Session
I
Prof.
Ronald Griffin from Florida A&M University, USA on “Domestic Surveillance”
and whether social media should be controlled by central authorities. Prof.
Grifiin stated some simple yet interesting facts: who does actually own what we post on the internet? How
private can really be the information we send using the web? Whilst talking
about the community and the individual and how and why privacy is important in
the age of social media, Prof. Griffin focused on how the American central
authorities—i.e. FBI, CIA—may have access to information though social media
and how these same authorities may use that information under the pretext of national secutiry. “The CIA shouldn’t
spy on Americans” he says while remarking that “lawyers should protect
democracy”. He finalised with a brief statement contrasting values from which
to choose: “to give up freedom and liberty in the name of national security?”
Prof.
Tim Bakken, US Military Academy at West Point, USA on “Discovering Innocence in
Adversarial and Inquisitorial Legal Systems.” Some of the problems in the
criminal legal system have to do with a procedure that focuses on the trial
rather than the investigation Prof. Bakken maintains. In reality, important
elements that could lead to a determination that a defendant is innocent are
overlooked for that same reason. “The system is not based in finding true but
the prosecution needs to prove that the party is guilty beyond reasonable
doubt” he reminds us. Therein, “what is the percentage of innocent people that
need to be convicted to think of changing the system?” But the risk is relevant: to let guilty people be free instead of
innocent people going to prison.
Prof.
David Papke, Marquette University Law School, USA, on “Postmodern Decline?
Belief in the Rule of Law as a Tenet of American Ideology.” After defining
basic conceptual elements such as “rule of law” and “ideology” and therefore
setting up the stage, Prof. Papke mentioned amongst American’s tenets “the
acquisition of wealth is not only possible but also moral.” Therein, Prof.
Papke points out some references to the rule of law in American political
discourse. Firtly, a striking statement: “the United States respected the rule
of law, Kennedy though, but evil
communists did not.” And paraphrasing President Obama, Prof. Papke reminds us
that “transparency and the rule of law will be the touchstone of this
Presidency.” Most of the contemporary jurisprudential thinkers have a more
positive insight about the rule of law. To some extent “Americans stop liking
law” he argues.
Reader
Glenys Williams, Aberystwyth University, UK on “The Demise of Necessity; the
Rise of Duress of Circumstances.” Glenys refers to two potential defences on
euthanasia and assisted suicide in the UK. She goes through “Necessity” and
“Proportionality” in British Case Law and reminds us that “Euthanasia” is a
crime in common law jurisprudence whilst “Assisted Suicide” in Statue Law. But
she argues, may “Duress of Circumstances” be used as a defence? Reader Glenys
goes through several UK Cases such as RvMartin; Lord Hailhams in RvHowe;
RvQuayle. Therein, she states the differences between necessity and duress of
circumstances. To support her argument she deals with a) firstly, the
difference between justification (focused on action, so consequentialist) and
excuse (focused on the actor; e.g. Glanville Williams, The Theory of Excuses,
1982; A Norrie, Crime, Reason, and History, 2001). And b) secondly, threat, characteristics, and reasonable man
in duress.
Session
II
Prof.
Dwarakanath Sripathi, Osmania University, India on “Live in Relationship:
Vanish Point of Institution of Marriage.” India is a country which has a very
high regards for cultural values and religious rituals. Ancient Indian texts
such as the Vedas permitted live-in-relationships. In a country with “puts
marriage on the highest pedestal” Prof. Dwarakanath says, live-in-relationships
are not welcomed. Prof. Dwarakanath reminds us that live-in-relationship is an
arrangement of living, under which the couples who are unmarried live together
to conduct a long lasting relationship similar to marriage. Prof.. Dwarakanath
states that “in a conservative society like India, live-in-relationships are
something that law has yet to catch up with.” The Indian Law now: The Protection
of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 provides protection to women from
domestic violence and included women in live-in-relationships; more recently,
the Government of Maharashtra in 2008 approved a proposal to include
live-in-relationships; Indian Case Law. Prof. Dwarakanath concludes that
cohabitation or live-in-relationships in India though not illegal are not
socially accepted.
Assoc.
Prof. Rita-Marie Jansen, University of the Free State, South Africa on “Medico-Legal
Implications of ROP in South Africa.” There is an increase on the amount of claims
with regards medical malpractice in South Africa Prof. Jansen informs us.
Interestingly, she maintains that the increase has to do with knowledge being more
available to people. For example, nowadays “the public is aware of things
such as the Professional indemnity insurance.”
Asst.
Prof. Mariette Brennan, Lakehead University, Canada on “Saying No to
Chemotherapy: An Examination of the Aboriginal Right to Traditional Medicine.”
Prof. Brennan started by introducing two similar cases of two different
Aboriginal children that had leukaemia, and whose respective parents decline
the use of chemotherapy. One of these children died in 2015. In most cases in
which parents refuse medical treatment for their children, the Canadian Court
may intervene and put children’s right to life over their parents. But
aboriginal rights have Constitutional protection in Canada. There is no
justification to limit these rights Prof. Brennan informs us. Therein, “if it
was based on religion, the State may intervene. However, purely based on
culture, the State cannot.” More recently, there seems to be a trend to accept
and recognise aboriginal right to health both socially and in Canadian Courts.
But these new trends are opening a “huge Pandora box” Pro. Brennan maintains
with question as to how Canadian law may have a marriage between aboriginal
tradition and current legislation.
Senior
Lecturer Brand Classen, University of the Free State, South Africa on “The
Viability of ‘Wrongful Life’ Claims.” Prof. Classen starts by narrowing down
his presentation to what he maintains should be called “action for wrongful
suffering through disability.” With examples
from South African Case Law, how children may be left without legal protection
only because a conceptual change in the interpretation of current legislation.
Senior
Lecturer Lisa Mountford, Staffordshire University, UK on “Gender Adjustment in
English Criminal Law: Is the Female Voice Really Being Heard?” There are underlying
themes that have to do with subjugation of and violence against women Prof. Mountford
argues. She says that the general attitude has changed dramatically since 1980s
in the UK. That is mainly because of “prosecution work-prosecution attitude” and
change in political attitude too with examples such as the Crown Prosecution
Service and the Revised Policies Guidance. It seems to be, Prof. Mountford
says, easier to have convictions nowadays in the UK. "Have they been successful?”
she asks. There are indeed new developments such as the Serious Crime Act 2015
but still an on-going issue. And Prof. Mountford concludes with an striking
example: “Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 but not a single conviction in the
UK so far.”
