The Rutgers Law Record

This article deals with the question of moral justification to show preference towards those individuals with whom an agent shares a relationship or who belong to the same group as the agent, on the basis of that very relationship or belonging — advantaging those individuals above other people who are strangers, i.e. not sharing a relationship with or belonging to the same group as the agent. The article clarifies basic concepts which apply to the issue and the question of the interaction between partiality, universalism and equality. However, the article will not deal with the moral basis for showing preference towards relatives, which we will examine at another time. To exemplify these concepts, this article will use a series of hypothetical situations devised by the authors.

View the entire article –>

This note will first take a look at the legislative history behind the Alien Tort Statute. Second, this note will discuss the landmark decisions that followed Filartiga, the theories behind them, and how these decisions continued to shape the scope of the ATS. This note will then analyze why the federal courts should not exclude U.S. corporations from liability under the ATS by first looking at arguments in favor of excluding corporate liability that focus on past international criminal tribunals. While some courts favor looking into past practices regarding corporate liability, the Supreme Court is not meant to be static and should look to contemporary normative practices in determining the appropriateness of corporate liability. Finally, this note will revisit the original purpose of the ATS and explain why foreclosing corporate liability would be in contravention to that purpose.
View the entire article –>

Since the 1990s, prosecutors around the country have come under fire for misusing or abusing the power of prosecutorial discretion. Recently, the public has focused on how prosecutorial misconduct may result in convicting an innocent person and therefore, contributing to wrongful conviction rates. Prosecutorial misconduct can take many forms, such as withholding evidence, purposefully delaying the trial, or not giving the defense proper time to prepare their case. However, the current procedures in place are weak and ineffective as it relates to reprimanding a prosecutor for abusing that discretion or breaking rules. Prosecutorial misconduct is defined as any conduct which violates court rules or ethical standards of a practicing attorney and does not include good-faith errors. All prosecutors across the United States have immunity for acts done within the scope of their employment. Therefore, unless a state has adopted legislation to strip prosecutors of their absolute immunity, there is generally no liability or penalty for prosecutorial misconduct. In cases where a prosecutor commits misconduct, the state is in charge of reprimanding the prosecutor. The American Bar Association (ABA) has guidelines and model rules that states can choose to adopt to hold prosecutors accountable. It is uncommon to hear of a prosecutor being sanctioned or reprimanded for any type of misconduct.

View the entire article –>

Like the printed book, the Internet of Thing [IoT] has also changed the perception of reality and conceptions of social interaction. It has changed the levels of how information is perceived and viewed. For many people, it is the sharing of mostly personal information via social networks that extends from a personal face-to-face interaction to a global communication; a form of communication that is accessible to many in an instant and retransmitted to a global audience. With the speed and volume of transmission(s), the Internet has created a different social construction of reality and has assisted the spread of knowledge; however, it has also been the source of misinformation.

View the entire article –>

Rhetorical strategies, themes, and interpretive framing allow the speaker to control the narrative when presenting oral testimony in asylum cases. These formal elements help structure traumatic events and memories into a coherent story that will engage the judge and enable the court to see the situation from the asylum seeker’s worldview. In the context of asylum applications, even the most deserving claimant may be unable to deliver their testimony in a coherent or compelling manner without the assistance of an effective advocate, due to the severe trauma that he or she experienced – and the trauma that he or she must once again undergo by having to retell and relive these experiences in the courtroom. It is crucial, therefore, that immigration lawyers acting in these proceedings consciously utilize these rhetorical techniques in order to facilitate the delivery by their clients of narratives that are credible, humanizing, and persuasive to the court. It is equally important that the lawyers representing the Department of Homeland Security be sensitized in this area so they are able to separate out any genuine issues of material fact and law critical to a fair analyzation of the asylum claim.

View the entire article –>