Oregon Law Review : Vol.100, No.2 (2022)
Permanent URI for this collection
Browse
Recent Submissions
Now showing 1 - 8 of 8
Item Open Access A Cure for What Ails You: How Universal Healthcare Can Help Fix Our Tort System(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Pimentel, DavidThe U.S. tort system has, since the mid-twentieth century, evolved to bring particular policy emphasis to the problem of compensating victims of accidental injury. Much of the focus has shifted from the wrongfulness of the conduct of the tort feasors—and the corresponding need for both accountability and deterrence—toward the needs of the injured, particularly as the cost of medical treatment has skyrocketed.The tort system’s efforts to remedy the problem—accident victims’ inability to pay for the medical care they require—has, this article argues, distorted the policy objectives and priorities of the tort system and has contributed to the widely perceived “tort crisis.” Accordingly, a national health insurance program that provides health care to everyone (“Universal Care”), such as the Medicare-for-All bills now being suggested in Congress, would go far toward curing the ills of our tort system.Item Open Access Reducing Gun Violence with ShotSpotter Gunshot Detection Technology and Community-Based Plans: What Works?(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Gee, HarveyReviews of : "BLEEDING OUT: THE DEVASTATING CONSEQUENCES OF URBAN VIOLENCE—AND A BOLD NEW PLAN FOR PEACE IN THE STREETS" (Thomas Abt. NY: Basic Books, 2019); and "WE SEE IT ALL: LIBERTY AND JUSTICE IN AN AGE OF PERPETUAL SURVEILLANCE" (Jon Fasman. NY: PublicAffairs, 2021)Item Open Access Black Man’s Burden: Race and the Death Penalty in America(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Ogletree, Charles J., Jr.[Reprint of 81 Or. L. Rev. 15 (2002)] Presented at the Wayne Morse Center for Law and Politics Symposium: The Law and Politics of the Death Penalty: Abolition, Moratorium, or Reform? Ogletree was the 2001-02 Wayne Morse Chair of Law and Politics.Item Open Access Report of the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Office of the State Court Administrator, Oregon Judicial Department[Reprint of 73 Or. L. Rev. 823 (1994) (Chapter 1)] The Oregon Supreme Court, on February 21, 1992, established the Oregon Supreme Court Task Force on Racial/Ethnic Issues in the Judicial System. This is the report of that task force.Item Open Access The Ideal Law-Enforcement Officer and the Ideal Law-Enforcement Organization(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Nathan, Harold[Reprint of 14 Or. L. Rev. 327 (1935)] Transcript of address presented in 1935 by Harold Nathan, Assistant Director of the FBI, regarding law enforcement agencies.Item Open Access Batson v. Armstrong: Prosecutorial Bias and the Missing Evidence Problem(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Brown, Darryl K.Batson v. Kentucky prohibits prosecutors’ racially motivated decisions to eliminate a potential juror during jury selection. United States v. Armstrong prohibits prosecutors’ racially motivated decisions to charge a defendant with a crime. Scholars uniformly criticize Batson as an ineffectual doctrine. Most Batson challenges fail, but defendants do win those claims occasionally. They virtually never win Armstrong claims. Why is that so? Both decisions specify how the equal protection doctrine’s prohibition on racially motivated state action applies to prosecutorial decisions. Their doctrinal structures are roughly the same—a defendant must offer prima facie proof of a racially motivated decision; if he does, then the prosecutor must offer race-neutral explanations for her actions. Both require defendants to prove prosecutors’ subjective, racially motivated intent. Successful challenges under either doctrine are rare. Yet in the thirty-five years since the Batson decision, defendants have convinced courts hundreds of times—including, repeatedly, the U.S. Supreme Court—that prosecutors acted with racial bias when exercising peremptory challenges during jury selection.Item Open Access Criminal Justice Through Management: From Police, Prosecutors, Courts, and Prisons to a Modern Administrative Agency(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Rubin, Edward L.; Feeley, Malcolm M.In 1941, responding to a wide-ranging effort to enact legislation that would constrain the operation of New Deal agencies, Franklin Roosevelt commissioned the Attorney General to produce a report on the role and importance of administrative governance. The report stated, “If administrative agencies did not exist in the Federal Government, Congress would be limited to a technique of legislation primarily designed to correct evils after they have arisen rather than to prevent them from arising. The criminal law, of course, operates in this after-the-event fashion.” This familiar distinction would appear to leave our criminal law system mired in the premodern mindset this Report’s casual “of course” implies. It suggests that we continue to conceive of the system by which we combat crime as after-the-fact punishment of individual wrongdoers. Following the quoted language, the Attorney General’s Report continued: “Congress declares a given act to be a crime. The mere declaration may act as a deterrent. But if it fails to do so the courts can only punish the wrong-doer; they cannot wipe out or make good the wrong.” Actually, it is generally recognized that punishing people after they have committed crimes is a second-best response. The preferable approach—and here we can add a more convincing “of course”—is to do what the Attorney General said that administrative agencies do in their assigned areas, prevent crime from occurring in the first place. Not only do we know this, but it has generally been the purpose of the Western World’s criminal justice systems since their inception.Item Open Access One Hundred Years of Oregon Law Review(University of Oregon School of Law, 2022-05-12) Oregon Law Review Editorial Board