Georgetown University Law Center

About: Georgetown University Law Center is a based out in . It is known for research contribution in the topics: Supreme court & Global health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

The Pathologies of Institutional Review Boards

Abstract: Federal regulations require all research funded by the federal government and involving human subjects to be overseen by an institutional review board (IRB) that evaluates whether the risks to subjects are minimized; whether those risks are reasonable in light of expected benefits; and whether subjects are selected in an equitable manner. IRBs have come under intense criticism since their creation, for obstructing legitimate, low-risk research and approving questionable, high-risk research. The important question to ask about IRBs is not whether they are perfect, but whether they are the "least worst" institutional response to the problem of balancing the marginal cost and marginal benefit of research and research oversight. Even judged by this modest standard, IRBs fall well short.

Providing Those with Mental Illness Full and Fair Treatment: Legislative Considerations in the Post-Clark Era

Abstract: Reforming legal treatment of individuals with mental illness has been a topic that periodically resurfaces only to quickly be replaced by the next emergent public policy issue. Decisions are generally made in a reactionary fashion instead of the more deliberative processes afforded other ongoing issues such as taxes, health care, budgets, and others. Now that the dust has settled from the Supreme Court’s decision in Clark v. Arizona, it is time that legislatures take another look, this time with a broader and perhaps more sober perspective, at how their legal system approaches such individuals. Generally speaking, the civil legal system deals with people with mental illness in terms of public services such as treatment facilities, mental health care provisions, and non-discrimination policies, among others. The criminal justice system, on the other hand, interfaces with people with mental illness through several mechanisms: diversion to alternative sentencing programs such as mental health courts, defendant competency requirements, and the availability, scope, and use of the insanity defense. Although the rise of the regulatory state has born some strict liability criminal statutes, actus reus, mens rea, justification, and excuse, together, form the basic fundament of criminal liability and the resultant ability of the government to deprive an individual of liberty and even life. When considering defendants with mental illness, Clark v. Arizona upheld extremely narrow policy choices with respect to mens rea and the insanity defense. Legislatures, of course, remain free to consider alternative strategies; indeed, the Supreme Court has demonstrated a remarkable deference to local formulations of the insanity defense. This Note will argue that narrow rules serve neither the public nor a prisoner’s interest in rehabilitation and that legislatures should broaden the insanity defense and fund policies that ensure early detection, provide adequate treatment, and enable people with mental illness to lead productive lives. The United States criminal justice system fails to serve adequately both the individual inmate and societal needs when dealing with defendants with mental illness. This problem is illustrated in cases involving persons with schizophrenia. For these individuals, incarceration based on either just desert or incapacitation functions as a way for society to ignore the underlying issues of treatment and post-release psychological care. Providing adequate treatment services before, during, and after confinement is necessary to meet the moral obligation we have to take care of the most vulnerable within our society. This is not to say that such individuals necessarily should be free from responsibility. Rather, people with mental illness present unique challenges to our judicial system and to the host of public services that the government provides its citizens. Addressing these issues – making the difficult policy choices – is incumbent upon legislatures, the courts, and the public at large. For individuals with mental illness, existing approaches provide a mechanism for the public to avoid the long-term problems of mental illness and the ability to either prevent such crimes from even occurring or to help reduce their recurrence after release from confinement. Specific social programs and services are needed, together with legal reforms, in order to address these issues. These changes are neither popular nor cheap in the short-term; however, a longer-horizon approach will show that such programs provide the public with lower incarceration rates and lower recidivism and give individuals with mental illness a chance at a more productive and healthy life. This Note will begin by examining the current understandings of both the pathology and effectiveness of treatment for individuals with schizophrenia and how the legal system interacts with individuals with mental illness. Then the historical progression of the law’s treatment of those with mental illness will be reviewed. A detailed accounting of the current status of the insanity defense will be discussed. This Note will conclude by proposing alternatives for legislatures to consider in the wake of the Clark v. Arizona decision.

Regulatory Monopoly and Differential Pricing in the Market for Patents

Abstract: Patents are limited-term monopolies awarded to inventors to incentivize innovation. But there is another monopoly that has been largely overlooked at the heart of patent law: the monopoly of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) over the granting of patents. The present Article addresses this topic by introducing the broader notion of a regulatory monopoly, where a single governmental actor has the power to set prices in a regulatory area.The Article explains how regulatory monopolists like the PTO could enhance social welfare via differential pricing — by charging regulated entities differing fees based on their willingness and ability to pay. In particular, the Article shows how the PTO could increase its revenues and promote innovation by charging different patent “prices” for inventions in different industries. Such pricing could also be used to tailor effective patent term across industries, an emergent goal for many patent scholars.The Article then applies the author’s recent empirical research to generate potential differential patent price structures. This research takes advantage of a natural experiment — a change in patent term rules due to enactment of the TRIPS agreement in 1995 — to measure the relative importance of patent protection across different industries. The Article concludes by discussing how recent patent reform (the America Invents Act of 2011) provides a legal basis for the PTO to conduct differential pricing.

Mortgage Market, Character and Trends: United States

Abstract: The United States housing finance system has undergone multiple evolutions accompanying its dynamic mortgage history. The early days of homeownership funding before and during the Great Depression were characterised by instability and risk. Over the next several decades, reform gradually led housing finance to its heyday as a stable foundation for the ‘American dream’. However, this stability proved misleading as US financial companies pursued increasingly risky practices, partly reverting back to the fragile structure in place before the New Deal. Ultimately, the pursuit of risky products and cheap credit provoked unsustainable growth in housing prices that culminated in the financial crisis of 2008, severely disrupting both domestic and global financial systems. Now on the process to recovery, the US mortgage market is undergoing a possible structural transformation that embraces securitisation, without abandoning the initial spirit of the New Deal. The effectiveness of this transformation is yet to be determined. Only by reinstating transparency, securitisation, and defence mechanisms against the procyclicality of leverage can the United States restore stability to the foundation that supports millions of American lives and homes.

Legal Negotiation in Popular Culture: What Are We Bargaining For?

Abstract: This essay analyzes the treatment of legal negotiations in films, literature, TV and various forms of popular culture, focusing on how legal negotiations are conceptualized often as competitive, war-like battles of will and force or cleverness, rather than more modern approaches to negotiation as a site of collaborative human problem solving and joint decision making. The essay begins a filmography of legal negotiation, including both popular films and TV and serious documentary treatments of both domestic and international negotiations. The article concludes by discussing some newer approaches to legal and international conflict negotiations evidenced in a few new films and documentaries and suggests that life is advancing faster than art in this area: to wit, modern negotiations are more complex in execution, performance and agreement-making and are not well depicted in many fictional and formulaic forms.