首页 > 最新文献

Hastings Law Journal最新文献

英文 中文
The Neurobiology of Attachment to Nurturing and Abusive Caregivers. 对养育者和虐待者的依恋的神经生物学。
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2012-08-01
Regina M Sullivan

Decades of research have shown that childhood experiences interact with our genetics to change the structure and function of the brain. Within the range of normal experiences, this system enables the brain to be modified during development to adapt to various environments and cultures. Experiences with and attachment to the caregiver appear particularly important, and recent research suggests this may be due, in part, to the attachment circuitry within the brain. Children have brain circuitry to ensure attachment to their caregivers. Attachment depends on the offspring learning about the caregiver in a process that begins prenatally and continues through most of early life. This attachment serves two basic functions. First, attachment ensures the infant remain in the proximity of the caregiver to procure resources for survival and protection. Second, attachment "quality programs" the brain. This programming impacts immediate behaviors, as well as behaviors that emerge later in development. Animal research has uncovered segments of the attachment circuitry within the brain and has highlighted rapid, robust learning to support this attachment. A child attaches to the caregiver regardless of the quality of care received, even if the caregiver is abusive and neglectful. While a neural system that ensures attachment regardless of the quality of care has immediate benefits, this attachment comes with a high cost. Traumatic experiences interact with genetics to change the structure and function of the brain, compromising emotional and cognitive development and initiating a pathway to pathology. Neurobiological research on animals suggests that trauma during attachment is processed differently by the brain, with maternal presence dramatically attenuating the fear center of the brain (amygdala). Thus, the immaturity of the brain combined with the unique processing of trauma may underlie the enduring effects of abuse, which remain largely hidden in early life but emerge as mental health issues in periadolescence.

几十年的研究表明,童年经历与我们的基因相互作用,改变了大脑的结构和功能。在正常体验的范围内,该系统使大脑能够在发育过程中进行修改,以适应各种环境和文化。与照顾者相处的经历和对照顾者的依恋似乎尤为重要,最近的研究表明,这可能部分归因于大脑中的依恋回路。孩子们的大脑回路确保了他们对照顾者的依恋。依恋依赖于后代在这个过程中对照顾者的了解,这个过程从产前开始,一直持续到生命早期的大部分时间。这个附件有两个基本功能。首先,依恋确保婴儿保持在照顾者的附近,以获得生存和保护的资源。第二,依恋“质量程序”的大脑。这种编程影响直接的行为,以及后来在开发中出现的行为。动物研究已经揭示了大脑中依恋回路的部分,并强调了快速、强大的学习能力来支持这种依恋。无论所接受的照料质量如何,儿童都会依附于照料者,即使照料者是虐待和忽视的。尽管不管护理质量如何,神经系统都能确保依恋,但这种依恋的代价很高。创伤经历与基因相互作用,改变大脑的结构和功能,影响情感和认知的发展,并启动通往病理的途径。对动物的神经生物学研究表明,依恋期间的创伤由大脑处理不同,母亲的存在显着减弱了大脑的恐惧中心(杏仁核)。因此,大脑的不成熟加上对创伤的独特处理可能是虐待的持久影响的基础,这种影响在很大程度上隐藏在生命早期,但在青春期周围表现为精神健康问题。
{"title":"The Neurobiology of Attachment to Nurturing and Abusive Caregivers.","authors":"Regina M Sullivan","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Decades of research have shown that childhood experiences interact with our genetics to change the structure and function of the brain. Within the range of normal experiences, this system enables the brain to be modified during development to adapt to various environments and cultures. Experiences with and attachment to the caregiver appear particularly important, and recent research suggests this may be due, in part, to the attachment circuitry within the brain. Children have brain circuitry to ensure attachment to their caregivers. Attachment depends on the offspring learning about the caregiver in a process that begins prenatally and continues through most of early life. This attachment serves two basic functions. First, attachment ensures the infant remain in the proximity of the caregiver to procure resources for survival and protection. Second, attachment \"quality programs\" the brain. This programming impacts immediate behaviors, as well as behaviors that emerge later in development. Animal research has uncovered segments of the attachment circuitry within the brain and has highlighted rapid, robust learning to support this attachment. A child attaches to the caregiver regardless of the quality of care received, even if the caregiver is abusive and neglectful. While a neural system that ensures attachment regardless of the quality of care has immediate benefits, this attachment comes with a high cost. Traumatic experiences interact with genetics to change the structure and function of the brain, compromising emotional and cognitive development and initiating a pathway to pathology. Neurobiological research on animals suggests that trauma during attachment is processed differently by the brain, with maternal presence dramatically attenuating the fear center of the brain (amygdala). Thus, the immaturity of the brain combined with the unique processing of trauma may underlie the enduring effects of abuse, which remain largely hidden in early life but emerge as mental health issues in periadolescence.</p>","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3774302/pdf/nihms461646.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"31744150","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Relevance of Immaturities in the Juvenile Brain to Culpability and Rehabilitation. 青少年大脑的不成熟与罪责和康复的相关性。
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2012-08-01
Beatriz Luna

The overreaching aim of this Article is to describe how developmental cognitive neuroscience can inform juvenile law. Fundamental to culpability and responsibility is the ability to effectively execute voluntary executive behavior. Executive function, including cognitive control and working memory, has a protracted development with key aspects continuing to mature through adolescence. These limitations in executive control are due in great part to still maturing brain processes. Gray and white matter changes are still becoming established in adolescence, enhancing efficiency and the speed of brain processing supporting executive control. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter that underlies reward processing and learning, peaks in adolescence-supporting known increases in sensation seeking but also in adaptable learning. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging ("fMRI") studies show that adolescent limitations in recruiting brain systems that support response planning, error processing, the ability to sustain an executive state, and top-down prefrontal executive control of behavior underlie limitations in executive control in adolescence. Moreover, adolescents show over-reactivity to reward incentives, thus engaging response systems that may contribute to impulsive responses in situations with high motivation. Neurobiological evidence indicating that adolescence is a transitional stage of limited executive control in the context of increased vulnerability to sensation seeking can inform culpability, long-term sentencing, and greater amenability for rehabilitation. Finally, it is important to note that executive control, while limited in its efficiency, is available in adolescence, and given time to deliberate with guidance from mature adults, adolescents can make responsible decisions.

本文的目标是描述发育认知神经科学如何为青少年法律提供信息。罪责和责任的基础是有效执行自愿执行行为的能力。执行功能,包括认知控制和工作记忆,有一个漫长的发展过程,关键方面在青春期继续成熟。这些在执行控制方面的限制在很大程度上是由于大脑过程仍在成熟。在青少年时期,灰质和白质的变化仍在逐渐形成,从而提高了支持执行控制的大脑处理的效率和速度。多巴胺是一种神经递质,是奖励处理和学习的基础,在青春期达到峰值——支持已知的寻求感觉的增长,也支持适应性学习的增长。功能性磁共振成像(“fMRI”)研究表明,青少年在开发支持反应计划、错误处理、维持执行状态的能力以及自上而下的前额叶行为执行控制的大脑系统方面的限制是青少年执行控制限制的基础。此外,青少年表现出对奖励激励的过度反应,从而参与反应系统,可能有助于在高动机的情况下做出冲动反应。神经生物学证据表明,青春期是一个过渡阶段,在对感觉寻求的脆弱性增加的背景下,有限的执行控制可以为罪责、长期判决和更大的康复能力提供信息。最后,必须指出的是,执行控制虽然效率有限,但在青少年时期是可行的,如果有时间在成年人的指导下进行考虑,青少年就能作出负责任的决定。
{"title":"The Relevance of Immaturities in the Juvenile Brain to Culpability and Rehabilitation.","authors":"Beatriz Luna","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The overreaching aim of this Article is to describe how developmental cognitive neuroscience can inform juvenile law. Fundamental to culpability and responsibility is the ability to effectively execute voluntary executive behavior. Executive function, including cognitive control and working memory, has a protracted development with key aspects continuing to mature through adolescence. These limitations in executive control are due in great part to still maturing brain processes. Gray and white matter changes are still becoming established in adolescence, enhancing efficiency and the speed of brain processing supporting executive control. Dopamine, a neurotransmitter that underlies reward processing and learning, peaks in adolescence-supporting known increases in sensation seeking but also in adaptable learning. Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (\"fMRI\") studies show that adolescent limitations in recruiting brain systems that support response planning, error processing, the ability to sustain an executive state, and top-down prefrontal executive control of behavior underlie limitations in executive control in adolescence. Moreover, adolescents show over-reactivity to reward incentives, thus engaging response systems that may contribute to impulsive responses in situations with high motivation. Neurobiological evidence indicating that adolescence is a transitional stage of limited executive control in the context of increased vulnerability to sensation seeking can inform culpability, long-term sentencing, and greater amenability for rehabilitation. Finally, it is important to note that executive control, while limited in its efficiency, is available in adolescence, and given time to deliberate with guidance from mature adults, adolescents can make responsible decisions.</p>","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2012-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5662008/pdf/nihms914346.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"35568126","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Going Rogue: Stop the Beach Renourishment as an Object of Morbid Fascination 去流氓:停止海滩复兴作为一个病态的迷恋对象
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2012-03-16 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2029965
M. Doyle, Stephen J. Schnably
Scholarly response to the Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection has focused on the plurality's strong advocacy of a judicial takings doctrine. We take a different tack. While the concept of judicial takings is worthy of serious attention, it is wrong to treat the plurality opinion as an ordinary object of analysis. It is, instead, the emanation of a Court going rogue. Three basic symptoms of the pathology stand out. First, sleight of hand: The plurality opinion purports to be about an institutional issue -- can a state court commit a taking? -- while slipping in a major rewrite of takings law that would undermine the Court's recent, unanimous effort to clarify it.Second, feigned obliviousness: The plurality opinion conveniently overlooks the Court's federalism jurisprudence even as it would expand the federal courts' power over state law.Third, knowing artlessness: Despite being written as a virtuoso performance -- identifying a case the Florida Supreme Court "overlooked" -- the plurality's treatment of state law betrays surprising naivete‚ as to how state law is made, though, as it turns out, this seeming naivete‚ serves the purpose of shifting power within states from legislatures to courts. While the history and tone of Justice Scalia's close attention to beach access issues makes pique a surprisingly strong candidate for why the plurality went rogue, the more worrying explanation is the willingness of the more conservative members of the Court to expand their own power into new areas of state law without the slightest sign of support from the political branches. There is a danger that conservative attacks on the courts over decisions on controversial social issues will distract from a more basic problem: If the Court's enforcement of federalism rests on what Justice O'Connor called Congress's "underdeveloped capacity for self-restraint," we suggest that commentary should focus on the Court's own similarly underdeveloped capacity.
对最高法院在“停止海滩重建公司诉佛罗里达州环境保护部”一案中的判决,学术界的反应集中在多数人对司法征收原则的强烈支持上。我们采取不同的策略。虽然司法征用的概念值得重视,但将多数意见作为普通的分析对象是错误的。相反,这是一个法院走向流氓的表现。这种病理的三个基本症状很突出。首先,手法:多数意见声称是关于一个制度问题——州法院可以实施征收吗?——同时对征收法进行重大修改,这将破坏最高法院最近一致做出的澄清征收法的努力。第二,假装遗忘:多数意见方便地忽略了法院的联邦制法理,即使它将扩大联邦法院对州法律的权力。第三,知道不做作:尽管写得像一场艺术大师般的表演——确定了佛罗里达州最高法院“忽视”的一个案件——但多数意见对州法的处理暴露出令人惊讶的天真,关于州法是如何制定的,尽管事实证明,这种看似天真的做法是为了将州内的权力从立法机关转移到法院。虽然斯卡利亚法官对海滩准入问题的密切关注的历史和语气让一个出人意料的强有力的候选人感到愤怒,但更令人担忧的解释是,在没有得到政治部门丝毫支持的情况下,法院更保守的成员愿意将自己的权力扩大到州法律的新领域。有一种危险是,保守派对法院在有争议的社会问题上的决定的攻击,会分散人们对一个更基本的问题的注意力:如果法院对联邦制的执行依赖于奥康纳大法官所说的国会“自我约束能力不发达”,我们建议评论应该集中在法院自己同样不发达的能力上。
{"title":"Going Rogue: Stop the Beach Renourishment as an Object of Morbid Fascination","authors":"M. Doyle, Stephen J. Schnably","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2029965","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2029965","url":null,"abstract":"Scholarly response to the Supreme Court's decision in Stop the Beach Renourishment, Inc. v. Florida Department of Environmental Protection has focused on the plurality's strong advocacy of a judicial takings doctrine. We take a different tack. While the concept of judicial takings is worthy of serious attention, it is wrong to treat the plurality opinion as an ordinary object of analysis. It is, instead, the emanation of a Court going rogue. Three basic symptoms of the pathology stand out. First, sleight of hand: The plurality opinion purports to be about an institutional issue -- can a state court commit a taking? -- while slipping in a major rewrite of takings law that would undermine the Court's recent, unanimous effort to clarify it.Second, feigned obliviousness: The plurality opinion conveniently overlooks the Court's federalism jurisprudence even as it would expand the federal courts' power over state law.Third, knowing artlessness: Despite being written as a virtuoso performance -- identifying a case the Florida Supreme Court \"overlooked\" -- the plurality's treatment of state law betrays surprising naivete‚ as to how state law is made, though, as it turns out, this seeming naivete‚ serves the purpose of shifting power within states from legislatures to courts. While the history and tone of Justice Scalia's close attention to beach access issues makes pique a surprisingly strong candidate for why the plurality went rogue, the more worrying explanation is the willingness of the more conservative members of the Court to expand their own power into new areas of state law without the slightest sign of support from the political branches. There is a danger that conservative attacks on the courts over decisions on controversial social issues will distract from a more basic problem: If the Court's enforcement of federalism rests on what Justice O'Connor called Congress's \"underdeveloped capacity for self-restraint,\" we suggest that commentary should focus on the Court's own similarly underdeveloped capacity.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2012-03-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67868431","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Consenting Under Stress 压力下的同意
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2012-02-27 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2012013
H. Keren
This article highlights a disturbing gap between what is currently known about stress across a range of disciplines and the way stress is treated at law. It does so by focusing on parties who seek relief from harmful contracts, on the grounds that they consented under stress. The article first exposes the leading legal view that stress is merely a subjective feeling and therefore merits no legal recognition. It then provides a pragmatic synthesis of the rich study of stress, in order to counter that misguided legal presumption and to offer a better understanding of the physical, social and psychological dimensions of stress. Exploring both scientifically accepted causes of stress (stressors) and its known outcomes, the article offers a new framing of stress and a set of analytic tools that allow better legal access to the problem. It argues that legal actors can and should use the non-legal scientific understanding of stress to evaluate the arguments of those who claim to have consented to an unwanted contract while under stress. The article concludes that informed evaluation of stress arguments is not only pragmatically necessary, but also conceptually required for any legal system that, like contract law, relies on the power of choice and consent.
这篇文章强调了目前在一系列学科中对压力的了解与法律对待压力的方式之间存在令人不安的差距。它通过关注那些寻求从有害合同中解脱的当事人,理由是他们在压力下同意了。文章首先揭示了主流的法律观点,即压力只是一种主观感受,因此不值得法律承认。然后,它对丰富的压力研究提供了一个实用的综合,以反驳那些被误导的法律假设,并更好地理解压力的生理、社会和心理层面。这篇文章探讨了科学上公认的压力原因(压力源)及其已知结果,提供了一种新的压力框架和一套分析工具,可以更好地从法律上解决这个问题。它认为,法律行为者可以而且应该利用对压力的非法律科学理解来评估那些声称在压力下同意了一项不想要的合同的人的论点。文章的结论是,对压力论证的知情评估不仅在实用上是必要的,而且在概念上也需要任何法律制度,如合同法,依赖于选择和同意的权力。
{"title":"Consenting Under Stress","authors":"H. Keren","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2012013","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2012013","url":null,"abstract":"This article highlights a disturbing gap between what is currently known about stress across a range of disciplines and the way stress is treated at law. It does so by focusing on parties who seek relief from harmful contracts, on the grounds that they consented under stress. The article first exposes the leading legal view that stress is merely a subjective feeling and therefore merits no legal recognition. It then provides a pragmatic synthesis of the rich study of stress, in order to counter that misguided legal presumption and to offer a better understanding of the physical, social and psychological dimensions of stress. Exploring both scientifically accepted causes of stress (stressors) and its known outcomes, the article offers a new framing of stress and a set of analytic tools that allow better legal access to the problem. It argues that legal actors can and should use the non-legal scientific understanding of stress to evaluate the arguments of those who claim to have consented to an unwanted contract while under stress. The article concludes that informed evaluation of stress arguments is not only pragmatically necessary, but also conceptually required for any legal system that, like contract law, relies on the power of choice and consent.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2012-02-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67849651","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmaśāstra: Hindu Conceptions of Law 印度法律研究与Dharmaśāstra:印度法律观念
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2012-01-01 DOI: 10.7135/UPO9780857285782.005
L. Rocher, D. Davis, R. Lariviere
{"title":"Studies in Hindu Law and Dharmaśāstra: Hindu Conceptions of Law","authors":"L. Rocher, D. Davis, R. Lariviere","doi":"10.7135/UPO9780857285782.005","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.7135/UPO9780857285782.005","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"71348569","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7
Developmental Neuroscience, Children's Relationships with Primary Caregivers, and Child Protection Policy Reform 发展神经科学,儿童与主要照顾者的关系,以及儿童保护政策改革
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2012-01-01 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2184049
L. A. Weithorn
Empirical research has confirmed that the harms of child maltreatment can affect almost every area of an individual’s functioning and can reverberate across relationships, generations, and communities. Most recently, investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control have called for policymakers to prioritize prevention and amelioration of child maltreatment in a manner consistent with its approach to other major public health problems. This Article — an outgrowth of a panel on Relationships with Caregivers and Children’s Neurobiological Development, which took place at a recent symposium, Law and Policy of the Developing Brain, co-sponsored by the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law and Stanford Law School — addresses some of the potential policy applications of research on the neurobiology of attachment, maltreatment, and trauma, with particular attention to the government’s articulated mission of safeguarding children’s welfare. Part I of this Article considers the state’s relationship with children and families, and the law’s recognition of the centrality of children’s primary caregivers — typically their parents — to children’s well-being. Part II critiques certain aspects of our legal system’s predominant response to child maltreatment. Part III reviews recent research on the effects of child maltreatment, with special attention to developmental neurobiological findings. Part IV discusses some implications of these findings for child protection policy and sets forth recommendations that are consistent with the empirical research and responsive to the critiques set forth in Part II.
实证研究证实,虐待儿童的危害几乎会影响到个人功能的各个方面,并可能在人际关系、代际和社区之间产生反响。最近,美国疾病控制中心的调查人员呼吁政策制定者以与其他主要公共卫生问题一致的方式优先考虑预防和改善儿童虐待问题。这篇文章是由加利福尼亚大学黑斯廷斯法学院和斯坦福大学法学院联合主办的“大脑发育的法律和政策”研讨会上关于照顾者关系和儿童神经生物学发育的小组讨论的结果阐述了依恋、虐待和创伤的神经生物学研究的一些潜在政策应用,特别关注政府保护儿童福利的明确使命。本文的第一部分考虑了国家与儿童和家庭的关系,以及法律对儿童主要照顾者(通常是他们的父母)对儿童福祉的中心地位的认可。第二部分批评了我们的法律体系对虐待儿童的主要反应的某些方面。第三部分回顾了最近关于儿童虐待影响的研究,特别关注发育神经生物学的发现。第四部分讨论了这些发现对儿童保护政策的一些影响,并提出了与实证研究一致的建议,并回应了第二部分中提出的批评。
{"title":"Developmental Neuroscience, Children's Relationships with Primary Caregivers, and Child Protection Policy Reform","authors":"L. A. Weithorn","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2184049","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2184049","url":null,"abstract":"Empirical research has confirmed that the harms of child maltreatment can affect almost every area of an individual’s functioning and can reverberate across relationships, generations, and communities. Most recently, investigators at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control have called for policymakers to prioritize prevention and amelioration of child maltreatment in a manner consistent with its approach to other major public health problems. This Article — an outgrowth of a panel on Relationships with Caregivers and Children’s Neurobiological Development, which took place at a recent symposium, Law and Policy of the Developing Brain, co-sponsored by the University of California’s Hastings College of the Law and Stanford Law School — addresses some of the potential policy applications of research on the neurobiology of attachment, maltreatment, and trauma, with particular attention to the government’s articulated mission of safeguarding children’s welfare. Part I of this Article considers the state’s relationship with children and families, and the law’s recognition of the centrality of children’s primary caregivers — typically their parents — to children’s well-being. Part II critiques certain aspects of our legal system’s predominant response to child maltreatment. Part III reviews recent research on the effects of child maltreatment, with special attention to developmental neurobiological findings. Part IV discusses some implications of these findings for child protection policy and sets forth recommendations that are consistent with the empirical research and responsive to the critiques set forth in Part II.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2012-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67973751","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6
Issue Preclusion Effect of Class Certification Orders 类别证明令的发布排除效应
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2011-10-12 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1942774
Antonio Gidi
This paper addresses the peculiarities of issue preclusion in class action litigation, particularly after the approval of the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation in 2010 and the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Smith v. Bayer Corp. in the summer of 2011. After discussing the reasons why orders that deny class certification cannot have issue-preclusive effect, this paper analyses proposals to address the problem.
本文论述了问题排除在集体诉讼中的特殊性,特别是在2010年美国法律协会的《集体诉讼法原则》和2011年夏天美国最高法院对史密斯诉拜耳公司一案的判决获得批准之后。本文在分析了驳回船级社认证的命令不能产生问题排除效果的原因后,分析了解决这一问题的建议。
{"title":"Issue Preclusion Effect of Class Certification Orders","authors":"Antonio Gidi","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1942774","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1942774","url":null,"abstract":"This paper addresses the peculiarities of issue preclusion in class action litigation, particularly after the approval of the American Law Institute’s Principles of the Law of Aggregate Litigation in 2010 and the U.S. Supreme Court decision of Smith v. Bayer Corp. in the summer of 2011. After discussing the reasons why orders that deny class certification cannot have issue-preclusive effect, this paper analyses proposals to address the problem.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2011-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67804581","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws 性罪犯登记法违宪的演变
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2011-03-13 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1916726
C. Carpenter
More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators, eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary. This particular article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this piece posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes were initially constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes – what this piece dubs super-registration schemes – are not. Their emergence over the last several years demands reexamination of traditionally held assumptions that shaped the original legislation. Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.
越多并不总是越好。想想性犯罪者登记法。最初有理性基础的登记制度,已经失去了控制,因为立法者急于取悦恐惧的公众,顺从的司法机构给了他们不受约束的自由。这一特殊条款并不挑战国家制定性犯罪者登记法的立法权。相反,这篇文章认为,即使性犯罪者登记计划最初是符合宪法的,但连续修订的性犯罪者登记计划——这篇文章称之为“超级登记计划”——却并非如此。它们在过去几年里的出现,要求我们重新审视塑造最初立法的传统假设。两个相互交织的原因导致了该计划在宪法上的垮台。首先是立法机构急于起草越来越严厉的登记和通知计划,以取悦那些长期生活在恐惧之中的选民。再加上第二个原因,即最高法院尚未划定急需的边界,随之而来的后果是失控的立法,不再合理地与其监管目的联系在一起。最终,这篇文章是一个警示性的立法故事,因为它的惩罚效果和过度的影响,它已经脱离了宪法基础。
{"title":"The Evolution of Unconstitutionality in Sex Offender Registration Laws","authors":"C. Carpenter","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1916726","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1916726","url":null,"abstract":"More is not always better. Consider sex offender registration laws. Initially anchored by rational basis, registration schemes have spiraled out of control because legislators, eager to please a fearful public, have been given unfettered freedom by a deferential judiciary. This particular article does not challenge the state’s legislative power to enact sex offender registration laws. Instead, this piece posits that, even if sex offender registration schemes were initially constitutional, serially amended sex offender registration schemes – what this piece dubs super-registration schemes – are not. Their emergence over the last several years demands reexamination of traditionally held assumptions that shaped the original legislation. Two intertwined causes are responsible for the schemes’ constitutional downfall. The first is a legislative body eager to draft increasingly harsh registration and notification schemes to please an electorate that subsists on a steady diet of fear. When combined with the second cause, a Supreme Court that has yet to signal much needed boundaries, the ensuing consequence is runaway legislation that is no longer rationally connected to its regulatory purpose. Ultimately, this article is a cautionary tale of legislation that has unmoored from its constitutional grounding because of its punitive effect and excessive reach.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2011-03-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67783193","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 20
Copyright Infringement and Harmless Speech 侵犯版权和无害言论
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2010-05-29 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1367624
Christina Bohannan
Copyright law is a glaring and unjustified exception to the rule that the government may not prohibit speech without a showing that it causes harm. While the First Amendment sometimes protects even harmful speech, it virtually never allows the prohibition of harmless speech. Yet, while other speech-burdening laws, such as defamation and right of publicity laws, require demonstrable evidence that the defendant’s speech causes actual harm, copyright law does not make harm a requirement of infringement. Although copyright law considers harm to the market for the copyrighted work as a factor in fair use analysis, harm is not always required and is so poorly defined that the concept has become circular. Moreover, the defendant ordinarily bears the burden of proof to show the absence of harm. As a result, courts often find liability for infringement (and therefore burden speech) where harm is nonexistent or purely speculative. Potential explanations for copyright’s anomalous treatment are unpersuasive. Copying involves speech as well as conduct, and the fact that copyrights are in some sense property does not come close to justifying its aberrant treatment. Moreover, copyright’s role in encouraging creative expression does not obviate First Amendment concerns. Drawing from cases holding that speech restrictions must be justified by an important or compelling governmental interest, this Article argues that the First Amendment requires real harm to the copyright holder’s incentives in order to impose liability. It also explores the types of harm that might arise in copyright infringement cases. It concludes that demonstrable harm of market substitution is cognizable under First Amendment principles. On the other hand, the First Amendment generally would not permit recognition of harm to the reputation of copyrighted works, or, except in cases of unpublished works, harm to an author or copyright holder’s privacy, right not to speak, or right not to associate.
版权法是一个明显的、不合理的例外,违反了政府不能在没有证据表明言论造成损害的情况下禁止言论这一规则。虽然第一修正案有时甚至保护有害言论,但它实际上从未允许禁止无害言论。然而,其他的言论负担法,如诽谤法和公示权法,要求有可证明的证据证明被告的言论造成了实际损害,而版权法并没有将损害作为侵权的必要条件。尽管版权法将对受版权保护作品的市场造成的损害作为合理使用分析的一个因素,但损害并不总是必需的,而且这个概念的定义非常模糊,以至于已经成为循环。此外,被告通常负有证明损害不存在的举证责任。因此,法院经常在不存在损害或纯粹是推测的情况下发现侵权责任(因此是言论负担)。对版权的异常处理的潜在解释是没有说服力的。复制既涉及言论,也涉及行为,从某种意义上说,版权是财产,这一事实并不能为其异常处理辩护。此外,版权在鼓励创造性表达方面的作用并不能消除对第一修正案的关注。根据主张言论限制必须以重要或令人信服的政府利益为理由的案例,本文认为,第一修正案要求著作权人的动机受到实际损害,才能施加责任。它还探讨了版权侵权案件中可能出现的损害类型。其结论是,根据第一修正案的原则,市场替代的可证明损害是可认知的。另一方面,第一修正案一般不允许承认对受版权保护作品声誉的损害,或者对作者或版权所有者的隐私权、不发言权或不结社权的损害,除非是未发表的作品。
{"title":"Copyright Infringement and Harmless Speech","authors":"Christina Bohannan","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1367624","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1367624","url":null,"abstract":"Copyright law is a glaring and unjustified exception to the rule that the government may not prohibit speech without a showing that it causes harm. While the First Amendment sometimes protects even harmful speech, it virtually never allows the prohibition of harmless speech. Yet, while other speech-burdening laws, such as defamation and right of publicity laws, require demonstrable evidence that the defendant’s speech causes actual harm, copyright law does not make harm a requirement of infringement. Although copyright law considers harm to the market for the copyrighted work as a factor in fair use analysis, harm is not always required and is so poorly defined that the concept has become circular. Moreover, the defendant ordinarily bears the burden of proof to show the absence of harm. As a result, courts often find liability for infringement (and therefore burden speech) where harm is nonexistent or purely speculative. Potential explanations for copyright’s anomalous treatment are unpersuasive. Copying involves speech as well as conduct, and the fact that copyrights are in some sense property does not come close to justifying its aberrant treatment. Moreover, copyright’s role in encouraging creative expression does not obviate First Amendment concerns. Drawing from cases holding that speech restrictions must be justified by an important or compelling governmental interest, this Article argues that the First Amendment requires real harm to the copyright holder’s incentives in order to impose liability. It also explores the types of harm that might arise in copyright infringement cases. It concludes that demonstrable harm of market substitution is cognizable under First Amendment principles. On the other hand, the First Amendment generally would not permit recognition of harm to the reputation of copyrighted works, or, except in cases of unpublished works, harm to an author or copyright holder’s privacy, right not to speak, or right not to associate.","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2010-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68170467","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1
Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores and the Limits of the Legal Method 霍夫曼诉红猫头鹰商店案和法律方法的局限性
IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Pub Date : 2009-11-09 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.1494463
R. Scott
According to the overwhelming majority view, promissory estoppel is not an appropriate ground for legally enforcing statements made during preliminary negotiations unless there is a “clear and unambiguous promise” on which the counterparty reasonably and foreseeably relies. Bill Whitford and Stewart Macaulay were among the first scholars to note the apparent absence of such a promise in the case of Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores. Several years ago, after studying the trial record, I concluded that the best explanation for the breakdown in negotiations was the fundamental misunderstanding between the parties as to the amount and nature of Hoffmann’s equity contribution to the franchise. After locating and interviewing Hoffmann, Whitford and Macaulay tell a different story. They view as insignificant the misunderstanding about the nature of Hoffmann’s equity contribution. Rather, they focus attention on additional statements urging Hoffmann to sell his bakery business and store. In these later statements, ignored by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they find the “missing promise” that they challenged all of us to look for years ago. While I credit their account, I remain as unconvinced by their story as they are of mine. Thus, the important question is how scholars could draw such different inferences from the same basic facts. In this Essay, I speculate that the different stories are a product of our respective methodological commitments: their commitment to a law and society approach to legal issues and mine to law and economics modes of analysis. Those diverse approaches illustrate the tension between “context” and “theory” and the inherent paradox of legal analysis: without context no legal rule can be applied, but with nothing but context no legal rule can be found. For this reason, I conclude, it is important for legal academics of every stripe to appreciate the biases inherent in their methodology of choice and work to correct for them
根据绝大多数人的观点,除非有对方合理和可预见地依赖的“明确和明确的承诺”,否则承诺禁止反悔不是法律强制执行初步谈判期间所作陈述的适当理由。比尔·惠特福德(Bill Whitford)和斯图尔特·麦考利(Stewart Macaulay)是最早在霍夫曼诉红猫头鹰商店案中注意到明显缺乏这种承诺的学者之一。几年前,在研究了审判记录后,我得出结论,对谈判破裂的最好解释是,双方对霍夫曼对特许经营的股权贡献的数量和性质存在根本性的误解。在找到并采访了霍夫曼之后,惠特福德和麦考利讲述了一个不同的故事。他们认为,对霍夫曼股权贡献性质的误解无关紧要。相反,他们把注意力集中在敦促霍夫曼出售他的面包店业务和商店的附加声明上。在这些后来被威斯康辛州最高法院忽视的声明中,他们找到了多年前他们向我们所有人提出的“缺失的承诺”。虽然我相信他们的说法,但我仍然不相信他们的故事,就像他们不相信我的故事一样。因此,重要的问题是学者们如何从相同的基本事实中得出如此不同的推论。在本文中,我推测,不同的故事是我们各自方法论承诺的产物:他们致力于用法律和社会的方法来解决法律问题,而我则致力于用法律和经济的分析模式。这些不同的方法说明了“语境”与“理论”之间的紧张关系以及法律分析固有的悖论:没有语境就不能适用法律规则,而只有语境就找不到法律规则。出于这个原因,我总结道,对于每一个法律学者来说,认识到他们的选择方法中固有的偏见并努力纠正它们是很重要的
{"title":"Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores and the Limits of the Legal Method","authors":"R. Scott","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.1494463","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.1494463","url":null,"abstract":"According to the overwhelming majority view, promissory estoppel is not an appropriate ground for legally enforcing statements made during preliminary negotiations unless there is a “clear and unambiguous promise” on which the counterparty reasonably and foreseeably relies. Bill Whitford and Stewart Macaulay were among the first scholars to note the apparent absence of such a promise in the case of Hoffman v. Red Owl Stores. Several years ago, after studying the trial record, I concluded that the best explanation for the breakdown in negotiations was the fundamental misunderstanding between the parties as to the amount and nature of Hoffmann’s equity contribution to the franchise. After locating and interviewing Hoffmann, Whitford and Macaulay tell a different story. They view as insignificant the misunderstanding about the nature of Hoffmann’s equity contribution. Rather, they focus attention on additional statements urging Hoffmann to sell his bakery business and store. In these later statements, ignored by the Wisconsin Supreme Court, they find the “missing promise” that they challenged all of us to look for years ago. While I credit their account, I remain as unconvinced by their story as they are of mine. Thus, the important question is how scholars could draw such different inferences from the same basic facts. In this Essay, I speculate that the different stories are a product of our respective methodological commitments: their commitment to a law and society approach to legal issues and mine to law and economics modes of analysis. Those diverse approaches illustrate the tension between “context” and “theory” and the inherent paradox of legal analysis: without context no legal rule can be applied, but with nothing but context no legal rule can be found. For this reason, I conclude, it is important for legal academics of every stripe to appreciate the biases inherent in their methodology of choice and work to correct for them","PeriodicalId":46736,"journal":{"name":"Hastings Law Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.5,"publicationDate":"2009-11-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68187666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2
期刊
Hastings Law Journal
全部 Acc. Chem. Res. ACS Applied Bio Materials ACS Appl. Electron. Mater. ACS Appl. Energy Mater. ACS Appl. Mater. Interfaces ACS Appl. Nano Mater. ACS Appl. Polym. Mater. ACS BIOMATER-SCI ENG ACS Catal. ACS Cent. Sci. ACS Chem. Biol. ACS Chemical Health & Safety ACS Chem. Neurosci. ACS Comb. Sci. ACS Earth Space Chem. ACS Energy Lett. ACS Infect. Dis. ACS Macro Lett. ACS Mater. Lett. ACS Med. Chem. Lett. ACS Nano ACS Omega ACS Photonics ACS Sens. ACS Sustainable Chem. Eng. ACS Synth. Biol. Anal. Chem. BIOCHEMISTRY-US Bioconjugate Chem. BIOMACROMOLECULES Chem. Res. Toxicol. Chem. Rev. Chem. Mater. CRYST GROWTH DES ENERG FUEL Environ. Sci. Technol. Environ. Sci. Technol. Lett. Eur. J. Inorg. Chem. IND ENG CHEM RES Inorg. Chem. J. Agric. Food. Chem. J. Chem. Eng. Data J. Chem. Educ. J. Chem. Inf. Model. J. Chem. Theory Comput. J. Med. Chem. J. Nat. Prod. J PROTEOME RES J. Am. Chem. Soc. LANGMUIR MACROMOLECULES Mol. Pharmaceutics Nano Lett. Org. Lett. ORG PROCESS RES DEV ORGANOMETALLICS J. Org. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. J. Phys. Chem. A J. Phys. Chem. B J. Phys. Chem. C J. Phys. Chem. Lett. Analyst Anal. Methods Biomater. Sci. Catal. Sci. Technol. Chem. Commun. Chem. Soc. Rev. CHEM EDUC RES PRACT CRYSTENGCOMM Dalton Trans. Energy Environ. Sci. ENVIRON SCI-NANO ENVIRON SCI-PROC IMP ENVIRON SCI-WAT RES Faraday Discuss. Food Funct. Green Chem. Inorg. Chem. Front. Integr. Biol. J. Anal. At. Spectrom. J. Mater. Chem. A J. Mater. Chem. B J. Mater. Chem. C Lab Chip Mater. Chem. Front. Mater. Horiz. MEDCHEMCOMM Metallomics Mol. Biosyst. Mol. Syst. Des. Eng. Nanoscale Nanoscale Horiz. Nat. Prod. Rep. New J. Chem. Org. Biomol. Chem. Org. Chem. Front. PHOTOCH PHOTOBIO SCI PCCP Polym. Chem.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1