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.

Transforming Aggressive Prosecution Policies: Prioritizing Victims’ Long-Term Safety in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases

Abstract: Until fairly recently, prosecutors' offices around the country ignored domestic violence cases, failing to press charges in the vast majority of situations and dropping charges prior to conviction in many others. In the 1980s and 1990s, however, the battered women's movement made significant efforts to improve the criminal justice system's response. One way that this effort has met with substantial success is that many prosecutors' offices now have adopted aggressive "no-drop" policies for domestic violence cases. In these jurisdictions, cases proceed regardless of the victim's preferences about prosecution, even if she recants her original story and testifies for the defense.

Advocacy Matters Before and Within the Supreme Court: Transforming the Court by Transforming the Bar

Abstract: During the past two decades, the Supreme Court has witnessed the emergence of an elite private sector group of attorneys who are dominating advocacy before the Court to an extent not witnessed since the early nineteenth century. This development is significant for the simple reason that advocacy matters, including before the Supreme Court. Better, more effective advocates influence the development of the law and there is generally no court where such advocacy can wield more far-reaching influence than the Supreme Court. And that is precisely what the modern Supreme Court Bar has quietly and increasingly been accomplishing in recent years. The Court grants the petitions filed by the expert members of the Bar at a significantly higher rate and they also prevail on the merits more frequently. This article documents the extent of the modern Bar's domination of the Court's docket, arguments, and rulings, considers the extent to which business interests who serve as the Bar's primary clients are enjoying heightened success before the Court as a result, and suggests ways of promoting a fairer allocation of Supreme Court advocacy expertise in the future.

Beyond the “R Word”? Medicine's New Frugality

Abstract: The belief that cost should be no object in health care has limited efforts to control medical spending; elected officials generally insist that cutting services that yield no value will be sufficient. But eliminating such waste would merely postpone the reckoning.

Power Without Responsibility: Intermediaries and the First Amendment

Abstract: As Jerome Barron recognized in his classic article, the First Amendment rights of speakers and audiences must be evaluated in the contexts of their relationships to larger structures. To the extent that there is a right to speak or a right to hear, who is on the other side of that right? The system of free expression is not atomized, but pervasively structured by conduits such as television broadcasters and Internet service providers ("ISPs"). This article focuses on (potentially) harmful speech as it relates to claims for greater access to those conduits. Any effective proposal for access rights should deal with the recruitment of intermediaries to police and deter unlawful speech and the many and varied ways in which individual speakers will violate existing laws.

Beyond moral claims: a human rights approach in mental health.

Abstract: Human rights law is a powerful, but often neglected, tool in advancing the rights and freedoms of persons with mental disabilities. International law may seem marginal or unimportant in developed countries with democratic and constitutional systems of their own. Yet, even democracies often resist reform of mental health law and policy, and domestic courts do not always compel changes necessary for the rights and welfare of persons with mental disabilities. Additionally, human rights are obviously important for countries without democratic and constitutional systems because they may provide the only genuine safeguard against abuse of persons with mental disabilities ostensibly based on political, social, or cultural justifications.