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

On the Sanctioning of Economic Crime in Denmark

Henrik Lando, Department of Law, Copenhagen Business School

Justice Paradox: Victim's Perspective

Shreya Vajpei, Army Institute of Law
Subah Khanna, Army Institute of Law

Federal Enforcement of Police Reform

Stephen Rushin, University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program

Structural Police Reform

Stephen Rushin, University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program


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

"On the Sanctioning of Economic Crime in Denmark" Free Download

HENRIK LANDO, Department of Law, Copenhagen Business School
Email:

This article - written for a symposium on comparative criminal law - discusses whether sanctions for economic crime have become excessive in the Danish context either in absolute terms or in comparison with sanctions for crimes involving physical harm.

The text has three parts. In the first part, I present a theoretical framework that allows for a determination of optimal levels of sanctions and enforcement of crime. In the second part, I compare actual levels of sanctions in Denmark for various kinds of crime involving either economic or bodily harm, and discuss whether differences can be explained by the theory.

In the third part, I compare a recent increase in the level of the sanction for breach of competition law and for insider trading with the theoretically optimal levels and I tentatively suggest that the increase may well have been warranted from a deterrence perspective. However, I stress that higher sanctions call for greater competence on the part of administrative agencies and courts due to the 'grey area' nature of some offenses within the two categories of regulatory crime.

"Justice Paradox: Victim's Perspective" Free Download

SHREYA VAJPEI, Army Institute of Law
Email:
SUBAH KHANNA, Army Institute of Law
Email:

"What other penalty would suit perpetrators of such brutal acts? What other penalty is called for if the crime is proved beyond reasonable doubt? What happens is that, we forget the past. We see only the face of the accused, who is before us and his family. We forget the victims and their families." Justice R.C. Lahoti (35th Chief Justice of India)

In January, 2014 the Indian Supreme Court delivered a landmark verdict on death penalty in the case of Shatrughan Chauhan and Anr. vs. Union of India, holding in particular that an excessive and unexplained delay in carrying out the death sentence is an essential factor in a plea for commutation. This judicial precedent was embraced by human rights activists for its clarity, fidelity and the relief it brought to the death row convicts. But very few ventured into the other side of the picture and realized the plight of that unknown face who actually suffered the most in the scenario. In order to cover the lapse of delay on part of the executive, adequate reparation is given to the death row convict but no heed is paid to the plight of that aggrieved person who had suffered at the hands of the convict, to whom justice was given at the first instance and then was taken back. The convicts who were initially awarded the death penalty keeping in mind the gruesome extent of the crime, the social costs incurred and their incorrigible nature could now be effortlessly commuted because of callousness by the executive. The paper argues that the precedent set by the Supreme Court, however celebrated, can have repercussions on the justice and punishment system and therefore suggests that commutation should be granted considering the perspectives of both the aggrieved person as well as the convict. The paper further outlines the need for accountability in exercise of the constitutionally vested powers in the executive in a responsible and efficient manner with regard to the disposal of mercy petitions and further proposes that a balance should be maintained between the rights of a victim vis-à-vis convict.

"Federal Enforcement of Police Reform" Free Download
Fordham Law Review, Forthcoming

STEPHEN RUSHIN, University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program
Email:

Congress passed 42 U.S.C. § 14141 in an effort to combat police misconduct and incentivize proactive reform in local law enforcement agencies. The statute gives the Attorney General the power to initiate structural reform litigation against local police departments engaged in a pattern or practice of unconstitutional behavior. While academics initially praised the law’s passage, many have since worried that the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not effectively administered the measure. No research has empirically analyzed how the DOJ has used its authority to initiate structural police reform. Using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods, I fill this gap in the available literature by detailing the DOJ’s use of structural police reform over time. I conclude that the DOJ has historically underenforced § 14141, due in part to resource limitations that prevent the agency from aggressively pursuing all reported cases of systemic misconduct. I also show the DOJ has unevenly enforced § 14141 over time. Changes in leadership and internal policies have influenced the DOJ’s use of structural police reform. These changes affected both the breadth and depth of enforcement. In some cases where systemic police misconduct does appear to exist, a phenomenon I refer to as “political spillover? has deterred the DOJ from turning to structural police reform. Based on these findings, I argue that the DOJ must adopt a more transparent internal case selection process that incentives proactive reform in local police agencies. And given the resource limitations facing the DOJ in enforcing § 14141, I contend that state and national policymakers should seek alternative routes to increase the number of structural police reform cases. Combined, these changes could ensure that structural police reform lives up to its potential as a transformative tool for combatting police wrongdoing.

"Structural Police Reform" Free Download
Minnesota Law Review, Forthcoming

STEPHEN RUSHIN, University of Illinois College of Law, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence and Social Policy Program
Email:

For most of American history, courts and policymakers have relied on a small handful of relatively non-invasive tools to fight police misconduct. These traditional approaches to police regulation merely incentivized, but did not force, police departments to adopt costly reforms aimed at curbing unconstitutional behavior. In 1994, Congress passed 42 U.S.C. §14141, a statute authorizing the Attorney General to initiate structural reform litigation against local police agencies engaged in a pattern or practice of misconduct. Although some of the nation’s largest cities have now undergone this sort of structural police reform, there has been very little empirical legal research on the topic. I fill this gap in the literature by using a combination of qualitative and quantitative methods to describe and evaluate the structural police reform process.

I show that structural police reform can transform local police agencies with few negative externalities. But structural police reform is not perfect. Resource limitations and political barriers prevent the Justice Department from regularly using structural reform, resulting in uneven and unpredictable enforcement. Local conditions also influence the speed of reforms. Based on these findings, I argue that the Justice Department must employ a more transparent case selection process that encourages departments to reform proactively. And given the success of structural police reform thus far, I argue that policymakers ought to take steps to increase the number of police agencies targeted for structural police reform. With a few alterations, structural police reform could become one of the most important legal methods for preventing law enforcement misconduct.

^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.

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, President, Law and Society Association, Review Section Editor - Law & Social Inquiry, Director - Institute for Legal Studies, 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