Should There Be a Specialized Ethics Code for Death-Penalty Defense Lawyers

State ethics codes based on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct address lawyers\u27 work in advocacy but do not target lawyers\u27 work in particular areas of advocacy or in other specialized practice areas. For more than forty years, critics have asserted that existing ethics rules are too superficial and should be supplemented by specialized rules. This article examines the utility of specialized ethics rules for one particular sub-specialty-death-penalty defense practice. After identifying arguments for and against a specialized ethics code for death-penalty cases, the article analyzes the arguments in the context of a particular ethics dilemma that some death-penalty defense lawyers have encountered-namely, whether to pursue post-conviction relief on behalf of an ambivalent or unexpressive mentally-ill death-row inmate. The article finds persuasive reasons for courts to develop specialized rules that would provide death-penalty defense lawyers more clarity in how to address this and other ethics dilemmas. Recognizing that courts will likely remain indifferent to the idea of developing specialized ethics rules, however, the article concludes by identifying other ways for courts to mitigate the uncertainties that specialized rules would address

The precautionary principle. Between social norms and economic constructs

Cet article confronte les interprétations proposées pour le principe de précaution qui viennent de deux horizons différents : les théories économiques du risque qui s'inscrivent dans un cadre bayésien et les repères heuristiques de la doctrine validée par les institutions européennes et françaises. Les traits communs sont mis en évidence, mais aussi d'importantes différences quant aux concepts et aux contextes d'application. Malgré ces différences, l'analyse économique propose des éclairages utiles sur plusieurs questions controversées soulevées par la mise en œuvre du principe de précaution comme norme sociale. Cela concerne par exemple la réversibilité des mesures de précaution, la question de l'application directe du principe à toute personne ou aux seules autorités publiques et le problème de l'imputation de la charge de l'instruction scientifique des hypothèses de risque.

Think Twice Before Hitting \u27Send\u27: The Strategic Uses of Information in Marketing Channels

This dissertation examines the growing problem of information overload in the context of marketing channels. Information overload occurs when shared information requires more mental resources to process than the mental resources available to the receiver. This research offers strategies to attenuate information overload and examines the impact of information overload on channel outcomes. Strategic uses of information are proposed and conceptualized as a sender\u27s alteration of information volume, content, and/or timing to assist a receiver in processing information. Hypotheses are developed based on the normative perspective of communication from the organizational communication literature. Data from 244 salespeople are analyzed using structural equation modeling to test the hypotheses. The results suggest that information overload undermines shared understanding, while shared understanding enhances coordination and compliance, and reduces conflict. Post hoc analyses further reveal that the effectiveness of strategic uses of information on information overload is contingent on the task nature and receiver characteristics and that some strategies have a U-shaped relationship with information overload. The major contribution of this dissertation is integrating the paradigms of organizational communication and marketing channels literatures and providing an additional perspective in understanding information sharing in channel relationships. Contrary to conventional wisdom, this paper argues that more information sharing is not necessarily better

Applying psychological science to the CCTV review process: a review of cognitive and ergonomic literature

As CCTV cameras are used more and more often to increase security in communities, police are spending a larger proportion of their resources, including time, in processing CCTV images when investigating crimes that have occurred (Levesley & Martin, 2005; Nichols, 2001). As with all tasks, there are ways to approach this task that will facilitate performance and other approaches that will degrade performance, either by increasing errors or by unnecessarily prolonging the process. A clearer understanding of psychological factors influencing the effectiveness of footage review will facilitate future training in best practice with respect to the review of CCTV footage. The goal of this report is to provide such understanding by reviewing research on footage review, research on related tasks that require similar skills, and experimental laboratory research about the cognitive skills underpinning the task. The report is organised to address five challenges to effectiveness of CCTV review: the effects of the degraded nature of CCTV footage, distractions and interrupts, the length of the task, inappropriate mindset, and variability in people’s abilities and experience. Recommendations for optimising CCTV footage review include (1) doing a cognitive task analysis to increase understanding of the ways in which performance might be limited, (2) exploiting technology advances to maximise the perceptual quality of the footage (3) training people to improve the flexibility of their mindset as they perceive and interpret the images seen, (4) monitoring performance either on an ongoing basis, by using psychophysiological measures of alertness, or periodically, by testing screeners’ ability to find evidence in footage developed for such testing, and (5) evaluating the relevance of possible selection tests to screen effective from ineffective screener

Use of Neutral Fact-Finding to Preserve Exclusive Rights and Uphold the Disclosure Purpose of the Patent System

This comment proposes the use of neutral fact-finding as a precursor to litigation of patent disputes. Section II begins with a brief introduction to the concept of patents and the system used in the United States for granting and protecting exclusive rights associated with patent grants. Then, Section III discusses traditional ADR processes available to resolve patent disputes and sets forth reasons those processes are not widely used. Finally, Section IV offers neutral factfinding as a solution to both litigation and traditional ADR process concerns with respect to resolving patent dispute

Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking

Negotiated rulemaking appears by most accounts to have come of age. A procedure that once seemed confined to discussion among administrative law scholars has in the past decade captured the attention of policymakers throughout the nation\u27s capital. Congress officially endorsed regulatory negotiation in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, and it permanently reauthorized the Act in 1996. Over the past few years, the executive branch has visibly supported regulatory negotiation, both through the Clinton administration\u27s National Performance Review (NPR) and through specific presidential directives to agency heads. Congress has also begun to mandate the use of negotiated rulemaking by certain agencies in the development of specific regulations. As a result of these and other efforts, federal agencies have begun to employ the consensus-based process known as negotiated rulemaking

A conceptual framework for negotiating public involvement in municipal waste management decision-making in the UK

The technical expertise that politicians relied on in the past to produce cost-effective and environmentally sound solutions no longer provides sufficient justification to approve waste facilities. Local authorities need to find more effective ways to involve stakeholders and communities in decision-making since public acceptance of municipal waste facilities is integral to delivering effective waste strategies. This paper presents findings from a research project that explored attitudes towards greater levels of public involvement in UK waste management decision-making. The study addressed questions of perception, interests, the decision context, the means of engagement and the necessary resources and capacity for adopting a participatory decision process. Adopting a mixed methods approach, the research produced an empirical framework for negotiating the mode and level of public involvement in waste management decision-making. The framework captures and builds on theories of public involvement and the experiences of practitioners, and offers guidance for integrating analysis and deliberation with public groups in different waste management decision contexts. Principles in the framework operate on the premise that the decision about ‘more’ and ‘better’ forms of public involvement can be negotiated, based on the nature of the waste problem and wider social context of decision-making. The collection of opinions from the wide range of stakeholders involved in the study has produced new insights for the design of public engagement processes that are context-dependent and ‘fit-for-purpose’; these suggest a need for greater inclusivity in the case of contentious technologies and high levels of uncertainty regarding decision outcomes

Assessing Consensus: The Promise and Performance of Negotiated Rulemaking

Negotiated rulemaking appears by most accounts to have come of age. A procedure that once seemed confined to discussion among administrative law scholars has in the past decade captured the attention of policymakers throughout the nation\u27s capital. Congress officially endorsed regulatory negotiation in the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990, and it permanently reauthorized the Act in 1996. Over the past few years, the executive branch has visibly supported regulatory negotiation, both through the Clinton administration\u27s National Performance Review (NPR) and through specific presidential directives to agency heads. Congress has also begun to mandate the use of negotiated rulemaking by certain agencies in the development of specific regulations. As a result of these and other efforts, federal agencies have begun to employ the consensus-based process known as negotiated rulemaking