KRISTA DOLAN, American University - Washington College of Law
Email: dolan.krista@gmail.com

A paper focusing on the concurrent problems of the juvenile justice system and the education system, and the need for collaboration between officials within each organization. It begins by examining problems with zero-tolerance polices themselves, as well as with the unintended consequences resulting from these policies. It then examines how zero-tolerance policies are exacerbated when juveniles actually enter the system due to inadequate education in juvenile justice facilities.

MUHAMMAD ASIF NAWAZ, Institute of Social and Cultural Studies
Email: m.m.asif92@gmail.com

Sociology of law controls the behavior, attitudes, and the actions of the individuals to balance their social situation. Each society is controlled by the agents of social control like family, neighborhood, religion, education, law, administration, force, and public opinion.

In Pakistan, money, land, sexual assault, illiteracy, honor killing, old enmity, and drug are the main factors causing juvenile delinquency.

Pakistan has more potential to control crime and violence by the implementation of informal and formal social control.

In this modern world media which is considered as the fourth pillar of the state, the big tool of controlling the agents of informal social control like family, religion, public opinion etc.

Formal social control agents is carried out by state, such as police officers, judges, school administrative law, control of deviance through civil commitment and criminal law, employers, military officers, and non-political control agencies, like NGOs.

Pakistani families are mostly illiterate, they don’t know what should do and what we should not do. They don’t know what socialization is?

Mostly criminals are the product of poverty, wrong socialization of family and the negative environmental circumstances.

To control poverty, Human resource management should make effective and fair and the distribution of wealth should be equal, if we want equality we will have to follow the Islamic principles of economics.

PAUL STOCKTON, Sonecon, LLC
Email: pstockton@sonecon.com
MICHELE GOLABEK-GOLDMAN, Yale Law School
Email: michele.goldman@yale.edu

The United States faces a growing risk of cyberterrorism against its financial system, electric power grid, and other critical infrastructure sectors. Senior U.S. policymakers note that building U.S. capacity to prosecute cyberterrorists could play a key role in deterring and disrupting such attacks. To facilitate prosecution, the federal government is bolstering its technical expertise to attribute attacks to those who perpetrate them, even when, as is increasingly the case, the perpetrators exploit computers in dozens of nations to strike U.S. infrastructure. Relatively little attention has been paid, however, to another prerequisite for prosecuting cyberterrorists: that of building a legal framework that can bring those who attack from abroad to justice.

The best approach to prosecuting cybeterrorists striking from abroad is to add extraterritorial application to current domestic criminal laws bearing on cyberattack. Yet, scholars have barely begun to explore how the United States can best justify such extraterritorial extension under international law and assert a legitimate claim of prescriptive jurisdiction when a terrorist hijacks thousands of computers across the globe. Still less attention has been paid to the question of how to resolve the conflicting claims of national jurisdiction that such attacks would likely engender.

This Article argues that the protective principle — which predicates prescriptive jurisdiction on whether a nation suffered a fundamental security threat — should govern cyberterrorist prosecutions. To support this argument, the Article examines the full range of principles on which states could claim prescriptive jurisdiction and assesses their strengths and weaknesses for extending extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes to cyberterrorism. This Article also contends that if multiple nations asserted legitimate claims of jurisdiction based on the protective principle, sequential prosecutions would provide the best way to minimize potential disagreements over which nation receives precedence. Both recommendations — to utilize the protective principle for prescriptive jurisdiction and to rely on sequential prosecutions to resolve multiple jurisdictional claims — could be important components of future international agreements to address cyberterrorism.

TAKANORI ABE, Osaka University - Graduate School of Medicine
Email: abe@abe-law.com
LI-JUNG HWANG, Baker & McKenzie - Taiwan

Although the Japanese legislators have expressly indicated that the U.S. protective order was used as a reference point when introducing the Japanese protective order regime, the two regimes are vastly different in law and in practice. Protective orders in Japan are not as frequently used as originally expected. The reason for this rather cold reception is likely to have been caused by the chilling effect of the criminal sanctions associated with protective orders. The same phenomenon can also be seen in Taiwan. Despite years of reform, a full debate in the court room is still lacking. The fact that a protective order is used only as the absolute last resort in Taiwan greatly limits the capability of a protective order to be a useful tool in ensuring a full debate, and, as a result, the parties in trial continue to rely on the limited evidence provided voluntarily. The limited and cautious use of protective orders in Japan has yielded similar results. There is a clear need for change in both the law and the practice for practitioners to fully utilize protective orders effectively in trials. One tends to think of the following in making suggestions for change: Are criminal sanctions substantially hindering the application of protective orders? Will an amendment of the law to lessen the criminal sanctions be helpful? If there are no criminal sanctions similar to contempt of court in the common-law system, how will the confidentiality of the documents be secured? In Japan and Taiwan, the obligation of document production under the law is rather loose, making protective orders not an indispensable tool. Thus, it may not be sufficient to only examine protective orders to find a feasible resolution. In the U.S., parties are required to produce a broad scope of documents as long as the documents and information are relevant. It is very clear that for the U.S., the protective order is indispensible in discovery. In order that the protective order will become an effective tool which can be used to achieve and ensure that a full debate takes place in the court room during litigation, and to ease the burden of proof of parties, it may be worthwhile to contemplate the possibility of establishing a more comprehensive evidence discovery regime.

JINMEI MENG, Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law
Email: tue80081@temple.edu
SCOTT BURRIS, Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law
Email: scott.burris@temple.edu

The behavior of police is an important factor in drug users’ access to preventive and therapeutic health services. In China, opiate users must be registered and approved by police before accessing methadone maintenance treatment (MMT). We conducted a literature review to identify studies reporting original data about the influence of Chinese drug policing activities on MMT access and outcomes. Searches were conducted in PubMed, the Law Journal Library of HeinOnline, the Social Science Citation Index and China Academic Journals of CNKI for empirical studies conducted in China and published in academic journals between 2005 and April 2012. The initial literature search retrieved 276 records, of which 85 were included in the review and 191 were excluded. The majority of the included papers were single-clinic observational studies. These studies reported that: (1) fear of incarceration deterred users from initiating and continuing MMT; (2) the rates of MMT referral by police were considerably lower than those by drug user peers and by community and the media; (3) police sending users to compulsory detoxification (DETOX) and reeducation through labor (RTL) centers contributed to higher rates of MMT patient dropout; (4) arrests in and around MMT clinics were not uncommon; (5) cooperation between local police and public health agencies was difficult to achieve; and (6) a limited number of trial programs were conducted to refer detainees in DETOX to MMT clinics after release, but the outcomes were not promising. Reviewed studies report drug policing practices that appear to be impeding MMT access and reducing successful treatment outcomes. Research focusing on the nature, prevalence and severity of these effects is urgently needed. Health and public security officials in China should review and reform policies and practices of registering, monitoring, and incarcerating drug users.

MICHAL GILAD, American Association of University Women (AAUW), AEquitas: The Prosecutors' Resource on Violence Against Women
Email: gmichal@alumni.law.upenn.edu
TAL GAT, Independent

Since the mid-1980’s the U.S. women prison population has increased by more than 430%. More than 66% of incarcerated women are mothers. It was estimated that in the U.S. alone more than 250,000 minor children suffer from maternal separation due to incarceration. Similar trends of a growing number of children affected by maternal incarceration are also identified in Europe and other regions. We argue that, in this reality, Prison Nursery Programs, which allow children to accompany their mothers to prison, provide a valuable alternative. These programs, if properly implemented, can benefit not only the best interests of the child, but also the mother, the state and the general public.