Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
"Let's Do The Time Warp Again": Assessing The Competence Of Counsel In Mental Health Conservatorship Proceedings, Grant H. Morris
"Let's Do The Time Warp Again": Assessing The Competence Of Counsel In Mental Health Conservatorship Proceedings, Grant H. Morris
Grant H Morris
Thirty years ago, I wrote an article on mental health conservatorships in California and the role of counsel for persons for whom a conservatorship has been proposed. Data was gathered on the performance of attorneys in court hearings conducted in San Diego County Superior Court. The data revealed that lawyers representing proposed conservatees were inactive and ineffective in representing their clients’ interests. The lawyers did not consider themselves advocates in an adversary process in which conservatorship was to be avoided. A year after the article was published, the California Supreme Court, citing that article as authority for the “paternalistic attitude” …
On The Boundaries Of Culture As An Affirmative Defense, Reid Griffith Fontaine, Eliot M. Held
On The Boundaries Of Culture As An Affirmative Defense, Reid Griffith Fontaine, Eliot M. Held
Reid G. Fontaine
A “cultural defense” to criminal culpability cannot achieve true pluralism without collapsing into a totally subjective, personal standard. Applying an objective cultural standard does not rescue a defendant from the external imposition of values—the purported aim of the cultural defense—because a cultural standard is, at its core, an external standard imposed onto an individual. The pluralist argument for a cultural defense also fails on its own terms—after all, justice systems are themselves cultural institutions. Furthermore, a defendant’s background is already accounted for at sentencing. The closest thing to a cultural defense that a court could adopt without damaging the culpability …
The Intersection Of Judicial Attitudes And Litigant Selection Theories: Explaining U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Jeff L. Yates, Elizabeth Coggins
The Intersection Of Judicial Attitudes And Litigant Selection Theories: Explaining U.S. Supreme Court Decision Making, Jeff L. Yates, Elizabeth Coggins
Jeff L Yates
Two prominent theories of legal decision making provide seemingly contradictory explanations for judicial outcomes. In political science, the Attitudinal Model suggests that judicial outcomes are driven by judges' sincere policy preferences -- judges bring their ideological inclinations to the decision making process and their case outcome choices largely reflect these policy preferences. In contrast, in the law and economics literature, Priest and Klein's well-known Selection Hypothesis posits that court outcomes are largely driven by the litigants' strategic choices in the selection of cases for formal dispute or adjudication -- forward thinking litigants settle cases where potential judicial outcomes are readily …
The Science And Politics Of Ecological Risk: Bioinvasions Policies In The Us And Australia., Zdravka Tzankova
The Science And Politics Of Ecological Risk: Bioinvasions Policies In The Us And Australia., Zdravka Tzankova
Zdravka Tzankova
The US and Australia – western democracies with similar histories of public awareness on environmental issues and broadly comparable records of policy and regulatory action to safeguard environmental quality – have responded differently to one of the newest and most significant threats to marine bioidiversity: that of biological invasions mediated by the ballast water of commercial shipping. Each country has framed the same invasion risks differently for the purposes of policy and regulation: Australia has decided to use a more narrowly circumscribed, target-species-based approach whereas US policy and regulation takes a more comprehensive and precautionary approach. These somewhat surprising national …