Autour de: Alan Dershowitz, Cancel Culture: The Latest Attack on Free Speech and Due Process, New York, Hot Books et Skyhorse Publishing, 2020

Amerika ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Laberge
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Due Process

„Rzymski” Żyd – nieznana twórczość Romana Brandstaettera

2012 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-61
Author(s):  
Dariusz Konrad Sikorski
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Social Norms ◽  
Cultural Values ◽  
Interwar Period ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Role Model ◽  
The Self ◽  
Polish Literature ◽  
The Bible ◽  
The Law

Summary After 1946, ie. after embracing Christianity, Roman Brandstaetter would often point to the Biblical Jonah as a role model for both his life and his artistic endeavour. In the interwar period, when he was a columnist of Nowy Głos, a New York Polish-Jewish periodical, he used the penname Romanus. The ‘Roman’ Jew appears to have treated his columns as a form of an artistic and civic ‘investigation’ into scandalous cases of breaking the law, destruction of cultural values and violation of social norms. Although it his was hardly ‘a new voice’ with the potential to change the course of history, he did become an intransigent defender of free speech. Brought up on the Bible and the best traditions of Polish literature and culture, Brandstaetter, the self-appointed disciple of Adam Mickiewicz, could not but stand up to the challenge of anti-Semitic aggression.

The rights of the defendant and public interest in proving insanity under the law of New York

2021 ◽  
Vol 30 (3) ◽  
pp. 108-124
Author(s):  
Aleksey Grin'ko
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Burden Of Proof ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Whole Process ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Law ◽  
Legislative Changes

Allocation of the burden of proof is a key issue of criminal procedure that is affected by multiple legal and social factors. Under due process principles, the defendant’s right to a fair and impartial trial is deemed to be the epicenter of the whole structure. However, efficient law enforcement is a prominent public interest that must be considered. This article explores the correlation between public and private interest in proving insanity under the law of New York, which provides great empirical background due to its long history of legal disputes and legislative changes. Considering the nature and structure of the burden of proof, the author concludes that there are several principles for its fair allocation: the due party that bears both the burden and the risk of its nonperformance; the feasibility of the burden; the adequate opportunity for the other party to rebut; the concentration of resources upon needs that are not presumed but in fact exist. All the mentioned principles lay the ground for the harmonization of constitutional guaranties for the defendant as well as the successful enforcement of criminal law. The current New York approach to insanity defense as an affirmative one along with the history of its implementation tends to prove its compliance with such requirements. This finding suggests that bearing the burden shall not be treated as impairment by default, but can protect both the interest of this party and the integrity of the whole process.

The Limits of Informed Consent

2001 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jessica W. Berg ◽  
Paul S. Appelbaum ◽  
Charles W. Lidz ◽  
Lisa S. Parker
Keyword(s):  
Informed Consent ◽  
Medical Treatment ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Patient Adherence ◽  
Disease Process ◽  
Outcomes Of Care ◽  
Good Government ◽  
Due Process Of Law ◽  
Involuntary Care

It will come as no surprise to anyone who has read this far to know that we are enthusiastic supporters of informed consent. We believe that entitlement to adequate information and the right to make choices about one’s medical treatment are fundamental ethical rights that are every bit as important in the healthcare arena as, for example, free speech and due process of law are in the wider society. Moreover, informed consent does not merely have deontological value. We have argued that, if done correctly, informed consent can often lead to better doctor-patient relationships, better patient adherence to treatment plans, and a fuller understanding of the disease process on the part of the healthcare provider. Yet it is also important to understand the limits of informed consent so we do not try to make it do what it cannot do. For example, although informed consent may help in managing treatment, by itself it does not cure illness. The claims that have been made for informed consent, however, are sometimes almost that extravagant. Informed consent has been suggested as the means to protect patients from poor care (1-3), including involuntary care (4), and as a means to improve the outcomes of care (5,6). It has been proposed as the solution to the problems of nursing homes (7) and as a device for compensating patients who are harmed by poor medical treatment (8). None of these are entirely specious ideas. Several of them, indeed, may be correct in part, but it is important for us to understand what informed consent cannot do as well as what it can. Just as free speech does not guarantee good government and due process of law does not guarantee justice, so too informed consent cannot solve all of the problems of the healthcare system. In this chapter we explore some of the limitations of informed consent. Specifically, we want to suggest four propositions. First, informed consent is a mechanism for improving communication and decision making among healthcare providers and patients.

The Digital Turn

2020 ◽  
pp. 19-36
Author(s):  
Sarah Esther Lageson
Keyword(s):  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Free Speech ◽  
Public Interest ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Past Century ◽  
Competing Values ◽  
Privacy Rights ◽  
Criminal Records ◽  
The Public ◽  
Criminal Justice Processing

Recent decades have witnessed a digital turn in criminal justice processing that has contributed to the creation and dissemination of millions of criminal records per year, impacting both criminal justice workers and those processed by the system. Current US law has allowed for the public dissemination of these records, emphasizing free speech and transparency over other competing values, such as due process, privacy, or liberty. The turn toward digital disclosure of criminal justice information has outpaced thoughtful discussions about balancing privacy rights and the notion of public interest that the courts have developed during the past century. It is certainly in the public interest to have access to the workings of the police, courts, and prisons—it is a fundamental way that citizens can keep an eye on these powerful institutions. However, these core transparency values are being used for a different, entrepreneurial purpose since criminal records have become a commodified good.

scholarly journals Strengthening the Global Refugee Protection System: Recommendations for the Global Compact on Refugees

2017 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 780-799 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin Appleby
Keyword(s):  
New York ◽  
Due Process ◽  
Warning System ◽  
Protection System ◽  
General Assembly ◽  
Global Compact ◽  
Protection Measures ◽  
Refugee Protection ◽  
Self Sufficiency ◽  
Un General Assembly

On September 19, 2016, the United Nations (UN) General Assembly adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants. This document launched a two-year process to develop a Global Compact on Responsibility Sharing on Refugees (“Global Compact on Refugees”) and a Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration. With a record 65 million displaced persons in the world, the global community must come together to fashion a stronger protection regime for persons on the move. This paper outlines broad themes and specific recommendations that the Global Compact on Refugees should adopt on how to strengthen the global refugee protection system. The recommendations fall into several categories: (1) responsibility sharing for the protection of refugees; (2) filling in protection gaps; (3) balancing and replacing deterrence strategies with protection solutions; (4) refugee resettlement; and (5) building refugee self-sufficiency. Some of the key recommendations include: • the development of a responsibility-sharing formula to respond to large movements of refugees; • the development of an early warning system to identify and respond to nations in crisis; • the adoption of principles included in the Nansen and Migrants in Countries of Crisis initiatives; • the use of temporary protection measures to protect populations that flee natural disaster; • the adoption of model processes that ensure safe and voluntary return; • cooperation between destination and transit countries to expand refugee protections; • the provision of asylum and due process protections at borders; • the use of development assistance to ensure the self-sufficiency of refugees; • the adoption of a goal to resettle 10 percent of the global refugee population each year; • the establishment of a refugee matching system between refugees and resettlement countries; and • the adoption of coherent strategies, involving all sectors, to address large movements of refugees. This paper draws heavily, albeit not exclusively, from a series of papers published as a special collection in the Journal on Migration and Human Security1 on strengthening the global system of refugee protection.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document