Inequality

Inequality in all its forms is common to human societies, and thus its understanding is part of the central mission of anthropology. Social structural elements such as race, class, gender, status, and caste have a decisive influence on human well-being and have been a persistent focus of inquiry over the course of more than a century of anthropological investigations. It is also fair to say that anthropologists over time have adopted as core values equal protection and equal opportunity for all peoples. These principles have been applied by extension most recently to sexual minorities, stateless refugees, and migrants.

Relevant issues in determining the quantity of drugs (d-Lysergide, LSD, LSD-25) for the purposes of the Russian criminal legislation

The object of this research is the social relations arising in the sphere of counter-drugs activity. The author outlines the problems of law enforcement in the context of determining the quantity of d- Lysergide (LSD, LSD-25). The scientific community is divided over the conclusions and recommendations on determination of the quality and quantity of LSD for the purposes of criminal legislation. Infringement of the rights of defendants to equal protection is observed. Special attention is given to the existing investigative practice and case law, the results of which allow formulating the key elements of the research. The author carefully examines foreign experience in determining the quantity of the drug d- Lysergide, and reveals similar issues within the Russian legal field. Some authors truly believe that the current regulation contradicts the fundamental principles of the administration of justice, while others offer alternative methods for resolution of contradictions, and this bringing the investigative practice and case law to uniformity, which would prevent the infringement of rights to equal protection. The goal of this research lies in consideration of the problems of determining the quantity of narcotic substance d-Lysergide (LSD, LSD-25), as well as in establishment of the conditions that would prevent violation of the rights of convicts. Based on research competence, the author makes recommendations for improvement of the existing procedure on determination of the narcotic substance under review.

Equal Protection by Race with Stop and Frisk: a Risk-Adjusted Disparity (RAD) Index for Balanced Policing

Research Question Can racial equity in crime and policing be measured with the use of a Risk-Adjusted Disparity (RAD) Index of the degree to which policing across racial categories is “balanced” in its ratios of preventive police actions per 100 serious crimes committed against members of each racial category? Data Office of National Statistics (ONS) reports on crime and policing in England and Wales, and Dorset Police data on violent crime victimization and stop-search by race of suspect across the 452 Lower-Layer Super-Output Levels in Dorset. Methods We conceptualize the problem of equal protection under law as fundamentally protecting the lives and liberties of each citizen from criminal harms, as well as from disproportionately intrusive policing. We combine these dimensions into a single metric that defines proportionality of policing in relation to risk of violent crime victimization, such that whatever intrusion on liberty is applied for the aim of protection can be equalized across racial groups. Findings The use of a Risk-Adjusted Disparity (RAD) Index to measure reliably the equality of police intrusions across racial groups based on victimization rates can be illustrated by adjusting for homicide. In the past decade, the population-based disparity rate shows that Blacks are stopped by police nine times more often than whites. When that rate is adjusted for the differential risk of homicide in the two groups, the disparity estimate drops from 800% to 58%. Other changes of major magnitude result from using the RAD Index. Conclusions We conclude that an index of proactive policing using victimizations by race is more likely to lead to equal protection of law than a residential population-based metric of proactive police actions, as is commonly used in official reporting. A victim-based, Risk-Adjusted (RAD) Index for measuring racial disparity might focus police efforts on the 5% of local areas where serious violence is concentrated, and deflect stops away from the vast majority of areas that have little serious crime.

Tailoring Public Health Policies

In an effort to contain the spread of COVID-19, many states and countries have adopted public health restrictions on activities previously considered commonplace: crossing state borders, eating indoors, gathering together, and even leaving one’s home. These policies often focus on specific activities or groups, rather than imposing the same limits across the board. In this Article, I consider the law and ethics of these policies, which I call tailored policies.In Part II, I identify two types of tailored policies: activity-based and group-based. Activity-based restrictions respond to differences in the risks and benefits of specific activities, such as walking outdoors and dining indoors. Group-based restrictions consider differences between groups with respect to risk and benefit. Examples are policies that treat children or senior citizens differently, policies that require travelers to quarantine when traveling to a new destination, and policies that treat individuals differently based on whether they have COVID-19 symptoms, have tested positive for COVID-19, have previous COVID-19 infection, or have been vaccinated against COVID-19. In Part III, I consider the public health law grounding of tailored policies in the principles of “least restrictive means” and “well-targeting.” I also examine how courts have analyzed tailored policies that have been challenged on fundamental rights or equal protection grounds. I argue that fundamental rights analyses typically favor tailored policies and that equal protection does not preclude the use of tailored policies even when imperfectly crafted. In Part IV, I consider three critiques of tailored policies, centering on the claims that they produce inequity, cause harm, or unacceptably limit liberty. I argue that we must evaluate restrictions comparatively: the question is not whether tailored policies are perfectly equitable, wholly prevent harm, or completely protect liberty, but whether they are better than untailored ones at realizing these goals in a pandemic. I also argue that evaluation must consider indirect harms and benefits as well as direct and apparent ones.

Personalized Law and Equal Protection

This chapter examines personalized law from the perspective of the Equal Protection Clause in the United States Constitution. Some classifications of people, when made for the purpose of differentiated treatment, are subject to stifling doctrinal constraints. Could such classifications be made under personalized law? The chapter argues that personalized law mitigates the constitutional concerns relating to suspect classifications. Treating people as individuals, using multi-attribute data-weighed tailoring, and not as identical members in a certain class, is permissible because members of the class are not singled out for class-specific uniform treatment. The chapter examines landmark Supreme Court cases on sex and race classifications, showing that the limits set by the Court and the narrow permission it granted for some uses of classifications, all fit well within a scheme of personalized law. In addition, the chapter examines problems of unintended disparate impact that could arise under personalized law, and demonstrates the unique advantage of the algorithmic methods fueling personalized law in reducing and eliminating such effects.