{"title":"美国五条最坏(和五条最好)的刑法","authors":"P. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, Usman Mohammad","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.183290","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper develops and attempts to justify criteria for judging the quality of a criminal code in performing its functions. It translates the abstract criteria into a workable code evaluation scheme, then applies the scheme to the fifty-two American criminal codes, ending with a ranking of those codes. Examples of good and bad code provisions are used in the discussion to illustrate the evaluation criteria.","PeriodicalId":47587,"journal":{"name":"Northwestern University Law Review","volume":"95 1","pages":"1"},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-02-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.183290","citationCount":"15","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Five Worst (and Five Best) American Criminal Codes\",\"authors\":\"P. Robinson, Michael T. Cahill, Usman Mohammad\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.183290\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper develops and attempts to justify criteria for judging the quality of a criminal code in performing its functions. It translates the abstract criteria into a workable code evaluation scheme, then applies the scheme to the fifty-two American criminal codes, ending with a ranking of those codes. Examples of good and bad code provisions are used in the discussion to illustrate the evaluation criteria.\",\"PeriodicalId\":47587,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Northwestern University Law Review\",\"volume\":\"95 1\",\"pages\":\"1\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2003-02-06\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.183290\",\"citationCount\":\"15\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Northwestern University Law Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.183290\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"LAW\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Northwestern University Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.183290","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
The Five Worst (and Five Best) American Criminal Codes
This paper develops and attempts to justify criteria for judging the quality of a criminal code in performing its functions. It translates the abstract criteria into a workable code evaluation scheme, then applies the scheme to the fifty-two American criminal codes, ending with a ranking of those codes. Examples of good and bad code provisions are used in the discussion to illustrate the evaluation criteria.
期刊介绍：
The Northwestern University Law Review is a student-operated journal that publishes four issues of high-quality, general legal scholarship each year. Student editors make the editorial and organizational decisions and select articles submitted by professors, judges, and practitioners, as well as student pieces.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
分享
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
扫码关注我们
