Announcements

The Center for Law, Society, and Culture (http://www.law.indiana.edu/centers/lawsociety/) is sponsored by the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. The Center actively supports and promotes multidisciplinary understanding of law and legal problems through scholarship, teaching, and discussion. The Center is located in the School of Law on the Bloomington campus of Indiana University, but produces, presents and coordinates research conducted by more than 70 scholars from schools and departments across Indiana University. The Center's affiliated scholars hold appointments in African-American studies, business, criminal justice, journalism, history, economics, English, law, and gender studies, among others, and are dedicated to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the role of law in society and culture. The Center supports research related to the law in a broad sense, including the cultural aspects of law expressed through political theory and scientific aspects of law expressed through technological advances in biotechnology, environmental science and information technology.


Table of Contents

Imagining More than Just a Prisoner: The Work of Prisoners’ Penfriends

Jacqueline Hodgson, University of Warwick - School of Law
Juliet Horne, University of Warwick

Measuring the Negative Externalities of a Private Leisure Activity: Hooligans and Pickpockets Around the Stadium

Daniel Montolio, University of Barcelona - Faculty of Economic Science and Business Studies
Simón Planells, University of Barcelona

Presumed Fair? Voir Dire on the Fundamentals of Our Criminal Justice System

Vida B. Johnson, Georgetown University Law Center

Comment: 'I Did Not Hurt Him...This Is a Nightmare': The Introduction of False, But Not Fabricated, Forensic Science in Police Interrogations

Catherine E White, Wisconsin Law Review

An Ultimate 'La Fin Du Monde': A TCP (Text, Context and Purpose) Surgery of the Fault Element in the Child Abandonment Case by the Supreme Court of Canada: Re-ADH Case [R. V. A.D.H: [2013] 2] - a Subjective Fault Element.

Rajiv Ranjan, Government of India - Department of Revenue, York University, Osgoode Hall Law School, Students

Sense and 'Sensitivity': Epistemic and Instrumental Approaches to Statistical Evidence

David Enoch, Hebrew University - The Philosophy Department and the Law School
Talia Fisher, Tel Aviv University - Buchmann Faculty of Law, Harvard Law School, Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

What is the Relationship between Unemployment and Rape? Evidence from a Panel of European Regions

Raul Caruso, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan


LAW & SOCIETY: PUBLIC LAW - CRIME, CRIMINAL LAW, & PUNISHMENT eJOURNAL
Sponsored by: Indiana University Maurer School of Law

"Imagining More than Just a Prisoner: The Work of Prisoners’ Penfriends" Free Download
Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2015/12

JACQUELINE HODGSON, University of Warwick - School of Law
Email:
JULIET HORNE, University of Warwick
Email:

Prisoners Penfriends is a small charitable organisation that facilitates and supervises letter-­writing between prisoners and trained volunteers. In the light of current resource pressures on the prison system and a recent rise in prisoner suicides, it is timely to examine whether this befriending project may be able to contribute to the well-­being and rehabilitation of prisoners. This research project set out to gather and analyse the views of prisoners and volunteers about the work of Prisoners’ Penfriends, particularly its impact on prisoners’ well-­being and on their feelings about life after release from prison. The views were gathered through telephone interviews (volunteers) and through questionnaires (prisoners and volunteers).

"Measuring the Negative Externalities of a Private Leisure Activity: Hooligans and Pickpockets Around the Stadium" Free Download
IEB Working Paper N. 2015/15

DANIEL MONTOLIO, University of Barcelona - Faculty of Economic Science and Business Studies
Email:
SIMÓN PLANELLS, University of Barcelona
Email:

Given the recent increase observed in crime and violence related to sport activities and the subsequent need for governments to devote more resources to deter this pattern, this article presents empirical evidence that could justify the possibility of taxing the negative externalities associated with the staging of football matches. Focusing specifically on theft (mainly pick pocketing) and assault (interpersonal violence or hooliganism), we seek to determine the extent to which this private leisure activity is responsible for negative crime externalities on a urban context. Drawing on data for the matches played by Football Club Barcelona (FCB) and geocoded crime data for the city of Barcelona (Spain), we assess whether there is an increase in thefts and assaults across the city of Barcelona. Then, conducting an Exploratory Spatial Data Analysis (ESDA) and a spatial regression at the census tract level, we determine the effect of football matches on crime by comparing crime rates during home and away matches. We find an increase in the number of thefts across the whole city but, especially, in those census tracts within a 700-meter radius of the stadium, indicating that despite the increase in the number of police officers on duty in the vicinity of the stadium, potential offenders are attracted to crowds where rewards are likely to be higher and the probability of being apprehended lower. These results are confirmed by the relatively low number of crimes committed during away matches in the census tracts around the stadium. A similar spatial pattern is found for assaults, although the overall impact across the city is not significant. Our results, therefore, provide evidence of a displacement effect of violent supporters (hooligans) towards the census tracts closest to the FCB stadium on football days.

"Presumed Fair? Voir Dire on the Fundamentals of Our Criminal Justice System" Free Download
Seton Hall Law Review, Vol. 45, No. 2, 2015

VIDA B. JOHNSON, Georgetown University Law Center
Email:

The American criminal justice system is built on three bedrock principles: the presumption of innocence, the burden of proof, and the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. These ideals, however, are frequently ignored by jurors. Social science research has shown that jurors routinely believe that a defendant must prove his innocence, and that the mere fact that the defendant is standing trial is proof of guilt. Jurors persist in these beliefs despite proper instructions on the law.

Despite the acknowledged centrality of these legal ideals, trial courts in many jurisdictions, routinely prevent defense attorneys from questioning prospective jurors on these fundamental legal issues based on a mistaken view that jurors will follow the given instructions. Unlike instructions, voir dire regarding prospective jurors’ ability or willingness to apply the presumption of innocence and hold the government to its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is not granted uniformly across jurisdictions. While the Supreme Court has sanctioned voir dire in capital cases on whether jurors can impose the death penalty, it has thus far remained silent on whether there is a right under the Due Process Clause to question prospective jurors on the presumption of innocence and the government’s burden of proof of beyond a reasonable doubt. The states and federal circuits are split on the question.

This Article explores whether, in order to ensure fundamental principles of fairness, voir dire questions about the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof should be required in all criminal jury trials.

"Comment: 'I Did Not Hurt Him...This Is a Nightmare': The Introduction of False, But Not Fabricated, Forensic Science in Police Interrogations" Free Download
Wisconsin Law Review, Forthcoming

CATHERINE E WHITE, Wisconsin Law Review
Email:

Junk sciences, such as bitemark analysis, fire science, shaken baby syndrome, and handwriting analysis, have been deceiving juries for years. Courts and the scientific community once regarded these forensic sciences as reliable evidence, but they have since been proven unreliable. Almost fifty percent of the cases overturned by DNA testing involve junk sciences. This Comment focuses on a subset of those wrongful convictions: cases in which the junk science deceived not only the jury but the defendant as well.

When the police discuss forensic evidence with a suspect during an interrogation, the suspect sometimes confesses to committing the crime in a manner consistent with the forensic evidence. If the court convicts the suspect and the scientific community later determines that the forensic evidence is unreliable, retrial is necessary. The unreliability of the junk science undermines confidence in the confession. This Comment surveys the empirical studies on false confessions and argues that junk science is a type of false evidence that multiple studies have demonstrated increases the risk of a false confession. In fact, junk science may be even more likely than other types of false evidence to spur a false confession.

Because a defendant convicted by junk science and an unreliable confession may be factually innocent, this Comment argues that these cases should be given a new, fair trial. This Comment suggests a number of pragmatic methods for courts to overturn the questionable conviction and provide the defendant with a fair trial, suppressing the confession as evidence. Rather than viewing a defendant’s confession as independent evidence of his or her guilt, courts should recognize that the unreliability of the junk science introduced during the interrogation renders the defendant’s confession unreliable as well.

"An Ultimate 'La Fin Du Monde': A TCP (Text, Context and Purpose) Surgery of the Fault Element in the Child Abandonment Case by the Supreme Court of Canada: Re-ADH Case [R. V. A.D.H: [2013] 2] - a Subjective Fault Element." Free Download

RAJIV RANJAN, Government of India - Department of Revenue, York University, Osgoode Hall Law School, Students
Email:

The ADH case was a legal denouement of a 14 minutes saga of precipitous delivery of baby-boy by Ms. April Dawn Halkett, a lady negated thrice for 'preg-test ' with ' moon time' during entire pregnancy and charged with abandoning child u/s.218. While, underlying facts of the case was not disputed, the applicability of offence element: of subjective versus objective occupied the legal fraternity, till the Supreme Court of Canada on May 17, 2013 provided “a succinct primer on mens rea" with a split verdict of 5:2.

This commentary explores the persuasiveness of the split quorum of the SCC, and settles for subjective standards for s.218 offence. It projects the issues and taxonomy of analysis on the lines of broader context, text and purpose (scheme), acronymically termed TCP analysis in three parts. Part I situates the statute within the presumptions and intent of Canadian criminal law, tracing the lineage of s.218 to English Laws of 1869 and 1891 to find the subjective standard for s.218 offence in Canadian law. The textual examination of words like "everyone", "abandon", "expose", "willful", "likely to" alongwith "scholastic opinion" relied upon and "default- non-mention" issues have been waxed upon in Part-II of the discussion. Part-III follows the unbundling and deconstruction of schematic lay-out of the statute to conclude that subjective elements determined s.218 offence. Conclusively, it has been stated that this judgment was akin to "La Fin du Monde"- 'an-end-of-the- world' emotion, as the SCC finally resolved the inconclusive jurisprudence on fault element related to child abandonment: La Fin du Monde" is also a unique beer from Quebec having extra chill, froth and gives good highs, but has splendid alternatives; our "La fin du Monde" - the final May 17, 2013 SCC judgment, however has none!

"Sense and 'Sensitivity': Epistemic and Instrumental Approaches to Statistical Evidence" Free Download
Stanford Law Review, Vol. 67, No. 557, 2015

DAVID ENOCH, Hebrew University - The Philosophy Department and the Law School
Email:
TALIA FISHER, Tel Aviv University - Buchmann Faculty of Law, Harvard Law School, Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics
Email:

Statistical evidence is the subject of a heated and ongoing debate. Courts and legal scholars often view statistical evidence with suspicion, treating it as inadmissible even when it is probabilistically equivalent to individualized evidence. But attempts to vindicate the suspicion or to dismantle it altogether have been largely unsuccessful. The aim of this Article is to provide a comprehensive answer to the statistical evidence debate. The Article offers a novel explanation for the suspicion toward statistical evidence, pointing to the epistemic inferiority of statistical evidence due to its lack of “Sensitivity? — namely, the requirement that a belief be counterfactually sensitive to the truth as a necessary condition of “Knowledge.? After exposing the epistemic distinctions between statistical and individualized evidence, the Article turns to examining their implications for the legal arena. It claims that while the epistemic story provides an explanation for the suspicion toward statistical evidence, it does not provide a justification for this suspicion, for Sensitivity (like epistemology more generally) is not significant in the legal arena. Instead, this Article proposes an incentive-based vindication of the reluctance to use statistical evidence in court and points to the interesting interaction between the epistemic and the incentive-based approaches. After laying down the theoretical foundation, this Article demonstrates its descriptive potential. It demonstrates the proposed theory’s capacity to explain the prevailing legal doctrine and the rules governing the admissibility and sufficiency of statistical evidence across various categories, including DNA evidence and propensity-for-crime evidence as well as incriminating versus exonerating statistical evidence. On the prescriptive front, the Article provides criteria for legal reform and suggests that the admissibility of statistical evidence should be contingent on the type of offense or misconduct alleged against the defendant.

"What is the Relationship between Unemployment and Rape? Evidence from a Panel of European Regions" Free Download

RAUL CARUSO, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart of Milan
Email:

This paper empirically analyzes the relationship between unemployment and rape in a panel of European regions. Results show that rape and unemployment are positively associated. Results are robust using alternative dependent variables, namely (i) the count of rape; (ii) the rape rate per 100,000 people. When applying gender-specific measures, only total female unemployment appears to explain the positive association. Yet, the main findings are confirmed when using youth unemployment. Interestingly, only male youth unemployment seems to explain the positive association between rape and youth unemployment. Among control variables, interestingly, education is positively associated with rape. The reasonable interpretation is that education does not increase rape in itself but rather ‘reported rape’. As expected, measures of future economic opportunities are negatively associated with emergence of rape.

^top

About this eJournal

Sponsored by: Indiana University Maurer School of Law.


This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts of empirical or theoretical scholarship on topics related to crime, criminal law, and criminal punishment (including the death penalty), from any disciplinary perspective. Covered topics include victims' rights, criminal sentencing rules, criminal sentencing procedures, criminal punishment, theories of criminal punishment, alternatives to traditional criminal punishment, criminal law doctrine, and administration of criminal justice.

Editor: Joseph L. Hoffmann, Indiana University

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LAW & SOCIETY EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Law & Society: Public Law - Crime, Criminal Law, & Punishment eJournal

ALFRED C. AMAN
Roscoe C. O'Byrne Professor of Law, Indiana University-Bloomington, Maurer School of Law

JEANNINE BELL
Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

PETER C. CARSTENSEN
George H. Young-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School

KENNETH GLENN DAU-SCHMIDT
Willard and Margaret Carr Professor of Labor and Employment Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

LAUREN B. EDELMAN
Director, Center for the Study of Law and Society, Agnes Roddy Robb Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence & Social Policy Program and Center for the Study of Law and Society

SALLY ENGLE MERRY
Marion Butler McLean Professor in the History of Ideas, Wellesley College - Department of Anthropology

HOWARD S. ERLANGER
Voss-Bascom Professor of Law, Professor of Sociology [Emeritus] Review Section Editor - Law & Social Inquiry, University of Wisconsin Law School

LUIS E. FUENTES-ROHWER
Professor of Law, Adjunct Professor of Latino Studies, Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

MARC S. GALANTER
John & Rylla Bosshard Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison

MICHAEL GROSSBERG
Co-Director, Center for Law, Society and Culture, Professor of History & Law, Indiana University-Bloomington, Maurer School of Law

WILLIAM D. HENDERSON
Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

ANNA-MARIA MARSHALL
Editorial Advisory Board, Law and Society Review, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Department of Sociology

LYNN MATHER
Professor of Law and Political Science, SUNY Buffalo Law School

JOYCE S. STERLING
Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law