Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Do Mandatory Minimums Increase Racial Disparities In Federal Criminal Sentencing?, Caroline Gillette
Do Mandatory Minimums Increase Racial Disparities In Federal Criminal Sentencing?, Caroline Gillette
Undergraduate Economic Review
Black males received sentences about twenty percent longer than similarly situated white males from 2012 to 2016. Some of this inequality may be introduced by mandatory minimum sentences. Charges carrying a mandatory minimum sentence are brought against Black defendants at higher rates than white defendants. It has been argued that these sentences introduce bias in two ways: legislatively (the types of crimes that carry a mandatory minimum) and in the way these sentences are put into practice (increasing prosecutorial discretion). This brief explores whether mandatory minimum sentences increase racial inequality in criminal sentencing.
The Shochu Conundrum: Economics And Gatt Article Iii, Alex Davis
The Shochu Conundrum: Economics And Gatt Article Iii, Alex Davis
Undergraduate Economic Review
This paper will discuss the National Treatment (NT) obligation contained in Article III of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) 1994 as applied in precedential tax discrimination cases. Case law has not taken a firm stance on the economic versus legal interpretation of the likeness/directly competitive or substitutable (DCS) criterion or the principle of “so as to afford protection” (SATAP) captured in Article III.2. After examining the case law on discriminatory taxation, I conclude that the NT obligation in trade agreements is imperfect. Nonetheless, NT is a critical component of these agreements, and the international trade order would …
United States V General Dynamics: A Reappraisal, Anthony Wylie
United States V General Dynamics: A Reappraisal, Anthony Wylie
University Avenue Undergraduate Journal of Economics
The purpose of this paper is to examine the reasons behind Material Services’ acquisitions, the reasons why the Government contested the mergers, and how the Government erred in analyzing the case. We wish to show that the combination of the three coal firms—Material Services, Freeman Coal, and United Electric—occurred for reasons of economic efficiency and practicality, not based on any atavistic desire to monopolize and damage social welfare.