Law Commons^™

Pursuing Accountability For Perpetrators Of Intimate Partner Violence: The Peril (And Utility?) Of Shame, A. Rachel Camp

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

This Article explores the use of shame as an accountability intervention for perpetrators of intimate partner abuse, urging caution against its legitimization. Shaming interventions—those designed to publicly humiliate, denigrate, or embarrass perpetrators or other criminal wrongdoers—are justified by some as legitimate legal and extralegal interventions. Judges have sentenced perpetrators of Intimate Partner Violence (“IPV”) to hold signs reading, “This is the face of domestic abuse,” among other publicly humiliating sentences. Culturally, society increasingly uses the Internet and social media to expose perpetrators to public shame for their wrongdoing. On their face, shaming interventions appear rational: perpetrators often belittle, humiliate, and …

What Lawyers Can And Should Do About Mendacity In Politics, Heidi Li Feldman

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Donald Trump has brought new attention to the mendacity of politicians. Both major national newspapers have reported tallies of Trump's false and misleading claims. On November 14, 2017, The Washington Post reported that in the 298 days that President Trump has been president, he had made 1,628 false or misleading claims, telling them at a rate of nine per day in the thirty-five days prior to November 14. Trump, the Post reported, has made fifty false or misleading claims “that he as repeated three or more times.” The Post also catalogued scores of “flip-flops” from Trump. In general, from 2016 …

Deliberative Constitutionalism In The National Security Setting, Mary B. Derosa, Milton C. Regan

Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works

Deliberative democracy theory maintains that authentic deliberation about matters of public concern is an essential condition for the legitimacy of political decisions. Such deliberation has two features. The first is deliberative rigor. This is deliberation guided by public-regarding reasons in a process in which persons are genuinely open to the force of the better argument. The second is transparency. This requires that requires that officials publicly explain the reasons for their decisions in terms that citizens can endorse as acceptable grounds for acting in the name of the political community.

Such requirements would seem to be especially important in the …