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

Law Commons

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

Criminal Law

1985

University of Washington School of Law

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Criminal Justice System's Response To Battering: Understanding The Problem, Forging The Solutions, Kathleen Waits Apr 1985

The Criminal Justice System's Response To Battering: Understanding The Problem, Forging The Solutions, Kathleen Waits

Washington Law Review

This article will focus on the appropriate criminal justice response to battering. Part II describes the nature of the problem of wife beating. It first discusses the extent of abuse in America to demonstrate the seriousness of the problem and the urgent need for solutions. The remainder of Part II looks at the issue on a more individual basis. It examines the battered woman, the batterer, the battering relationship, and the effects of abuse on the couple's children. An understanding of the participants and their relationship, unencumbered by the many myths that surround battering, is essential to creating effective legal …


Civil Rico And The Prior Criminal Conviction Requirement: Has The Second Circuit Drawn The Net Too Tightly?—Sedima, S.P.R.L. V. Imrex Co., 741 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1984), Cert. Granted, 53 U.S.L.W. 3506 (U.S. Jan. 14, 1985) (No. 84-648), Diana K. Carey Apr 1985

Civil Rico And The Prior Criminal Conviction Requirement: Has The Second Circuit Drawn The Net Too Tightly?—Sedima, S.P.R.L. V. Imrex Co., 741 F.2d 482 (2d Cir. 1984), Cert. Granted, 53 U.S.L.W. 3506 (U.S. Jan. 14, 1985) (No. 84-648), Diana K. Carey

Washington Law Review

This Note analyzes the Second Circuit's decision in Sedima against the background of the explosion of civil RICO suits and judicial attempts to contain that explosion. It concludes that courts should reject the prior criminal conviction requirement. The requirement is unsupported by either the language or the legislative history of the act, and in practice the requirement would frustrate legislative purposes and deny recovery to those victims whom Congress intended the act should compensate. Moreover, the requirement nullifies the purpose of the private attorney general concept. Until Congress acts to redefine the statute, other limitations would create more desirable results …