Exploring the Roots of Our Criminal Justice Systems

A Review of The Roots of Justice by Lawrence M. Friedman and Robert V. Percival, and Conscience and Convenience by David Rothma

Police Professionalism: Another Look at the Issues

The concept of professionalism is frequently used as a frame of reference for evaluating the organizational status of the American police. Observers generally conclude that the police lack most of the essential features of professional status. This paper questions the utility of using such a standard for evaluating the police. The professions of medicine, law and education are themselves in a state of flux. In particular, the crucial concept of professional autonomy appears increasingly incompatible with the goal of public accountability. Rather than expect the police to strive toward the traditional forms of professionalism, we should think in terms of creating appropriate mechanisms for ensuring public accountability for all service occupations

Applying the actual/potential person distinction to reproductive torts

As technology has advanced, the level of control that can be exercised over the reproductive process has increased. These advances have resulted in a number of claims in tort law relating to pregnancy and birth. The three reproductive torts considered here are ‘wrongful conception’, ‘wrongful birth’ and ‘wrongful life’. This article will consider the theoretical underpinnings upon which these torts rest and will suggest that the potential/actual person distinction is crucial to these reproductive torts because potential persons should not be able to make claims in tort based on alternative conditions that could never have been. This is because actions (or omissions) prior to birth determine the preconditions for existence. Thus, only actual persons (i.e. those who exist at the time of the action or omission) should be able to bring claims in tort. The analysis will conclude by arguing that no child should be permitted to bring a claim under any form of reproductive tort. The term reproductive torts originates with Nicolette Priaulx's work and encompasses all three terms: wrongful life, wrongful birth and wrongful conception. While these are distinct terms and all fall within negligence for the purposes of this analysis ‘reproductive torts’ is a useful term to identify these particular claims

Potential persons and the welfare of the (potential) child test

This paper considers the theoretical basis of ‘the welfare of the child’ as it exists in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 (as amended by the 2008 Act of the same name). It will be argued that potential persons, that is persons who do not yet exist, have no claims, interests or standing that can restrict the actions of actual persons. This claim will be based upon the necessity of existence before things can be said to affect a person. As persons are the subject for whom good and bad apply, actions which establish the pre-conditions for their existence cannot be subjected to considerations of the effect on the potential person. This is because potential persons are not affected by actions, but are the consequence of actions. Prospective parents, for example, should not be prohibited from having disabled offspring on the basis of the effect on the child, as different decisions relating to that child will change which persons exist, and thus the necessary pre-conditions for value will change. Based upon this logical framework it will be argued that only the interests of actual persons can constrain the actions of those involved in reproduction. Thus, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act’s formulation of the welfare test must be repealed and only the interests of prospective parents and other actually existing people should be capable of constraining reproduction