GUARANTEE OF CONSTITUTIONAL CONTROL IN LABOR TRIALS IN NICARAGUA

This article is part of an investigation with the same title that aimed to analyze the guarantees of constitutionality control in labor trials in Nicaragua, to achieve this the analytical-synthetic method is adopted. the legal norm, doctrine and institutions on labour protection were diluted, which generally start from the particular in a historical-evolutive order. Similarly, the method of case analysis was considered inescapable; some methods complement and allow the enrichment of the investigation, in which Nicaragua was found not to have a mechanism that provides access to constitutional justice in labor matters and therefore the parties to the labor processes have initiated malpractice of the amparo appeal, seeking to use it as a third instance. The main recommendation is the development of criteria that guide the constitutional chamber and appeals courts to set limits and define clear criteria on which litigants can allege constitutional violations.

Forced sterilization under the NazisPreventing people with neuropsychiatric disorders from polluting the German gene pool

The first negative eugenic measure passed by the Hitler regime in July 1933 was the forced sterilization law, which primarily targeted neuropsychiatric patients with “feeblemindedness,” schizophrenia, and epilepsy. Also included were Huntington’s chorea, bipolar disorder, and alcoholism, along with other congenital defects. The law was based on a prior Weimar Germany draft that was never enacted. Although Germany was late to enact a sterilization law, it was more rapidly implemented and executed than in other countries. In 12 years of the Nazi regime, 400,000 people were forcibly sterilized. The hypocritical execution of the law, supposedly foolproof because of the use of “hereditary health courts” and appeals courts, resulted in people of lower socioeconomic background being preferentially affected, and also in non-hereditary forms of diseases (e.g., symptomatic epilepsy) being included. Most in German neuroscience also seemed unconcerned with the 0.5% mortality rate of sterilization procedures, resulting in at least 2000 deaths.

Cumulative Disadvantage: A Psychological Framework for Understanding How Innocence Can Lead to Confession, Wrongful Conviction, and Beyond

False confessions are a contributing factor in almost 30% of DNA exonerations in the United States. Similar problems have been documented all over the world. We present a novel framework to highlight the processes through which innocent people, once misidentified as suspects, experience cumulative disadvantages that culminate in pernicious consequences. The cumulative-disadvantage framework details how the innocent suspect’s naivete and the interrogator’s presumption of guilt trigger a process that can lead to false confession, the aftereffects of which spread to corrupt evidence gathering, bias forensic analysis, and virtually ensure wrongful convictions at trial or through pressured false guilty pleas. The framework integrates nascent research underscoring the enduring effects of the accumulated disadvantages postconviction and even after exoneration. We synthesize findings from psychological science, corroborating naturalistic evidence, and relevant legal precedents to explain how an innocent suspect’s disadvantages can accumulate through the actions of law enforcement, forensic examiners, prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, juries, and appeals courts. We conclude with prescribed research directions that can lead to empirically driven reforms to address the gestalt of the multistage process.

US lawmakers resume work for a tumultuous 2020

Significance President Donald Trump and Congress have fewer than ten months until November’s elections for president, the House, the Senate, state legislatures and governorships. Preparations for the campaigns will preoccupy Trump and Vice President Mike Pence, all 435 representatives, the 35 senators running for election and eleven governors. With the onset of election year, the dynamics of governing and lawmaking among the states and the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government will change. Impacts Trump will not transmit draft bills to Congress for significant proposals, weakening the institutional presidency. State legislature elections will affect how House congressional districts are re-drawn for the next ten years. The Supreme and Federal Appeals Courts’ judicial philosophy will get more conservative because of Trump’s appointments. Though this is not a leading election issue, Congress will be absorbed by the rapidly worsening state of US-Iran relations.

The Judicial System

This chapter provides an overview of Indonesia’s courts and their operation, except for the Constitutional Court, which is covered in Chapter 5. It begins with a general discussion of key aspects of judicial decision-making, including Indonesia’s version of the system of precedent (yurisprudensi) and principles of statutory interpretation, before examining post-Soeharto judicial reform, the success of which has been mixed, at best. The chapter then covers the relative jurisdictions of the various courts that sit below the Supreme Court in the judiciary hierarchy—the district, administrative, religious, human rights, and military courts—before considering appeals courts and their processes. This chapter also discusses the Supreme Court and its functions, including cassation, ‘PK’ reconsideration (a form of final appeal), judicial review, and supervision of other courts. The chapter concludes by discussing the difficulties of enforcing the decisions of Indonesia’s courts, and some of the problems presented by widespread judicial corruption.

“Earthquake”: Board of Regents v. NCAA

This chapter discusses the case of Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma v. National Collegiate Athletic Association. Arguments in the case focused on whether the NCAA was acting illegally under the Sherman Anti-Trust Act of 1890 by monopolizing all college football television contracts. In September 1982, Judge Juan Burciaga of the Federal District Court for Western Oklahoma decided in favor of the plaintiffs, concluding that the NCAA was a “classic cartel. ... exercising almost absolute control over the supply of college football which is made available to the networks, to television advertisers, and ultimately to the viewing public.” The judge concluded that the NCAA violated antitrust law by acting in restraint of trade in three ways: fixing prices of telecasts; creating boycotts of networks excluded from its contracts and threatening boycotts of its own members that might engage in alternative television contracts; and placing an artificial limit on televised college football. The NCAA took the case to the Supreme Court. However, on June 27, 1984, the Supreme Court upheld verdicts of the District and Appeals Courts.