8700 research outputs found
Sort by
Algorithms and Omertà: A Discussion of Compatibility Between Seemingly Disparate Legal Spheres
No full textThis Note assesses the viability of federal prosecutors’ use of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”) to prosecute spoofing, a market manipulating trading practice characterized by the cancellation of large orders meant to artificially alter market prices. Traditional spoofing convictions have been difficult to secure because of spoofing’s complicated and esoteric nature and difficult-to-prove elements. Now, for the first time, prosecutors in United States v. Smith have indicted alleged spoofers under RICO, which Congress designed with the intent to overcome evidentiary difficulties in organized crime prosecutions, particularly prosecutions of the American Mafia. However, the disparity between spoofing and the Mafia’s traditional street rackets raises the questions of whether federal prosecutors may viably use RICO to prosecute spoofing and whether doing so will produce significant implications.
This Note compares the legal contexts of spoofing and RICO to form the foundation of the discussion of whether prosecutors may viably use RICO to prosecute spoofing. This Note supports the use of RICO in spoofing cases, acknowledging RICO’s easier-to-prove elements and spoofing’s possible qualification as a number of RICO’s prohibited racketeering activities, and recommends that RICO’s use be complemented by effective use of cooperating witnesses. However, this Note also warns of potential negative side effects from using RICO to prosecute spoofing, such as the government incidentally overlooking solo spoofers due to excess concentration on groups of spoofers
Pluralism, Democracy, and the Conflict Within: Challenging the State’s Narrative by Artistic Forms of Protest
Get PDFThis article follows the Pussy Riot case from the 2012 trial decision to the 2018 challenge before the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The case revolved around the “punk prayer” performed by three women in Christ the Saviour Cathedral in Moscow. While the case, which centered on violation of freedom of expression, may be framed as a matter of political speech vs. religious speech, it has broader implications. Pussy Riot’s performance and subsequent legal cases were about the ability of pluralism and dissent to counter the carefully constructed government narrative of “traditional values” and moral sovereignty. For democracy to develop and endure, pluralism must continually challenge existing power relationships and expose inequality. Thus, accountability is key when it comes to pluralism in the public realm. However, constant accountability is unimaginable without freedom of expression and the voicing of dissenting opinions. Thus, in order to live up to its constitutional commitment to pluralism, it is key for Russia to develop a safe space for public discussion pertaining to government, governmental representatives and broader public policy issues, despite the conflicts that such discussion will generate. Artistic forms of protest alone, such as the one engaged in by Pussy Riot, are not enough, as they currently fail to appeal and be accessible to larger Russian audiences
Reforming Expansive Crime Control & Sentencing Legislation in an Era of Mass Incarceration: a National and Cross-national Study
Get PDF
Constitutionalizing Equality: The Equal Rights Amendment as a Catalyst for Change
No full textThe Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) is back in the headlines with new ferocity. Following Virginia’s ratification earlier this year, the House of Representatives moved swiftly to grant the amendment a new lease on life, by removing the previous 1982 deadline for ratification. Though questions remain as to whether the time has run out, one thing is clear: ratification of the ERA would incontrovertibly advance gender equality, both at home and abroad
Religious Liberty in a Pandemic
Get PDFThe coronavirus pandemic caused an unprecedented shutdown of the United States. The stay-at-home orders issued by most states typically banned large gatherings of any kind, including religious services. Churches sued, arguing that these bans violated their religious liberty rights by treating worship services more strictly than analogous activities that were not banned, such as shopping at a liquor store or superstore. This Essay examines these claims, concluding that the constitutionality of the bans turns on the science of how the pathogen spreads, and that the best available scientific evidence supports the mass gathering bans
Confidentiality in The Courts: Privacy Protection or Prior Restraint?
Get PDFIn civil litigation courts often deal with information that is subject to a previously imposed restraint on the ability of a court or others to use the information. Such “evidentiary prior restraints” arise most prominently in settlement agreements, which may include nondisclosure provisions that prevent information concerning the settlement from being used by parties to the agreement. But evidentiary prior restraints can also arise from prior court action, as when parties seek information subject to a protective order or sealing order made by a different court. Although evidentiary prior restraints have received great attention given recent controversies concerning sexual harassment, products liability, and other areas of the law, the issue has not received much attention from scholars.
This essay examines the effects of evidentiary restraints on the enforcement function of civil litigation. In general, the essay concludes that privacy interests alone do not justify the enforcement of litigation restraints because these privacy interests can, and often do, prevent courts from accurately assessing the liability of the parties. Moreover, such restraints prevent market pressure from regulating the conduct of market participants, leading to more harm. Nevertheless, the essay does discuss situations when the protection of privacy interests may aid, rather than hinder, enforcement objectives. Accordingly, the essay concludes that more empirical research should be done to guide courts in determining when evidentiary prior restraints should not be enforced
Their Cheese Has Holes but Their Gun Policy Doesn’t: a Review of the Swiss Gun Policy Compared to the United States
Get PDF“With the right to bear arms come a great responsibility to use caution and common sense on handgun purchases.” – Ronald Reagan
The left will say we need more gun control, the right will say it is our constitutional right to bear arms. Is one truly better than the other? Does the answer lie simply in gun education? This note will scrutinize the history of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution as it relates to gun rights, gun laws, and gun violence. Next, this note will compare those rights, laws, and statistics to that of Switzerland. Switzerland’s gun policy and laws are extremely liberal due to their mandatory requirement of training young men in the handling of guns. As a result, there is little to no gun violence in Switzerland. This note will compare key differences between the two countries who have two very different styles of government all while attempting to find a middle ground where policy, law, and innovation. However, this note will only address what could happen if the United States decided to adopt the Swiss policy