Important is Not Important Enough: Forcibly Medicating Defendants for Sentencing Using the Important Interest Standard

(Excerpt) This Note analyzes whether the Government’s interest in sentencing is the same as its interest in trial, and whether the “important interest” standard is a high enough threshold for the Government when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. This Note will conclude that because of the procedural alternatives to forcible medication at sentencing, the functional differences between trial and sentencing, and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sell, the Government should be required to demonstrate a compelling, rather than an important, interest when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. Part I discusses the evolution of allowing a defendant to be forcibly medicated in order to withstand trial. Part II discusses how this concept was extended to apply in situations where the Government seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. Part III analyzes the arguments supporting the proposition that the Government’s interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for trial is essentially the same as its interest in sentencing. Part IV presents the arguments as to why the Government’s interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for sentencing is different than its interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for trial. Finally, Part V discusses why these differences call for a heightened standard when the Government seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing as opposed to trial, and the practical effect of that heightened standard

Important is Not Important Enough: Forcibly Medicating Defendants for Sentencing Using the Important Interest Standard

(Excerpt) This Note analyzes whether the Government’s interest in sentencing is the same as its interest in trial, and whether the “important interest” standard is a high enough threshold for the Government when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. This Note will conclude that because of the procedural alternatives to forcible medication at sentencing, the functional differences between trial and sentencing, and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sell, the Government should be required to demonstrate a compelling, rather than an important, interest when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. Part I discusses the evolution of allowing a defendant to be forcibly medicated in order to withstand trial. Part II discusses how this concept was extended to apply in situations where the Government seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. Part III analyzes the arguments supporting the proposition that the Government’s interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for trial is essentially the same as its interest in sentencing. Part IV presents the arguments as to why the Government’s interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for sentencing is different than its interest in forcibly medicating a defendant for trial. Finally, Part V discusses why these differences call for a heightened standard when the Government seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing as opposed to trial, and the practical effect of that heightened standard

Re-examining Ethical Considerations in EFL in View of Multi-/Plurilingual Research Practices

In this contribution I examine and partly reframe ethical considerations in view of current multi-/plurilingual research practices. Many research endeavours are multilingual by default, but this aspect often remains implicit and is not reflected upon. By way of two examples, I will delineate the scope of ethical considerations in the field of Foreign Language Education and argue that they go beyond rules and practices of good conduct. Once I have established the foundations and a model of research ethics, I will elaborate on the question which language choices need to be considered in multi-/plurilingual research from an ethical perspective.In diesem Beitrag untersuche ich ethische Überlegungen im Hinblick auf aktuelle multi-/plurilinguale Forschungspraktiken und modelliere sie teilweise neu. Viele Forschungsbemühungen finden in mehrsprachigen Kontexten statt oder werden durch plurilinguale Beteiligte ausgeführt, aber dieser Aspekt bleibt häufig implizit und unreflektiert. Anhand von zwei Beispielen skizziere ich die Reichweite ethischer Überlegungen in der Fremdsprachenforschung und argumentiere, dass diese weit über die Befolgung von Regeln guter wissenschaftlicher Praxis hinausgeht. Nach der Diskussion theoretischer Grundlagen und der Präsentation eines Modells zur forschungsethischen Reflexion diskutiere ich, welche Aspekte der Sprachenwahl in multi-/plurilingualer Forschung aus ethischer Perspektive zu berücksichtigen sind.Peer Reviewe

Flexicurity – a state-of-the art review

The Working Papers on the Reconciliation of Work and Welfare in Europe are published online by the Publication, Dissemination and Dialogue Centre (PUDIAC) of RECWOWE.The notion of ‘flexicurity’ promises to overcome the tensions between labour market flexibility on the one hand and social security on the other hand by offering ‘the best of both worlds’. In this review the development of the concept will be set against the background of changed economic circumstances in the last two decades. The principal components of flexicurity are presented, followed by a review of ‘real worlds of flexicurity’ in selected European countries, with Denmark and the Netherlands as the most prominent examples. The subsequent section considers the transferability of flexicurity policies across borders. Finally, we concentrate on collective actors involved in promoting the idea of flexicurity and conclude with a discussion of some tensions within and criticisms of the concept

Flexicurity – aktuális helyzetjelentés

A „flexicurity” elmélete azt ígéri, hogy „mindkettő legjobb tulajdonságainak megőrzésével” megszünteti a munkaerőpiaci rugalmasság és a szociális biztonság közötti ellentétet. A tanulmányban az elmúlt két évtized változó gazdasági feltételeinek fényében áttekintjük a koncepció kialakulását. Ennek során ismertetjük a flexicurity fő alkotórészeit, majd néhány európai országban bemutatjuk a „flexicurity való világait”, legfontosabb példákként Dániát és Hollandiát kiemelve. Az ezt követő részben megvizsgáljuk, hogy megvalósítható-e a flexucurity politikája és gyakorlata más országokban. Végül a flexicurityt támogató kollektív szereplőkkel foglalkozunk, majd az elmélettel kapcsolatos problémák és kritikák ismertetésével zárjuk a tanulmányt