The social construction of risk by young people

The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of a widely accepted risk discourse. This discussion presents a range of data which aims to highlight weaknesses in the widespread application of the 'risk society' thesis (Beck 1992). This paper uses the lives of young people as a context specific example. This selection of quantitative and qualitative data, taken from a school-based case study, is juxtaposed against theoretical reasoning throughout this paper. Three main assumptions made by the 'risk society' thesis are critiqued using this empirical data: (1) risk is a negative concept, (2) risk is aligned with uncertainty and worry, and (3) those living in the 'risk society' have become sceptical of expert opinions. The conclusion suggests that by using pockets of mixed methodology the extensive acceptance of the 'risk society' thesis can be critiqued. By stimulating this debate it becomes clear that each of the individual criticisms need further research. This paper provides a platform for future empirical work which would look to strengthen the social constructionist framework involved in an appreciation of risk, moving away from the recent trend in grand risk theorising, to context specific data collection and explanation

The relationship between likelihood and fear of criminal victimisation: evaluating risk sensitivity as a mediating concept

Crime surveys typically ask respondents how ‘likely’ they think it is that they will become a crime victim in the future. The responses are interpreted here as ‘risk’ statements. An investigation of the risk literature shows the concept to be considerably more complex than at first imagined, but shows that individual risk predictions are largely based on interpretations far removed from rational considerations of likelihood based on recorded crime rates. Responses from three waves of a longitudinal crime survey conducted in Trinidad are examined in this light. It is concluded that fear of criminal victimization might best be considered as differential sensitivity to predicted risk.</p

NATIONAL "E-EXTENSION" PROGRAMS: FEASIBILITY AND STRUCTURE

Illinois agriculture and natural resource e-Extension programs have exceeded expectations. National e-Extension programs will also succeed given they explicitly help clients make decisions, make available user-friendly decision tools and data, use GIS, reward the programs' interdisciplinary teams, and use the web for seamless integration across states.Teaching/Communication/Extension/Profession,

Sovereignty, Not Due Process: Personal Jurisdiction Over Nonresident, Alien Defendants

The Due Process Clause with its focus on a defendant\u27s liberty interest has become the key, if not only, limitation on a court\u27s exercise of personal jurisdiction. This due process jurisdictional limitation is universally assumed to apply with equal force to alien defendants as to domestic defendants. With few exceptions, scholars do not distinguish between the two. Neither do the courts. Countless cases assume that foreigners have all the rights of United States citizens to object to extraterritorial assertions of personal jurisdiction. But is this assumption sound? This Article explores the uncritical assumption that the same due process considerations apply to alien defendants as to domestic defendants in the personal jurisdiction context. It concludes that the current approach to personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants is doctrinally inconsistent with broader notions of American constitutionalism. The inconsistency is particularly stark given recent Fifth Amendment jurisprudence, including that involving Guantanamo Bay detainees. The limits on a court\u27s power to assert extraterritorial personal jurisdiction over alien defendants derive not from the Due Process Clause, as commonly assumed, but from the inherent attributes of sovereignty under international law. The Article concludes by suggesting two frameworks for determining when a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, alien defendant. For theoretical coherence and pragmatic reasons, the Court should untether the personal jurisdiction analysis from the Constitution in international cases. Sovereignty, not due process, limits a U.S. Court\u27s extraterritorial assertion of personal jurisdiction

Comity and Foreign Parallel Proceedings: A Reply to Black and Swan. Lloyd’s Underwriters v. Cominco LTD.

Lloyd\u27s Underwriters v. Cominco Ltd., is a potentially seminal case, currently pending before the Supreme Court of Canada. The case involves the issue of whether Canadian courts should stay litigation in the face of duplicative foreign proceedings. This reply responds to Vaughan Black\u27s and John Swan\u27s comment on the Lloyd\u27s case, which was published in volume 46 of the Canadian Business Law Journal. The reply argues that although Black and Swan have important insights into judgment enforcement when competing, inconsistent decisions exist, their analysis too readily skips over the first-to-file rule and underestimates the costs of reactive litigation. Canadian courts should embrace a nuanced version of the first-to-file rule because avoiding the costs of duplicative, reactive litigation is in Canada\u27s best interest. The reply argues that Canadian courts should treat the issues of parallel proceedings and judgment enforcement symmetrically. Once a Canadian court finds that the same case has already been filed in a court of appropriate adjudicatory jurisdiction (consistent with Canadian jurisdictional principles), it should stay its proceedings unless the party opposing the stay can demonstrate that a clear injustice would occur if the stay is granted. The court should enter a stay, even if a Canadian province has greater connections with the dispute, so long as the foreign forum has real and substantial connections. It concludes by arguing that the Canadian Supreme Court would be wise to reverse the lower courts\u27 decisions and find that the wastes inherent in duplicative litigation favors a stay in the Lloyd\u27s case

Dean\u27s Desk: Staff Excellence is Institutional Excellence

When it comes to the student experience, the people that our students interact with most frequently are our staff, and demands on staff have been particularly high as we’ve navigated the pandemic. In short, being one of the nation’s top public law schools requires staff who work tirelessly behind the scenes, who care deeply about student success and who provide high-quality help. In Bloomington, we’re fortunate that we have the best, with long-serving staff who are truly exceptional. In this Dean’s Desk, I thought I’d pause to recognize a few staff members at the law school and highlight why they are so critical to our success