4328 research outputs found
Sort by
Rules and Values in Virtual Optimization of California Hydropower
Get PDFOptimization models for California’s hydropower system are designed to be decision-support tools and aids for climate adaptation decision-making. In practice, they fall short of this goal. One potential explanation is that optimization models are not more successful because they are built on, and depend on, a misrepresentation of law and politics. The legal reality of California’s hydropower system is a web of networked jurisdictions of multiple federal and state agencies, with varying levels of coordination, long periods of legally obligated stability with rigid rules, and prone to conflict, but with multiple procedures for conflict resolution. Barriers to climate adaptation from that mix vary according to where a given dam is located. The virtual institutional arrangements represented in optimization models are not a simplification of existing arrangements. Instead, they are a dramatic replacement. That replacement is deliberate and reasoned. As seen in two optimization models supported by the state of California, CALVIN and INFORM, the operation of the optimization function of computer models depends on a virtual system of rules that are centrally controlled, coordinated, nimble, and without the possibility of conflict (let alone conflict resolution). But that smooth virtual system comes with a real cost. Institutional economics suggests that this mismatch between existing formal law and represented law may upend the results of models, since value is determined from institutional context
Comment: Solving the Depraved Heart Murder Problem in Maryland: A Suggestion for Successful Prosecution of Police Officers
Get PDFCurrently, there is no statutory framework for depraved heart murder in Maryland. Additionally, there is a problem with prosecuting this specific kind of murder because Maryland’s common law provides very vague and somewhat flimsy guidance. While prosecuting police officers may prove to be a challenging feat itself, it may be even harder when an officer fails to follow certain procedures or act in certain ways through “acts of omission.”
This Comment will proceed in four parts following this introduction. Part II will provide background information on the Freddie Gray case and the common law in Maryland on depraved
heart murder and the lesser-included offense of involuntary manslaughter. The problematic ambiguities in the current law will be explored when applying the common law to the prosecution of Officer Caesar Goodson. Part III will explore statutes that prove helpful and provide guidance for a possible statutory framework. Part IV explores various tort concepts, such as common carrier liability and professionals’ higher duty of care in certain circumstances, with the intention to borrow from these concepts for a successful prosecution of a police officer charged with depraved heart murder.
Part V proposes a statute for depraved heart murder, using existing criminal statutory schemes as a guide. The proposed statute uses a totality of the circumstances approach, combining the current common law on depraved heart murder with tort theories. Essentially, this recommended framework will proffer that when an officer takes someone into care who can no longer take care of himself, the officer owes a higher duty. More specifically, the standards and training to which police officers must adhere, the restraint on freedom of movement in police custody providing for a vulnerable victim, and evidence that one is suffering from a medical emergency and the failure to respond can be examined in this totality approach. This Comment will analyze the Freddie Gray facts to demonstrate how the statute would operate in depraved heart murder prosecutions
Beyond the First Amendment: What the Evolution of Maryland\u27s Constitutional Free-Speech Guarantee Shows About Its Intended Breadth
Get PDFMost Maryland lawyers are vaguely aware that Maryland\u27s Declaration of Rights contains its own guarantee of free speech that is worded differently from the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. What the Declaration of Rights actually says about free speech, however, and what can be inferred from its distinctive phrasing and legislative history, are not matters that have received much particularized attention. Decisions of Maryland\u27s courts routinely state that Article 40 of the Declaration of Rights - the principal source of state free-speech rights - is construed in pari materia with the First Amendment, which, as a practical matter, has entirely eclipsed Article 40 in safeguarding communicative rights in Maryland. Article 40 contains two principal clauses and one subordinate clause, which differ significantly from the First Amendment\u27s terse, single-clause prohibition against Congressional action infringing freedom of speech and related rights.\u27 Most other states have adopted similar, more detailed formulations of free-speech protection than the simpler federal guarantee.\u27 Displayed side by side for ease of comparison, the Maryland and federal provisions state, respectively, as follows
Implementing A First-Year Research Assessment
Get PDFUniversity of Baltimore Law librarians do not have a formal role in teaching legal research, but are frequent guest lecturers and recognized research experts. As such, we volunteered to administer UB\u27s first summative assessment in accordance with the recent implementation of ABA Standard 314. This poster shows the steps taken to design, execute, and grade this legal research assessment, as well as how we reported the results to stakeholders.
The assessment had an objective true/false and multiple-choice section, and a subjective essay question. The librarians selected objective questions considering the core legal research competencies identified by RIPS-SIS following the MacCrate Report. The objective questions were loaded into TWEN as a quiz, and the subjective question was uploaded as an assignment. We used TWEN to automate grading the objective section. Using a rubric, two librarians graded each subjective essay.
Finally, the library compiled a 55-page report detailing the qualitative and quantitative results. The data showed that classes with regular lectures from librarians did better on the assessment. Consequently, the librarians will teach at least four standardized 75-minute classes to each 1L section in the fall
Reproducing Gender and Race Inequality in the Blawgosphere
Get PDFThe use of the Internet and other digital media to disseminate scholarship has great potential for expanding the range of voices in legal scholarship. Legal blogging, in particular, with its shorter, more informal form, seems ideal for encouraging commentary from a diverse group of scholars. This Chapter tests this idea by exploring the role of blogging in legal scholarship and the level of participation of women and scholars of color on the most visible academic legal blogs. After noting the predominance of white male scholars as regular contributors on these blogs, we analyze the relative lack of diversity in this emerging form of scholarship. Finally, we offer suggestions for reversing these trends and creating a more inclusive blogosphere and enriching its potential for lively, informed scholarship
Indigency, Secrecy, and Questions of Quality: Minimizing the Risk of Bad Mediation for Low-Income Litigants
Get PDFMediation can be magical. In the face of seemingly insurmountable differences, it can lead to productive resolutions far beyond what litigation could ever produce.\u27 In the hands of sophisticated practitioners and in appropriate cases, it offers a means for participants to engage in self-determination and more flexible conflict resolution. In light of how well mediation can work, it has experienced explosive growth in all areas of conflict, and in both private and court-connected contexts. There is, nevertheless, a risk that mediators can be unskilled or, worse, affirmatively damaging. This risk is endemic to all mediation but play out in particularly troubling ways when low-income litigants participate in mediation through court-annexed programs that have few resources, high volume, and uncertain quality control. There are a number of reasons why such a risk exists. There is little consensus about how best to practice mediation. Mediators can and do advocate a wide range of, and sometimes inconsistent, approaches to mediation. The debate becomes foundational, even to the extent that mediators claim that another style of mediation is not mediation at all. This means that mediators do not agree about what the norms of their profession are, and thus, do not agree about whether a mediator is unskilled or not. Indeed, to the extent codes for mediators exist, such as the Uniform Mediation Act and the Model Standards of Conduct for Mediators, they are not detailed because there is not consensus as to what good mediation is. Moreover, confidentiality, while valuable, also has unintended consequences of largely insulating mediations from scrutiny.
The risk of poor mediation intensifies in settings where there are large numbers of low-income litigants. These litigants often know nothing about mediation, may face more powerful litigants, and, in almost all cases, have no legal counsel. The lack of an effective means to assess quality in such a setting creates a risk that such participants will not only fail to experience the many benefits that good mediation can offer, but instead experience the negative consequences that bad mediation can generate.
This Article traces these interlocking circumstances as a means to explore the risks faced by low-income mediation participants. The Article first explores the range of issues that have impeded a unified understanding of the professional norms and identities of mediators. Second, the Article defines bad mediation and the particular vulnerability low-income litigants face in the context of high-volume court-annexed programs. The Article concludes with recommendations about how best to minimize the risk of bad mediation, with a particular emphasis on insuring quality mediation for low-income litigants
Law, Reason, and Emotion
Get PDFThis book examines the role and importance of reason and emotion in justice and the law. Eight lawyers and philosophers of law consider law\u27s basis in the universal human need for society, our innate sense of justice, and many other powerful inclinations and emotions, including the desire for fairness and even for law itself. Human beings are deeply social creatures, inspired by social and other emotions, which can ennoble, support, or undermine the law. Law gains legitimacy and effectiveness when reason recognizes and embraces human emotions for the benefit of society as a whole. This volume explores the power and purposes of reason and emotion in the law.https://scholarworks.law.ubalt.edu/fac_books/1119/thumbnail.jp