5033 research outputs found
Sort by
Race, Racial Bias, and Imputed Liability Murder
No full textEven within the sordid annals of American crime and punishment, the doctrines of felony murder and accomplice liability murder stand out. Because they allow states to impose their harshest punishments on defendants who never intended, anticipated, or even caused death, legal scholars have long questioned their legitimacy. What surprisingly few scholars have addressed, however, is who bears the brunt.
This Article is one of the first to explore the racialized impact of the two most controversial and ubiquitous forms of what we call “imputed liability murder.” An analysis of ten years of murder prosecutions in the state of Minnesota reveals that imputed liability murder is anything but a fringe subtype of homicide: an astounding 70% of those charged with murder during this period were charged with felony murder, accomplice liability murder, or both. The study also shows that nearly 60% of these defendants were Black, a level of racial disproportionality that is not just intrinsically extreme; it is comparatively greater than levels of disproportionality for other types of murder. The question is, why? The answer lies in part in the structural and social psychological dynamics of imputed liability murder prosecutions themselves, we claim. By reducing prosecutors’ burden to prove the most salient legal indicia of a defendant’s culpability — mens rea, actus reus, or both — and allowing prosecutors to cast a wide and undifferentiated net around almost any homicide, the felony murder and accomplice liability murder doctrines invite prosecutors to base normative charging decisions on subjective, extra-legal proxies, like “dangerousness” and “group criminality.” Multiple studies have shown that decision-makers are more likely to attribute these proxies to Black defendants and, in turn, treat them more punitively. Compounding these dynamics is the racial stereotypicality of the crimes themselves. A separate body of research indicates that felony murder and accomplice liability murder have become so cognitively synonymous with Black defendants that simply shoring up the doctrines’ structural laxity may not be enough to mitigate their disproportionate enforcement.
As states across the country grapple with reforming their felony murder and accomplice liability murder laws, this Article contributes to the ongoing debate about the legitimacy of both doctrines. It also raises critical questions about the racialized enforcement of not just these doctrines but of any doctrine that invites the State to impute criminal liability
Moving Beyond Statements and Good Intentions in U.S. Law Schools
Get PDFThis Article seeks to answer these questions about how law school leaders might help to cultivate antiracist cultures within their law schools, among their students, and across the legal profession, even in the face of a growing national backlash against antiracism, diversity, equity, and inclusion.32 Part I first establishes why it is important for law schools to provide [an] education to law students on bias, cross-cultural competency, and racism, as the American Bar Association (ABA) requires, and to train future lawyers who have the abilities to combat racism. 33 In so doing, Part I defines key terms such as racism and antiracism, detailing and explicating various forms of racism in our society. Part I also discusses the obstacles and challenges that law schools, and the legal profession generally, face in developing effective strategies and cultures to combat racism within law schools, the legal profession, and society as a whole. Part II then sets forth suggestions for policies, practices, rules, and actions that law schools and other legal institutions-such as law firms, legal organizations, government offices, and public interest organizations-can take to build an antiracist and more inclusive legal profession and culture
Expanding antibiotic, vaccine, and diagnostics development and access to tackle antimicrobial resistance
No full textThe increasing number of bacterial infections globally that do not respond to any available antibiotics indicates a need to invest in—and ensure access to—new antibiotics, vaccines, and diagnostics. The traditional model of drug development, which depends on substantial revenues to motivate investment, is no longer economically viable without push and pull incentives. Moreover, drugs developed through these mechanisms are unlikely to be affordable for all patients in need, particularly in low-income and middle-income countries. New, publicly funded models based on public–private partnerships could support investment in antibiotics and novel alternatives, and lower patients’ out-of-pocket costs, making drugs more accessible. Cost reductions can be achieved with public goods, such as clinical trial networks and platform-based quality assurance, manufacturing, and product development support. Preserving antibiotic effectiveness relies on accurate and timely diagnosis; however scaling up diagnostics faces technological, economic, and behavioural challenges. New technologies appeared during the COVID-19 pandemic, but there is a need for a deeper understanding of market, physician, and consumer behaviour to improve the use of diagnostics in patient management. Ensuring sustainable access to antibiotics also requires infection prevention. Vaccines offer the potential to prevent infections from drug-resistant pathogens, but funding for vaccine development has been scarce in this context. The High-Level Meeting of the UN General Assembly in 2024 offers an opportunity to rethink how research and development can be reoriented to serve disease management, prevention, patient access, and antibiotic stewardship
Marketing, Other Intangibles, and Output Growth in 61 United States Industries
Get PDFExperts in the System of National Accounts (SNA) recently considered whether marketing could be included as a capital asset in the national accounts and later recommended that marketing should be an intangible in the 2025 SNA (IMF, 2022, 2023). This paper prepares macroeconomic measures of the United States marketing stock and develops similar measures within 61 industries. We find that, from 1987 to 2020, marketing capital contributed approximately as much to output growth (0.18 percentage point per year) as R&D (0.15) or software (0.19) did. Software grew more rapidly, but marketing had a larger factor share. Marketing contributes even more to output growth if quality is adjusted to allow for the better targeting associated with digital advertising. There is a close relationship between data flows, software, and digital marketing and national accountants will have to allocate expenditures among these categories
Immigration Detention Abolition and the Violence of Digital Cages
Get PDFThe United States has a long history of devastating immigration enforcement and surveillance. Today, in addition to more than 34,000 people held in immigration detention, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) surveils an astounding 296,000 people under its “Alternatives to Detention” program. The number of people subjected to this surveillance has grown dramatically in the last two decades, from just 1,339 in 2005. ICE’s rapidly expanding Alternatives to Detention program is marked by “digital cages,” consisting of GPS-outfitted ankle shackles and invasive phone and location tracking. Government officials and some immigrant advocates have categorized these digital cages as a humane “reform”; ostensibly an effort to decrease the number of people behind bars. This article challenges that framework, illuminating how digital cages disperse the violence of immigration enforcement and surveillance more broadly, and more insidiously, ensnaring hundreds of thousands more immigrants, families and communities./= / \u3e/= / \u3eThis article argues that the increasing digitization of immigration enforcement and surveillance is part of a growing, and expansive, geography of violence. Building upon deportation abolition literature situating immigration detention as a form of violence, this article posits that rather than mitigate violence, digital cages create a “violence of invisibility” that is equally, if not more, dangerous. Digital cages, masquerading as a more palatable version of enforcement and surveillance, create devastating harms that are hidden in plain sight, while duping us into thinking them more humane. This article concludes by arguing that digital cages are a “reformist reform” that merely make more efficient the kind of oppressive and racialized violence that has long informed the United States’ immigration enforcement regime. If we truly seek an end to this violence, this article argues for abolition - not just of detention, but of the digital cages next in line to replace detention
A Patent and a Prize
Get PDFThis paper examines a simple and old question: should innovators receive a patent or a prize? The answer I provide is equally simple: they should receive both. The literature on patents versus prizes has proceeded mostly under the assumption that there should be a choice between a regime of patents and a regime of prizes in which patents fall into the public domain upon award of the prize. There are significant “public choice costs” under the prize plans. By this I mean there are risks of inappropriate transfers to patentees – that is, looting – and of confiscation of patentees, through the conduct of or through the omissions of government agents. The innovation regime I propose is a patent-plus-prize scheme. The patentee would receive the patent and a prize that approximates consumer surplus. Public choice costs are considerably lower than under prize schemes: there would be no looting and no risk of confiscation under patent-plus-prize. In addition, private and social incentives to innovate are aligned
Common measures of vaccination intention generate substantially different estimates that can reduce predictive validity
Get PDFSurveys often estimate vaccination intentions using dichotomous ( Yes / No ) or trichotomous ( Yes, Unsure, No ) response options presented in different orders. Do survey results depend on these variations? This controlled experiment randomized participants to dichotomous or trichotomous measures of vaccine intentions (with “Yes” and “No” options presented in different orders). Intentions were measured separately for COVID-19, its booster, and influenza vaccines. Among a sample of U.S. adults (N = 4,764), estimates of vaccine intention varied as much as 37.5 ± 17.4 percentage points as a function of the dichotomous or trichotomous response set. Among participants who had not received the COVID-19 vaccine, the “Unsure” option was more likely to reduce the share of “No” (versus “Yes”) responses, whereas among participants who had received the COVID-19 vaccine, the “Unsure” option was more likely to reduce the share of “Yes” (versus “No”) responses. The “Unsure” category may increase doubt and decrease reliance on past vaccination behavior when forming intentions. The order of “Yes” and “No” responses had no significant effect. Future research is needed to further evaluate why the effects of including the “Unsure” option vary in direction and magnitude
Zombie Litigation: Claim Aggregation, Litigant Autonomy and Funders\u27 Intermeddling
Get PDFThe main debate surrounding litigation funding in recent years has focused on the question of disclosure of funding agreements. While the issue is important, predominantly because of its effects on the course and outcome of individual cases, far more important are bigger, interrelated questions which have systemic effects on the civil justice system, the legal profession, and the nature of the rise of portfolio funding- which I here propose to view as a new form of undisclosed and unregulated claim aggregation- has broader-still effects including clients\u27 potential, and at times actual, loss of autonomy over their cases as their lawyers become originators, brokers and/or managers of \u27litigation assets.\u27
First, I identify and explain a new possible scenario which I call \u27zombie litigation\u27: litigation that a plaintiff no longer wishes to pursue or in some cases, does not wish to initiate but that nonetheless proceeds through the court system for the benefit of a funder that has control over the plaintiff\u27s case. Second, I explain how funders\u27 incentives to demand zombie litigation are increased by the financialization of litigation: the concomitant rise of portfolio funding and secondary trading in legal claims. Third, I identify and explain the numerous doctrines, rules of evidence, of procedure, and of professional responsibility that recognize and at times presuppose as axiomatic, the sanctity and centrality of a plaintiff\u27s autonomy over their cases. Fourth, I map the harms said rules and doctrines seek to guard against and that would be unleashed in funder control over settlement decisions was normalized. These harms span unfairness at the level of individual cases, damage to the civil justice system as a public institution serving the public good, and erosion of the attorney- client relationship. The affected constituencies are plaintiffs, defendants, courts, and the public. Fifth, I also identify and systematize an emerging framework of addressing the risk of zombie litigation, and plaintiffs\u27 loss of autonomy more generally, through managerial judging
Teaching the Truth on Trial (Again) in Tennessee
No full textFollowing the 2020-21 school year, the Sullivan County (TN) school board fired Matthew Hawn, a high school social studies teacher. As was reported at the time, the School Board punished Mr. Hawn after he assigned his Contemporary Issues class a Ta-Nehisi Coates article and shared a spoken word poem by Kyla Jenee Lacey. On Monday, after nearly three years, Mr. Hawn had his first opportunity to challenge his firing in Court. Jon traveled to Tennessee to observe the hearing. In this episode, Jon and Arnie explore the dynamics in the courtroom, the case\u27s vast implications, and a question that hung over the day: “Is White Privilege a Fact?”
Many listeners will hear echoes of the Scopes trial, a notorious 1925 case involving a Tennessee teacher who violated a state law that banned instruction on evolution