Monday, December 14, 2009
CrimProf posts you may have missed over the weekend:
- "Brief: 'Honest services' law beyond saving"
- Siddique on Domestic Violence and Mandatory Arrest Policies
- Alexandre on Consent, Rape Law, and Non-Traditional Victims
- Yale/Stanford Junior Faculty Forum
- Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads
- "Without Honest Services, the Government Will Live"
- "When California denies a murderer parole, should it need a reason?"
- Sheyn on Epstein on Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements
- Murphy on Legality in Criminal Law and the European Court of Human Rights
- "Liman Public Interest Colloquium March 4-5 Examines Prisons"
Sunday, December 13, 2009
This article critically analyses the case-law of the European Court of Human Rights on Article 7 ECHR. It sets out the details of the principle of legality (nullum crimen sine lege) in criminal law and examines the manner in which the Court has developed the principle to encompass three overlapping rules: only the law can define a crime and prescribe a penalty; the prohibition on retrospective criminal law and the prohibition on the imposition of harsher penalties. It also addresses the limitations on the principle and the Court’s attempt to ‘balance’ the nullum crimen principle against the spirit of the Convention in certain key cases.
Elizabeth R. Sheyn has posted Anything But a Racket: Why Professor Richard Epstein's Attack on the Nature and Function of Deferred and Non-Prosecution Agreements Misses the Mark on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In light of recent scandals involving companies such as Enron and Arthur Andersen, the need to impose criminal penalties on corporations has been on the rise. More and more often, however, federal prosecutors have utilized deferred and non-prosecution agreements in lieu of indicting and criminally prosecuting business entities. Despite the advantages that such agreements create for both prosecutors and companies, Professor Richard Epstein has vigorously attacked this practice in his recent article, The Deferred Prosecution Racket, contending that deferred and non-prosecution agreements do not serve the public interest because they do not help to restore shareholder confidence in the firm and undermine the principle of separation of powers. Epstein’s arguments are ill-founded, however, as deferred and non-prosecution agreements rebuild shareholder and public confidence in corporations while allowing companies to avoid certain death by indictment. Moreover, it is only by imposing or by threatening to impose criminal liability on business entities, rather than by solely charging individuals, that the government can effectively stop and prevent corporate crime.
Advocating for the continuing usefulness and utility of deferred and non-prosecution agreements and against Epstein’s approach of wholly eliminating corporate criminal liability, this Article discusses the concept of corporate criminality, provides an overview of the definition and function of deferred and non-prosecution agreements, and contends that such agreements are the best, if not the only, means of preventing and addressing criminal conduct arising in the corporate context.
|1||302||The Emerging Criminal War on Sex Offenders |
Corey Rayburn Yung,
The John Marshall Law School,
Date posted to database: August 18, 2009
|2||288||The Increased Level of EU Antitrust Fines, Judicial Review, and the European Convention on Human Rights |
Wouter P. J. Wils,
European Commission Legal Service,
Date posted to database: October 24, 2009
|3||194||Can Bad Science Be Good Evidence: Lie Detection, Neuroscience, and the Mistaken Conflation of Legal and Scientific Norms |
University of Virginia School of Law,
Date posted to database: August 13, 2009 [5th last week]
|4||158||Amicus Brief in Mcdonald v. Chicago: On Behalf of the International Law Enforcement Educators and Trainers Association, Et Al |
David B. Kopel,
Date posted to database: November 22, 2009 [new to top ten]
|5||156||Incarceration American-Style |
University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law,
Date posted to database: October 13, 2009 [7th last week]
|6||155||The Experiential Future of the Law |
Adam J. Kolber,
University of San Diego School of Law,
Date posted to database: October 13, 2009
|7||148||Unlawful Killing with Combat Drones: A Case Study of Pakistan, 2004-2009 |
Mary Ellen O'Connell,
Notre Dame Law School ,
Date posted to database: November 6, 2009 [10th last week]
|8||116||White Collar Innocence: Irrelevant in the High Stakes Risk Game |
Ellen S. Podgor,
Stetson University College of Law,
Date posted to database: October 16, 2009 [new to top ten]
|9||100||A Certain Uncertainty; an Assessment of Court Decisions for Tackling Corruptions in Indonesia 2001‐2008 |
Universitas Gadjah Mada,
Date posted to database: September 30, 2009 [new to top ten]
|10||94||Two Ways to Think About the Punishment of Corporations |
Albert W. Alschuler,
Northwestern University - School of Law,
Date posted to database: October 22, 2009 [new to top ten]