A Theory of ‘Too Big To Jail’

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Iwan Bos

Abstract Motivated by some recent examples, this paper employs a model of public law enforcement to explain why it may not be in society’s interest to send criminals to prison. We establish two main findings. First, independent of the lawbreaker’s societal position, imprisonment is suboptimal when the harm from the illegal activity is sufficiently small. Second, for a given level of harm, imprisonment is suboptimal when the lawbreaker is sufficiently important. This latter result thus provides a rationale for why some parties are taken to be ‘too big to jail’.

Author(s):  
Niva Elkin-Koren ◽  
Maayan Perel

In recent years, there is a growing use of algorithmic law enforcement by online intermediaries. Algorithmic enforcement by private intermediaries is located at the interface between public law and private ordering. It often reflects risk management and commercial interests of online intermediaries, effectively converging law enforcement and adjudication powers, at the hands of a small number of mega platforms. At the same time, algorithmic governance also plays a critical role in shaping access to online content and facilitating public discourse. Yet, online intermediaries are hardly held accountable for algorithmic enforcement, even though they may reach erroneous decisions. Developing proper accountability mechanisms is hence vital to create a check on algorithmic enforcement. Accordingly, relying on lessons drawn from algorithmic copyright enforcement by online intermediaries, this chapter demonstrates the accountability deficiencies in algorithmic copyright enforcement; maps the barriers for algorithmic accountability and discusses various strategies for enhancing accountability in algorithmic governance.


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertrand Chopard ◽  
Marie Obidzinski
Keyword(s):  

2019 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
pp. 255-272
Author(s):  
Usammah Usammah

Memformalisasikan syariat Islam baik dalam ranah kehidupan bermasyarakat dan sosial, dalam bernegara dan berbangsa tidak jarang terjadi perdebatan, baik perdebatan sosial-politik maupun keagamaan. Perdebatan itu di samping menyangkut memahami ajaran agama dan hubungannya dengan negara-bangsa, juga dalam memahami sistem hukum yang ada dalam negera, lebih-lebih bahwa negera menganut sistem hukum positif yang lebih banyak dipengaruhi oleh hukum barat. Gagasan pemberlakuan hukum pidana Islam tidak serta merta dapat dijalankan dengan baik tanpa adanya legislasi dan pembentukan hukum pidana Islam materil sebagai hukum positif yang berlaku. Juga bahwa hukum pidana Islam adalah hukum publik yang membutuhkan kekuasaan negara baik dalam pembentukannya maupun dalam penegakannya. Dalam hubungannya dengan legislasi dan pembentukan hukum (qanun syariat Islam), maka hal yang sangat menarik adalah bagaimana menentukan bentuk jarimah dan uqubatnya baik yang termasuk dalam kategori hudud, qisas, dan takzir sebagai bagian dari sistem penegakan hukum syariat Islam. Takzir as a Punishment in Islamic Criminal Law The formalizing of Islamic Sharia Law both in the realm of social and community life and also in the state and national level. This issue is frequently debatable, both in socio-political as well as in religious matter. The debate is not only about understanding religious teachings and their relationship with the nation, but also about understanding the legal system applicable in the country, especially the country which apply a positive legal system that influenced by western law. The idea of enforcing Islamic Criminal Law cannot be carried out properly without the existence of legislation and the establishment of Islamic Criminal Law as a positive law that enforced. In addition, Islamic Criminal Law is a public law that requires state power both in its formation and in its enforcement. In relation to legislation and the formation of law (Qanun Sharia), the very interesting part is how to determine the form of rahmah and uqubat both are included in the hudud, qisas and takzir categories as part of the Islamic Sharia law enforcement system.


2019 ◽  
pp. 70-73
Author(s):  
I. L. Zheltobriukh

This paper explores the existing contradictions between the scientific terminology and the terminology of legislation regarding the definition of subjects and participants in the administrative process. It is noted that acquaintance with the scientific and educational- methodological literature shows that even today there is no clear justification of the relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant of administrative process”. The main reason for this state of affairs is due to differences in the laws of development of national administrative procedural legislation and the laws of development of science of administrative procedural law. It is concluded that there is a long-standing need to offer the scientific community and practitioners such a concept of relation between the terms “subject of administrative process” and “participant in administrative process”, which would reconcile the contradictions of the otological and epistemological terminology used in the CAS. The necessity to use in the science of administrative law and process justifies the concept according to which the administrative process should be considered as law enforcement activity of administrative courts related to the consideration and resolution of public law disputes. In such a case, the administrative court will always be the subject of the administrative court, whereas the parties, third parties, representatives, assistant judge, court secretary, court administrator, witness, expert, law expert, translator, specialist are only participants in the administrative process that is, persons involved in the enforcement of administrative law.


Public Choice ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 184 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 157-174
Author(s):  
Anja Shortland ◽  
Andrew Shortland

Abstract The market for paintings by well-known artists is booming despite widespread concern about art crime and difficulties in establishing provenance. Public law enforcement is imperfect, and court cases often are deemed problematic. So how is the thriving art market governed in practice? We analyze the protocols used by the top auction houses to identify and resolve problems of illicit supply—fakes, forgeries and items with defective legal titles—through the lens of institutional analysis. We uncover a polycentric private governance system in which different actors govern distinct but overlapping issue areas, motivated by profit, prestige, or the search for truth. When the financial stakes rise, opportunistic behavior undermines the credibility of private governance. We argue that as litigious, super-rich investors entered the art market, the interaction between public law and the traditional private governance system restricted the supply of “blue chip” art, driving the escalation of prices.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document