Suchergebnisse

This paper discusses how legal moralism should be defined. It is argued that legal moralism should be defined as the position that "For any X, it is always a pro tanto reason for justifiably imposing legal regulation on X that X is morally wrong (where "morally wrong" is not conceptually equivalent to "harmful")". Furthermore, a distinction between six types of legal moralism is made. The six types are grouped according to whether they are concerned with the enforcement of positive or critical morality, and whether they are concerned with criminalising, legally restricting, or refraining from legally protecting morally wrong behaviour. This is interesting because not all types of legal moralism are equally vulnerable to the different critiques of legal moralism that have been put forth. Indeed, I show that some interesting types of legal moralism have not been criticised at all.

The first statutory regulatory body that the government of India set up post the reforms of 1991 was the Securities and Exchanges Board of India (SEBI). As a regulator for the securities markets, SEBI was given the powers to create subordinate legislation and to investigate wrong-doing and impose relevant penalties. In this paper, we examine and describe the legal processes at SEBI with a focus on the enforcement process, particularly on the quasi-judicial functions. We make an attempt to lay out the principles that ought to drive such functions in a regulatory body, against which we compare the current workings at SEBI.We propose a series of improvements through which the rule of law could be further strengthened.

Although legal sanctions are often non-deterrent, we frequently observe compliance with 'mild laws'. A possible explanation is that the incentives to comply are shaped not only by legal, but also by social sanctions. This paper employs a novel experimental approach to study the link between legal and social norm enforcement. We analyze whether the two institutions are complements or substitutes. Our results show that legal sanctions partially crowd out social norm enforcement. The welfare effect from mild laws is positive, however, as a higher level of compliance is achieved at lower enforcement costs

The article considers the modern legal policy in the antimonopoly sphere in terms of the establishment and application of administrative coercion measures. The relevance of the study is determined by the fact that the effectiveness of the antimonopoly policy of the state depends on the state of development of administrative enforcement tools, since administrative enforcement measures provide prevention, suppression of anticompetitive actions, punishment of perpetrators. The aim is to determine the content, objectives of legal policy and factors that reduce the quality of its implementation in this direction. Strategic planning in the antimonopoly sphere is analyzed and critically evaluated, insufficient specification of prospects for improving administrative-preventive and administrative-preventive mechanisms, considered as key instruments of antimonopoly policy, is revealed.

The status of enforcement procedures may appear at first glance to be an academic debate with little application to probation practice. Yet the answer to this singular question determines how probation trusts should respond to a variety of court based challenges, which if mishandled has the potential to open the door to litigation against individual trusts. A breach of a community order is not a criminal offence, nor do enforcement proceedings form part of the criminal law. Regulatory statutes such as the Criminal Procedures and Investigations Act therefore do not apply. However, English case law has determined that a criminal standard of proof applies to enforcement cases and therefore some elements of the Criminal Procedure Rules do have resonance. Yet there is no right of appeal against a finding of breach and avenues of redress for both offender and the prosecution are limited to general provisions enshrined in English Law. Uncertainty surrounds the admissibility of other evidential areas. The robustness of evidence presented to the court can be improved by relatively modest amendments to practice and forestall possible 'reasonable excuse' defences. However other initiatives derived from general legal practice, are fraught with potential dangers when applied to Community Order enforcement.

Recent events have given attention to the public perception of criminal justice field in the United States. Although there has been much political debate about problems in the criminal justice field, attention should be turned to the prospective employees who will soon be seeking out these debates: college students seeking to enter the criminal justice field. The current study did that through survey data obtained from 112 students enrolled in criminal justice courses at East Tennessee State University during the Fall 2020 semester. Analysis revealed much about student interest in various criminal justice occupations, their perceived ability to perform the duties associated with them and the factors that motivated their decision-making. It also indicated that certain characteristics may influence desire to enter the policing and legal fields. Each of these findings is discussed.