Search results

In the USA, sex offender policy research has focussed on demographic characteristics of registrants, recidivism rates of registrants, accuracy and completeness of listed information, and the collateral consequences experienced by registrants. This growing body of research demonstrates the need to explore offender perceptions of sex offender registration and notification (SORN) laws. The purpose of this paper is to assess whether registration related variables influenced sex offenders’ opinions about the registry, compliance with the registry, self-worth, and deterrence perceptions.

This paper utilized a sample of 286 male registered sex offenders (RSO) in Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin. Four multivariate regression models were run to examine registration related variables impact on sex offender opinions of the registry, registry compliance, feelings of self-worth, and perceptions of deterrence.

The multivariate regression results suggest registration related variables have a significant impact on RSO opinion of the registry, compliance with the registry, and opinions of self. Specifically, the number of collateral consequences that one experienced, police contacts that RSOs had, and being recognized as a sex offender were significantly related to the dependent variables in the regression models.

This study adds to the body of research that indicates sex offenders experience a myriad of consequences that are outside the scope of the registered sex offender laws. Policy implications and societal consequences of these findings are discussed, as well as a future research agenda.

Sex offenders and the laws concerning them represent a highly controversial and emotionally charged issue. Current efforts of legislation in the United States to manage the increasing number of sex offenders being arrested and eventually released back into communities are inadequate to manage such a large population of offenders, and the effects of registration and notification laws are more detrimental than beneficial to the communities they intend to protect. This paper discusses the notion that a significant cause of the problem relates to the overly broad standards that are used to define who is to be charged as a sex offender. The term “sex offender” needs to be reserved for those individuals who best represent the meaning of the term, and the resources available for this issue should be directed towards the effective management of those offenders instead of being spread so thin amongst so many offenders who do not pose a serious threat to society that none of them are sufficiently supervised after release from incarceration. Furthermore, laws and federal guidelines regarding sex offender legislation needs to be based on empirical research findings instead of uniformed public pressure.

The Equal Pay Act 1970 (which came into operation on 29 December 1975) provides for an “equality clause” to be written into all contracts of employment. S.1(2) (a) of the 1970 Act (which has been amended by the Sex Discrimination Act 1975) provides:

On 21st July 1994 the Trade Marks Act 1994 received the Royal Assent. It introduces the most radical overhaul of British trade mark law for over 50 years and replaces the current regime set out in the Trade Marks Act 1938 as amended. The reforms reflect the increased significance of trade marks in modern commerce and the concerns of business that the current law was increasingly anachronistic.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

In a recent edition of the nation's favourite soap, Coronation Street, a small incident occurred which illustrated in a nutshell the problems facing the deviser of an industrial design in seeking to protect that design from being copied. Angie, a student of fashion design at the local polytechnic put on a successful show of her designs. Emboldened by the favourable reception she set out a couple of days later for an appointment with a local dress manufacturer to try and sell her designs. She returned a few hours later in tears and with hopes dashed. She had arrived at the firm only to discover that her designs were already being made up into dresses. The designs had been copied at the show and already sold to or copied by them. The incident was not without its silver lining in that in getting drunk to forget the whole sad affair this lead to a romantic interlude with fellow lodger, Curley Watts! It is the purpose of this article to examine the main strands of protection for industrial designs and to look at a proposed new European Community Design Law which has recently been published by the prestigious Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law (Munich, 1991). This proposal is being put to the EC Commission as the basis for an EC Regulation.

“Companies, particularly those which sell goods or services direct to the public, regard their trade marks (whether brand names or pictorial symbols) as being among their most valuable assets. It is important therefore for a trading nation such as the United Kingdom to have a legal framework for the protection of trade marks which fully serves the needs of industry and commerce. The law governing registered trade marks is however fifty years old and has to some extent lost touch with the marketplace. Moreover it causes some of the procedures associated with registration to be more complicated than they need be.” This introductory paragraph to the Government's recent White Paper on “Reform of Trade Marks Law” indicates that reform is in the air. The primary pressure for reform has emanated from Brussels with the need to harmonise national trade mark laws before the advent of the Single European market on 1st January 1993. To this end the Council of Ministers adopted a harmonisation directive in December 1988 which must be translated into the national laws of member states by 28th December 1991.

The Howard Shuttering Contractors case throws considerable light on the importance which the tribunals attach to warnings before dismissing an employee. In this case the tribunal took great pains to interpret the intention of the parties to the different site agreements, and it came to the conclusion that the agreed procedure was not followed. One other matter, which must be particularly noted by employers, is that where a final warning is required, this final warning must be “a warning”, and not the actual dismissal. So that where, for example, three warnings are to be given, the third must be a “warning”. It is after the employee has misconducted himself thereafter that the employer may dismiss.

In order to succeed in an action under the Equal Pay Act 1970, should the woman and the man be employed by the same employer on like work at the same time or would the woman still be covered by the Act if she were employed on like work in succession to the man? This is the question which had to be solved in Macarthys Ltd v. Smith. Unfortunately it was not. Their Lordships interpreted the relevant section in different ways and since Article 119 of the Treaty of Rome was also subject to different interpretations, the case has been referred to the European Court of Justice.

A distinction must be drawn between a dismissal on the one hand, and on the other a repudiation of a contract of employment as a result of a breach of a fundamental term of that contract. When such a repudiation has been accepted by the innocent party then a termination of employment takes place. Such termination does not constitute dismissal (see London v. James Laidlaw & Sons Ltd (1974) IRLR 136 and Gannon v. J. C. Firth (1976) IRLR 415 EAT).