113,422 research outputs found
Wainwright, V R, NX54267
No full textThis record was harvested from a previous catalogue system and will be withdrawn in 2025. Information in this record may be superseded or incomplete. Visit this record in UMA's new catalogue at: https://archives.library.unimelb.edu.au/nodes/view/423313Surname: WAINWRIGHT. Given Name(s) or Initials: V R. Military Service Number or Last Known Location: NX54267. Missing, Wounded and Prisoner of War Enquiry Card Index Number: 22356.249828
Item: [2016.0049.55574] "Wainwright, V R, NX54267
Return to work with chronic pain: employers' and employees' views
Get PDFThis conference papers given to the Society of Occupational Medicine's Annual Scientific Meeting discusses tensions and some possible ameliorating activities from our 2013 paper of the same name., published in their journal: Wainwright, E., Wainwright, D., Keogh, E. and Eccleston, C. Return to work with chronic pain: employers’ and employees’ views. Occupational Medicine 2013: doi:0.1093/occmed/kqt109. The conference homepage is here;http://www.som-asm.org.uk/Programme_SOM_ASM.aspAbstractBackgroundThe sickness certification and return to work (RTW) of people with chronic pain are important health and economic issues for employees, employers, taxpayers and the UK government. The ‘fit note’ and a national educational programme promoting RTW were introduced in 2010 to curb rising rates of sickness absence. AimsTo investigate employers’ and employees’ experiences of managing RTW when someone has taken sick leave for chronic pain, and to explore the perceived efficacy of the fit note.MethodsA qualitative study, comprising semi-structured interviews with employers who had managed sick leave cases and employees who had experienced sick leave for chronic pain. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and the data analysed using constructivist grounded theory principles.ResultsFive themes were elicited. Firstly, frequent enquiry after health status was seen as intrusive by some employees but part of good practice by employers and acknowledging this difference was useful. Secondly, being able to trust employees due to their performance track record was helpful for employers when dealing with complex chronic pain conditions. Thirdly, feeling valued increased employees’ motivation to return to work. Fourthly, guidelines about maintaining contact with absent employees were useful if used flexibly. Finally, both parties valued the fit note for its positive language, interrogative format and biomedical authority. ConclusionsThe fit note was perceived to be helpful if used in combination with other strategies for managing sick leave and RTW for people with chronic pain. These strategies may be applicable to other fluctuating, long-term conditions with medically unexplained elements. <br/
50 Years after Gideon v. Wainwright: County Plan Would End Nonprofit Defender Program
Get PDF50 Years after Gideon v. Wainwright: County Plan Would End Nonprofit Defender Progra
Complementary microCT data for Scale diversity in bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus): fat-filled trabecular scales made of cellular bone
No full textWainwright, D. K., Ingersoll, S., and Lauder, G. V. (2018) Scale diversity in bigeye tuna (Thunnus obesus): fat-filled trabecular scales made of cellular bone. Journal of Morphology
Fifty Years of Defiance and Resistance After Gideon v. Wainwright
No full textIn its 1963 ruling Gideon v. Wainwright, the Supreme Court declared the right to
a lawyer "fundamental and essential" to fairness in the criminal courts and held that lawyers
must be provided for people who could not afford them so that every person "stands equal
before the law." In later decisions, the Court ruled that a poor person facing any loss of liberty
must have a lawyer "so that the accused may know precisely what he is doing, so that he is fully
aware of the prospect of going to jail or prison, and so that he is treated fairly by the
prosecution." This Essay argues that fifty years later, this right has not been realized. The U.S.
criminal system is not truly adversarial because prosecutors possess broad, unchecked power and
therefore determine results in criminal cases with little or no input from the defense.
Governments have failed to adequately fund defense systems, many judges tolerate or welcome
inadequate representation, and the Supreme Court has refused to require competent
representation, instead adopting a standard of "effective counsel" that hides and perpetuates
deficient representation. In this system, poverty, not justice, dictates outcomes
Implications of Gideon v. Wainwright on American Society
Get PDF“Your Honor, I request this Court to appoint counsel to represent me in this trial,”1 stated defendant Clearance Earl Gideon before the Judicial Circuit Court of Florida. The court replied, “Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the court can appoint counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request for counsel to defend you in this case.”2 Before 1963 there was no standard in American state courts requiring counsel as an essential fundamental right. Gideon v Wainwright is a landmark case in Supreme Court history because it was a vital step in the fight for the right to legal counsel. The court unanimously ruled that all state courts were required under the Sixth Amendment, of the United States Constitution, to provide counsel in all criminal cases for defendants who were not able to afford counsel.3 Gideon overruled a twenty year old Supreme Court decision in Betts v Brady by establishing that due process as incorporated in the Fourteenth Amendment obligated the states to furnish counsel in every case. Gideon v Wainwright has helped to remove vulnerabilities and ambiguities in the criminal justice system. It further protects American society by helping to provide an egalitarian system of administering justice, setting a clear standard for state courts to follow and allowing room for future developments in the right to counsel
Gideon v. Wainwright--From a 1963 Perspective
No full textGideon v. Wainwright is more than a “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in the field of constitutional criminal procedure. As evidenced by the range of celebrators of Gideon’s Fiftieth Anniversary (extending far beyond the legal academy) and Gideon’s inclusion in the basic coverage of high school government courses, Gideon today is an icon of the American justice system. I have no quarrel with that iconic status, but I certainly did not see any such potential in Gideon when I analyzed the Court’s ruling shortly after it was announced in March of 1963. I had previously agreed to write an article for the Supreme Court Review’s coverage of the Court’s 1962–63 term. Phillip Kurland, the Review’s editor, made Gideon my assignment, noting that the Court during that term had decided numerous constitutional criminal procedure cases and Gideon clearly was the most prominent of those rulings. As my research progressed, I came to the conclusion that Gideon was more significant as a case study in the crafting of an opinion that overruled a previous decision (Gideon had overruled Betts v. Brady) than as a contribution to the field of constitutional criminal procedure. Indeed, as I noted in the introduction to my article on Gideon and the “art of overruling,” Gideon appeared to have less doctrinal and practical significance than two other criminal procedure rulings decided on the same day—Douglas v. California and Fay v. Noia. This Essay recounts the analysis that led me to view Gideon in 1963 as an important, but limited, decision—certainly not one destined to be an all-time landmark ruling
Gideon v. Wainwright--From a 1963 Perspective
No full textGideon v. Wainwright is more than a “landmark” Supreme Court ruling in the field of constitutional criminal procedure. As evidenced by the range of celebrators of Gideon’s Fiftieth Anniversary (extending far beyond the legal academy) and Gideon’s inclusion in the basic coverage of high school government courses, Gideon today is an icon of the American justice system. I have no quarrel with that iconic status, but I certainly did not see any such potential in Gideon when I analyzed the Court’s ruling shortly after it was announced in March of 1963. I had previously agreed to write an article for the Supreme Court Review’s coverage of the Court’s 1962–63 term. Phillip Kurland, the Review’s editor, made Gideon my assignment, noting that the Court during that term had decided numerous constitutional criminal procedure cases and Gideon clearly was the most prominent of those rulings. As my research progressed, I came to the conclusion that Gideon was more significant as a case study in the crafting of an opinion that overruled a previous decision (Gideon had overruled Betts v. Brady) than as a contribution to the field of constitutional criminal procedure. Indeed, as I noted in the introduction to my article on Gideon and the “art of overruling,” Gideon appeared to have less doctrinal and practical significance than two other criminal procedure rulings decided on the same day—Douglas v. California and Fay v. Noia. This Essay recounts the analysis that led me to view Gideon in 1963 as an important, but limited, decision—certainly not one destined to be an all-time landmark ruling
author-bios-SRD-19-0063.R1 – Supplemental material for The Network Structure of Police Misconduct
No full textSupplemental material, author-bios-SRD-19-0063.R1 for The Network Structure of Police Misconduct by George Wood, Daria Roithmayr and Andrew V. Papachristos in Socius</p
Wainwright v. Sykes: The Lower Federal Courts Respond
No full textIn 1977, the Supreme Court in Wainwright v. Sykes formulated a causeand- prejudice test for determining whether the failure of a state prisoner to raise a federal constitutional claim at trial in accordance with state procedures will foreclose federal habeas review. The Court, however, reserved for future resolution the precise definition of this test. In this Article, the authors examine the lower court decisions in the wake of Sykes that have grappled with the cause-and-prejudice test as well as the sources of authority that may help to define the terms. The authors conclude that prejudice has been interpreted as a variant of the harmless-error doctrine and that cause is a variable standard under which the requisite showing of cause diminishes as the possibility of an unjust incarceration increases
- …
