109,689 research outputs found
HART - DEVLIN TARTIŞMASINDAOLMAYAN ARGÜMANLAR
No full textAhlakın hukuk tarafından meşru bir şekilde hangi gerekçelerle dayatılabileceği meselesi oldukça geniş kapsamlı ve önemli bir meseledir. Hart-Devlin tartışması bu konuda bir referans noktasıdır. Bu tartışmada Lord Devlin, eşcinsel ilişkilerin, toplumsal değerlere aykırılık gerekçesi ile hukuk tarafından meşru bir şekilde yasaklanabileceğini savunmuştur. Devlin’e göre hukukun toplumsal değerleri muhafaza işlevini sağlamaması halinde toplumsal çözülmeye kapıaçılır. H. L. A. Hart ise hukukun kişilerin başkalarına veya kendilerine zararı olmayan rızaya dayalı ilişkilerine karışmasının doğru olmadığını ve hukukun toplumdaki çoğunluğun değerlerini yansıtmamasının toplumsal çözülmeye sebep olmayacağını savunmuştur. Hart-Devlin tartışması birçok açıdan aydınlatıcı olsa da bu konu hakkında bu tartışmada öne sürülen argümanlardan fazlası vardır. Aristoteles, Aquinas, Finnis, George, Feinberg, Rawls, Dworkin ve Raz gibi pek çok düşünürün konu hakkında farklı görüşleri mevcuttur. Tüm bu farklı yaklaşımların incelenmesi, konunun basit formüller ile çözülemeyeceğini göstermektedir
Devlin P. Morals and Contemporary Social Reality / trans. from Engl. A. B. Didikin, O. A. Radchenko
No full textIn the seventh and final chapter of his «The Enforcement of Morals», P. Devlin
elaborates on a several of arguments for his polemic with H. L. A. Hart on issues
of the relationship between law and morals. Based on the recommendations of the
Wolfenden Committee which proposed a radical reform of English criminal law in
the direction of decriminalizing a few of criminally punishable offences with immoral
content, Devlin notes their extreme contradiction in terms of protecting the values
of public morals. The chapter also criticizes the key arguments of J. S. Mill’s doctrine
of the balance of liberty and state coercio
HART - DEVLIN TARTIŞMASINDA OLMAYAN ARGÜMANLAR
No full textAhlakın hukuk tarafından meşru bir şekilde hangi gerekçelerle dayatılabileceği meselesi oldukça geniş kapsamlı ve önemli bir meseledir. Hart-Devlin tartışması bu konuda bir referans noktasıdır. Bu tartışmada Lord Devlin, eşcinsel ilişkilerin, toplumsal değerlere aykırılık gerekçesi ile hukuk tarafından meşru bir şekilde yasaklanabileceğini savunmuştur. Devlin’e göre hukukun toplumsal değerleri muhafaza işlevini sağlamaması halinde toplumsal çözülmeye kapı açılır. H. L. A. Hart ise hukukun kişilerin başkalarına veya kendilerine zararı olmayan rızaya dayalı ilişkilerine karışmasının doğru olmadığını ve hukukun toplumdaki çoğunluğun değerlerini yansıtmamasının toplumsal çözülmeye sebep olmayacağını savunmuştur. Hart-Devlin tartışması birçok açıdan aydınlatıcı olsa da bu konu hakkında bu tartışmada öne sürülen argümanlardan fazlası vardır. Aristoteles, Aquinas, Finnis, George, Feinberg, Rawls, Dworkin ve Raz gibi pek çok düşünürün konu hakkında farklı görüşleri mevcuttur. Tüm bu farklı yaklaşımların incelenmesi, konunun basit formüller ile çözülemeyeceğini göstermektedir
Moral Goals and Legal Coercion: Philosophical and Legal Arguments of Patrick Devlin
No full textThe paper analyzes the arguments of the British jurist P. Devlin on the possibility
of ensuring the achievement of moral goals by legal means. The views of P. Devlin
and his debate with H. L. A. Hart gave rise to deep discussions on the relationship
between moral and legal prescriptions in legislation and the search for moral
grounds for legal norms and practice of its application. The paper also reconstructs
P. Devlin’s arguments on the specifics of the application of the principle of harm
compensation in assessing actions that contradict public moralit
The selective inhibition of serpin aggregation by the molecular chaperone, alpha-crystallin, indicates a nucleation-dependent specificity
No full textCopyright © 2003 by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.Glyn L. Devlin, John A. Carver and Stephen P. Bottomle
Cancer Treatment Side Effects: A Meta-analysis of the Relationship Between Response Expectancies and Experience
No full textLink to a related website: http://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885392417301860/pdf, Open Access via UnpaywallAbstract not availableElise J. Devlin, Linley A. Denson and Hayley S. Whitfor
Investigating sentence weighting components for automatic summarisation
No full textThe work described here initially formed part of a triangulation exercise to establish the effectiveness of the Query Term Order algorithm. The methodology produced subsequently proved to be a reliable indicator of quality for summarising English web documents. We utilised the human summaries from the Document Understanding Conference data, and generated queries automatically for testing the QTO algorithm. Six sentence weighting schemes that made use of Query Term Frequency and QTO were constructed to produce system summaries, and this paper explains the process of combining and balancing the weighting components. We also examined the five automatically generated query terms in their different permutations to check if the automatic generation of query terms resulting bias. The summaries produced were evaluated by the ROUGE-1 metric, and the results showed that using QTO in a weighting combination resulted in the best performance. We also found that using a combination of more weighting components always produced improved performance compared to any single weighting component
Redressing the Imbalances: Rethinking The Judicial Role After R. v R.D.S.
No full textThe Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. R.D.S. dealt with whether a trial judge\u27s comments, about interactions between police officers and non-white groups , gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the circumstances. They strongly criticize the contrary ruling of the dissent as inappropriately drawing a false dichotomy between decisions based on evidence and decisions based on generalizations, and as improperly ignoring social context with an unwarranted confidence in the ideology of colour blindness. While more supportive of the majority\u27s analysis, the authors also find cause for concern, with somewhat different emphasis in the nature of their concerns. Although they endorse the willingness of Justices McLachlin and L\u27Heureux-Dubé to take social context into account, the authors (Devlin more than Pothier) think there is insufficient cause expressed. Devlin is more impressed, and Pothier more troubled, by the greater caution regarding social context expressed by Cory and Iacobucci JJ. As regards the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias, Devlin is concerned that the high threshold probability test improperly isolates judges from effective accountability, whereas Pothier supports the high threshold test so as not to render complex substantive equality analysis vulnerable to the challenge of bias. Both authors endorse the acknowledgement of the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada that colour blindness is not necessarily synonymous with impartiality.
Dans l\u27arrêt R. c. R.D.S., la Cour suprême du Canada devait déterminer si les remarques du juge du procès concernant les interactions entre les policiers et les groupes non blancs soulevaient une crainte raisonnable de partialité dans les circonstances. Les auteurs critiquent sévèrement l\u27opinion dissidente au motif qu\u27elle établit une fausse dichotomie entre les décisions fondées sur la preuve et les décisions fondées sur des généralisations et au motif qu\u27elle ne tient pas compte du contexte social, prêtant un importance indue à l\u27idéologie de la non-distinction des couleurs. Bien que favorisant davantage l\u27analyse de la majorité, les auteurs formulent certaines préoccupations, de nature différente. Tout en souscrivant à la thèse des juges McLachlin et L\u27Heureux-Dubé qui sont prêtes à prendre en ligne de compte le contexte social, les auteurs (Devlin plus que Pothier) sont d\u27avis que la justification n\u27est pas suffisante. Devlin est surtout impressionné, et Pothier perturbée, par la mise en garde des juges Cory et Iacobucci concernant le contexte social. En ce qui a trait au critère de la crainte raisonnable de partialité, selon Devlin, la norme de probabilité très élevée met le juge indûment à l\u27abri de l\u27imputabilité véritable, alors que Pothier appuie le critère de la norme élevée afin que l\u27analyse complexe des principes de fonds en matière d\u27égalité ne soit pas rendue plus difficile par une allégation de partialité. Les deux auteurs partagent la conclusion de la majorité de la Cour suprême du Canada que la non-distinction des couleurs n\u27est pas nécessairement synonyme d\u27impartialité
Redressing the Imbalances: Rethinking The Judicial Role After R. v R.D.S.
No full textThe Decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. R.D.S. dealt with whether a trial judge\u27s comments, about interactions between police officers and non-white groups , gave rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias in the circumstances. They strongly criticize the contrary ruling of the dissent as inappropriately drawing a false dichotomy between decisions based on evidence and decisions based on generalizations, and as improperly ignoring social context with an unwarranted confidence in the ideology of colour blindness. While more supportive of the majority\u27s analysis, the authors also find cause for concern, with somewhat different emphasis in the nature of their concerns. Although they endorse the willingness of Justices McLachlin and L\u27Heureux-Dubé to take social context into account, the authors (Devlin more than Pothier) think there is insufficient cause expressed. Devlin is more impressed, and Pothier more troubled, by the greater caution regarding social context expressed by Cory and Iacobucci JJ. As regards the test for a reasonable apprehension of bias, Devlin is concerned that the high threshold probability test improperly isolates judges from effective accountability, whereas Pothier supports the high threshold test so as not to render complex substantive equality analysis vulnerable to the challenge of bias. Both authors endorse the acknowledgement of the majority in the Supreme Court of Canada that colour blindness is not necessarily synonymous with impartiality.
Dans l\u27arrêt R. c. R.D.S., la Cour suprême du Canada devait déterminer si les remarques du juge du procès concernant les interactions entre les policiers et les groupes non blancs soulevaient une crainte raisonnable de partialité dans les circonstances. Les auteurs critiquent sévèrement l\u27opinion dissidente au motif qu\u27elle établit une fausse dichotomie entre les décisions fondées sur la preuve et les décisions fondées sur des généralisations et au motif qu\u27elle ne tient pas compte du contexte social, prêtant un importance indue à l\u27idéologie de la non-distinction des couleurs. Bien que favorisant davantage l\u27analyse de la majorité, les auteurs formulent certaines préoccupations, de nature différente. Tout en souscrivant à la thèse des juges McLachlin et L\u27Heureux-Dubé qui sont prêtes à prendre en ligne de compte le contexte social, les auteurs (Devlin plus que Pothier) sont d\u27avis que la justification n\u27est pas suffisante. Devlin est surtout impressionné, et Pothier perturbée, par la mise en garde des juges Cory et Iacobucci concernant le contexte social. En ce qui a trait au critère de la crainte raisonnable de partialité, selon Devlin, la norme de probabilité très élevée met le juge indûment à l\u27abri de l\u27imputabilité véritable, alors que Pothier appuie le critère de la norme élevée afin que l\u27analyse complexe des principes de fonds en matière d\u27égalité ne soit pas rendue plus difficile par une allégation de partialité. Les deux auteurs partagent la conclusion de la majorité de la Cour suprême du Canada que la non-distinction des couleurs n\u27est pas nécessairement synonyme d\u27impartialité
- …
