The Experts below are selected from a list of 20526 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Ragaišytė, Ieva Marija - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Nusikaltimų aplinkai direktyvos harmonizavimo ir įgyvendinimo iššūkiai
'Vilnius University Press', 2021Co-Authors: Ragaišytė, Ieva MarijaAbstract:The article analyses the harmonisation framework under TFEU of the Directive 2008/99/EC and the possible difficulties in implementing the document in national legislation. An inadequately chosen Legitimate Purpose and the lack of the prioritisation of environmental crime in the Member States result in harmonisation and implementation problems related to issues of the definitions of the offences, their differentiation and compliance with fundamental principles of the law
-
Nusikaltimų aplinkai direktyvos harmonizavimo ir įgyvendinimo iššūkiai
'Vilnius University Press', 2021Co-Authors: Ragaišytė, Ieva MarijaAbstract:The article analyses the harmonisation framework under TFEU of the Directive 2008/99/EC and the possible difficulties in implementing the document in national legislation. An inadequately chosen Legitimate Purpose and the lack of the prioritisation of environmental crime in the Member States result in harmonisation and implementation problems related to issues of the definitions of the offences, their differentiation and compliance with fundamental principles of the law.Šiame straipsnyje analizuojama, kaip harmonizavimo pagrindas pagal SESV galėjo paveikti Direktyvos 2008/99/EB derinimą ir kokius šio dokumento įgyvendinimo sunkumus tai galėjo lemti. Netinkamas harmonizavimo pagrindo (teisėto tikslo) parinkimas ir nusikaltimų aplinkai prioretizavimo trūkumas valstybėse lemia derinimo ir įgyvendinimo problemas, susijusias su nusikalstamų veikų apibrėžimų, jų diferenciacija ir suderinamumu su pagrindiniais teisės principais
Timothy James Stanley - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Running Title: Optimal Penalties for Concealment of Crime Running Title: Optimal Penalties for Concealment of Crime
2020Co-Authors: Timothy James StanleyAbstract:ABSTRACT Society should give criminals incentives not to conceal their criminal activity. The concealment costs themselves are a social waste, as are other costs the concealment may impose on society, such as additional harm or increased law enforcement expenditures. I show that for any set of sanctions that lead to positive concealment on behalf of the criminal, that society can modify the sanctions to give the criminal an incentive not to conceal and unambiguously improve social welfare. A similar conclusion will apply to increasing the costs of concealment devices to improve social welfare. Society can deter concealment of crime by raising the sanction or raising the cost of concealing the crime. Which policy is chosen should depend upon the concealment device involved. If it is easy to detect the use of a concealment device when a person is caught, then penalties should be imposed on the criminal for using such a concealment device. If the device is of the type that has no Legitimate Purpose other than being used for concealment, then the device should be heavily taxed or be outlawed. For situations where we are unable to determine whether the device has been used to conceal and the device has Legitimate Purpose, society should set one penalty for the crime, and possibly a generalized additional sanction for any concealment of the crime that can be determined. * Department of Engineering-Economic Systems, Stanford University. I thank A. Mitchell Polinsky and Stacy Stanley for comments and discussion of the ideas in this paper. I thank the John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics at Stanford Law School for financial support. Tim Stanley can be reached at tstanley@leland.stanford.edu or tstanley@aol.com or tstanley@eworld.com. I have also set up a law and economics WWW meta page at URL
Sarah Johnsen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
controlling homeless people power interventionism and legitimacy
Journal of Social Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Beth Watts, Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Sarah JohnsenAbstract:There is intense debate over the legitimacy of interventions which seek behavioural change on the part of street homeless people. ‘Hard’ measures, such as arresting people for begging, are particularly controversial, but ‘softer’ interventions such as motivational interviewing have also prompted objections on grounds that they are paternalistic. At the same time, the ‘non-interventionist’ stance of some service providers has been accused of perpetuating harmful street lifestyles. Inspired by Ruth Grant's philosophically informed interrogation of the ethics of incentives, we propose a normative framework for application in this field. Via systematic exploration of Grant's three ‘legitimacy standards’ (Legitimate Purpose, voluntary response, effects on character), and an additional outcome-focussed fourth (effectiveness, proportionality and balance), we attempt to unsettle any intuitive assumption that non-interventionist approaches are necessarily more morally defensible than interventionist ones. We also, however, explicate the high ethical and empirical bar required to justify social control measures.
Ratna Dhamija - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the impact of an assessment policy upon teachers self reported assessment beliefs and practices a quasi experimental study of indian teachers in private schools
International Journal of Educational Research, 2015Co-Authors: Gavin T L Brown, Harish Chaudhry, Ratna DhamijaAbstract:Abstract India has engaged in a policy reform seeking to increase the formative use of assessment in the hope of reducing negative effects of public examinations on students. The 2005 Curriculum Framework has been implemented within the context of significant privatization of schooling around the country. This study examined the beliefs of teachers about the Purpose of assessment because they are the main agents of the policy reform. A large-scale survey of secondary school teachers predominantly in private schools asked them to indicate how much they agreed with multiple Purposes concerning either internally determined school-based assessments ( n = 812) or externally mandated public examinations ( n = 883) and how they practiced assessment. Structural equation modeling identified a well-fitting model in which there were eight statistically significant paths from Beliefs to Practices and which was strictly equivalent between conditions. While teachers in both conditions endorsed most strongly the improvement Purpose, there were statistically significant differences in mean score between conditions for three of the Purposes and for one practice. While differences accounted for just 3% of variance in factor means, they were in the hypothesized direction in which internal school-based assessment generated more endorsement of the improvement Purpose and diagnostic practice. Greater use of diagnostic practices (an ambition of the Indian Curriculum Framework) depends, in part, on teachers believing in the positive role of internal, school-based assessment and emphasis on educational improvement as the Legitimate Purpose of assessment is to be encouraged.
Beth Watts - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
controlling homeless people power interventionism and legitimacy
Journal of Social Policy, 2017Co-Authors: Beth Watts, Suzanne Fitzpatrick, Sarah JohnsenAbstract:There is intense debate over the legitimacy of interventions which seek behavioural change on the part of street homeless people. ‘Hard’ measures, such as arresting people for begging, are particularly controversial, but ‘softer’ interventions such as motivational interviewing have also prompted objections on grounds that they are paternalistic. At the same time, the ‘non-interventionist’ stance of some service providers has been accused of perpetuating harmful street lifestyles. Inspired by Ruth Grant's philosophically informed interrogation of the ethics of incentives, we propose a normative framework for application in this field. Via systematic exploration of Grant's three ‘legitimacy standards’ (Legitimate Purpose, voluntary response, effects on character), and an additional outcome-focussed fourth (effectiveness, proportionality and balance), we attempt to unsettle any intuitive assumption that non-interventionist approaches are necessarily more morally defensible than interventionist ones. We also, however, explicate the high ethical and empirical bar required to justify social control measures.