Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Digital Commons Network

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 4 of 4

Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network

Corporate Compliance With The Fcpa, Albert L. Beswick Jan 1982

Corporate Compliance With The Fcpa, Albert L. Beswick

Syracuse Journal of International Law and Commerce

American corporations have learned to live reasonably with, if not actually love, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Congress is currently being told that there are things that need correcting in the Act. Congress will eventually face these problems rather seriously so that a bill in some form will amend some of the things wrong with the Act. It is doubtful that any business person of good faith thinks there is anything wrong with the theses behind the Act. Business has learned, to its benefit, to live with the requirements of the Act.


A Case Against The Kantian Retributivist Theory Of Punishment: A Response To Professor Pugsley, Leon Pearl Jan 1982

A Case Against The Kantian Retributivist Theory Of Punishment: A Response To Professor Pugsley, Leon Pearl

Hofstra Law Review

No abstract provided.


Post-Whalen Double Jeopardy In Virginia, Ronald J. Bacigal Jan 1982

Post-Whalen Double Jeopardy In Virginia, Ronald J. Bacigal

Law Faculty Publications

The constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy serves three distinct purposes: (1) prohibition of a second prosecution after acquittal; (2) prohibition of a second prosecution after conviction; and (3) prohibition of multiple punishments for the same offense. This article addresses the problem of defining "the same offense," and specifically focuses on the application of the Blockburger test in light of Whalen v. United States.


Salvaging Proportionate Prison Sentencing: A Reply To Rummel V. Estelle, Thomas F. Cavalier Jan 1982

Salvaging Proportionate Prison Sentencing: A Reply To Rummel V. Estelle, Thomas F. Cavalier

University of Michigan Journal of Law Reform

Part I of this Note provides a capsule of the Court's holding in Rummel. Part II argues, contrary to Rummel, that precedential support can be mustered to support eighth amendment review of sentence length. Finally, part 11,1 discusses the continued viability of the proportionality test as a vehicle for assessing challenges to the length of imprisonment, and discounts the concerns voiced in Rummel regarding the difficulty of judicial review of legislative sentencing decisions.