Making sense of the victim’s role in clemency decision making

2018 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Pascoe ◽  
Marie Manikis

This article discusses victim engagement with the executive clemency process from a normative perspective. The authors’ aim is to explore the existing models of victim participation in clemency decision making in common law jurisdictions, in order to determine whether these possess any sound theoretical basis. The article brings together the academic literatures on victim participation and clemency functionality in order to ground the analysis. In brief, the authors' main finding is that victim involvement in clemency decision making can indeed be supported by the theoretical literature, albeit to a more limited extent than is currently practised in some common law jurisdictions. In light of the theoretical underpinnings of clemency in democratic societies and the literature on victim participation, the authors conclude by making several ‘best practice’ recommendations for future policy-making.

Author(s):  
Joshua Biro ◽  
David M. Neyens ◽  
Candace Jaruzel ◽  
Catherine D. Tobin ◽  
Myrtede Alfred ◽  
...  

Medication errors and error-related scenarios in anesthesia remain an important area of research. Interventions and best practice recommendations in anesthesia are often based in the work-as-imagined healthcare system, remaining under-used due to a range of unforeseen complexities in healthcare work-as- done. In order to design adaptable anesthesia medication delivery systems, a better understanding of clinical cognition within the context of anesthesia work is needed. Fourteen interviews probing anesthesia providers’ decision making were performed. The results revealed three overarching themes: (1) anesthesia providers find cases challenging when they have incomplete information, (2) decision-making begins with information seeking, and (3) attributes such as expertise, experience, and work environment influence anesthesia providers’ information seeking and synthesis of tasks. These themes and the context within this data help create a more realistic view of work-as-done and generate insights into what potential medication error reducing interventions should look to avoid and what they could help facilitate.


Legal Studies ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 1-18
Author(s):  
Claire Hamilton

Abstract The changes to the Irish exclusionary rule introduced by the judgment in People (DPP) v JC mark an important watershed in the Irish law of evidence and Irish legal culture more generally. The case relaxed the exclusionary rule established in People (DPP) v Kenny, one of the strictest in the common law world, by creating an exception based on ‘inadvertence’. This paper examines the decision through the lens of legal culture, drawing in particular on Lawrence Friedman's distinction between ‘internal’ and ‘external’ legal culture to help understand the factors contributing to the decision. The paper argues that Friedman's concept and, in particular, the dialectic between internal and external legal culture, holds much utility at a micro as well as macro level, in interrogating the cultural logics at work in judicial decision-making.


Author(s):  
David J. Gladstone ◽  
M. Patrice Lindsay ◽  
James Douketis ◽  
Eric E Smith ◽  
Dar Dowlatshahi ◽  
...  

Author(s):  
Elizabeth M. Perpetua ◽  
Kimberly A. Guibone ◽  
Patricia A. Keegan ◽  
Roseanne Palmer ◽  
Martina K. Speight ◽  
...  

2007 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 157-172
Author(s):  
Ivan P. Vaghely ◽  
Pierre-André Julien ◽  
André Cyr

Using grounded theory along with participant observation and interviews the authors explore how individuals in organizations process information. They build a model of human information processing which links the cognitivist-constructionist perspective to an algorithmic-heuristic continuum. They test this model using non-parametric procedures and find interesting results showing links to efficient information processing outcomes such as contributions to decision-making, knowledge-creation and innovation. They also identify some elements of best practice by efficient human information processing individuals whom they call the “information catalysts”.


Author(s):  
Olina Efthymiadou ◽  
Panos Kanavos

Abstract Background Managed Entry Agreements (MEAs) are increasingly used to address uncertainties arising in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) process due to immature evidence of new, high-cost medicines on their real-world performance and cost-effectiveness. The literature remains inconclusive on the HTA decision-making factors that influence the utilization of MEAs. We aimed to assess if the uptake of MEAs differs between countries and if so, to understand which HTA decision-making criteria play a role in determining such differences. Methods All oncology medicines approved since 2009 in Australia, England, Scotland, and Sweden were studied. Four categories of variables were collected from publicly available HTA reports of the above drugs: (i) Social Value Judgments (SVJs), (ii) Clinical/Economic evidence submitted, (iii) Interpretation of this evidence, and (iv) Funding decision. Conditional/restricted decisions were coded as Listed With Conditions (LWC) other than an MEA or LWC including an MEA (LWCMEA). Cohen's κ-scores measured the inter-rater agreement of countries on their LWCMEA outcomes and Pearson's chi-squared tests explored the association between HTA variables and LWCMEA outcomes. Results A total of 74 drug-indication pairs were found resulting in n = 296 observations; 8 percent (n = 23) were LWC and 55 percent (n = 163) were LWCMEA. A poor-to-moderate agreement existed between countries (−.29 < κ < .33) on LWCMEA decisions. Cross-country differences within the LWCMEA sample were partly driven by economic uncertainties and largely driven by SVJs considered across agencies. Conclusions A set of HTA-related variables driving the uptake of MEAs across countries was identified. These findings can be useful in future research aimed at informing country-specific, “best-practice” guidelines for successful MEA implementation.


2013 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-55
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Arenson

Despite the hackneyed expression that ‘judges should interpret the law and not make it’, the fact remains that there is some scope within the separation of powers doctrine for the courts to develop the common law incrementally. To this extent, the courts can effectively legislate, but only to this limited extent if they are to respect the separation of powers doctrine. On occasion, however, the courts have usurped the power entrusted to Parliament, and particularly so in instances where a strict application of the existing law would lead to results that offend their personal notions of what is fair and just. When this occurs, the natural consequence is that lawyers, academics and the public in general lose respect for both the judges involved as well as the adversarial system of criminal justice. In order to illustrate this point, attention will focus on the case of Thabo Meli v United Kingdom in which the Privy Council, mistakenly believing that it could not reach its desired outcome through a strict application of the common law rule of temporal coincidence, emasculated the rule beyond recognition in order to convict the accused. Moreover, the discussion to follow will demonstrate that not only was the court wrong in its belief that the case involved the doctrine of temporal coincidence, but the same result would have been achieved had the Council correctly identified the issue as one of legal causation and correctly applied the principles relating thereto.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document