Search

Copyright of Arts Magazine is the property of Thamar University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Adab Al-Kufa is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review is the property of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

In his contribution to this special issue, Hindriks considers the Security Principle, an account of pro tanto obligations based on our account of reasons (Gunnemyr and Touborg 2023a). According to the Security Principle, you have a pro tanto obligation not to perform an action that makes a harm more secure. Hindriks raises two objections to this account. First, that it is too flexible; second, that it gives wrong verdicts when agents are robustly unwilling to act in a certain way. Here, we respond to Hindriks' objections and argue that Hindriks' account, the Threshold Principle, gives counterintuitive verdicts in preemption and low-probability cases. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

“A Defence of Berkley’s ‘Master Argument’”. Berkley’s so-called “master argument”—through which he proves his principle esse est percipi—has been submitted to mixed criticisms by various commentators. Some defend its validity from the perspective of their own interpretations, while some claim that the argument is fallacious due to several objections. This article defends the master argument against three objections raised by Russell, Pitcher and Tripton. These could be respectively characterized as “the objection of the confusion of the perceptive act with the perceived object”, “the objection of the confusion of the concept of the object with the object itself”, and “the objection of the solipsism of the present”. I present my own reading of the master argument in order to avoid misunderstandings and claim that the correct understanding of this argument requires considering the following issues: the clarification of the Berkeleyan concepts of idea and perception; the explication of the intentionality of perception, understood as its intentional direction towards intentional objects (ideas); and the distinction between two levels of intentional direction of mediated experience (of an idea through another one)—that is, a level directed towards the concept or mental representation as its immediate intentional object, and another level directed towards the represented object as its mediated intentional object. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This research explains and analyzes the term "contrary to analogy" (Khilaf al-Qiyas) according to scholars of u'ūl al-fiqh, shows the places in which they use it, and clarifies the surrounding problems and suspicions related to it, Then the research discusses the opinion of Ibn Taymiyyah (d. 728/1328) and those who followed him in denying the existence of rulings contrary to analogy in the Shari'ah, and presents their evidence and objections that they addressed to the majority of scholars of u'ūl al-fiqh. In addition, the study tried to rectify what some contemporaries missed, and pointed out the defects in their writings on the topic. The research concluded with a set of results, the most prominent of which is that the term "contrary to analogy" is used in two senses: the first is the provisions contrary to their analogues because it is excluded from the general rules. The second is the provisions that analogy cannot be applied to them, and that the course of the scholars of u'ūl al-fiqh who use the term is correct and does not entail any problem. Moreover, the study clarified that those who negate the term "contrary to analogy", acknowledge its existence in other places, but in different forms, which means that most of their objection is directed to the use of the term, with the caveat that the disagreement between these two viewpoints is not a purely verbal one, rather, it has practical effects, and that the use of this term and what is in its meaning is not limited to the late scholars, but rather it was mentioned by the Imams of Ijtihad in the first centuries. Furthermore, the study provided that the objection to the use of the term "contrary to analogy" cannot be directed to all the rulings mentioned in contradiction to analogy, as some of them are agreed upon that they are excluded from the rules, and that the course of the majority aligns with the modern legal view of differentiation between the rule and the exception. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Criminal law abolitionists claim that legal punishment cannot be morally justified and that we should therefore abolish criminal law. While this is still a minority position in the current debate, the number of proponents has been increasing, and even opponents have developed a certain degree of sympathy for such claims in recent years. Yet one of the reasons many remain hesitant regarding the abolition of criminal law appears to be the lack of a thought-through alternative, in addition to abolitionists disagreeing considerably amongst themselves on what an alternative should look like. I will call this the missing alternative objection. To address this central concern, I will argue in this paper that the most prominent versions of abolitionism actually converge on the same alternative core to criminal law — even though they are driven by vastly different motivations. This core that current abolitionist theories converge on is two-fold: first, the claim that the state should compel offenders to provide restitution for the victim; second, the claim that restorative processes should be used wherever possible when addressing criminal wrongdoing. This common core is enough to reject the missing alternative objection. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The research deals with the imperative, whether it requires immediateness or not, discussing the scholars' views, and focusing on editing the place of their disagreement about the issues related to it. then, various statements of scholars with their fundamentalist evidence and stating the objections and responses contained therein are mentioned, and the impact of this dispute on the branches of jurisprudence One of the most prominent findings is that the disagreement in this issue results in many jurisprudent issues, including the permissibility of delaying the payment of zakat to its beneficiaries, as some said: the imperative is immediate and said that postponing the end of the year is forbidden. Others said: immediateness is not beneficial even if it is done after a while, and other issues mentioned are the subject of the research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

There are two justifications for the major questions doctrine. The first justification, vigorously offered by Justice Neil Gorsuch, might be described as Lockean; it sees the doctrine as an effort to preserve legislative primacy and to reduce the policymaking authority of the executive branch. On the Lockean view, the major questions doctrine is a clear-statement principle, and it is in evident tension with textualism. The second justification, vigorously offered by Justice Amy Coney Barrett, might be described as Wittgensteinian; it sees the doctrine as an effort to capture Congress's likely instructions. The Wittgensteinian justification fits comfortably with textualism, and it does not operate as a clear-statement principle at all. The Court can be seen as having adopted an incompletely theorized agreement in favor of the major questions doctrine, but at some point, the two justifications might lead in different directions. While neither justification is implausible, both of them run into serious objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Aufklärung: Revista de Filosofia is the property of Aufklarung: Revista de Filosofia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista CIENCIA UNEMI is the property of Universidad Estatal de Milagro (UNEMI) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Problematic content on social media can be countered through objections raised by other community members. While intended to deter offenses, objections can influence the surrounding audience observing the interaction, leading to their collective approval or disapproval. The results of an experiment manipulating seven types of objections against common types of offenses indicate audiences' support for objections that implore via appeals and disapproval of objections that threaten the offender, as they view the former as more moral, appropriate, and effective compared to the latter. Furthermore, audiences tend to prefer more benign and less threatening objections regardless of the offense severity (following the principle of "taking the high road") instead of objections proportionate to the offense ("an eye for an eye"). Taken together, these results show how objections to offensive behaviors may impact collective perceptions on social media, paving the way for interventions to foster effective objection strategies in social media discussions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Fiscal is the property of Revista de Derecho Fiscal and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The “special military operation” (SVO) launched by Vladimir Putin against Ukraine on February 24, 2022, took most Russians by surprise. They had to be persuaded of its correctness, by any means. This article details the Russian state’s methods for sustaining its changing official narrative about the “SVO” as well as the ways and means the dissident portion of Russia’s citizenry made their objections to the war in Ukraine heard during its first year. The Kremlin’s already firm grip on the distribution of information was tightened; Russia’s wordsmiths were silenced, jailed, or forced to flee the country. School curricula were reorganized so that they became incubators of young Russian patriots. The article concludes with conjecture on why the state’s message found such a welcoming audience among Russians, at least during the first year of the war. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objection to inspection activities is a special legal instrument that allows an entrepreneur to react in a situation where inspection activities have been undertaken and conducted in violation of the regulations governing the rules and procedures for such inspections of business activities. This study analyses this instrument, in particular the possibility of filing an objection and exclusions in this regard, authorized entities, the issue of quasi-objections, the effects that the objection causes or may cause, the rules of procedure for the filing and resolution of the objection, as well as the issues of complaints against the decision to continue controlling activities and complaints to the administrative court. In addition to the analysis of legal provisions creating the normative construction of objection to inspection activities, the study includes related assessments, conclusions and findings of doctrine and jurisprudence. The study answers the question of whether an objection to inspection activities is an effective and available instrument to protect the entrepreneur in a situation where inspection activities are conducted in violation of regulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

I Introduction Global responses to domestic and family violence ('DFV') have undergone marked evolution in recent decades. (1) One ongoing development in many English-speaking countries is the take-up by legal [...], In recent years, the New South Wales ('NSW') government has taken substantial steps toward legislating a criminal offence of coercive control. In November 2022, these steps culminated in the passage through Parliament of a Bill featuring a proposed offence of 'abusive behaviour towards current or former intimate partners'. This comment explores the main objections to criminalising coercive control by examining the NSW legislation and the vigorous public policy debate surrounding its introduction, along with leading scholarship and evidence from within and outside Australia. These objections tend to be based in one of two concerns: (i) that the criminal justice system is not ready for a discrete offence of coercive control and (ii) that the criminal law cannot provide an answer to the problem of domestic and family violence. An examination of these two framings reveals that criminalisation is presently seen as a high-risk, short-sighted response to an inherently complex social problem. This position appears to be taken irrespective of any overall belief in the utility or appropriateness of criminal justice-based solutions to domestic and family violence. Implications for the 2022 NSW reforms are duly considered.

Starting from the idea that collective rights are justiciable rights, the author discusses how such protection should be granted, focusing on structural decisions due to the scope that they have in society and on the guarantee of rights. In this context, through this article the author aims to discuss in what way the Courts should intervene for the protection of collective rights. For this purpose, the author conducts a documentary review of the main objections made to judicial activism regarding the adoption of structural decisions. He concludes by proposing a dialogic conception as a response to such objections and as a suitable mechanism for the judicial protection of collective rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In June 2016, Canada legalized medical assistance in dying (MAiD). From the outset, some healthcare institutions (including faith-based and non-faith-based hospitals, hospices, and residential aged care facilities) have refused to allow aspects of MAiD onsite, resulting in patient transfers for MAiD assessments and provision. There have been media reports highlighting the negative consequences of these "institutional objections", however, very little research has examined their nature and impact. Methods: This study reports on findings from 48 semi-structured qualitative interviews conducted with MAiD assessors and providers, MAiD team members (working to coordinate care and lead MAiD programs in institutions and health authorities), and family caregivers on their experiences with institutional objection. Participants were recruited from the Canadian provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia. Data were analyzed using inductive thematic analysis. Results: Themes identified were: (1) basis for institutional objection (with objections commonly rooted in religious values and a particular philosophy of palliative care); (2) scope of objection (demonstrating a wide range of practices objected to); (3) lack of transparency regarding institutional position; (4) impacts on patients; (5) impacts on health practitioners; and (6) catalysts for change. Participants reported that many institutions' objections had softened over time, lessening barriers to MAiD access and adverse impacts on patients and health practitioners. Participants attributed this positive change to a range of catalysts including advocacy by health practitioners and family members, policymaking by local health authorities, education, and relationship building. Nevertheless, some institutions, particularly faith-based ones, retained strong objections to MAiD, resulting in forced transfers and negative emotional and psychological impacts on patients, family members, and health practitioners. Conclusions: This paper adds to the limited evidence base about the impacts of institutional objection and can inform practical and regulatory solutions in Canada and abroad. Reform is needed to minimize the negative impacts on patients, their caregivers, and health practitioners involved in MAiD practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ideas y Valores is the property of Universidad Nacional de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Filosofia UNISINOS is the property of Universidade do Vale do Rio dos Sinos and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The subject of this article is an analysis of the basic ideas of Nussbaum’s capability theory. In spite of the advantages of this approach, some authors have raised objections to the capability theory. The aim of this article is to analyze and discuss some selected objections. In particular, the study focuses on five objections that relate to the problem of paternalism, the impossibility of reaching a minimum threshold of individual capabilities, the impossibility of justifying civil and political rights, and the non-hierarchical nature of the list of capabilities. The article also develops a critique of the theory of capabilities in terms of a political approach to human rights. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista de Derecho Politico is the property of Editorial UNED and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

How much should someone contribute to trying to prevent unnecessary deaths and severe hardships? MacAskill, Mogensen, and Ord propose tithing for most of the rich (as measured by income), which has been influential in the effective altruism community. My aim in this article is to contribute, through amending their proposal, to their important project of searching for a weak or very weak principle of sacrifice that would still revise upward how much money goes to the most effective organizations. I do so by presenting four objections to their argument based on demandingness, fairness, net wealth, and historical and contemporary injustices. Then, I show that a principle of progressive can overcome these objections and better fits the reasons MacAskill, Mogensen, and Ord give in favour of their principle than their proposed operationalization of tithing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the present work I will try to explain two lines of interpretation of the discussed article that regulates the crime of feminicide in our Penal Code, making known the consequences that would follow from accepting them, in addition to some objections to them. Much of the essay will examine the best interpretation of the criminal offense and then the strongest objection that must be faced; I consider the latter the real problem of feminicide. Finally, I will suggest an interpretation of feminicide and the conclusions will be compiled. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this article we compare how children's objections to being returned to their country of origin are treated in Hague child abduction matters in three different international jurisdictions: England and Wales, Australia, and the United States. We examine the relevance of children's views for the purposes of the 'gateway' stage of the relevant exception to mandatory return, and how children's objections have been approached in legislation, case law, and scholarly commentary. We critique each jurisdiction's approach against the objectives of the Hague Convention and the Convention on the Rights of the Child. We discuss how aspects such as the methods by which children are heard can make a difference to experiences for children and make recommendations to promote greater certainty and consistency in how children's objections are heard and considered across jurisdictions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The goal of this paper is to provide an initial defense of a neglected epistemology of value according to which a fundamental mode of access to evaluative facts and properties is constituted by a distinctive kind of feeling, sometimes called 'value feeling'. The paper defends the appeal to value feelings against some objections that have been leveled against it, objections intended to show that it is a nonstarter. The paper argues that these objections can be met and that the view that there are such value feelings constitutes a reasonable hypothesis. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista FORUM is the property of Universidad Nacional de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Cumhuriyet Ilahiyat Dergisi / Cumhuriyet Theology Journal is the property of Cumhuriyet Universitesi, Ilahiyat Fakultesi / Cumhuriyet University, Faculty of Theology and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review is the property of Necmettin Erbakan University School of Law Review and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Sirnak University Journal of Divinity Faculty / Sirnak Üniversitesi Ilahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi is the property of Sirnak University, Journal of Divinity Faculty / Sirnak Universitesi Ilahiyat Fakultesi Dergisi and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Prometeus: Filosofia em Revista is the property of Prometeus: Filosofia em Revista and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: Voluntary assisted dying became lawful in Victoria, the first Australian state to permit this practice, in 2019 via the Voluntary Assisted Dying Act 2017 (Vic). While conscientious objection by individual health professionals is protected by the Victorian legislation, objections by institutions are governed by policy. No research has been conducted in Victoria, and very little research conducted internationally, on how institutional objection is experienced by patients seeking assisted dying. Methods: 28 semi-structured interviews were conducted with 32 family caregivers and one patient about the experience of 28 patients who sought assisted dying. Participants were interviewed during August-November 2021. Data from the 17 interviews (all with family caregivers) which reported institutional objection were analysed thematically. Results: Participants reported institutional objection affecting eligibility assessments, medication access, and taking the medication or having it administered. Institutional objection occurred across health settings and was sometimes communicated obliquely. These objections resulted in delays, transfers, and choices between progressing an assisted dying application and receiving palliative or other care. Participants also reported objections causing adverse emotional experiences and distrust of objecting institutions. Six mediating influences on institutional objections were identified: staff views within objecting institutions; support of external medical practitioners and pharmacists providing assisted dying services; nature of a patient's illness; progression or state of a patient's illness; patient's geographical location; and the capability and assertiveness of a patient and/or caregiver. Conclusions: Institutional objection to assisted dying is much-debated yet empirically understudied. This research found that in Victoria, objections were regularly reported by participants and adversely affected access to assisted dying and the wider end-of-life experience for patients and caregivers. This barrier arises in an assisted dying system that is already procedurally challenging, particularly given the limited window patients have to apply. Better regulation may be needed as Victoria's existing policy approach appears to preference institutional positions over patient's choice given existing power dynamics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Rejoinder offers a first response to the reviews of The Redress of Law, published in this issue of ELO, and further pursues certain lines of theoretical inquiry in engagement with the reviewers' suggestions and objections. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Ideas y Valores is the property of Universidad Nacional de Colombia and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Educação is the property of EDIPUCRS - Editora Universitaria da PUCRS and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Revista del Museo de Antropología is the property of Museo de Antropologia - IDACOR and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Ilahiyat Researches / Ilahiyat Tetkikleri Dergisi is the property of Ataturk University Coordinatorship of Scientific Journals and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Análisis Filosófico is the property of Sociedad Argentina de Analisis Filosofico and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Bilimname is the property of IBAV (Research Foundation of Theological Science) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Babylon Center for Humanities Studies is the property of Republic of Iraq Ministry of Higher Education & Scientific Research (MOHESR) and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Journal of Arts & Social Sciences (JASS) is the property of Sultan Qaboos University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

If an ordinary object causes an event, and if its atoms acting in concert cause the same event, then the event in question is overdetermined by two independent causes. The overdetermination argument aims to show that effects are never overdetermined in this way, and that we should only admit that the atoms acting in concert are the cause of the event in question. This means that the object constituted by those atoms does not cause anything, and if this is so, then the object does not exist. I submit that it is possible to resist the overdetermination argument by claiming that causation is strictly an event-event relation. However, the argument can be reformulated in a way that blocks this objection. I explain how the reformulated version of the argument can be resisted by claiming that there is only one causal event that is undergone by both the object and its atoms acting in concert. Additionally, I show how the epistemic argument that can be formulated in support of the overdetermination argument can be resisted as well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Revista La Tadeo de Arte is the property of La Fundacion Universidad de Bogota Jorge Tadeo Lozano and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Cuestiones Teológicas is the property of Cuestiones Teologicas and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Maksymilian Del Mar's Artefacts of Legal Inquiry. Some reflections: This contribution explores Maksymilian Del Mar's Artefacts of Legal Inquiry by posing several questions and an objection. First, I celebrate the role that Del Mar awards for hesitation and experimentation in adjudication, but I question, at the same time, whether it can backfire regarding the accountability to which judges and legislators are subjected. Next, I wonder about the author's position with regards to the dangers of affective participation in the law, as well as regarding the obstacles to true listening in adjudication. Then, I address Del Mar's proposal to use of 'figures' in legal inquiry, and ask whether that can somehow imply that we, in turn, approach the defendants' character in problematic ways. Finally, this contribution ends with an objection to Del Mar's approach to the cognitive theory of language, and specifically with respect to metaphors, in legal studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

TABLE OF CONTENTS I. BACKGROUND 894 A. The Black Lives Matter Movement 894 B. Facial Recognition Technology Generally 895 C. Law Enforcement Use of Facial Recognition Technology 896 D. Private [...], From unlocking an iPhone to Facebook "tags," facial recognition technology has become increasingly commonplace in modern society. In the wake of the Black Lives Matter movement and call for police reform in the United States, it is important now more than ever to consider the implications of law enforcement's use of facial recognition technology. A study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology found that facial recognition algorithms generated higher rates of false positives for Black faces--sometimes up to one hundred times more false identifications--than white faces. Given the embedded bias of this technology and its increased prevalence, the lack of federal regulation of facial recognition technology and its uses by law enforcement are alarming. This Note explores issues that arise with law enforcement's use of facial recognition technology and how results from the technology should be treated in the criminal justice system. This Note cautions against admitting results from facial recognition technology into evidence in criminal trials based on the current state of the industry and the technology. Further, if facial recognition evidence is admitted, this Note argues that defendants should have access to the software's source code to meaningfully challenge the evidence presented against them under the confrontation clause of the US Constitution. While this Note recognizes developers' interest in protecting trade secrets, it nevertheless recommends that judges balance these interests with those of defendants and make case-by-case decisions about how to protect developers' information without blocking defendants' access to the software.

INTRODUCTION I. SPEAKING FOR THEMSELVES A. Defendants Without Lawyers B. What's My Line: Defendants Speaking in Court 1. First Appearance, Pretrial Release and Bail Hearing, and Arraignment 2. Plea Bargaining [...], People charged with crimes often speak directly to the judge presiding over their case. Yet, what can be seen in courtrooms across the U.S. Is that defendants rarely "talk back" in court, meaning that they rarely challenge authority's view of the law, the crime, the defendant, the court's procedure, or the fairness of the proposed sentence. With few exceptions, legal scholars have treated the occasions when defendants speak directly to the court as a problem to be solved by appointing more lawyers and better lawyers. While effective representation is crucial, this Article starts from the premise that defendants have important things to say that currently go unsaid in court. In individual cases, talking back could result in fairer outcomes. On a systemic level, talking back could bring much-needed realism to the criminal legal system's assumptions about crime and punishment that produce injustice. This Article analyzes three types of power that prevent defendants from talking back in court: sovereign, disciplinary, and social-emotional power. While sovereign power silences defendants through fear, disciplinary power silences defendants by imposing a system of order within which talking back seems disorderly. Finally, social-emotional power silences defendants by imposing an emotional regime in which self-advocacy is both a breach of decorum and an affront to the court's perception of itself as a source of orderliness and justice. The dynamics of social-emotional power are particularly critical to evaluating court reform efforts focused on improving courtroom culture. Paradoxically, the more solicitous the judge, the less the defendant may feel comfortable raising concerns that challenge the court's narrative of justice.