Saturday, August 6, 2011
Jan Heufer (University of Dortmund - Ruhr Graduate School in Economics) has posted Crime, Inequality, and the Private Provision of Security on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In a high - crime environment with many high - income citizens, private security companies which offer protection against crime can flourish. In this article crime is modeled as a game where richer victims yield a higher return on crime, but with decreasing returns to crime as more criminals choose crime to supplement their income. Private security providers off er protection against crime and face Cournot competition. The model allows for the analysis of market clearing prices for effort against crime. Among the implications of the model are that rising inequality will lead to more expenditure on protection against crime, and that the upper income classes are suffering from the same or lower crime density than the middle income class. Taking into account the response of criminals and victims, rising inequality can actually lead to less crime if either (i) the legal income opportunity of the marginal criminal increases or (ii) marginal utility from income decreases and richer individuals spend a higher proportion of their income on protection (i.e. protection is a superior good). Often the middle class suffers from higher crime densities as inequality increases, as the increased spending on protection by the upper class (i) shifts crime to the middle class and (ii) increases market prices for protection, leaving the middle class with less affordable protection against crime. Emigration of the middle class can then further increase inequality. This highlights the importance of taking into account the response of individuals against crime and shows that the link between inequality and crime is a complex one.
Friday, August 5, 2011
Boaz Sangero and Mordechai Halpert (Academic Center of Law and Business and affiliation not provided to SSRN) have posted Proposal to Reverse the View of a Confession: From Key Evidence Requiring Corroboration to Corroboration for Key Evidence (University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform, Vol. 44, p. 511, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Both case law and legal literature have recognized that all, and not just clearly statistical, evidence is probabilistic. Therefore, we have much to learn from the laws of probability with regard to the evaluation of evidence in a criminal trial. The present Article focuses on the confession. First, we review legal and psychological literature and show that the probability of a false confession and, consequently, a wrongful conviction, is far from insignificant. In light of this, we warn against the cognitive illusion, stemming from the fallacy of the transposed conditional, which is liable to mislead the trier of fact in evaluating the weight of a confession. This illusion in evaluating the weight of a confession occurs when the trier of fact believes that, if there is only a low probability that an innocent person would falsely confess, then there is also only a low probability of innocence in each and every case where a person does confess guilt. The surprising truth is that even if there is only little doubt regarding the credibility of confessions in general, in some cases, this raises considerable doubt regarding the certainty of a conviction. We demonstrate this through the case of George Allen, who was convicted in 1983 of the rape and murder of Mary Bell. This is an example of a case in which the fallacy reaches extreme proportions, since nothing connected the accused to the crime, apart from his confession.
This Article explores the curious jurisprudence of sexual patterns and how it constructs female sexuality. In modern rape law, the “unchaste character inference” expressly prohibited by the rape shield endures. Though the boundaries that circumscribe appropriate sexual conduct have shifted over time, courts persist in making normative judgments about women’s sexuality. Cloaked in the legitimizing rhetoric of sexual patterns, retrograde notions of deviancy are substituting for rational deliberation on the question of consent. As rape shield law enters its fourth decade, it continues to defy reason, both in application and in theory. The proposed evidentiary approach promises to improve judicial decision making in rape cases, while reorienting the law toward the female sexual subject and the contingency of her consent.
Sharon Dolovich (University of California, Los Angeles - School of Law) has posted Strategic Segregation in the Modern Prison (American Criminal Law Review, Vol. 48, No. 1, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
For more than three decades, the L.A. County Jail has been systematically separating out the gay men and trans women who come through the Jail and housing them wholly apart from the general population. This is to protect them from sexual victimization, to which they are especially vulnerable. This article draws on original research to provide an in-depth account of this segregation unit, which is known as K6G. The aim is both descriptive and evaluative - to describe the mechanics of the program and its implications for residents, and to assess a variety of objections to it. As the article shows, L.A. County has managed to create a surprisingly safe space for the high-risk populations K6G serves. That it has done so in a carceral system that is severely overcrowded and notoriously volatile makes the success of the program even more remarkable. There is, however, no getting around it: with K6G, L.A. County is engaged in a process of state-sponsored, identity-based segregation. Equally troubling, K6G is woefully underinclusive, leaving unprotected many vulnerable people who are neither gay nor trans. This article carefully considers and responds to these objections. It also addresses a third, constitutional objection: that, even should prison administrators in L.A. County or elsewhere wish to follow a K6G model, they would be precluded from doing so on Equal Protection grounds. Two appendices accompany the article: a detailed description of the research methodology and a reproduction of the 176-question instrument used to structure the 32 formal interviews conducted with K6G residents.
Thursday, August 4, 2011
Lodewijk Rogier (Erasmus University) has posted Measures Providing Safety and Security: Where Administrative Law and Criminal Law Meet on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Infringements of safety and security are dealt with by administrative as well as by criminal law measures. The protection of safety and security by criminal law is the responsibility of the police and the public prosecutor. measures taken under administrative law are the responsibility of administrative bodies. Criminal law and administrative law need each other more and more, but apparently not always.
Lynn S. Branham (Saint Louis University - School of Law) has posted 'The Mess We’re In': Five Steps Towards the Transformation of Prison Cultures (Indiana Law Review, Vol. 44, p. 703, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Few dispute that conditions in prisons need to be improved – that, for example, prisoners with mental-health problems need to have those problems addressed, and addressed effectively, while they are confined. But the more fundamental question is whether prisons can be, not just improved, but transformed. Transformation in this context means deep and sustained changes in the ethos of those who work and live in prisons. That ethos would reflect at least four precepts: (1) hope as an imperative; (2) the viability of renewal; (3) the catharsis that attends personal responsibility and accountability; and (4) the duty and call, extending to prisoners and correctional employees alike, to respect human dignity.
Wednesday, August 3, 2011
David Patton (University of Alabama School of Law) has posted Guns, Crime Control, and a Systemic Approach to Federal Sentencing (Cardozo Law Review, Vol. 32, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Recent scholarship about the role of sentencing reform in reducing high levels of incarceration has focused on evidence-based, offender-specific solutions, such as how to better assess offenders’ risk of recidivism and their amenability to diversionary programs. This Article proposes a new, systemic approach. In particular, it suggests that in cases where the primary rationale for steep sentences is crime reduction, as opposed to retributive notions of harm and blameworthiness, judges ought to engage in an evidence-based examination of how the government is making “use” of the sentences it seeks in its law enforcement efforts. And where the government’s efforts fall short, so too should the sentences. The proposal would not only result in more rational and just sentences, it also has the potential to enhance public safety.
Noel G. Villaroman (Monash University - Faculty of Law) has posted Laws and Jurisprudence on Graft and Corruption (3rd Edition) (N. Villaroman, LAWS AND JURISPRUDENCE ON GRAFT AND CORRUPTION, 3RD EDITION, Central Book Supply, 2010) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
This book discusses the major anti-corruption laws in the Philippines today and the two primary institutions created to fight corruption in the country – the Office of the Ombudsman and the Sandiganbayan. It is designed to assist prosecutors, defense lawyers, journalists, public officials and indeed any person interested in Philippine anti-corruption legislation. It aims to help the reader identify the realm of proscribed conduct and determine whether a corruption offense has been committed in a given set of facts. This book presents the texts of the following anti-corruption laws and the relevant Supreme Court decisions explaining their meaning and application.
Tuesday, August 2, 2011
Gregory J. DeAngelo , Gary Charness and Beth A. Freeborn (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) - Department of Economics , University of California, Santa Barbara - Department of Economics) have posted Mechanisms for Reducing Criminal Recidivism: Experimental Evidence on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
We conduct laboratory experiments to investigate the effect of deterrence mechanisms on recidivism under controlled conditions. Experimental analysis allows for easier identification of recidivism than the use of empirical or field data. Specifically, we focus on the effect of variation in expected cost of behavior on the rate of recidivism and the number of times an individual re-offends after apprehension. We use a roadway speeding framework and find that the rate of recidivism and number of times an individual re-commits a proscribed act are strongly influenced by the expected penalty.
Mental disorder among criminal defendants affects every stage of the criminal justice process, from investigational issues to competence to be executed. As in all other areas of mental health law, at least some people with mental disorders, are treated specially. The underlying thesis of this Article is that people with mental disorder should, as far as is practicable and consistent with justice, be treated just like everyone else. In some areas, the law is relatively sensible and just. In others, too often the opposite is true and the laws sweep too broadly. I believe, however, that special rules to deal with at least some people with mental disorder are justified because they substantially lack rational capacity. Treating people with mental disorder specially is a two-edged sword. Failing to do so when it is appropriate is unjust, but the opposite is demeaning, stigmatizing, and paternalistic. The central normative question is when special treatment is justified.
Scott Howe (Chapman University - School of Law) has posted Can California Save its Death Sentences? Will Californians Save the Expense? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Imposing a death sentence in California has become symbolism with a staggering price. From 1973 through 2009, California sentenced 927 persons to death but executed only thirteen. No executions have occurred since 2006. There are presently 714 persons on death row. Average delays between death sentences and executions are among the worst in the nation and in some cases will reach 30 years. One recent study estimated that taxpayers have spent more than $4,000,000,000 on the California death penalty since 1978 and more than $184,000,000 in 2009 alone.
Monday, August 1, 2011
Neelum Arya , Micah A. Haskell-Hoehl , Michael Berrios , Allison Conyers , Jody Kent , Dana Shoenberg , Tara Andrews , Phyllis Lawrence , Jenny Collier and Melissa Rothstein have posted Juvenile Justice (Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Administration and Congress, p. 90, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
Smart on Crime: Recommendations for the Administration and Congress provides the 112th Congress and the Obama administration with analysis of the problems plaguing our state and federal criminal justice systems and a series of recommendations to address these failures. The report examines the entire criminal justice system, from the creation of new criminal laws to ex-offenders’ reentry into communities after serving their sentences. Our comprehensive recommendations range from helping to restore and empower victims to identifying ways to protect the rights of the accused. Due to the undeniable human costs and the overwhelming fiscal costs, Americans from diverse political perspectives -- particularly professionals with experience in all aspects of the criminal justice system -- recognize that the system fails too many, costs too much, and helps too few. Smart on Crime provides the most promising recommendations for resolving our nation’s criminal justice crisis.
Although “present bias” (or weakness of will, impulsiveness, myopia, or bounded willpower) was flagged as an issue for legal examination by Tom Ulen and Russell Korobkin over a decade ago, the concept has received insufficient attention in the legal field - and most of that attention has focused on its implications for the regulation of credit and savings. But, as demonstrated by this Article, the inconsistency of time preferences has wider implications, especially for criminal law. First, present bias may have significant implications for the general deterrence of crime. Individuals with time-inconsistent preferences may give in to immediate temptations to offend, even though they will not plan to exploit more distant opportunities to offend. To create additional deterrence by exploiting the present bias, one must either make the deferred costs of crime immediate or make the immediate benefits of crime deferred. For this reason, present bias heightens the importance of timing arrests closer to the commission of a crime - which suggests overlooked benefits from undercover operations. It also increases the efficiency of private crime prevention when these measures pose costs that occur contemporaneously with the benefits of crime. Second, present bias explains addiction, otherwise puzzling conditions of probation and parole, and the self-control mechanisms for dealing with addiction and tempting criminal behavior. Preventative measures, whether imposed by the state as a condition of probation and parole or imposed by the potential offender through “self-exclusion,” work by preventing an individual from having the opportunity to succumb to temptation.
Sunday, July 31, 2011
|1||2761||Less than Picture Perfect: The Legal Relationship between Photographers' Rights and Law Enforcement
Morgan Leigh Manning,
University of Tennessee, Knoxville, College of Law ,
Date posted to database: June 10, 2011
|2||331||Who’s Better at Defending Criminals? Does Type of Defense Attorney Matter in Terms of Producing Favorable Case Outcomes
Thomas H. Cohen,
U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Date posted to database: July 1, 2011
|3||223||Radical Thought from Marx, Nietzsche, and Freud, Through Foucault, to the Present: Comments on Steven Lukes’ ‘In Defense of False Consciousness’
Bernard E. Harcourt,
University of Chicago - Law School,
Date posted to database: June 19, 2011 [4th last week]
|4||206||Tough on Crime (on the State's Dime): How Violent Crime Does Not Drive California Counties' Incarceration Rates - And Why it Should
W. David Ball,
Santa Clara School of Law,
Date posted to database: June 28, 2011 [5th last week]
|5||185||Re-Thinking Illegal Entry and Re-Entry
Georgetown University Law Center ,
Date posted to database: July 14, 2011 [6th last week]
|6||171||Confined, Crammed, and Inextricable: What The Wire Gets Right
David Alan Sklansky,
University of California, Berkeley - School of Law,
Date posted to database: June 3, 2011 [7th last week]
|7||165||Proving Prejudice, Post-Padilla
American University, Washington College of Law,
Date posted to database: April 27, 2011 [8th last week]
|8||156||The Collection Gap: Underenforcement of Corporate and White-Collar Fines and Penalties
Martin H. Pritikin, Ezra Ross,
Whittier College - Whittier Law School, UCLA School of Law,
Date posted to database: June 10, 2011 [9th last week]
|9||148||What is Securities Fraud?
Samuel W. Buell,
Duke University School of Law,
Date posted to database: June 27, 2011 [10th last week]
|10||146||The Causes of Growth in Prison Admissions and Populations
John F. Pfaff,
Fordham University - School of Law,
Date posted to database: July 15, 2011 [new to top ten]