scholarly journals PRAWO ŁASKI NA POZIOMIE STANOWYM W USA

2017 ◽  
Vol 16 (4) ◽  
pp. 153
Author(s):  
Wojciech Kwiatkowski
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Checks And Balances ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
Federal Constitution ◽  
Executive Clemency ◽  
The Right ◽  
Core Issues

The Right of Clemency at the State Level in the United StatesSummary The article discusses the core issues related to state-level clemency in the United States of America. This power is deeply rooted in American history. At this level clemency often serves as an important mechanism of checks and balances on the state judiciary; it enables error-correction in a state criminal justice system, it may afford relief from undue harshness, and it helps to ensure that the state justice system is tempered. Although it is not required by the federal constitution, each state has a constitutional provision addressing clemency. This article points out that an important difference compared with solutions at the federal level is that the power to exercise clemency at the state level is vested in either the governor, an executive clemency board, or a combination thereof, so an important part of the study was to determine the advantages and disadvantages of each of these solutions. Another important aspect of the study was to identify the determinants affecting the regulation and application of state clemency. The article also discusses (I) some legal methods to limit the power to pardon and (II) regulations which determine the transparency of the whole procedure.

The Optimum Model of Compensation for Wrongful Detention on Remand – A Comparative Perspective

2019 ◽  
Vol 65 (2) ◽  
pp. 263-285
Author(s):  
Wojciech Jasiński ◽  
Dorota Czerwińska ◽  
Artur Kowalczyk
Keyword(s):  
Justice System ◽  
The State ◽  
Crucial Importance ◽  
Effective Mechanism ◽  
East European ◽  
Advantages And Disadvantages ◽  
European Court ◽  
Optimum Model ◽  
State Liability ◽  
The Right

The aim of the paper is to conduct a comparative analysis of regulations regarding compensation for wrongful detention on remand in three continental law states - Germany, France and Poland - in order to identify the similarities and differences between the adopted provisions and critically assess their advantages and disadvantages from the perspective of an optimum model of such compensation. Legal regulations regarding compensation for wrongful preliminary detention are matter of crucial importance, because they not only protect the right to liberty, by making the State accountable for its violations, but also strengthen confidence in criminal justice system. If the state is granted power to do justice and that prerogative is be to accepted by individuals, there has to exist an effective mechanism of compensating damages resulting from defective functioning of courts. The significance of the above-mentioned mechanism is visible especially in situations where the deprivation of liberty occurs before the final judgment is passed. In such cases those who are detained are people protected by the presumption of innocence. Wrongful detention of an innocent person is a particularly serious case, calling for a firm and speedy reaction of the State. Analysis of German, French and Polish regulations concerning compensation for wrongful detention on remand includes their brief history, grounds for claiming compensation, exemptions from state’s liability and analysis of procedure allowing to demand compensation. The comparison between two major Western European jurisdictions (Germany and France) and major Central and East European jurisdiction (Poland) indicates that there are remarkable differences between regulations regarding compensation for wrongful preliminary detention. They concern grounds for compensation, exemptions from state liability and, particularly, the mode of claiming compensation. The differences between analysed legal systems justify a critical analysis of adopted provisions in order to establish which model, using the expression of the European Court of Human Rights, best guarantees that the right to compensation for wrongful detention is practical and effective, not theoretical or illusory.

scholarly journals Soil Carbon Regulating Ecosystem Services in the State of South Carolina, USA

Land ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (3) ◽  
pp. 309
Author(s):  
Elena A. Mikhailova ◽  
Hamdi A. Zurqani ◽  
Christopher J. Post ◽  
Mark A. Schlautman ◽  
Gregory C. Post ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
South Carolina ◽  
Ecosystem Services ◽  
Soil Carbon ◽  
Soil Depth ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
The State ◽  
Soil C ◽  
Low Country ◽  
Pee Dee

Sustainable management of soil carbon (C) at the state level requires valuation of soil C regulating ecosystem services (ES) and disservices (ED). The objective of this study was to assess the value of regulating ES from soil organic carbon (SOC), soil inorganic carbon (SIC), and total soil carbon (TSC) stocks, based on the concept of the avoided social cost of carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions for the state of South Carolina (SC) in the United States of America (U.S.A.) by soil order, soil depth (0–200 cm), region and county using information from the State Soil Geographic (STATSGO) database. The total estimated monetary mid-point value for TSC in the state of South Carolina was $124.36B (i.e., $124.36 billion U.S. dollars, where B = billion = 109), $107.14B for SOC, and $17.22B for SIC. Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SOC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Histosols ($11.22B), and Inceptisols ($10.31B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for SIC were: Inceptisols ($5.91B), Entisols ($5.53B), and Alfisols ($5.0B). Soil orders with the highest midpoint value for TSC were: Ultisols ($64.35B), Inceptisols ($16.22B), and Entisols ($14.65B). The regions with the highest midpoint SOC values were: Pee Dee ($34.24B), Low Country ($32.17B), and Midlands ($29.24B). The regions with the highest midpoint SIC values were: Low Country ($5.69B), Midlands ($5.55B), and Pee Dee ($4.67B). The regions with the highest midpoint TSC values were: Low Country ($37.86B), Pee Dee ($36.91B), and Midlands ($34.79B). The counties with the highest midpoint SOC values were Colleton ($5.44B), Horry ($5.37B), and Berkeley ($4.12B). The counties with the highest midpoint SIC values were Charleston ($1.46B), Georgetown ($852.81M, where M = million = 106), and Horry ($843.18M). The counties with the highest midpoint TSC values were Horry ($6.22B), Colleton ($6.02B), and Georgetown ($4.87B). Administrative areas (e.g., counties, regions) combined with pedodiversity concepts can provide useful information to design cost-efficient policies to manage soil carbon regulating ES at the state level.

Pregnancies and Pregnancy Desires at the State Level: Estimates for 2017 and Trends Since 2012

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kathryn Kost ◽  
◽  
Isaac Maddow-Zimet ◽  
Ashley C. Little
Keyword(s):  
Pregnancy Rate ◽  
Unwanted Pregnancy ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Clear Pattern ◽  
The South ◽  
The West ◽  
Key Points ◽  
The Right ◽  
Almost All

Key Points In almost all U.S. states, pregnancies reported as occurring at the right time or being wanted sooner than they occurred comprised the largest share of pregnancies in 2017, though proportions varied widely by state. The proportion of pregnancies that were wanted later or unwanted was higher in the South and Northeast than in other regions, and the proportion of pregnancies that occurred at the right time or were wanted sooner was higher in the West and Midwest. From 2012 to 2017, the wanted-later-or-unwanted pregnancy rate fell in the majority of states. However, no clear pattern emerged for any changes in the rate of pregnancies that were reported as wanted then or sooner or in the rate of those for which individuals expressed uncertainty.

Criminal Justice in an Era of Mass Deportation

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
State Level ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Collateral Consequence

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.

scholarly journals Book Review: Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties: Revised and Expanded Edition, 2nd ed.

2018 ◽  
Vol 58 (1) ◽  
pp. 61
Author(s):  
Seth Kershner
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Justice System ◽  
Civil Liberties ◽  
The United States ◽  
Occupy Wall Street ◽  
Wall Street ◽  
Unequal Treatment ◽  
The Past ◽  
The Right

Occupy Wall Street. Black Lives Matter. The #MeToo movement. Over the past decade, the United States has seen a surge in activism around civil rights, broadly defined as the right to be free from discrimination and unequal treatment in arenas such as housing, the workplace, and the criminal justice system. At times, as when activists are arrested at a protest, calls for civil rights can also be the occasion for violations of civil liberties—certain basic freedoms (e.g., freedom of speech) that are either enshrined in the Constitution or established through legal rulings. While civil rights are distinct from civil liberties, students often struggle to articulate these differences and appreciate the links between the two concepts. Complicating this distinction is the fact that historically reference materials have tended to cover either one or the other but not the two in combination. Combining these two concepts in one work is what makes a revised edition of the Encyclopedia of American Civil Rights and Liberties so timely and valuable.

America in Indochina, 1957–1963: British Perceptions, Hopes, and Strategy

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 81-104
Author(s):  
Meghan Nealis
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Opinion ◽  
Prime Minister ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
The United States ◽  
Post Colonial ◽  
Anglo American ◽  
The Times ◽  
The Right ◽  
Core Issues

AbstractBritish perceptions of the United States in Indochina between 1957 and 1963 were cautious and constructive. This article examines the perceptions of policymakers in Prime Minister Harold MacMillan's government and public opinion as expressed in the Times of London. British policymakers had basic doubts regarding American policy in Indochina, but Britain remained involved in the region after 1954 and agreed with the United States on defining the problem and on the broad methodological approach to the crisis. London wanted to ensure that Washington pursued the “right” policy in Indochina, that Britain utilized its expertise in post-colonial and counter-insurgency, and that the Anglo- American alliance maintained its importance for both countries. The study of these perceptions reveals some concerns which we would anticipate, but also shows that Britain respected the United States as a leader in the region and that it agreed with the United States on core issues.

Other types of secondary legislation immediately place legal obligations directly into the legal system of all Member States. These are binding in their entirety and said to be directly applicable. Still other types place legal obligations directly upon certain named States, individuals and organisations. (4) The treaties, regulations and directives enacted by the Union do not directly state that they give individuals rights that they can enforce in their national courts. These legal rules are addressed in the first place to the Union and the Member State. Yet under the founding treaties Member States are expected to enforce the rights, liabilities and powers that are a consequence of membership in national courts. The ECJ has developed the concept of direct effect which describes EC primary or secondary law that give individuals rights that are enforceable in their national courts. Set criteria have to be present. Direct effect is easier to prove in relation to regulations than it is in relation to articles and directives. The criteria demand that: • the rule does not require any action from the State (and directives do); and • that the right to be enforced is clear and precise and can be activated without recourse to the State (which is not the automatic case in relation to articles in a treaty concluded at State level or a directive issued to the State demanding certain outcomes within a timescale). However, articles and directives considered on a case by case basis by the European and national courts have been held to give individuals rights. The case of Van Gend en Loos discussed later in this chapter deals with direct applicability and direct effect of articles. (5) A major difficulty is caused by the lack of uniformity of terms in relation to ‘directly applicable’ and ‘direct effect’. ‘Directly applicable’ is the phrase used in Article 249 (formerly 189) of the EC Treaty to refer to the process by which Community law of certain types is immediately and automatically part of the legal system of Member States as soon as it is created in the EC. ‘Direct effect’, which is not a phrase occurring in any of the treaties, is the phrase consistently used in the ECJ in two senses to refer to: • the process by which individuals acquire rights they can enforce in national courts (against other individuals—horizontal direct effect, and against the State itself—vertical direct effect); and • the process by which EC law is immediately and automatically part of the legal system of Member States as soon as it is created in the EC. This is confusing, especially as some Community law that is created by Article 249 (formerly 177) of the EC Treaty is not said in the Treaty to be directly applicable in the sense of immediately and automatically becoming part of the legal system of Member States. Yet the ECJ has held that such law can, if certain criteria are present, have direct effect. In fact, they have gone one step further and constructed the concept of indirect effect. It is indirect precisely because the law is not directly applicable but somehow an individual can enforce it in a national court.

2012 ◽  
pp. 157-157
Keyword(s):  
Direct Effect ◽  
Legal System ◽  
National Court ◽  
State Level ◽  
The State ◽  
Member States ◽  
Community Law ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Legal Obligations ◽  
The Right

Governance models of public utility commissions in the United States

2019 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 229-239 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas J. Howe
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Political Action ◽  
State Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
State Legislature ◽  
The State ◽  
Public Utility ◽  
Political Action Committees ◽  
Special Interest Groups ◽  
Governance Model

Regulation of utilities at the state level in the United States is undertaken by a commission on which anywhere from three to seven commissioners sit and must vote on virtually all significant utility actions, including rate requests, resource plans, acquisitions and mergers, and financing mechanisms. Public utility commissions (PUCs) are, in a very real sense, courts with adjudicatory responsibility over the area of state utility laws. In hearing a utility case, they must follow the state’s statutes and court rules. The commissioners function as judges in this court of public utility law. In a majority of states, commissioners are appointed by the state’s governor with the advice and consent of the state legislature. In a significant minority of states, commissioners are elected by popular vote. However, recent changes in US election law have made it easier for corporations and special interest groups, called political action committees, to influence elections through donations targeting direct voter outreach on behalf of specific candidates. This chapter examines what the entry of political spending in PUC elections means, and whether elected commissioners can adjudicate in the public interest, or will adjudicate for special interests. The chapter concludes that while both the appointment and election governance model can produce both “good” and “bad” commissioners, it is the elected commission that is most at risk of selecting commissioners that will not be truly independent and objective arbiters of the law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document