The Experts below are selected from a list of 90306 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Israel Herrera - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the recognition of the other in the mexican Judicial System the relsease of the indigenous people for reasons of cultural defense el reconocimiento de la alteridad en el sistema Judicial mexicano sentencias de liberacion al indigena por causas de dif
Social Science Research Network, 2009Co-Authors: Israel HerreraAbstract:In the state of Yucatan, Mexico, between 1998 and 2006, a total of 8 legal sentences in recognizing cultural difference to the indigenous person who are on trial have been issued. These legal cases represent a breaking point in ethnic relations with the mexican state, since it is the first time that cultural difference is recognized as a concrete reality in the Judicial System of Mexico and especially of the Maya area of the state of Yucatan. In the present paper is a study of how "deep Mexico" went ahead, the how and why this happened. En el estado de Yucatan, Mexico, entre los anos 1998 y 2006, se han dictado un total de 8 sentencias en las que se reconoce la diferencia cultural a la persona indigena que esta siendo juzgada. Estos expedientes representan un punto de quiebra en la relacion etnia – estado, toda vez que es la primera vez que se admite la diferencia cultural como una realidad concreta en el sistema Judicial de Mexico y en especial de la zona maya de Yucatan. En el presente paper se hace un estudio de las como el Mexico profundo salio avante, del como y porque sucedio esto.
Jan Komarek - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
federal elements in the community Judicial System building coherence in the community legal order
Social Science Research Network, 2006Co-Authors: Jan KomarekAbstract:A shortened and adjusted version of the paper "Creating a Quasi-Federal Judicial System of the European Communities", which has been published in the Common Market Law Review.
Ramirez April - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Plain Error Review Is Just Plain Confusing: How the Confused State of Plain Error Review Led the Seventh Circuit to Get It Wrong
Scholarly Commons @ IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law, 2017Co-Authors: Ramirez AprilAbstract:Normally, if a defendant fails to make a timely objection to a perceived error during trial, he forfeits his right to appeal the error. Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) however, allows for an exception to this general rule. Rule 52(b) is a codification of a common law standard which allowed a court to address an error not timely objected to. This type of appellate review is known as plain error review. The original standard, which Rule 52(b) is based on came from United States v. Atkinson. The United States Supreme Court in Atkinson stated that courts, in the public interest, held discretion to correct an error which had been forfeited by a defendant when the error was obvious or it otherwise seriously affected the fairness, integrity or public reputation of Judicial proceedings. This standard was grounded in a concern for the public\u27s faith in the integrity of the Judicial System. In the last thirty years, the United States Supreme Court has strayed from the principles embodied Atkinson and has created a different plain error standard. The current plain error review paradigm was postulated in United States v. Olano, and consists of a four-part conjunctive test focusing heavily on actual prejudice suffered by a defendant caused by the error. This test is complicated, which has led to inconsistent holdings and various dissents on the correct application of plain error review. In United States v. Resnick, the prosecution used the defendant\u27s refusal to submit to a polygraph as substantive evidence of his guilt. Because the defense did not timely object to this, the Seventh Circuit applied plain error review. After applying the Olano test, the court concluded that there had been no plain error committed by the district court. The confused state of the plain error doctrine led the Seventh Circuit to wrongly decide Resnick. In addition to ignoring the egregiousness of the constitutional violation, the court erroneously required that the appellant show that the error had actually affected the outcome of his trial. In making this showing of actual prejudice a dispositive factor, the court failed to account for any injury to the integrity of the Judicial System the constitutional error might cause. In order to maintain the public\u27s faith in tribunal proceedings, the doctrine must be revised to look beyond any damage an uncorrected error may cause an individual. Instead, plain error analysis must also account for injuries to the fabric of our Judicial System
Jose Santos Guardado Bautista - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
pregnancy and the 40 year prison sentence how abortion is murder became institutionalized in the salvadoran Judicial System
Health and Human Rights, 2017Co-Authors: Jocelyn Viterna, Jose Santos Guardado BautistaAbstract:Using the case of El Salvador, this article demonstrates how the anti-abortion catchphrase "abortion is murder" can become embedded in the legal practice of state Judicial Systems. In the 1990s, a powerful anti-abortion movement in El Salvador resulted in a new legal context that outlawed abortion in all circumstances, discouraged mobilization for abortion rights, and encouraged the prosecution of reproduction-related "crimes." Within this context, Salvadoran women initially charged with the crime of abortion were convicted of "aggravated homicide" and sentenced to up to 40 years in prison. Court documents suggest that many of these women had not undergone abortions, but had suffered naturally occurring stillbirths late in their pregnancies. Through analysis of newspaper articles and court cases, this article documents how El Salvador came to prosecute obstetrical emergencies as "murder," and concludes that activism on behalf of abortion rights is central to protecting poor pregnant women from prosecution for reproduction-related "crimes."
Fabio Sabatini - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
democracy or videocracy an econometric analysis of the role of television in the italian political arena
MPRA Paper, 2011Co-Authors: Fabio SabatiniAbstract:This paper contributes to the literature by carrying out the first econometric investigation into the role of television in the formation of political consensus in Italy. Based on probit and instrumental variables estimates, we find trust in television to be the most significant predictor of trust in the Italian prime minister. The latter is also strongly and negatively correlated with trust in the Judicial System and tolerance towards immigrants.
-
who trusts berlusconi an econometric analysis of the role of television in the political arena
2011Co-Authors: Fabio SabatiniAbstract:This paper contributes to the literature by carrying out the first econometric investigation into the role of television in the formation of political consensus in Italy. Based on probit and instrumental variables estimates, we find trust in television to be the most significant predictor of trust in the Italian prime minister. The latter is also strongly and negatively correlated with trust in the Judicial System and tolerance towards immigrants.
