Oregon Law Review : Vol. 86, No. 1 (2007)

Boyd, Justin H. 2008-04-21T23:00:24Z 2008-04-21T23:00:24Z 2007 86 Or. L. Rev. 219 (2007) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/5951 30 p. A new trend in state legislation emerged as twenty-two states entered legally unsettled waters by enacting various residency restrictions for convicted sex offenders. Legislators tout the need for such residency restrictions to reduce child sex offenders’ opportunities for contact with potential victims. However, courts disagree whether these new laws are constitutional, and research increasingly questions their utility. This Comment will first look at the primary legal questions facing the courts, examining various legal challenges to state residency restrictions and the limited research surrounding the efficacy of such restrictions. Next, this Comment will address the 2006 California ballot measure Proposition 83, which serves as a practical case study of these new restrictions and their unsettled legal ramifications. Finally, this Comment will examine Oregon’s nonmandatory residency restriction and explain why it serves as the best model for achieving the goals of protecting our children, monitoring the sex offender population, and withstanding judicial review. Ultimately, this Comment will attempt to show that research on mandatory residency restrictions may affect the way future courts rule on these restrictions. This Comment will also attempt to persuade those presently in favor of mandatory residency restrictions that more flexible, nonmandatory restrictions will increase the likelihood of achieving their stated objectives. 142958 bytes application/pdf en_US University of Oregon School of Law Sex offenders -- Legal status, laws, etc. Residency restrictions Oregon Law Review : Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 219-248 : How to Stop a Predator: The Rush to Enact Mandatory Sex Offender Residency Requirements and Why States Should Abstain How to Stop a Predator: The Rush to Enact Mandatory Sex Offender Residency Requirements and Why States Should Abstain Article

Burkett, Maxine 2008-04-21T22:59:21Z 2008-04-21T22:59:21Z 2007 86 Or. L. Rev. 99 (2007) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/5949 62 p. The contemporary paradigm for African-American reparations fundamentally fails to address what should be its most vital component. Of the three essential elements of a successful reparations campaign–apology, award, and nonrepetition through reconciliation–the most vital is nonrepetition. In past “successful” reparations campaigns, the offending parties have issued apologies and awards, but have neither challenged nor dismantled the attitudes or infrastructures from which wrongful acts emerged, leaving open the likelihood of wrongful acts occurring again. Any campaign that neglects the nonrepetition element runs the risk of strengthening the status quo. In this Article, Professor Burkett argues that in order for a reparations campaign to be a true success for African-Americans, it must include a nonrepetition element. To do so, the reparations movement must embrace a reconciliation model that is forward looking, and concerned with the methods of deterring future bad acts for ultimate, complete, and successful repair. In the current discourse on African-American reparations, Professor Burkett argues, nonrepetition through reconciliation is woefully underemphasized. The incorporation of the nonrepetition element is particularly important in the American context. From the nation’s earliest days, the American political and economic landscape has evolved in a particularly pernicious manner, creating and entrenching a racial and economic hierarchy that persistently subjugates African-Americans and other of-color and lowincome communities. Professor Burkett argues that in this context, a multiracial, multiethnic, and cross-class reconciliation model is vital to the success of the African-American campaign. This broad-based approach, the author maintains, is the only way to ensure nonrepetition. 286111 bytes application/pdf en_US University of Oregon School of Law Oregon Law Review : Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 099-160 : Reconciliation and Nonrepetition: A New Paradigm for African-American Reparations Reconciliation and Nonrepetition: A New Paradigm for African-American Reparations Article

Fishman, Clifford S. 2008-04-21T22:58:00Z 2008-04-21T22:58:00Z 2007 86 Or. L. Rev. 1 (2007) 0196-2043 http://hdl.handle.net/1794/5947 64 p. While preparing for trial, defense counsel learns that a key prosecution witness has undergone psychotherapy or other counseling. Under what circumstances, if any, should counsel be allowed to examine or use records of that therapy or counseling to impeach the witness’s testimony? 296262 bytes application/pdf en_US University of Oregon School of Law Confidential communications Oregon Law Review : Vol. 86 No. 1, p. 001-064 : Defense Access to a Prosecution Witness's Psychotherapy or Counseling Records Defense Access to a Prosecution Witness's Psychotherapy or Counseling Records Article