{"title":"The abortion debate thirty years later: from choice to coercion.","authors":"Maureen Kramlich","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"783-804"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26023141","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":"What Lawrence v. Texas says about the history and future of reproductive rights.","authors":"Cynthia Dailard","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"717-23"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26023136","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":"Winter count: taking stock of abortion rights after Casey and Carhart.","authors":"Caitlin E Borgmann","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"675-716"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26023135","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":"Lethal experimentation on human beings: Roe's effect on bioethics.","authors":"William L Saunders","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"817-30"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26023143","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":"Econometric analyses of U.S. abortion policy: a critical review.","authors":"Jonathan Klick","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"751-82"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26023139","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":"Casey and its impact on abortion regulation.","authors":"Michael F Moses","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"805-15"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26023142","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":"Saving Roe is not enough: when religion controls healthcare.","authors":"Susan Berke Fogel, Lourdes A Rivera","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"31 3","pages":"725-49"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2004-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"26023138","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}
When a disability is imposed because of a criminal conviction, it makes a great deal of difference whether it is categorized as a civil regulation, which governments may impose rather freely under the police power, or punishment which is subject to numerous restrictions under the Bill of Rights, such as the prohibitions on double jeopardy and ex post facto laws, and the requirements of jury trial, counsel, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This essay analyzes the first major Supreme Court case to explore the distinction, Hawker v. New York, decided in 1898, which dealt with a criminal prosecution of an abortion doctor. A majority of the Supreme Court held that denial of the right to practice medicine to those convicted of abortion was not punishment, it was merely a legislative judgment that persons who engaged in illegal behavior had bad moral character and thus were not entitled to a medical license. The sanction was based on the underlying conduct rather than the conviction itself; the conviction was merely a method of proof. Accordingly, the Court reasoned, imposing the disability on Hawker after his sentence had been fully served did not violate the ex post facto clause. This essay argues that the distinction Hawker attempted to draw quickly evaporated. The New York legislature established a regime of administrative disciplinary hearings, and granted medical administrators the discretion to impose whatever sanctions were appropriate, including temporary suspension rather than license revocation, on doctors found to have performed unlawful abortions in such hearings. Thus, conviction rather than conduct was the critical factor. This essay concludes by arguing that Hawker was on to something. If disqualification is genuinely based on conduct, it is likely to have a regulatory purpose; an applicant denied a position at a bank because of an embezzlement conviction is not being criminally punished. On the other hand, if a sanction is applied exclusively to those convicted of particular conduct, and not to those who admit the conduct, or are proved to have engaged in the conduct in civil, disciplinary or administrative proceedings, the legislative motivation may be punitive. For example, if an applicant for a medical license is automatically denied because of a conviction for tax evasion, when an applicant who admitted liability in a civil case charging precisely the same conduct could get a license, the automatic denial looks like punishment.
当因刑事定罪而施加残疾时，它是否被归类为民事规定，政府可以在警察权力下相当自由地实施民事规定，或受到权利法案的许多限制的惩罚，如禁止双重危险和追溯法律，以及陪审团审判、律师和排除合理怀疑的证据的要求，这有很大的不同。本文分析了美国最高法院的第一个重大案件霍克诉纽约案(Hawker v. New York)，以探讨这一区别。该案于1898年判决，涉及对一名堕胎医生的刑事起诉。最高法院的多数法官认为，剥夺被判犯有堕胎罪的人行医的权利不是惩罚，这仅仅是一种立法判断，即从事非法行为的人道德品行恶劣，因此无权获得行医执照。制裁是基于基本行为，而不是基于定罪本身;定罪仅仅是一种证明方法。因此，法院的理由是，在Hawker的刑期完全服完之后才对他施加残疾，并不违反事后条款。本文认为霍克试图描绘的区别很快就消失了。纽约州立法机关建立了行政纪律听证会制度，并赋予医疗行政人员酌情权，对在听证会上被发现实施非法堕胎的医生实施任何适当的制裁，包括暂时吊销而不是吊销执照。因此，关键因素是信念而不是行为。这篇文章的结论是霍克是对的。如果取消资格确实是基于行为，则可能具有监管目的;一名因挪用公款而被银行拒之门外的申请人不会受到刑事处罚。另一方面，如果制裁只适用于犯有特定行为的人，而不适用于承认该行为或在民事、纪律或行政诉讼中被证明从事该行为的人，则立法动机可能是惩罚性的。例如，如果申请人因逃税被定罪而自动拒绝获得医疗执照，当申请人在指控完全相同行为的民事案件中承认责任时，自动拒绝看起来像是一种惩罚。
{"title":"Are Collateral Sanctions Premised on Conduct or Conviction? The Case of Abortion Doctors","authors":"G. J. Chin","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.390120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.390120","url":null,"abstract":"When a disability is imposed because of a criminal conviction, it makes a great deal of difference whether it is categorized as a civil regulation, which governments may impose rather freely under the police power, or punishment which is subject to numerous restrictions under the Bill of Rights, such as the prohibitions on double jeopardy and ex post facto laws, and the requirements of jury trial, counsel, and proof beyond a reasonable doubt. This essay analyzes the first major Supreme Court case to explore the distinction, Hawker v. New York, decided in 1898, which dealt with a criminal prosecution of an abortion doctor. A majority of the Supreme Court held that denial of the right to practice medicine to those convicted of abortion was not punishment, it was merely a legislative judgment that persons who engaged in illegal behavior had bad moral character and thus were not entitled to a medical license. The sanction was based on the underlying conduct rather than the conviction itself; the conviction was merely a method of proof. Accordingly, the Court reasoned, imposing the disability on Hawker after his sentence had been fully served did not violate the ex post facto clause. This essay argues that the distinction Hawker attempted to draw quickly evaporated. The New York legislature established a regime of administrative disciplinary hearings, and granted medical administrators the discretion to impose whatever sanctions were appropriate, including temporary suspension rather than license revocation, on doctors found to have performed unlawful abortions in such hearings. Thus, conviction rather than conduct was the critical factor. This essay concludes by arguing that Hawker was on to something. If disqualification is genuinely based on conduct, it is likely to have a regulatory purpose; an applicant denied a position at a bank because of an embezzlement conviction is not being criminally punished. On the other hand, if a sanction is applied exclusively to those convicted of particular conduct, and not to those who admit the conduct, or are proved to have engaged in the conduct in civil, disciplinary or administrative proceedings, the legislative motivation may be punitive. For example, if an applicant for a medical license is automatically denied because of a conviction for tax evasion, when an applicant who admitted liability in a civil case charging precisely the same conduct could get a license, the automatic denial looks like punishment.","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"4 1","pages":"1685"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-05-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79259046","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 social concentration of incarceration among non-whites is a recurring theme in criminal justice research and legal scholarship. Despite robust evidence of its social concentration, few studies have examined its spatial concentration, or the effects of spatially concentrated incarceration over time on individuals and social areas. In this article, we examine the growth and spatial concentration of incarceration in police precincts and smaller homogeneous neighborhoods in New York City from 1985-96. We show that rates of incarceration spiked sharply after 1985 as crime rates rose. Higher incarceration rates persisted through the 1990s, and declined far more slowly after 1990 than did the sharply falling crime rates during the same period. We show that imprisonment rates are highest in the City's poorest neighborhoods and police precincts, although not necessarily the neighborhoods with the highest overall crime rates. We also show the perverse effects of incarceration on crime rates when analyzed at the precinct level: across the time series, higher incarceration rates predict higher crime rates one year later. We show that the growth of incarceration and its persistence over time are attributed primarily to two factors: drug enforcement and structured sentencing laws that mandate imprisonment for repeat felons. Neighborhoods with high rates of incarceration invite closer and more punitive police enforcement and parole surveillance, contributing to the growing number of repeat admissions and the resilience of incarceration even as crime rates fall. Incarceration begets more incarceration, and incarceration also begets more crime, which in turn invites more aggressive enforcement, which then re-supplies incarceration. We discuss three mechanisms that contribute to and reinforce incarceration in neighborhoods: the declining economic fortunes of former inmates and the effects on neighborhoods where they tend to reside, resource and relationship strains on families of prisoners that weaken the family's ability to supervise children, and voter disenfranchisement that weakens the political economy of neighborhoods.
{"title":"Reciprocal Effects of Crime and Incarceration in New York City Neighborhoods","authors":"J. Fagan, Valerie West, Jan Holland","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.392120","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.392120","url":null,"abstract":"The social concentration of incarceration among non-whites is a recurring theme in criminal justice research and legal scholarship. Despite robust evidence of its social concentration, few studies have examined its spatial concentration, or the effects of spatially concentrated incarceration over time on individuals and social areas. In this article, we examine the growth and spatial concentration of incarceration in police precincts and smaller homogeneous neighborhoods in New York City from 1985-96. We show that rates of incarceration spiked sharply after 1985 as crime rates rose. Higher incarceration rates persisted through the 1990s, and declined far more slowly after 1990 than did the sharply falling crime rates during the same period. We show that imprisonment rates are highest in the City's poorest neighborhoods and police precincts, although not necessarily the neighborhoods with the highest overall crime rates. We also show the perverse effects of incarceration on crime rates when analyzed at the precinct level: across the time series, higher incarceration rates predict higher crime rates one year later. We show that the growth of incarceration and its persistence over time are attributed primarily to two factors: drug enforcement and structured sentencing laws that mandate imprisonment for repeat felons. Neighborhoods with high rates of incarceration invite closer and more punitive police enforcement and parole surveillance, contributing to the growing number of repeat admissions and the resilience of incarceration even as crime rates fall. Incarceration begets more incarceration, and incarceration also begets more crime, which in turn invites more aggressive enforcement, which then re-supplies incarceration. We discuss three mechanisms that contribute to and reinforce incarceration in neighborhoods: the declining economic fortunes of former inmates and the effects on neighborhoods where they tend to reside, resource and relationship strains on families of prisoners that weaken the family's ability to supervise children, and voter disenfranchisement that weakens the political economy of neighborhoods.","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"7 1","pages":"1551"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83841292","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}
On occasion a conflict arises between a physician's perceived moral obligation not to withhold treatment and a patient's right to refuse treatment. Arguments are cited in support of the position that, with prior notice, the physician's right should prevail. It is further argued that legislative action to remove lingering legal doubt would be appropriate.
{"title":"The physician as a conscientious objector.","authors":"J. Bleich","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.368640","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.368640","url":null,"abstract":"On occasion a conflict arises between a physician's perceived moral obligation not to withhold treatment and a patient's right to refuse treatment. Arguments are cited in support of the position that, with prior notice, the physician's right should prevail. It is further argued that legislative action to remove lingering legal doubt would be appropriate.","PeriodicalId":83028,"journal":{"name":"The Fordham urban law journal","volume":"30 1 1","pages":"245-65"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2003-01-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68623646","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：