Explore the vast range of titles available.

Over the last decade, federal corporate criminal enforcement policy has undergone a significant transformation. Firms that commit crimes are no longer simply required to pay fines. Instead, prosecutors and firms enter into pretrial diversion agreements (PDAs). Prosecutors regularly use PDAs to impose mandates on firms, creating new duties that alter firms' internal operations or governance structures. DOJ policy favors the use of such mandates for any firm with a deficient compliance program at the time of the crime. This Article evaluates PDA mandates to determine when and how prosecutors should use them to deter corporate crime. We find that the current DOJ policy on mandates is misguided and that mandates should be imposed more selectively. Specifically, mandates are appropriate only if a firm is plagued by policing agency costs—in that the firm's managers did not act to deter or report wrongdoing because they benefited personally from tolerating wrongdoing or from deficient corporate policing. Moreover, only mandates that are properly designed to reduce policing agency costs are appropriate. The policing agency cost justification for mandates that we develop calls into question both the extent to which mandates are used and the type of mandates that are imposed by prosecutors.

Common formulations of the concept of white privilege propose that white privilege guarantees white people positive results. So, when bad things happen to white people — when the jobs and the industries on which they once relied disappear, when they are denied admission to their preferred university, when they lose a promotion to a nonwhite candidate, when they die from suicide and drug overdoses at unprecedented rates — we are left to believe that white people experiencing these adverse consequences did not have white privilege or that their white privilege did not work for them. That is, we are left to conclude that white privilege is meaningless when white disadvantage is present. Further, given the undeniable fact of widespread white disadvantage, we are left vulnerable to the claim that for many, if not most, white people, white privilege is inconsequential, insignificant, or altogether nonexistent. In reality, the fact of white privilege is much more complicated than this facile, mechanical formulation suggests. This Article proposes that we ought to understand white privilege to be something that can lead to unfavorable results just as capably as it can lead to favorable ones. That is, white privilege is a double-edged sword. Theorizing both edges of white privilege provides a more nuanced rendering of the concept. This complexly rendered formulation may help us understand how white privilege can coexist with white disadvantage. Indeed, it might help us understand how white privilege actively produces white disadvantage. The Article uses the recent arrests and prosecutions of women for using opioids during their pregnancies as an opportunity to engage with and theorize the idea of white privilege. The analysis proceeds in four Parts. Part I explains the origins of the opioid epidemic as well as the government’s response to it, emphasizing that the current drug crisis has hit white people and white communities the hardest and, further, that pregnant women have not been immune from it. Part II explores how the State has responded to substance use during pregnancy. At times, the State has responded with its civil systems, choosing to involve the child welfare system and child protective services; at other times, it has responded with its criminal systems, choosing to arrest and prosecute women for using substances while pregnant. Part III then analyzes the demographics of these arrests and prosecutions. It explains that prosecuting women for substance use during pregnancy began in earnest in the 1980s and 1990s, when the crack cocaine scare gripped the nation. During this time, those who were prosecuted were largely black women. However, the opioid epidemic (and the methamphetamine scare before it) has hit white communities particularly hard. Consequently, the demographics of arrests and prosecutions for substance use during pregnancy have shifted, with white women coming to predominate among those subjected to penal state power. Part IV theorizes the significance of these shifted demographics — investigating what they might mean for the concept of white privilege. A brief Conclusion follows.

Introduction: the paper discusses the possibility of differentiating the forms of criminal prosecution. The critical analysis is subject to the widespread position in the science of criminal procedure that the forms of criminal prosecution are suspicion and accusation. This point of view is based on the conclusion that the content of criminal prosecution varies depending on the degree of proof of the guilt of the person subject to criminal prosecution. Concerning compliance with the principle of adversarial parties, the theoretical position is also evaluated, according to which one of the forms of criminal prosecution is conviction. The question of the grounds for differentiating the forms of criminal prosecution is studied. Purpose: the confirming the unified nature of the criminal prosecution carried out during the pretrial proceedings, regardless of the procedural position of the person accused of committing the crime. Methods: the paper uses the general scientific methods of analysis and synthesis, a systematic approach, as well as specific scientific methods: legal interpretation and logical-legal. The methodological framework was the dialectical method. Results: the study of the common position in the science of criminal procedure, according to which criminal prosecution at different stages of its implementation consistently takes the forms of suspicion and accusation, showed its inconsistency. From the standpoint of philosophy, the content always has a determining value, and the form is always determined. Accordingly, to establish a change in the form of criminal prosecution, it is necessary to make sure that the content of this activity changes. However, the degree of proof of the person’s involvement in the crime is not reflected in the content of the accusatory activity, it remains the same. Therefore, suspicion and accusation do not form the independent forms of criminal prosecution. At the same time, the differentiation of the forms of criminal prosecution is possible, but on different grounds. Conclusions: the differentiation of the forms of criminal prosecution should be made depending on, first, the organization of procedural activities that determine the role and powers of the subject of criminal prosecution in the process of proof; secondly, the procedural status of the participant in the criminal process on the part of the prosecution and, thirdly, the content of the fact in issue.

Whether and how violence can be controlled to spare innocent lives is a central issue in international relations. The most ambitious effort to date has been the International Criminal Court (ICC), designed to enhance security and safety by preventing egregious human rights abuses and deterring international crimes. We offer the first systematic assessment of the ICC's deterrent effects for both state and nonstate actors. Although no institution can deter all actors, the ICC can deter some governments and those rebel groups that seek legitimacy. We find support for this conditional impact of the ICC cross-nationally. Our work has implications for the study of international relations and institutions, and supports the violence-reducing role of pursuing justice in international affairs.