Cruel and Unusual Punishment in the Provision of Prison Medical Care: Challenging the Deliberate Indifference Standard

Most Americans have little knowledge or concern about what hap- pens inside this Nation\u27s prisons.\u27 Unless prisoners riot, they generally are far removed from the popular consciousness. Members of society beyond prison walls hear about only the most severe and exceptional cases of prisoner suffering. When prisoners do not receive adequate medical treatment, however, they may suffer harm beyond the segregation from society and loss of liberty contemplated by incarceration. A discussion of the medical care that prisoners receive must begin, therefore, with a recognition of the paradox of taking care of individuals about whom very few people in society care. The issue of the adequacy of prison health care is very important today. The deprivation of adequate medical care frequently is a basis for lawsuits filed by prisoners in the United States. Prison health care delivery today fails to measure up to acceptable standards. While commentators agree that reform of health care delivery systems in this Nation\u27s prisons remains necessary, the problem of inadequate prison health care is considerably more difficult to remedy than it is to ac- knowledge. The quality, quantity, accessibility, continuity, and efficiency of prison medical services all draw criticism. Furthermore, direct and unequivocal statements from courts and commentators concerning prison health care are very rare. This vagueness produces inaction and indecision that, combined with public apathy and the political powerlessness of prisoners, has served only to exacerbate problems in the delivery of prison health care

Shared Constitutional Interpretation

In United States v. Dickerson the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, stating that it was a \u27constitutional decision\u27 and, thus, not subject to congressional overruling. At the same time, the Dickerson Court reiterated Miranda\u27s invitation to Congress and the States to . . . search for . . . other procedures which are at least as effective as the Court\u27s prescribed warnings in protecting the suspect\u27s rights. This article uses Dickerson as a lens through which to examine the possibilities of shared constitutional interpretation. After all, the Court that decided Dickerson has, in recent years, been extremely jealous of its prerogative in having the last word as to the Constitution\u27s meaning. What then, does the invitation in Miranda and Dickerson really mean? The authors argue that constitutional experimentation is to be applauded, but its success depends upon institutional humility and mutual respect. First, the article explains that Miranda is best understood as establishing a suspect\u27s constitutional right to notice of the right to silence and a constitutional right to procedures adequate to ensure a continuous opportunity to exercise the right to silence. Understanding Miranda\u27s core as a bedrock constitutional rule obviates the need to engage in the familiar debate about prophylactic rules. Second, the article uses a series of hypothetical statutes requiring videotaping of confessions and prohibiting the presence of counsel, to examine the shared opportunities and responsibilities of Congress, the States and other government actors in interpreting the meaning of the Miranda rule. The authors conclude that notwithstanding the Supreme Court\u27s recent rulings narrowing the scope of congressional power and expanding its own power at the expense of all other constitutional actors, considerable room remains for non-judicial actors to participate in the elaboration of constitutional meaning

Shared Constitutional Interpretation

In United States v. Dickerson the Supreme Court reaffirmed its decision in Miranda v. Arizona, stating that it was a \u27constitutional decision\u27 and, thus, not subject to congressional overruling. At the same time, the Dickerson Court reiterated Miranda\u27s invitation to Congress and the States to . . . search for . . . other procedures which are at least as effective as the Court\u27s prescribed warnings in protecting the suspect\u27s rights. This article uses Dickerson as a lens through which to examine the possibilities of shared constitutional interpretation. After all, the Court that decided Dickerson has, in recent years, been extremely jealous of its prerogative in having the last word as to the Constitution\u27s meaning. What then, does the invitation in Miranda and Dickerson really mean? The authors argue that constitutional experimentation is to be applauded, but its success depends upon institutional humility and mutual respect. First, the article explains that Miranda is best understood as establishing a suspect\u27s constitutional right to notice of the right to silence and a constitutional right to procedures adequate to ensure a continuous opportunity to exercise the right to silence. Understanding Miranda\u27s core as a bedrock constitutional rule obviates the need to engage in the familiar debate about prophylactic rules. Second, the article uses a series of hypothetical statutes requiring videotaping of confessions and prohibiting the presence of counsel, to examine the shared opportunities and responsibilities of Congress, the States and other government actors in interpreting the meaning of the Miranda rule. The authors conclude that notwithstanding the Supreme Court\u27s recent rulings narrowing the scope of congressional power and expanding its own power at the expense of all other constitutional actors, considerable room remains for non-judicial actors to participate in the elaboration of constitutional meaning

Self-interest And Public Interest: The Motivations Of Political Actors

Self-Interest and Public Interest in Western Politics showed that the public, politicians, and bureaucrats are often public spirited. But this does not invalidate public-choice theory. Public-choice theory is an ideal type, not a claim that self-interest explains all political behavior. Instead, public-choice theory is useful in creating rules and institutions that guard against the worst case, which would be universal self-interestedness in politics. In contrast, the public-interest hypothesis is neither a comprehensive explanation of political behavior nor a sound basis for institutional design

Mechanically Stabilized Tetrathiafulvalene Radical Dimers

Two donor−acceptor [3]catenanes—composed of a tetracationic molecular square, cyclobis(paraquat-4,4′-biphenylene), as the π-electron deficient ring and either two tetrathiafulvalene (TTF) and 1,5-dioxynaphthalene (DNP) containing macrocycles or two TTF-butadiyne-containing macrocycles as the π-electron rich components—have been investigated in order to study their ability to form TTF radical dimers. It has been proven that the mechanically interlocked nature of the [3]catenanes facilitates the formation of the TTF radical dimers under redox control, allowing an investigation to be performed on these intermolecular interactions in a so-called “molecular flask” under ambient conditions in considerable detail. In addition, it has also been shown that the stability of the TTF radical-cation dimers can be tuned by varying the secondary binding motifs in the [3]catenanes. By replacing the DNP station with a butadiyne group, the distribution of the TTF radical-cation dimer can be changed from 60% to 100%. These findings have been established by several techniques including cyclic voltammetry, spectroelectrochemistry and UV−vis−NIR and EPR spectroscopies, as well as with X-ray diffraction analysis which has provided a range of solid-state crystal structures. The experimental data are also supported by high-level DFT calculations. The results contribute significantly to our fundamental understanding of the interactions within the TTF radical dimers

The Price of Anarchy in Transportation Networks: Efficiency and Optimality Control

Uncoordinated individuals in human society pursuing their personally optimal strategies do not always achieve the social optimum, the most beneficial state to the society as a whole. Instead, strategies form Nash equilibria which are often socially suboptimal. Society, therefore, has to pay a price of anarchy for the lack of coordination among its members. Here we assess this price of anarchy by analyzing the travel times in road networks of several major cities. Our simulation shows that uncoordinated drivers possibly waste a considerable amount of their travel time. Counterintuitively,simply blocking certain streets can partially improve the traffic conditions. We analyze various complex networks and discuss the possibility of similar paradoxes in physics.Comment: major revisions with multicommodity; Phys. Rev. Lett., accepte

Quantum Computing in Molecular Magnets

Shor and Grover demonstrated that a quantum computer can outperform any classical computer in factoring numbers and in searching a database by exploiting the parallelism of quantum mechanics. Whereas Shor's algorithm requires both superposition and entanglement of a many-particle system, the superposition of single-particle quantum states is sufficient for Grover's algorithm. Recently, the latter has been successfully implemented using Rydberg atoms. Here we propose an implementation of Grover's algorithm that uses molecular magnets, which are solid-state systems with a large spin; their spin eigenstates make them natural candidates for single-particle systems. We show theoretically that molecular magnets can be used to build dense and efficient memory devices based on the Grover algorithm. In particular, one single crystal can serve as a storage unit of a dynamic random access memory device. Fast electron spin resonance pulses can be used to decode and read out stored numbers of up to 10^5, with access times as short as 10^{-10} seconds. We show that our proposal should be feasible using the molecular magnets Fe8 and Mn12.Comment: 13 pages, 2 figures, PDF, version published in Nature, typos correcte