3246 research outputs found
Sort by
The Child Vanishes: Justice Scalia’s Approach to the Role of Psychology in Determining Children’s Rights and Responsibilities
Get PDFJustice Scalia’s attitudes about children and psychology reveal fascinating patterns in his thinking about the rights, responsibilities, needs, and experiences, of children. With his famous wit and acerbic style fully on display, Justice Scalia’s opinions across various legal doctrines demonstrated hostility to the science of psychology and its practitioners, as well as a callous attitude towards children’s trauma. Contemptuous of a best- interests analysis and the professionals who counsel about those interests, Justice Scalia instead emphasized parental and state power over children and tended to advocate for child protection only when it limited children’s agency and freedom. This article demonstrates how in Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence the child vanished and issues of trauma or psychological need were ignored or deemed irrelevant. Justice Scalia’s disdainful attitudes dovetailed with his general interpretive approach stressing tradition, history, originalism and respect for authority. The intersection of children and psychology in Justice Scalia’s jurisprudence is relevant today because three new Justices have proclaimed themselves s acolytes of Justice Scalia’s interpretive methods. Although they might not share Justice Scalia’s deeply negative attitudes toward psychology or the rights of children, their adherence to his judicial philosophy may lead to similar results. In considering Justice Scalia’s deep disdain for psychology, particularly when it was used to expand the rights of children, this Article revisits Brown vs. Board of Education, which relied extensively on psychology, seeking to avoid stigma and trauma for children. Additionally, the Article raises questions about the correct role of psychology and other social sciences. Finally, this Article offers a different vision of how courts should relate to children by listening to them, guarding their psychological health, respecting their rights and taking their experiences seriously
How Florida’s Courts Should Evaluate the Admissibility of Field Sobriety Testing and Blood THC Levels Evidence in Marijuana Impaired Driving Prosecutions
Get PDFField sobriety and blood alcohol concentration tests are proven reliable techniques to determine whether a person us under the influence of alcohol. No such technique has been developed to reliably determine whether a person is under the influence of marijuana. However, despite a lack of scientific consensus regarding the reliability of field sobriety and blood toxicology tests to determine marijuana impairment, these methods are routinely used as evidence of guilt in marijuana impaired driving prosecutions. Twenty-four states have legalized the recreational use of marijuana, and Florida appears to be set to join them in the near future. As a result of increased access to marijuana, it is logical to assume that the percentage of car accidents involving drivers suspected of marijuana impairment will rise. This comment evaluates the current state of science’s ability to detect marijuana impairment; how different states where recreational marijuana use is legal have addressed the admissibility of field sobriety and blood toxicology tests under the Daubert expert evidence admissibility principles in marijuana impaired driving prosecutions; and recommends that Florida judges exclude such evidence from marijuana impaired driving prosecutions until the underlying science is proven to be reliable
Elaine Bloom Jersey
No full textA sports jersey awarded to Elaine Bloom by the Miami-Dade Legislative Team.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/elaine-bloom-awards/1183/thumbnail.jp
Risk and Resistance: How Feminists Transformed the Law and Science of AIDS
No full textProfessor Aziza Ahmed of Boston University Law School presents the first two chapters of her work Risk and Resistance: How Feminists Transformed the Law and Science of AIDS. This book discusses the success of feminist AIDS activists in the 1980s in changing the scientific definition of AIDS used by the CDC and the impact of this on the distribution of benefits by the Social Security Administration.https://ecollections.law.fiu.edu/faculty-workshops/1067/thumbnail.jp
Against Imperial Arbitrators: The Brilliance of Canada\u27s New Model Investment Treaty
Get PDFInvestment treaty arbitration has become politically “toxic” even in states that pioneered the development of investment treaties. There is consensus on the need for reform. But there is a dearth of historical research on what went wrong with investment treaties, when it happened, or how to find the way forward in light of the past. As a result, reform efforts have a stumbling quality. One can see this in multilateral fora, such as the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), where over four years of study and negotiations have produced little consensus. One can also see it in the investment treaty practice of individual states, such as Canada, which has recently lurched across the spectrum from investment treaty arbitration to a permanent international investment court, to the abandonment of investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS), and back to investment treaty arbitration. This article fills the gap in understanding by explaining what went wrong with investment treaty arbitration and when it happened. It demonstrates that the customary international law on state responsibility for injuries to aliens evolved during the 19th century to protect foreign investors against exceptional failures of the nightwatchman and rule-of-law states. As the consensus regarding customary international law standards of treatment unraveled during the 20th century due to the spread of communism, decolonization, and economic nationalism, capital-exporting states turned in bilateral investment treaties (BITs) to uphold traditional principles regarding the protection of foreign investment. Starting in the late 1990s, however, an unexpected surge of claims brought under NAFTA’s investment chapter fortuitously opened the door to the central problem of modern investment treaty practice: the rise of “imperial arbitrators” who do not merely police exceptional failures of the nightwatchman and rule-of-law states, but who choose to second-guess the normal operations of modern regulatory states without any meaningful checks or balances. Although the NAFTA Parties nipped that development in the bud, the rise of imperial arbitrators leapt to the broader universe of investment treaty arbitration, where it flourished until claims against developed states for measures such as the phaseout of nuclear power brought investment treaty arbitration to a crisis point. Seeking a way forward in light of the past, the article examines Canada’s recent experimentation with investment treaty reforms, including the development of a permanent international investment court in relations with the EU, the complete elimination of ISDS in relations with the United States, and a return to traditional investment treaty arbitration in a new model investment treaty coupled with substantive reforms that virtually eliminate opportunities to second-guess the normal operations of modern regulatory states. The article describes the last option as the most brilliant because it is the only one that substantively eliminates toeholds for imperial arbitrators while preserving arbitration as a safeguard against the exceptional failures of the nightwatchman and rule-of-law states. Seeking a way forward in light of the past, the article examines Canada’s recent experimentation with investment treaty reforms, including the development of a permanent international investment court in relations with the EU, the complete elimination of ISDS in relations with the United States, and a return to traditional investment treaty arbitration in a new model investment treaty coupled with substantive reforms that virtually eliminate opportunities to second-guess the normal operations of modern regulatory states. The article describes the last option as the most brilliant because it is the only one that substantively eliminates toeholds for imperial arbitrators while preserving arbitration as a safeguard against the exceptional failures of the nightwatchman and rule-of-law states
Association for the Study of the Cuban Economy (ASCE) Thirty-Second Annual Conference: Introduction
Get PDFAge is Not Just a Number: Problems with Florida’s Statutory Minimum Age for Juvenile Delinquency and Why it Must be Increased
Get PDFUnder a Florida law enacted in 2021, any child over the age of six years old can be arrested and subjected to juvenile delinquency proceedings. Florida, as well as the United States in general, is an outlier when it comes to statutory minimum ages for juvenile delinquency. The most common and recommended minimum age internationally is fourteen years old, and many studies show that arresting, charging, and adjudicating children below the age of fourteen is counterproductive, as it leads to increased recidivism, potentially violates due process, and leaves lasting negative effects on children. This comment will discuss juvenile delinquency in the United States, as well as the problems associated with Florida’s current minimum age for juvenile delinquency. Additionally, this comment will address the problems associated with having such a low minimum age for juvenile delinquency and explain how, based on these problems, Florida’s current minimum age runs contrary to the purposes of Florida’s juvenile justice system and does not serve the bases for punishment. Finally, this comment will recommend that Florida lawmakers raise the statutory minimum age for juvenile delinquency to fourteen years old and provide alternatives to traditional juvenile justice procedures in order to mitigate the problems analyzed before and help achieve the purposes of Florida’s juvenile justice system
