Geological Observatory of Coldigioco
PennState, The Dickinson School of Law: Penn State Law eLibraryNot a member yet
7581 research outputs found
Sort by
Criminal Violations
No full textViolations of community supervision are major drivers of incarceration. Nearly four million people in the United States are serving terms of probation, parole, or supervised release, and one-third of them are eventually found in violation of a condition of their supervision, sending 350,000 people to prison each year. To reduce incarceration rates, criminal justice reformers have called for lower sentences for non-criminal “technical violations,” such as missed meetings, skipped curfews, etc.
In this Article, I offer the first comprehensive analysis of “criminal violations,” the other half of cases where people violate their supervision by committing new crimes. Based on an original empirical study of U.S. Sentencing Commission data and an examination of federal case law, I make three novel observations. First, despite the popular focus on technical violations, criminal violations are the primary drivers of punishment via revocation of supervised release, accounting for at least two-thirds of the total prison time imposed. Second, while technical violations punish non-criminal behavior, criminal violations drive punishment by increasing sentences for criminal convictions and making punishing crimes easier. Third, the immigration crime of illegal reentry accounts for as many as one-third of all revocations for felony violations, revealing that supervised release is no longer just a program of surveillance or support but also has become a tool of immigration enforcement.
Finally, after describing revocations for criminal violations in the federal criminal justice system, I argue that punishing criminal violations inflicts unfair double punishment and erodes constitutional rights. When defendants on supervised release commit new crimes, the better and fairer response is to prosecute them without revoking their supervision. The law of revocation opens an exception to the ordinary rules of criminal prosecution, which the federal government has generalized into a powerful engine of imprisonment
ABORIGINAL TRANSBOUNDARY PASSAGE RIGHTS ON CONNECTED UNITED STATES WATERCOURSES: FROM CANADA TO MEXICO, INDIGENOUS NORTH AMERICAN RECONCILIATION
No full text
A Proportionality-Based Framework for Government Regulation of Digital Tracing Apps in Times of Emergency
No full textTimes of emergency present an inherent conflict between the public interest and the preservation of individual rights. Such times require granting emergency powers to the government on behalf of the public interest and relaxing safeguards against government actions that infringe rights. The lack of theoretical framework to assess governmental decisions in times of emergency leads to a polarized and politicized discourse about potential policies, and often, to public distrust and lack of compliance.
Such a discourse was evident regarding Digital Tracing Apps (“DTAs”), which are apps installed on cellular phones to alert users that they were exposed to people who tested positive for COVID-19. DTAs collect the most sensitive types of information, such as health-related and location or proximity information, which violates the right to privacy and the right to be free of surveillance. This sensitive information is normally legally protected. But in emergencies there are no legal restrictions limiting the collection of such data. The common privacy-law approach supports DTA implementation under the condition that the technology preserves the privacy of users. But this Article suggests that the privacy approach focuses on micro considerations and under-addresses the implications of DTA-based policy.
Instead, this Article suggests rethinking DTA implementation during COVID-19 through the doctrine of proportionality. Often used by European Union courts in areas where decisions entail meaningful implications to individual rights, the doctrine offers a clear and workable normative evaluation of tradeoffs in a more nuanced, explicable, and transparent way. Highlighting macro considerations, the doctrine of proportionality suggests that 1) DTA-based policy is less proportionate compared to traditional contact-tracing methods; 2) policies created while relying on smartphones are inequitable and biased; and 3) the sharing of sensitive personal information with private companies will have irreversible social surveillance implications. Additionally, the proportionality method not only provides a flexible methodological tool to evaluate government decisions in times of emergency but also offers an opportunity to examine how governments achieve and justify the acceptance and assimilation of new technological policy measures, which may take societies in new directions.
Part I establishes the framework of governance during COVID-19, the use of emergency powers, and the conflict between the public interest and individual rights. Part II explores the value of using the doctrine of proportionality as a method for policymaking during emergencies. Part III applies the doctrine of proportionality to the case study of DTA-based policy, exploring the parameters of its suitability, necessity, and proportionality stricto sensu. Proportionality stricto sensu assesses the desirability and relative proportionality of three policies that have been used to promote the public interest in different ways: a general shelter- at-home policy, a traditional-contact-tracing policy, and a DTA-based policy. Part IV discusses the policy implications of using a DTA-based policy
Accommodating Victims with Mental Disabilities
No full textThe #MeToo movement has brought the voices of victims of sexual assault into the public’s eye and, in turn, into the legal system. As its name suggests, the movement’s strength lies in numbers—it is, after all, hard to ignore the collective voices of a group of considerable size and visibility. This Article argues that another group of victims—namely, victims who have mental disabilities— also are desperately in need of their own movement to raise public awareness and bring about reform. However, because of their cognitive and communication impairments, this group of victims is unlikely to effectuate reform itself. Instead, these victims rely on the criminal justice system to effectuate change on their behalf. Their needs are great: More vulnerable to crime, this group is victimized at a rate at least four times greater than the general population. Yet crimes against this group rarely are referred for prosecution, let alone successfully prosecuted. Instead, this group faces myriad barriers to participation throughout the criminal justice process, starting from the time at which they attempt to report a crime. Designed to meet the needs and capabilities of typically functioning victims, the system does little to meet the cognitive and communication needs of those with mental disabilities. This Article proposes that the criminal justice system take ownership of this problem by providing much-needed accommodations to victims with mental disabilities
German Pharmaceutical Pricing: Lessons for the United States
No full textTo control pharmaceutical spending and improve access, the United States could adopt strategies similar to those introduced in Germany by the 2011 German Pharmaceutical Market Reorganization Act. In Germany, manufacturers sell new drugs immediately upon receiving marketing approval. During the first year, the German Federal Joint Committee assesses new drugs to determine their added medical benefit. It assigns them a score indicating their added benefit. New drugs comparable to drugs in a reference price group are assigned to that group and receive the same reimbursement, unless they are therapeutically superior. The National Association of Statutory Health Insurance Funds then negotiates with manufacturers the maximum reimbursement starting the 13th month, consistent with the drug\u27s added benefit assessment and price caps in other European countries. In the absence of agreement, an arbitration board sets the price. Manufacturers accept the price resolution or exit the market. Thereafter, prices generally are not increased, even for inflation. US public and private insurers control prices in diverse ways, but typically obtain discounts by designating certain drugs as preferred and by restricting patient access or charging high copayment for nonpreferred drugs. This article draws 10 lessons for drug pricing reform in US federal programs and private insurance
The Shoe Is About to Drop for the Platform Economy: Understanding the Current Worker Classification Landscape in Preparation for a Changed World
No full textWhether a worker is an independent contractor or employee is of great significance in many countries, including the United States. This label drives whether a worker is entitled to many protections and benefits, including, minimum wage, overtime, workers’ compensation, unemployment compensation, anti-discrimination protection, NLRA protection, etc. The difficulty inherent in accurately classifying workers as either independent contractors or employees cannot be overstated. First, there are so many tests spanning all levels of our government. Second, there are so many ways that people work and with the increased popularity of app-based work, classification becomes even more difficult. Simply, some of the tests have not been working well when applied to precarious app-based work. As a result, policymakers are forced to finally bring these issues to the forefront.Worldwide policymakers and leaders are implementing changes to protect app-based workers. In the United States, the federal government is evaluating whether these changes in the workforce require changes in national labor and tax laws. While campaigning, President Biden pledged to establish a uniform worker classification test for purposes of all federal labor, employment, and tax laws. Subnational governments – states and cities – are also evaluating and making changes in their policies and laws.In order to make these decisions, policymakers will need to be familiar with the current landscape of tests and statutes. Policymakers should evaluate the approaches that currently are being used and how they have fared so that they can decide whether to strike out with a novel test or adopt one already in use. Although prior articles have considered worker classification laws, and the benefits associated with various classification approaches, things have evolved so quickly that in some respects most of those articles are at least partially out of date. And, having all of this information in one place is critical for ease in policymaking research and deliberations.This Article fills the current knowledge gap by providing an up-to-date overview of the current state of worker classification laws. The article starts with a segment on instabilities and health issues experienced by app-based workers. Then it covers the latest on worker classification laws around the world.It then turns to tests that the U.S. is using, which include traditional tests and new tests from both the state and city levels. The Article explains how these tests are used and summarizes commentary about the strengths and weaknesses of each of these tests. As national, state, and local policymakers consider how best to move forward in regulating the app-based economy and its workers, they are likely to find the information in this Article useful to their deliberations
Towards Racial Justice: The Role of Medical-Legal Partnerships
No full textMedical-legal partnerships (MLPs) integrate knowledge and practices from law and health care in pursuit of health equity. However, the MLP movement has not reached its full potential to address racial health inequities, in part because its original framing was not explicitly race conscious. This article aims to stimulate discussion of the role of MLPs in racial justice. It calls for MLPs to name racism as a social determinant of health and to examine how racism may operate in the field. This work sets the stage for the next step: operationalizing racial justice in the MLP model, research, and practice
Book Review: This Is How They Tell Me the World Ends: The Cyberweapons Arms Race (2020) by Nicole Perlroth
No full textIn the book, Perlroth traces the development and use of cyber capabilities, focusing on the U.S. government’s unintended role in creating a market for these cyber goods. Her purpose is a straightforward one: to illuminate. Perlroth explains that her goal is to “help shine even a glimmer of light on the highly secretive and largely invisible cyberweapons industry so that we, a society on the cusp of this digital tsunami called the Internet of Things, may have some of the necessary conversations now, before it is too late.”7 She seeks to accomplish this purpose by offering a treatise-like treatment of the subject, defining terms, tracking the historical development of governmental cyber capabilities and the parallel growth of a vulnerability broker industry, identifying key players and entities in the market, and profiling a slew of cyber operations and events. Despite the length and breadth of the book, her thesis is precise and blunt: the U.S. government’s practice of purchasing vulnerabilities for use in law enforcement, intelligence collection, and military operations led to a black market for these tools and an arms race between governments and an array of questionably-motivated private actors. She argues that the U.S. government’s myopic focus on the offensive use of these cyber tools, and its corresponding failure to anticipate or consider the consequences of that offensive focus, led to unexpected and negative results for the United States and the world
