Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.1515/9780823285129-016
{"title":"Thirteen. American Loss in Cavell’s Emerson","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9780823285129-016","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823285129-016","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":197065,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Americana","volume":"56 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121600800","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.1515/9780823285129-009
{"title":"Six. ‘‘After All, He’s Just a Man’’","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9780823285129-009","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823285129-009","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":197065,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Americana","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114077966","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}
Pub Date : 2020-12-31DOI: 10.1515/9780823285129-007
{"title":"Four. Working Certainty and Deweyan Wisdom","authors":"","doi":"10.1515/9780823285129-007","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1515/9780823285129-007","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":197065,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Americana","volume":"9 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127824246","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}
The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in State v. Pang that Martin Pang could not be tried for murder involved an erroneous application of the doctrine of specialty. This Note contends that this decision was based upon the court's overly broad reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rauscher. The Supreme Court of Washington implied terms into the extradition treaty because of the court's incorrect interpretation of Rauscher, which prevented Washington from prosecuting Pang for murder. In addition, the court failed to take into account the policy rationales behind the doctrine of specialty, which favors allowing the State to prosecute Pang for murder. This Note concludes that the Supreme Court of Washington misread the terms of the US.-Brazil extradition treaty, and Washington had the right to prosecute Pang for murder. A fire broke out at the Mary Pang Food Products warehouse in south Seattle on January 5, 1995.1 The blaze, which was declared an arson,2 took the lives of four firefighters.3 The fire at the Pang warehouse was the biggest tragedy in the Seattle Fire Department's history.4 In an arson investigation, Mr. Martin Pang, son of the warehouse owners, became the main suspect.5 Pang fled to Brazil, and the United States immediately sought to have him extradited back to the State of Washington for trial on the charges of arson and four counts of murder.6 The Supreme Court of Brazil granted an order of extradition for Pang, but only for the single count of arson.7 The tragic and unnecessary loss of four lives in the fire, the cowardly but dramatic escape from U.S. borders to Brazil, and Brazil's absolute refusal to extradite Pang for the four counts of murder brought state and national attention to the situation.8 1. State v. Pang, 132 Wash. 2d 852,856,940 P.2d 1293, 1295, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 628 (1997). 2. Id. at 865, 940 P.2d at 1300.
华盛顿最高法院在State v. Pang案中裁定Martin Pang不能因谋杀罪受审，这涉及到对专业原则的错误应用。本说明认为，这一决定是基于法院对美国最高法院在美国诉劳舍尔案中的判决的过于宽泛的解读。由于法院对劳舍尔案的错误解释，华盛顿最高法院在引渡条约中隐含了一些条款，这使得华盛顿无法以谋杀罪起诉彭日成。此外，法院没有考虑到专业原则背后的政策依据，即允许国家以谋杀罪起诉彭日成。本文的结论是，华盛顿最高法院误读了美国的条款。美国和巴西签订了引渡条约，华盛顿有权以谋杀罪起诉彭日成。1995年1月5日，位于西雅图南部的Mary Pang食品公司仓库发生了一场大火。这场被宣布为纵火的大火夺去了4名消防员的生命彭氏仓库的火灾是西雅图消防局历史上最大的悲剧在一起纵火案调查中，仓库老板之子彭日成成为主要嫌疑人彭日成逃到巴西，美国立即寻求将他引渡回华盛顿州，接受纵火和四项谋杀指控的审判巴西最高法院批准了对彭日成的引渡命令，但只针对一项纵火罪四人在火灾中悲惨而不必要地丧生，从美国边境逃往巴西的懦弱但戏剧性的逃亡，以及巴西绝对拒绝引渡彭日成的四项谋杀罪，这些都引起了美国和全国对这一局势的关注。8 1。州诉Pang, 132 Wash. 2d 852,856,940 P.2d 1293, 1295，否认证书，118 S. Ct. 628(1997)。2. Id。865, 940, P.2d, 1300。
{"title":"“BORN TO RUN”:","authors":"Timothy McMichael","doi":"10.2307/j.ctvh4zgpf.14","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvh4zgpf.14","url":null,"abstract":"The Supreme Court of Washington's decision in State v. Pang that Martin Pang could not be tried for murder involved an erroneous application of the doctrine of specialty. This Note contends that this decision was based upon the court's overly broad reading of the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Rauscher. The Supreme Court of Washington implied terms into the extradition treaty because of the court's incorrect interpretation of Rauscher, which prevented Washington from prosecuting Pang for murder. In addition, the court failed to take into account the policy rationales behind the doctrine of specialty, which favors allowing the State to prosecute Pang for murder. This Note concludes that the Supreme Court of Washington misread the terms of the US.-Brazil extradition treaty, and Washington had the right to prosecute Pang for murder. A fire broke out at the Mary Pang Food Products warehouse in south Seattle on January 5, 1995.1 The blaze, which was declared an arson,2 took the lives of four firefighters.3 The fire at the Pang warehouse was the biggest tragedy in the Seattle Fire Department's history.4 In an arson investigation, Mr. Martin Pang, son of the warehouse owners, became the main suspect.5 Pang fled to Brazil, and the United States immediately sought to have him extradited back to the State of Washington for trial on the charges of arson and four counts of murder.6 The Supreme Court of Brazil granted an order of extradition for Pang, but only for the single count of arson.7 The tragic and unnecessary loss of four lives in the fire, the cowardly but dramatic escape from U.S. borders to Brazil, and Brazil's absolute refusal to extradite Pang for the four counts of murder brought state and national attention to the situation.8 1. State v. Pang, 132 Wash. 2d 852,856,940 P.2d 1293, 1295, cert. denied, 118 S. Ct. 628 (1997). 2. Id. at 865, 940 P.2d at 1300.","PeriodicalId":197065,"journal":{"name":"Philosophy Americana","volume":"688 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2019-01-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"134440470","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：