Search results

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) states in 2018 that safeguarding “civil liberties is critical” to their official duties. The Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS, as its website explains,

reviews and assesses complaints from the public in areas such as: physical or other abuse; discrimination based on race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or disability; inappropriate conditions of confinement; infringements of free speech; violation of right to due process … and any other civil rights or civil liberties violation related to a Department program or activity.

My chapter tracks the centrality of deportability in shaping the civil liberties and rights that DHS is tasked with enforcing. Over the course of the twentieth century, people on US soil saw an expanding list of civil liberties and civil rights. Important scholarship concentrates on the role of the courts, state and federal governments, advocacy groups, social movements, and foreign policy driving these constitutional and cultural changes. For instance, the scholarship illustrates that coming out of World War I, the US Supreme Court ruled that the First Amendment did not protect something the Justices labeled “irresponsible speech.” The Supreme Court soon changed course, opening up an era ever since of more robust First Amendment rights. What has not been undertaken in the literature is an examination of the relationship of deportability to the sweep of civil liberties and civil rights. Starting in the second decade of the twentieth century, federal immigration policymakers began multiplying types of immigration statuses. A century later, among many others, there is the H2A status for temporary low-wage workers, the H2B for skilled labor, and permanent residents with green cards. The deportability of each status constrains access to certain liberties and rights. Thus, in 2016, when people from the Office for Civil Rights and Civil Liberties within DHS act, they are not enforcing a uniform body of rights and liberties that applies equally to citizens and immigrants, or even within the large category of immigrants. Instead, they do so within a complicated matrix of liberties and rights attenuated by deportability, which has been shaped by the history of the twentieth century.

According to The Ethics Centre (2018) ‘[T]he social license to operate (SLO) is made up of three components: legitimacy, credibility, and trust’. These three components serve to frame the relationship that has emerged and continues to evolve, its root arguably dating back to the Enlightenment and Post-industrial ages, between the worlds of capitalist commercial and industrial operations, and the liberal-democratic citizenry/consumers of society. The ‘SLO’, it will be shown, has historical grounding that indicate the SLO is a broader translatable concept not limited to the business realm. The SLO, the evidence will show, is a multifaceted concept not least, a unifying vehicle utilized for the purpose of acceptance, to advance normative concerns, and resistance, against questionable and harmful practices. Evidently, many domains of human services operate sub-optimally with less than favourable outcomes. In effect, this translates to structural injustices as characterized by poor understanding, insufficient standards of practice, ineffective safeguard, and governance institutions, perpetuated by entrenched practices, allowing the rise of mediocre service providers no less enabled by deficient regulation. Accordingly, the ethical focus of this paper is on the healthcare system, the evident and unnecessary deficiencies, and the failings of the central governance institutions involved. The underlying characteristics of what constitutes a SLO arguably, whether in name or not, have been engaged to expose, challenge, and repel, unethical conduct that gave rise to multiple health care-related Royal Commissions across Australia; predominantly, impacting the Disability, Aged Care, and Mental Health (DAM) sectors to name a few of recent times.

In his work Homo Juridicus, Alain Supiot considers the construction of legal personality by force and virtue of law as a precondition for human liberty. Michel Foucault views this same construction of legal personality – the construction of the subject through strategies of power, he calls it – as a ‘construction’ of liberty that is considerably less free than it is made out to be by the Enlightenment law reform projects proposed by Cesare Beccaria and other prominent eighteenth century law reformers. Foucault’s scepticism vis-á-vis Beccaria and others evidently also implies a critical stance vis-á-vis contemporary humanist understandings of law such as Supiot’s. This chapter will endeavour to explain what is at stake in the difference between these very different conceptions of legal personality by relating it to the problematics of subjectivity that came to the fore in the thinking of Hegel and the German Idealists.

Rights and duties are involved in every area of business and markets, and society and governments. Most often, rights and duties involve serious ethical and moral issues of conflict. A good theory of the ethics of rights and duties, obligations, and responsibilities will empower us to understand the impact of our actions on various stakeholders. Additionally, a deep understanding of rights and duties could help us to analyze better the impact of our executive actions on various stakeholders and, in particular, to fathom the damaging effects of rights and duties violated by the man-made current financial crisis when seen from an ethical and moral point of view. Our coverage on the ethics of corporate rights and duties will comprise of two parts: Part 1: The Nature of Corporate Business Rights and Duties, and Part 2: Respecting Corporate Rights and Duties. The chapter will feature Newcomb Wellesley Hohfeld’s framework of legal interests such as claims, privileges, power, and immunity and its various applications to contemporary market and corporate executive situations. We illustrate the theory of rights and duties using several cases from the current turbulent markets.

To identify challenges which prison inmates face in obtaining meaningful access to the courts in the absence of constitutionally mandated access to a prison law library.

Beginning with a historical framework, the research explores a study of three pivotal legal cases, highlighting how the prison law library doctrine has evolved over time. Further secondary source research is conducted to illustrate the importance of the issue to the modern day inmate.

Jurisprudence of the prison law library doctrine never clearly defines what alternative measures to a prisoners right to access a library are or can be. Many decisions simply list suggestions and leave it to the correctional facility to tailor reasonable measures that work with their institution, heavily relying upon a separation of powers justification.

The present research implicates a continuity of a lack of meaningful access to the courts to underserved communities.

The present research provides a necessary starting point for further sociological field research into the area of prison law libraries as a Fourteenth Amendment necessity. This research illustrates a foundational flaw in providing inmates with meaningful access to courts and will educate judges and prison administrators alike about this constitutional violation.

Moreover, the present research provides librarians, attorneys, judges, politicians, community members, prison officials, and prison inmates with the vital information necessary to uphold the prisoners Due Process right to meaningful access to the court.

While the steep increases in rates of incarceration seen in the United States in the late twentieth century have begun to level out, one form of incarceration has seen more drastic reductions in rates of use in the 2010s: long-term solitary confinement. Across the United States, prisons that once isolated prisoners for decades at a time stand hauntingly empty. The solitary confinement reform movement provides an important lens for examining what happens when an entrenched punitive practice faces widespread and sustained criticism and reveals the multiple paradigms through which reform operates – through politics, litigation, or charismatic leadership.

Collateral consequences (CCs) of criminal convictions such as disenfranchisement, occupational restrictions, exclusions from public housing, and loss of welfare benefits represent one of the salient yet hidden features of the contemporary American penal state. This chapter explores, from a comparative and historical perspective, the rise of the many indirect “regulatory” sanctions flowing from a conviction and discusses some of the unique challenges they pose for legal and policy reform. US jurisprudence and policies are contrasted with the more stringent approach adopted by European legal systems and the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in safeguarding the often blurred line between criminal punishments and formally civil sanctions. The aim of this chapter is twofold: (1) to contribute to a better understanding of the overreliance of the US criminal justice systems on CCs as a device of social exclusion and control, and (2) to put forward constructive and viable reform proposals aimed at reinventing the role and operation of collateral restrictions flowing from criminal convictions.