Counterfeiting raises some interesting intellectual questions for criminologists, policy makers and brand owners, not least that it differs from the types of offending that traditionally form the crime diet of the criminal justice system. Whilst it is growing in prevalence due to the enormous returns on investment, it is unlikely that the public purse will fund major anti-counterfeiting initiatives in a climate of public sector cut-backs, emphasising the need to allocate resources effectively. This article seeks to locate the public interest in policing counterfeit luxury fashion goods by separating it out from the broader debate over safety-critical counterfeits such as aircraft parts. It then maps out, what is in effect, the criminology of desire for counterfeit goods, before outlining the market incentives for counterfeiting and related criminal activity.
{"title":"Jailhouse Frocks: Locating the Public Interest in Policing Counterfeit Luxury Fashion Goods","authors":"D. Wall, J. Large","doi":"10.1093/BJC/AZQ048","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1093/BJC/AZQ048","url":null,"abstract":"Counterfeiting raises some interesting intellectual questions for criminologists, policy makers and brand owners, not least that it differs from the types of offending that traditionally form the crime diet of the criminal justice system. Whilst it is growing in prevalence due to the enormous returns on investment, it is unlikely that the public purse will fund major anti-counterfeiting initiatives in a climate of public sector cut-backs, emphasising the need to allocate resources effectively. This article seeks to locate the public interest in policing counterfeit luxury fashion goods by separating it out from the broader debate over safety-critical counterfeits such as aircraft parts. It then maps out, what is in effect, the criminology of desire for counterfeit goods, before outlining the market incentives for counterfeiting and related criminal activity.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"65 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2010-07-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127502930","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}
This article addresses when an actor can be denied a claim of self-defense based on the fact that, at an earlier point in time, she could have avoided the ultimate violent encounter in which she resorted to the use of lethal force. The article analyzes the issue as a problem of “framing,” relying on research from the area of cognitive psychology to point out the critical importance of the framing of an issue to its ultimate resolution. It then identifies a persistent error in the writing of many scholars about this problem. While most commentators assert that the law draws the frame narrowly and that defendants are never denied a claim of self-defense because of their failure to avoid a dangerous situation, they are wrong; a range of cases - both historical and contemporary - deny self-defense claims as a matter of law on the ground that the actor was “looking for trouble” and should have avoided the situation entirely. The article then argues that broadly framing the self-defense inquiry improperly encroaches on the actor’s fundamental right to freedom of choice and movement, defined as the actor’s dignitary interest. Not only does the broad frame impose liability on such an actor without reference to the actor’s culpability, but it permits the subjugation of that actor by a violent aggressor. The article concludes that broad framing impermissibly invades the actor’s dignitary interest.
{"title":"Looking for Trouble: Framing and the Dignitary Interest in the Law of Self-Defense","authors":"Margaret Raymond","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1471529","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1471529","url":null,"abstract":"This article addresses when an actor can be denied a claim of self-defense based on the fact that, at an earlier point in time, she could have avoided the ultimate violent encounter in which she resorted to the use of lethal force. The article analyzes the issue as a problem of “framing,” relying on research from the area of cognitive psychology to point out the critical importance of the framing of an issue to its ultimate resolution. It then identifies a persistent error in the writing of many scholars about this problem. While most commentators assert that the law draws the frame narrowly and that defendants are never denied a claim of self-defense because of their failure to avoid a dangerous situation, they are wrong; a range of cases - both historical and contemporary - deny self-defense claims as a matter of law on the ground that the actor was “looking for trouble” and should have avoided the situation entirely. The article then argues that broadly framing the self-defense inquiry improperly encroaches on the actor’s fundamental right to freedom of choice and movement, defined as the actor’s dignitary interest. Not only does the broad frame impose liability on such an actor without reference to the actor’s culpability, but it permits the subjugation of that actor by a violent aggressor. The article concludes that broad framing impermissibly invades the actor’s dignitary interest.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"19 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116318818","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}
In July of 2007, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called for comments on his proposed rulemaking on the Certification Process of State Capital Counsel Systems. The response was an overwhelming condemnation not only of the Attorney General’s proposed rules, but also of the current state of modern federal habeas corpus review of state capital prisoners’ claims. Notwithstanding this criticism, the Attorney General largely ignored the feedback and, in December of 2008, issued final regulations that are virtually identical to the proposed regulations. Why did the Attorney General ignore this incredible opportunity to create a sense of clarity and progress in the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims? More importantly, what must be done to halt the downward spiral of this system? This Article addresses these questions by examining the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s “opt-in” provision, which Congress enacted in 1996 to effectuate the twin aims of achieving fairness and efficiency in federal habeas review of capital state prisoners’ claims. The heart and soul of the opt-in provision is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby the states receive the benefit of expedited review of federal habeas claims in exchange for states providing competent, compensated counsel in state capital post-conviction proceedings. In 2005, after only one state qualified for opt-in status, it became clear that the opt-in “experiment” was not working. Accordingly, Congress transferred certification authority from the federal courts to the Attorney General. The past three years have shown, however, that the Attorney General is not the answer Congress was looking for. This Article argues that, in order to meaningfully reform the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims, either the Attorney General must implement much of the substantive feedback in response to the proposed regulations or Congress must return certification to the appropriate neutral body: the federal courts.
2007年7月，司法部长阿尔贝托·冈萨雷斯(Alberto R. Gonzales)就他提出的关于国家资本法律顾问系统认证程序的规则制定征求意见。人们的反应是压倒性的谴责，不仅是对司法部长提出的规则的谴责，也是对现代联邦人身保护令审查各州死刑囚犯索赔的现状的谴责。尽管有这些批评，司法部长在很大程度上忽略了反馈意见，并于2008年12月发布了与拟议法规几乎相同的最终法规。为什么司法部长忽视了这个难得的机会来创造一种清晰的感觉，并在联邦人身保护制度中对州囚犯的要求进行审查?更重要的是，必须做些什么来阻止这个体系的恶性循环?本文通过审查《反恐怖主义和有效死刑法》的“选择加入”条款来解决这些问题，国会于1996年颁布了该条款，以实现在联邦人身保护令审查首都州囚犯索赔时实现公平和效率的双重目标。“选择加入”条款的核心是一种交换条件安排，即各州在联邦人身保护要求的快速审查中获益，以换取各州在定罪后的州首府诉讼中提供称职的有偿律师。2005年，在只有一个州有资格加入后，很明显，加入“实验”并不奏效。因此，国会将发证权从联邦法院移交给司法部长。然而，过去三年的情况表明，司法部长并不是国会想要的答案。本文认为，为了有意义地改革联邦对州囚犯申诉的人身保护审查制度，要么司法部长必须针对拟议的法规实施大部分实质性反馈，要么国会必须将认证交还给适当的中立机构:联邦法院。
{"title":"Wading Through the Morass of Modern Federal Habeas Review of State Capital Prisoners' Claims","authors":"C. C. Kannenberg","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1371932","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1371932","url":null,"abstract":"In July of 2007, Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales called for comments on his proposed rulemaking on the Certification Process of State Capital Counsel Systems. The response was an overwhelming condemnation not only of the Attorney General’s proposed rules, but also of the current state of modern federal habeas corpus review of state capital prisoners’ claims. Notwithstanding this criticism, the Attorney General largely ignored the feedback and, in December of 2008, issued final regulations that are virtually identical to the proposed regulations. Why did the Attorney General ignore this incredible opportunity to create a sense of clarity and progress in the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims? More importantly, what must be done to halt the downward spiral of this system? This Article addresses these questions by examining the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act’s “opt-in” provision, which Congress enacted in 1996 to effectuate the twin aims of achieving fairness and efficiency in federal habeas review of capital state prisoners’ claims. The heart and soul of the opt-in provision is a quid pro quo arrangement whereby the states receive the benefit of expedited review of federal habeas claims in exchange for states providing competent, compensated counsel in state capital post-conviction proceedings. In 2005, after only one state qualified for opt-in status, it became clear that the opt-in “experiment” was not working. Accordingly, Congress transferred certification authority from the federal courts to the Attorney General. The past three years have shown, however, that the Attorney General is not the answer Congress was looking for. This Article argues that, in order to meaningfully reform the system of federal habeas review of state prisoners’ claims, either the Attorney General must implement much of the substantive feedback in response to the proposed regulations or Congress must return certification to the appropriate neutral body: the federal courts.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"147 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2009-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131798261","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}
Under existing American law, advances in non-lethal weapons increasingly make the use of firearms for defense unlawful and the Second Amendment of little practical significance. As the effectiveness and availability of less lethal weapons increase, the choice of a lethal firearm for protection is a choice to use more force than is necessary, in violation of existing self-defense law. At the same time, a shift to non-lethal weapons increases the frequency of situations in which a person's use of force is authorized because defenders with non-lethal weapons are freed from the special proportionality requirements that limit the use of deadly force.
{"title":"A Right to Bear Firearms but Not to Use Them? Defensive Force Rules and the Increasing Effectiveness of Non-Lethal Weapons","authors":"P. Robinson","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1154698","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1154698","url":null,"abstract":"Under existing American law, advances in non-lethal weapons increasingly make the use of firearms for defense unlawful and the Second Amendment of little practical significance. As the effectiveness and availability of less lethal weapons increase, the choice of a lethal firearm for protection is a choice to use more force than is necessary, in violation of existing self-defense law. At the same time, a shift to non-lethal weapons increases the frequency of situations in which a person's use of force is authorized because defenders with non-lethal weapons are freed from the special proportionality requirements that limit the use of deadly force.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"82 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2008-07-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"131966414","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}
This paper suggests that corruption presents an assurance problem. An assurance problem exists when all actors are better off if they adhere to at least the same minimal standard, but are second best off if, in the event that there are defectors, they join the defectors rather than continue to adhere to the standards, and are worst off if there are defectors but they do not join those defectors. Actors faced with an assurance problem, therefore, must choose between cooperating in hopes of accruing the greatest benefit or defecting as a defensive measure. The best mechanism for society to prevent the difficulties created by assurance problems is to impose legal penalties on defectors, but that is not possible in endemically corrupt systems. In that case, collective action offers the best solution. Bribery often presents an assurance problem for business actors in markets that experience corruption. Arguably paying a bribe in some circumstances confers a short term advantage. Business firms understand, however, that paying bribes imposes long term costs, and firms would prefer not to pay bribes. If bribery does confer a short term advantage, then even firms that would prefer to enjoy the long term benefits of not paying bribes might feel pressure to pay bribes in order to survive short term competition. Collective action offers a solution to this dilemma. This paper draws from the lessons of the Panamanian group, Asociacion Panamena de Ejecutivos de Empresa (APEDE), which was an early leader in collective business responses to the difficulties created by bribery.
本文认为，腐败是一个保证问题。如果所有行为者至少遵守相同的最低标准，他们的境况就会更好，但如果在有叛逃者的情况下，他们加入叛逃者而不是继续遵守这些标准，他们的境况就会次佳，如果有叛逃者但他们不加入这些叛逃者，他们的境况就会最差，这就存在保证问题。因此，面对保证问题的行动者必须在希望获得最大利益的合作或作为防御措施的背叛之间作出选择。社会防止担保问题造成的困难的最佳机制是对叛逃者施加法律惩罚，但这在普遍腐败的体制中是不可能的。在这种情况下，集体行动提供了最佳解决方案。贿赂往往给经历腐败的市场中的商业行为者带来一个保证问题。可以说，在某些情况下行贿会带来短期利益。然而，企业明白，行贿会带来长期成本，因此企业不愿行贿。如果贿赂确实能带来短期优势，那么即使是那些宁愿享受不行贿的长期利益的公司，也可能会感到行贿的压力，以便在短期竞争中生存下来。集体行动提供了解决这一困境的办法。本文借鉴了巴拿马集团panacacion Panamena de Ejecutivos de Empresa (APEDE)的经验教训，该集团是企业集体应对贿赂造成的困难的早期领导者。
{"title":"Corruption as an Assurance Problem","authors":"Philip M. Nichols","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2568229","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2568229","url":null,"abstract":"This paper suggests that corruption presents an assurance problem. An assurance problem exists when all actors are better off if they adhere to at least the same minimal standard, but are second best off if, in the event that there are defectors, they join the defectors rather than continue to adhere to the standards, and are worst off if there are defectors but they do not join those defectors. Actors faced with an assurance problem, therefore, must choose between cooperating in hopes of accruing the greatest benefit or defecting as a defensive measure. The best mechanism for society to prevent the difficulties created by assurance problems is to impose legal penalties on defectors, but that is not possible in endemically corrupt systems. In that case, collective action offers the best solution. Bribery often presents an assurance problem for business actors in markets that experience corruption. Arguably paying a bribe in some circumstances confers a short term advantage. Business firms understand, however, that paying bribes imposes long term costs, and firms would prefer not to pay bribes. If bribery does confer a short term advantage, then even firms that would prefer to enjoy the long term benefits of not paying bribes might feel pressure to pay bribes in order to survive short term competition. Collective action offers a solution to this dilemma. This paper draws from the lessons of the Panamanian group, Asociacion Panamena de Ejecutivos de Empresa (APEDE), which was an early leader in collective business responses to the difficulties created by bribery.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129207560","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 use of a taser by law enforcement can substitute for either a gun (a more-violent technology) or a mildly-violent technology (such as pepper spray or hands-on tactics). Which is used affects both the severity of harm when used and the amount of resistance, which affects how often it must be used. Thus, does the adoption of a less-violent technology lead to more or less violence? This question is addressed in an application to the adoption of tasers by law enforcement officials. A game-theoretic model is developed and environments where resistance to arrest and expected harm both increase and decrease are identified.
{"title":"Do Less-Violent Technologies Result in Less Violence? A Theoretical Investigation Applied to the Use of Tasers by Law Enforcement","authors":"Bryan C. McCannon","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.1726737","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1726737","url":null,"abstract":"The use of a taser by law enforcement can substitute for either a gun (a more-violent technology) or a mildly-violent technology (such as pepper spray or hands-on tactics). Which is used affects both the severity of harm when used and the amount of resistance, which affects how often it must be used. Thus, does the adoption of a less-violent technology lead to more or less violence? This question is addressed in an application to the adoption of tasers by law enforcement officials. A game-theoretic model is developed and environments where resistance to arrest and expected harm both increase and decrease are identified.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"54 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130618219","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}
Doping in sport has become progressively viewed as a social problem and a number of actors have been successively identified as the carriers of this social harm (Ellis, 1987; in DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2012). As a result the list of folk devils (Cohen, 1985) has grown and so too have the control mechanism employed to combat them. Performance and image enhancing drug (PIED) is deemed as morally reprehensible by the general population, and therefore a practice that should be banned and criminalized (Coomber, 2013; Coakley, 2014). However, there seems to be a tendency amongst policy makers to frame steroid or PIED use outside of elite sport as an issue within sport, and to call for the same types of policies that are being used in anti-doping (Kimergard, 2014). This paper will briefly explore the PIED policies of three countries, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark, highlighting the ways in which anti-doping in elite sport is informing national drug policy and encouraging a zero tolerance approach to PIEDs as a social health issue.
{"title":"'Muscle Profiling': Anti-Doping Policy and Deviant Leisure","authors":"K. Mulrooney, K. van de Ven","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.2581573","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2581573","url":null,"abstract":"Doping in sport has become progressively viewed as a social problem and a number of actors have been successively identified as the carriers of this social harm (Ellis, 1987; in DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2012). As a result the list of folk devils (Cohen, 1985) has grown and so too have the control mechanism employed to combat them. Performance and image enhancing drug (PIED) is deemed as morally reprehensible by the general population, and therefore a practice that should be banned and criminalized (Coomber, 2013; Coakley, 2014). However, there seems to be a tendency amongst policy makers to frame steroid or PIED use outside of elite sport as an issue within sport, and to call for the same types of policies that are being used in anti-doping (Kimergard, 2014). This paper will briefly explore the PIED policies of three countries, Sweden, Belgium and Denmark, highlighting the ways in which anti-doping in elite sport is informing national drug policy and encouraging a zero tolerance approach to PIEDs as a social health issue.","PeriodicalId":223837,"journal":{"name":"LSN: Criminal Law (Public Law - Crime) (Topic)","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126599047","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：