관계가 있다.\u0000이러한 공익과 사익의 양면에서 상호 이익을 비교･형량 하여 산림정책을 실현하기 위한 현행 산림관련 법령에 대한 체계상 문제점을 살펴보아 국민의 입장에서 그 해결책을 검토하여 법체계상 개선방안을 제시하고자 한다.","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"2 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80990156","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Defenseless Marriage Act: The Legitimacy of President Obama's Refusal to Defend DOMA § 3","authors":"S. Pepper","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2286892","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2286892","url":null,"abstract":"This article examines whether a President’s refusal to defend a law against constitutional challenge in court is: (1) constitutional and (2) normatively desirable. I answer both questions negatively.With respect to the constitutional question, I evaluate the assumptions necessary for a President to take action against an unconstitutional law, namely that he has the right to interpret the Constitution and the right to act on those interpretations in some form. The thrust of my article focuses on whether the means by which a President confronts an unconstitutional law are discretionary such that he may refuse to defend a law without also refusing to enforce it.I conclude that a President may not refuse to defend a law without also suspending it. Upon further analysis, I conclude that when a President suspends a law, he precludes the Court's review of its constitutionality altogether (at least under our existing conceptions of standing and justiciability), so, in effect, declining to defend a law does not exist as a legitimate, constitutional means of presidential action against an unconstitutional law.I also shed some light on the previously unexamined question of whether declining to defend a law is normatively desirable. The strongest argument supporting declining to defend the law is that, as opposed to outright suspension of a law, declining to defend only demonstrates much greater deference to the other branches of government (i.e., Congress may step in to defend the law if it chooses, and continuing to enforce the law facilitates a case or controversy such that a court may hear the case on its merits). I conclude, however, that this deference is a fiction: The President only facilitates a case or controversy if Congress steps in to defend the law in question. Furthermore, the fact that Congress is willing to do so is not a benign acceptance of the Executive’s invitation, but an inevitable response to what is, unquestionably, an attack upon it and its laws. Declining only to defend a law allows the President to attack the other branches of government without incurring the checks and balances that should accompany such action and to obscure accountability for his constitutional interpretations. Short of a willingness to suspend the law and endure the political consequences, the law deserves the Executive Branch's defense.","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"24 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2013-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68064368","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Protecting the Children: When Can Schools Restrict Harmful Student Speech?","authors":"K. Conover","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1998142","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1998142","url":null,"abstract":"This Note advocates the appropriate framework for analyzing emotionally harmful speech in schools and illustrates the limits on school restrictions of such speech. By focusing almost exclusively on the Tinker line of “student speech” cases, scholars and lower courts have reached wildly conflicting conclusions about the permissibility of school restrictions on students’ emotionally harmful viewpoints. But the Supreme Court situated Tinker within a broader jurisprudence on protecting minors from harmful speech outside of schools. As I show, looking to that protectionist jurisprudence helpfully clarifies the contours of Tinker as it applies to emotionally harmful speech. On the one hand, protectionist cases reveal that schools can restrict emotionally harmful speech under Tinker’s “rights of others” prong. On the other hand, protectionist jurisprudence imposes clear limits on restricting harmful speech, such as when the audience consists of mature students voluntarily engaging in a civil discussion of a controversial subject. Although the doctrinal framework adopted here supports school restrictions on verbal bullying more generally, this Note focuses on the more controversial — and potentially more prevalent — category of speech not targetedat a specific student.","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"89 1","pages":"349"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2012-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67839146","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The Upside of Abortion Disclosure Laws","authors":"E. Bernstein","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2018609","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2018609","url":null,"abstract":"On both sides of the political spectrum, people have conceived of abortion disclosure laws as an obstacle to abortion. For this reason, abortion rights supporters have opposed them, and abortion opponents have supported them. Neither side, however, appears to have considered whether scientifically accurate disclosures could have independent, welfare-enhancing medical and informational value to women. This paper describes how certain disclosures might not only improve individual and community health, but also provide a positive and democratic avenue for abortion rights.","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"24 1","pages":"171"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2011-11-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67857226","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Genetic testing and discrimination: how private is your information?","authors":"Louise McIntosh Slaughter","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"17 1","pages":"67-81"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26439816","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Conscience in context: pharmacist rights and the eroding moral marketplace.","authors":"Robert K Vischer","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"17 1","pages":"83-119"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26439817","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Politics, health policy, and the American character.","authors":"Philip Lee, Thomas Oliver, A E Benjamin, Dorothy Lee","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"17 1","pages":"7-32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26439815","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Law, medicine, and wealth: does concierge medicine promote health care choice, or is it a barrier to access?","authors":"Sandra J Carnahan","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":82802,"journal":{"name":"Stanford law & policy review","volume":"17 1","pages":"121-63"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26439818","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}