Study of the parameters affecting contact performance of high reliability relays

Parameters affecting contact performance of high reliability relay

Charities’ perceptions of open access to medical research: A situational analysis

This poster outlines the methodology and preliminary results of a study exploring medical charities’ perceptions of open access to scholarly research. It is part of a wider project investigating the use of OA research in different non-academic contexts, and it is based on analysis of eight semi-structured interviews conducted with staff members in medical charities. Interviews were analyzed using Situational Analysis, a form of constructivist grounded theory developed by Adele Clarke. Preliminary results are presented, including the expertise and insider knowledge which medical charity staff use to get access to paywalled research, the values and risks (to different social groups) perceived in making research open access, and the different discursive constructions of the ‘non-academic’ user who wishes to access research. The study contributes to a small, but growing body of research exploring the potential value of open access outside academia

When Juries Meet the Press: Rethinking the Jury\u27s Representative Function in Highly Publicized Cases

This article explores questions related to the emergence of the jury\u27s new representative function. Section II examines traditional notions of jury representativeness by demonstrating how the jury came to be viewed as a means of providing community input into the criminal justice process. Section II also describes how a broadly representative jury can aid in fact-finding and provide legitimacy for the verdict. Finally, section II explains how a jury system, closed to public exploitation, was traditionally seen as a way to protect the jury\u27s ability to reach independent judgments. Section III reviews selected cases which reveal judicial recognition of the jury\u27s new representative function and determines that efforts to facilitate greater communication between the public and jurors should be favored by the courts. Section IV evaluates how the jury\u27s ability to perform its traditional fact-finding and legitimating functions is affected by the practice of encouraging jurors to explain their verdicts to the broader community. This article concludes that while the jury\u27s new representative function may serve valuable educational ends and enhance the legitimacy of jury verdicts, it does so at the expense of the jury\u27s fact-finding ability

Race, Crime and the Pool of Surplus Criminality: Or Why the War on Drugs Was a War on Blacks

The War on Drugs has had a devastating effect on African American communities nationwide. The concept of the pool of surplus criminality may explain the drug war\u27s focus on African Americans. Faced with a perceived drug problem, White Americans naturally identified African American people as the source of that threat and targeted them for police harassment and penal control. There are ways in which the drug war may be construed as a race war. The disproportionate impact on the African American community, evidence that policy makers anticipated the drug war would disproportionately harm the African American community, and the historic connection between drugs and racial stereotyping support this construction. The concept of the pool of surplus criminality explains why the drug war targeted African American communities and why, consequently, African Americans will always be treated unfairly by the nation\u27s criminal laws

“Essentially Black”: Legal Theory and the Morality of Conscious Racial Identity

In philosophy, essentialism involves the claim that everything that exists has a fundamental character or core set of features that makes it what it is. Although this idea developed out of Platonic notions of ideal forms, it has spread beyond philosophy into the social sciences and hard scientific disciplines like mathematics and biology. Since the advent of postmodernism, discussions around essentialism have become controversial. Adherents of postmodern theory argue that social categories, such as gender, race, and sexuality are socially constructed and that essentialist notions of identity, which suggest that identity is static, natural, and unchanging, are theoretically wrong. This postmodern perspective has engendered a significant and often contentious debate on the value of essentialist thought in contemporary identity movements focused on gender, sexuality, and race. In the context of these debates, essentialism has taken on a pejorative character and a negative moral connotation, especially among progressives and left-leaning social activists. The consequences of this moral condemnation are far-reaching. It makes it difficult for identity groups to organize around any social category deemed to be essentialist. This morally grounded prohibition is especially problematic for Black nationalists and African-centered activists. In this Article, I examine the anti-essentialism critique that has developed in Critical Race and LatCrit legal theory. I argue that the anti-essentialism critique offered by critical theorists is misguided insofar as it claims that the assertion of a conscious racial identity is morally wrong. In reaching this conclusion, I first point out some contradictions and failings in the reasoning underlying the critique. Next, I detail some of the difficulties that adherence to anti-essentialism creates for Black communities and activists. Finally, I link normative approaches to essentialism to culture and worldview. I argue that anti-essentialism is Eurocentric and its claim to a universal moral prohibition against race-consciousness is false

When Juries Meet the Press: Rethinking the Jury\u27s Representative Function in Highly Publicized Cases

The increasing media saturation of society has altered the traditional roles and function of the jury in criminal trials. In several recent highly-publicized trials, most notably the Reginald Denny beating case, the jurors have been asked to publicly defend and explain their verdicts. In the past, jury verdicts were accepted as legitimate if the jury was representative of their community. Now, however, it seems that a jury must also be representative to their communities. This new representative function of the jury has profound implications for the more traditional functions of the jury. For example, what effect does the new representative function have on the jury\u27s traditional fact-finding function? Moreover, how will the prospect of intense media-coverage affect the willingness of competent people to serve on a jury? Finally, what impact would requiring juries to explain their verdict have on the defendant\u27s right to a fair trial? Professor Kenneth Nunn examines both the traditional notions of jury representativeness and the emergence of the new representative function. Professor Nunn also analyzes the effects of the new representative function on the jury\u27s other duties. Professor Nunn concludes that while the new representative functions may provide valuable educational benefits, it does so at the expense of the jury\u27s fact-finding ability