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 & Public health. The organization has 585 authors who have published 2488 publications receiving 36650 citations. The organization is also known as: Georgetown Law & GULC.

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.

Community Economic Development and the Paradox of Power

Abstract: This article starts from the premise that poverty is a growing problem in the United States. Intergenerational poverty, the entrenchment of a class of very poor people, is a major sub set of that problem and is tied very closely to the issue of race. The author claims that missing in the fight by the poor and their allies against stratified poverty is the creation and utilization of power. This paper examines the disparate ways in which commentators have defined power. It suggests that those seeking to obtain power must understand the concept’s varying meanings and direct their activities to meet their own understanding of the concept. Community Economic Development (CED) may be nothing more than a re-affirmation of existing power relationships or it may be the cause and the result of a change in those relationships. This paper attempts to make sense of this apparent paradox.

Digital Health Passes in the Age of COVID-19: Are 'Vaccine Passports' Lawful and Ethical?

Abstract: As COVID-19 vaccination rates in high-income countries increase, governments are proposing or implementing digital health passes (DHPs) (vaccine “passports” or “certificates”). Israel uses a “green pass” smartphone application permitting vaccinated individuals’ access to public venues (eg, gyms, hotels, entertainment). The European Union plans a “Digital Green Certificate” enabling free travel within the bloc (see eTable in the Supplement). New York is piloting an IBM “Excelsior Pass,” confirming vaccination or negative SARS-CoV-2 test status through confidential data transfers to fast-track business reopenings. This paper examines the benefits of DHPs, scientific challenges, and whether they are lawful and ethical.

The Effects of Shareholder Primacy, Publicness, and 'Privateness' on Corporate Cultures

Abstract: There is widespread belief in both scholarship and business practice that internal corporate cultures materially affect economic outcomes for firms. In turn, there is also a growing belief that corporate governance arrangements materially affect corporate cultures. If this is true, it suggests an intriguing three-link causal chain: governance choices influence corporate performance, at least in part via their effects on internal culture. This essay, written for the “Berle XI” symposium, explores that possibility. This subject is important to lawyers and legal scholars because of the symbiotic nature of law and governance, with an increasing risk of enhanced corporate criminal and civil liability when cultures are judged to be deficient. Finding the right place for culture in governance is a heavy lift. To this end, the first part of the essay introduces the battle over corporate cultures as part of a broader contestation about primacy in corporate governance, offering a perspective on the meaning of corporate culture, its place in political debates over corporate responsibility, and its usefulness to corporate law. The first part also tries to define with more clarity the differences between the cultural norms of shareholder primacy and publicness. The second part turns the reader’s attention to the overwhelmingly diverse scholarly perspectives on corporate culture and the place of corporate culture within the overarching canopy of social culture. The essay then moves on to ask about the work being done by corporate culture in terms of both law and governance, and the extent to which this can or should be thought of in functionalist terms. Then comes the main pay-off: an assessment of arguments in light of all the foregoing about the cultural causes and effects about shareholder primacy, publicness and “privateness.” Suppose managerialism triumphed in the governance wars so as to gain its desired level of autonomy from shareholder pressures for boards and managers. Would we then expect to see a cultural shift inside corporations toward greater honesty and civil engagement, and if so why? If not, what then? The essay concludes with a closer look at the politics surrounding the corporate culture wars.

The Vanishing Case for Flat Tax Reform: Growth, Inequality, Savings, and Simplification

Abstract: In the short run, the Flat Tax decreases the tax burden on the upper classes and increases taxes for everyone else Consequently, Flat Taxers must make a controversial claim to demonstrate a net improvement in the economic position of the middle and lower classes: that the Flat Tax will cause enough economic growth to raise incomes of the middle and lower classes by more than the increased taxes that the Flat Tax would require them to pay However, the actual performance of the US economy since 1983 has seriously undermined this claim in two critical respects First, despite the progressive rate income tax, there has been substantial economic progress, including the longest period of sustained peacetime growth in our history and the lowest rates of unemployment and inflation in decades Had the Flat Tax been enacted, it is doubtful that it could have stimulated much more growth than in fact occurred Second, during the past fifteen years, economic growth has not benefited all economic classes to the same degree The upper classes have reaped most of the gains The rising tide has lifted the biggest boats much more than all others As a consequence, economic inequality has increased (Had the Flat Tax been in effect, reducing taxes on the rich and raising taxes on everyone else, economic inequality would probably have increased even more than it actually has) This history of growing inequality suggests that, even in the unlikely event that the Flat Tax had generated significant extra growth, it is doubtful that middle and lower class incomes would have risen enough to offset the higher burden that the Flat Tax would impose on them