ORCID Profile
0000-0003-3758-4495
Current Organisation
Bond University
Does something not look right? The information on this page has been harvested from data sources that may not be up to date. We continue to work with information providers to improve coverage and quality. To report an issue, use the Feedback Form.
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 20-05-2014
Publisher: Elsevier BV
Date: 2013
DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.2312655
Publisher: University of California Press
Date: 2014
DOI: 10.1525/NCLR.2014.17.2.312
Abstract: A number of articles and empirical studies over the past decade suggest a relationship between the criminal law’s reputation for being just—its “moral credibility”—and its ability to gain society’s deference and compliance through a variety of mechanisms that enhance the system’s crime-control effectiveness. This has led to proposals for criminal liability and punishment rules to reflect lay intuitions of justice—“empirical desert”—as a means of enhancing the system’s moral credibility. In a recent article, Christopher Slobogin and Lauren Brinkley-Rubinstein (SBR) report seven sets of studies that, in their view, undermine these claims about empirical desert and moral credibility. Instead, say SBR, the studies support their own proposed distributive principle of “in idual prevention.” As this article shows, however, SBR have it wrong on both counts: not only do their studies actually confirm the crime-control power of empirical desert, but they provide no support for their own principle of in idual prevention. Moreover, that principle, which focuses on an offender’s dangerousness rather than his perceived desert, is erroneously described by SBR as “a sort of limiting retributivism.” In reality, what SBR propose is a system based on dangerousness, where detention decisions are made at the back end by experts. Such an approach promotes the worst of the failed policies of the 1960s, and conflicts with the modern trend of encouraging more community involvement in criminal punishment, not less.
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Date: 31-03-2016
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 04-08-2010
Publisher: Informa UK Limited
Date: 03-2011
DOI: 10.5235/TLT.V2N1.127
Publisher: Wiley
Date: 07-10-2016
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 15-12-2012
Publisher: Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Date: 22-02-2022
DOI: 10.1017/CJLJ.2022.6
Abstract: Employers seeking to control employee behavior outside of working hours is nothing new. However, recent developments have extended efforts to control employee behavior into new areas, with new significance. Employers seek to control legal behavior by employees outside of working hours, to have significant influence over employees’ health-related behavior, and to monitor and control employees’ social media, even when this behavior has nothing to do with the workplace. In this article, I draw on the work of political theorists Jon Elster, Gerald Gaus, and Michael Walzer, and privacy scholars Daniel Solove and Anita Allen, to show what is wrong with this extension of employer control of employees’ outside of work behavior. I argue that there are ethical limits on the controls that employers may put on their employees’ behavior outside of work, and that many of these limits should be enshrined into legal protections which would prevent employers from conditioning employment on the regulations criticized.
Publisher: Philosophy Documentation Center
Date: 2007
DOI: 10.5840/JPR_2007_13
Abstract: The debate over the use of genetically-modified (GM) crops is one where the heat to light ratio is often quite low. Both proponents and opponents of GM crops often resort more to rhetoric than argument. This paper attempts to use Philip Kitcher’s idea of a “well-ordered science” to bring coherence to the debate. While I cannot, of course, here decide when and where, if at all, GM crops should be used I do show how Kitcher’s approach provides a useful framework in which to evaluate the desirability of using GM crops. At the least Kitcher’s approach allows us to see that the current state of research in to, and use of, GM crops is very far from the ideal of a well-ordered science and gives us a goal to work towards if we wish to achieve a more well-ordered agricultural policy.
Publisher: Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Date: 02-02-2017
Publisher: Oxford University Press
Date: 19-04-2018
DOI: 10.1093/OSO/9780198786429.003.0008
Abstract: Families and children pose several problems for states in migration policies. All states provide some family migration benefits, and often special benefits for children, yet many of these states have sought to limit family immigration and the rights of children. This chapter explains why just immigration policies must offer family-based immigration and why this does not imply immigration rights in other relationships, such as friendships. It argues that a right to intimate association grounds a basic right to form family units across borders—a right inhering primarily in current citizens. It also explores how this right may be limited, including by ‘public charge’ type provisions, and how far these rights should ground protection from deportation for non-citizen family members, arguing that reasons that justify family immigration rights also justify protection from deportation. It finishes with a discussion of special protections owed, as a matter of justice, to children.
No related grants have been discovered for Matthew Lister.