Law Commons^™

Toward A Situational Model For Regulating International Crimes, Andrew K. Woods

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

The international criminal regime, as currently conceived, relies almost exclusively on the power of backward-looking criminal sanctions to deter future international crimes. This model reflects the dominant mid-century approach to crime control, which was essentially reactive. Since then, domestic criminal scholars and practitioners have developed and implemented new theories of crime control—theories notable for their promise of crime prevention through ex ante attention to community and environmental factors. Community policing crime prevention through environmental design, and related "situational" approaches to crime control have had a significant impact on the administration of domestic criminal law.

This Article evaluates the implications of …

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Board Of Adjustment: Fifty Years Later, Kathryn L. Moore

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

Fifty years ago, Jesse Dukeminier, Jr. and Clyde Stapleton published a case study of the practice of law before the Lexington-Fayette Urban County (LFUC) Board of Adjustment. This Article presents a new empirical study of the LFUC Board of Adjustment. Specifically, the study covers the eighteen month period from the Board’s July 2007 meeting through its December 2008 meeting. This Article discusses how the practice has changed and improved in the years since the Dukeminier-Stapleton study and the problems and difficulties that still remain.

The Article begins by describing the current procedure before the LFUC Board of Adjustment and how …

“Testing” Fuller’S Forms And Limits: A Brief Response To Oldfather, Bockhorst, & Dimmer, Scott R. Bauries

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

In Triangulating Judicial Responsiveness, Chad Oldfather, Joseph Bockhorst, and Brian Dimmer give us a methodology by which we can empirically assess (among other things) the effects that argumentation has on judicial decision making. Unlike the vast majority of empirical legal scholarship of judging, the authors do not use this methodology in their current study to compare “legalist” explanations of judging with “realist” explanations of judging. Rather, the study operates almost entirely within the “legalist” frame. This is a welcome development for many reasons, one on which this Response focuses—the authors’ methodology illustrates a way of scientifically “testing” descriptive legal …