Law School

Rehabilitation is the process of re-educating and retraining those who have committed a crime. It generally involves psychological approaches which target the cognitive distortions associated with specific kinds of crime committed by particular offenders – but may also involve more general education such as literacy skills and work training. The goal is to reintegrate offenders back into society. Methods. A successful rehabilitation of a prisoner is also helped if convicted persons: are not placed in health-threateningly bad conditions, enjoy access to medical care and are protected from other forms of serious ill-treatment, are able to maintain ties to the outside world, learn new skills to assist them with working life on the outside, enjoy clear and detailed statutory regulations clarifying the safeguards applicable and governing the use and disposal of any record of data relating to criminal matters. Applications. Norway. Norway's prison system is based on the principle of normalization and away from retribution to focus on rehabilitation. Inmates have access to amenities they would have outside of prison, such as an exclusive mini fridge, flat-screen TV, private bathroom, and access to the outdoor environment. This, along with a shared kitchen and living area "to create a sense of family" among inmates and the absence of traditional prison uniforms contributes to Norway's rehabilitative normalcy system. The prison's structure is composed of Units A, B and C, with Unit A housing those in need of psychiatric or medical attention, thus being the most prohibitive of the three. Halden Fengsel, referred to as the "world's most humane maximum-security prison", embodies the country's goal of reintegration by aiding inmates in sorting out housing and employment before leaving the prison. Rehabilitative measures involve education, job training, workshops to acquire a trade, and therapy along with the humane treatment they receive from personnel who have to complete three years of training to become prison guards. The effectiveness of Norway's methods is evident as they hold the lowest recidivism rate worldwide at 20% as of December 2014. In comparison, in 2007, 14 prisons in England and Wales had reconviction rates of more than 70%, which cost an average of £40,000 a year for each prisoner. This has been accused of being "a huge investment in failure" and "a total lack of consideration for potential future victims of released prisoners". "Better out than in" is Norway's Correctional Service unofficial motto that is in view with their rehabilitative system as a justice to society by integrating inmates as functioning members of society upon release. Meditation. Vipassanā 10-day meditation courses were first taught in prisons in India in 1975. They have since been conducted in the US (1997–present), UK (1998), Spain (2003), Israel (2007) and Ireland (2015). Vipassana meditation aims to reduce negative mental states such as anger and aggression, and provide a path to inner peace.

Cruelty to animals, also called animal abuse, animal neglect or animal cruelty, is the infliction by omission (neglect) or by commission by humans of suffering or harm upon non-human animals. More narrowly, it can be the causing of harm or suffering for specific achievements, such as killing animals for entertainment; cruelty to animals sometimes encompasses inflicting harm or suffering as an end in itself, referred to as zoosadism. Divergent approaches to laws concerning animal cruelty occur in different jurisdictions throughout the world. For example, some laws govern methods of killing animals for food, clothing, or other products, and other laws concern the keeping of animals for entertainment, education, research, or pets. There are several conceptual approaches to the issue of cruelty to animals. Even though some practices, like animal fighting, are widely acknowledged as cruel, not all people and nations have the same definition of what constitutes animal cruelty. Many would claim that docking a piglet's tail without an anesthetic constitutes cruelty. Others would respond that it is a routine technique for meat production to prevent harm later in the pig's life. Additionally, laws governing animal cruelty vary from nation to nation. While it is routine practice in the United States, docking a piglet's tail as part of regular practice is prohibited in the European Union (EU). It may be said that there is nothing inherently wrong with using animals for human purposes, such as food, clothing, entertainment, and research, but that it should be done in a way that minimizes unnecessary pain and suffering, sometimes referred to as "humane" treatment. In contrast, some have argued that the definition of 'unnecessary' stated above varies widely and could include virtually all current use of animals. Utilitarian advocates argue from the position of costs and benefits and vary in their conclusions as to the allowable treatment of animals. Some utilitarians argue for a weaker approach which is closer to the animal welfare position, whereas others argue for a position that is similar to animal rights. Animal rights theorists criticize these positions, arguing that the words "unnecessary" and "humane" are subject to widely differing interpretations and that animals have basic rights. They say that most animal use itself is unnecessary and a cause of suffering, so the only way to ensure protection for animals is to end their status as property and to ensure that they are never viewed as a substance or as non-living things.

Joint wills and mutual wills are closely related terms used in the law of wills to describe two types of testamentary writing that may be executed by a married couple to ensure that their property is disposed of identically. Neither should be confused with mirror wills which means two separate, identical wills, which may or may not also be mutual wills. Joint wills. A joint will is a single document executed by more than one person (typically between spouses), making which has effect in relation to each signatory's property upon death (unless the will is revoked (cancels) the will during the signatory's lifetime). Although a single document, the joint will is a separate distribution of property by each executor (signatory) and will be treated as such on admission to probate. Mutual wills are any two (or more) wills which are mutually binding, such that following the first death the survivor is constrained in the ability to dispose of the property by the agreement the survivor made with the deceased. Historically such wills had an important role in ensuring property passed to children of a marriage rather than a spouse of a widow or widower on a remarriage. The recognition of these forms varies widely from one jurisdiction to the next. Some permit both, some will not recognize joint wills, and many have established a presumption that one or both of these forms creates a will contract. A joint will differs substantively from a mutual will in that the former is not intended to be irrevocable or to express a mutual intention; it is merely an administrative convenience. A will may be both joint (on one document) and mutual (see below). Mutual wills. Mutual wills have four basic requirements and a strict standard for enforceability: The agreement must be made in a particular form. The agreement must be contractual in effect. (Contrast Goodchild v Goodchild and Lewis v Cotton). The agreement must be intended to be irrevocable. The surviving party must have intended the will to reflect the agreement. Mutual wills are rare, and often another form of constructive trust is imposed (Healey v Browne). It is also noted (Carnwath J in Re Goodchild) that a mutual will is a technical legal device requiring an intention to form a binding agreement and that this often differs from the "loose moral obligation" presupposed as binding by the layman.

Trover cases in the United States. Trover is the name of the action which lay, at common law, for the recovery of damages for the conversion of personal property in his possession, usually involving chattels held in bailment. Although the old forms of action have been abolished or disappeared under modern civil procedure in the United States, the common law action for conversion still exists in fact, if not in form. (Extensive case law is reviewed.)  A person who purchases personal property from one not authorized to sell the chattel may be held liable for the conversion of the article. This is regardless of the fact that the purchaser was honestly mistaken, or acted innocently, in good faith and without knowledge of the seller's lack of authority to make the sale. This rule also holds in cases where the purchaser takes possession of the goods, mixes them with his own property, holds them to his own use, refuses to surrender possession on demand, disposes of the goods to a third person by sale, lease or bailment or in general exercises rights of ownership as to the property purchased in denial of the real owner's rights after knowledge of the rights of the true owner. Deaderick  Oulds, 1887. In the 1887 case of Deaderick  Oulds, the Supreme Court of Tennessee ruled on a case of trover. The defendant, Oulds, cut 800 walnut logs, branded them with the letter "D", then proceeded to float them down a river with the intention of recovering them downstream. Sometime later, Oulds found an unmarked log among his other marked logs which had peculiar cracks at one end. He floated the unmarked log down the river, and it washed up on an island owned by the plaintiff, Deaderick, who then claimed the log as his in trover or replevin. The Tennessee court quoted the English case of Bridges  Hawkesworth where the plaintiff, being in the shop of the defendant, picked up a parcel containing bank notes. The defendant, at the request of the finder, took charge of the notes, to hold for the owner. After three years, no one had come forth to claim them. The defendant shop owner refused to deliver them to the plaintiff. The court held the defendant shop owner liable in trover for the notes. The Tennessee Supreme Court observed it is essential in cases of trover, that the property must be found; it must at the time when the finder came upon it, to have been in such a situation as to clearly indicate that it was lost. It cannot have been placed there by the original owner who lost it by carelessness or forgetfulness, where it was later found by someone else. In such cases, the owner of the premises where the property is found is treated as a quasi-bailee (for example he holds the property for the original owner), and he may maintain trover against the finder. Since the log was not intentionally laid by the (unknown) owner on the land of the plaintiff (Deaderick), and hence he was not a quasi-bailee for the owner, he cannot hold against the superior right of the defendant (Oulds) arising out of his prior possession and earlier finding of the log. Judgment for ownership of the log was to the defendant Oulds.

In copyright law, related rights (or neighboring rights) are the rights of a creative work not connected with the work's actual author. It is used in opposition to the term "authors' rights". Neighboring rights is a more literal translation of the original French droits voisins. Both authors' rights and related rights are copyrights in the sense of English or U.S. law. Related rights vary much more widely in scope between different countries than authors' rights. The rights of performers, phonogram producers and broadcasting organizations are certainly covered, and are internationally protected by the Rome Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organisations signed in 1961. Within the European Union, the rights of film producers (as opposed to directors) and database creators are also protected by related rights, and the term is sometimes extended to include the sui generis rights in semiconductor topologies and other industrial design rights. A practical definition is that related rights are copyright-type rights that are not covered by the Berne Convention. International protection of related rights. Apart from the Rome convention, a number of other treaties address the protection of related rights: Convention for the Protection of Producers of Phonograms Against Unauthorized Duplication of Their Phonograms (Geneva Phonograms Convention, 1971). Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme–Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (Brussels Convention, 1974). Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty, 1989). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS, 1994). WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT, 1996). Apart from the TRIPS Agreement, these treaties cannot truly be described as global: the Rome Convention had 83 signatories as of 2006, compared with 162 for the Berne Convention. Relation to authors' rights. Related rights are independent of any authors' rights, as is made clear in the various treaties (Article 1 Rome; Article 7.1 Geneva; Article 1.2 WPPT). Hence a CD recording of a song is concurrently protected by four copyright-type rights: Authors' rights of the composer of the music. Authors' rights of the lyricist. Performers' rights of the singer and musicians. Producers' rights of the person or corporation that made the recording.

Recidivism from recidive and -ism, from Latin recidivus "recurring", from re- "back" and cado "I fall") is the act of a person repeating an undesirable behavior after they have experienced negative consequences of that behavior. It is also used to refer to the percentage of former prisoners who are rearrested for a similar offense. The term is frequently used in conjunction with criminal behavior and substance abuse. Recidivism is a synonym for "relapse", which is more commonly used in medicine and in the disease model of addiction. Norway has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world at 20%. Prisons in Norway and the Norwegian criminal justice system focus on restorative justice and rehabilitating prisoners rather than punishment. United States. According to the latest study by the US Department of Justice, recidivism measures require three characteristics: 1. a starting event, such as a release from prison 2. a measure of failure following the starting event, such as a subsequent arrest, conviction, or return to prison 3. an observation or follow-up period that generally extends from the date of the starting event to a predefined end date as in 6 months, 1 year, 3 years, 5 years, or 9 years). The latest  reported that 83% of state prisoners were arrested at some point in the 9 years following their release. A large majority of those were arrested within the first 3 years, and more than 50% get rearrested within the first year. However, the longer the time period, the higher the reported recidivism rate, but the lower the actual threat to public safety. According to an April 2011 report by the Pew Center on the States, the average national recidivism rate for released prisoners is 43%. According to the National Institute of Justice, almost 44 percent of the recently released return before the end of their first year out. About 68 percent of 405,000 prisoners released in 30 states in 2005 were arrested for a new crime within three years of their release from prison, and 77 percent were arrested within five years, and by year nine that number reaches 83 percent. Beginning in the 1990s, the US rate of incarceration increased dramatically, filling prisons to capacity in bad conditions for inmates. Crime continues inside many prison walls. Gangs exist on the inside, often with tactical decisions made by imprisoned leaders. While the US justice system has traditionally focused its efforts at the front end of the system, by locking people up, it has not exerted an equal effort at the tail end of the system: decreasing the likelihood of reoffending among formerly incarcerated persons. This is a significant issue because ninety-five percent of prisoners will be released back into the community at some point. A cost study performed by the Vera Institute of Justice, a non-profit committed to decarceration in the United States, found that the average per-inmate cost of incarceration among the 40 states surveyed was $31,286 per year.

Terrorism, in its broadest sense, is the use of intentional violence and fear to achieve political or ideological aims. The term is used in this regard primarily to refer to intentional violence during peacetime or in the context of war against non-combatants (mostly civilians and neutral military personnel). The terms "terrorist" and "terrorism" originated during the French Revolution of the late 18th century but became widely used internationally and gained worldwide attention in the 1970s during the Troubles in Northern Ireland, the Basque conflict, and the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. The increased use of suicide attacks from the 1980s onwards was typified by the 2001 September 11 attacks in the United States. There are various different definitions of terrorism, with no universal agreement about it. Terrorism is a charged term. It is often used with the connotation of something that is "morally wrong". Governments and non-state groups use the term to abuse or denounce opposing groups. Varied political organizations have been accused of using terrorism to achieve their objectives. These include left-wing and right-wing political organizations, nationalist groups, religious groups, revolutionaries and ruling governments. Legislation declaring terrorism a crime has been adopted in many states. State terrorism is that perpetrated by nation states, but is not considered such by the state conducting it, making legality a gray area. There is no consensus as to whether terrorism should be regarded as a war crime. Separating activism and terrorism can be difficult and has been described as a 'fine line'. The Global Terrorism Database, maintained by the University of Maryland, College Park, has recorded more than 61,000 incidents of non-state terrorism, resulting in at least 140,000 deaths, between 2000 and 2014.

Legislation. Such were the principal stages in the history of the law as it affected wills made before 1838 or proved before 1858. The principal Acts in force in the early twentieth century were the Wills Act 1837, the amending Act of 1852, the Court of Probate Act 1857, the Judicature Acts 1873 and 1875, and the Land Transfer Act 1897. All but the Acts of 1837 and 1852 deal mainly with what happens to the will after death, whether under the voluntary or contentious jurisdiction of the Probate Division. The earliest on the statute roll is an Act of Henry the 3rd  (1236), enabling a widow to bequeath the crops of her lands. Before the Wills Act 1837 uniformity in the law had been urgently recommended by the Real Property Commissioners in 1833. It appears from their report that at the time of its appearance there were ten different ways in which a will might be made under different circumstances. The Wills Act 1837 affected both the making and the interpretation of wills. Excluding the latter for the present, its main provisions were these: All property, real and personal, and of whatever tenure, may be disposed of by will. If customary freeholds or copyholds are devised, the will must be entered on the manorial rolls. No will made by any person under the age of twenty-one is valid. Every will is to be in writing, signed at the foot or end thereof by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction, and such signature is to be made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of two or more witnesses present at the same time, who are to subscribe the will in the presence of the testator. It is usual for the testator and the witnesses to sign every sheet. Gifts to a witness or the husband or wife of a witness are void. A will is revoked by a later will, or by destruction with the intention of revoking, but not by presumption arising from an alteration in circumstances. Alterations in a will must be executed and attested as a will. A will speaks from the death of the testator, unless a contrary intention appears. An unattested document may be, if properly identified, incorporated in a will. Rules of interpretation or construction depend chiefly on decisions of the courts, to a smaller extent on statutory enactment. The law was gradually brought into its present condition through precedents extending back for centuries, especially decisions of the court of chancery, the court par excellence of construction, as distinguished from the court of probate. The court of probate did not deal unless incidentally with the meaning of the will; its jurisdiction was confined to seeing that it was duly executed. The present state of the law of interpretation is highly technical. Some phrases have obtained a conventional meaning which the testators who used them probably did not dream of. Many of the judicial doctrines which had gradually become established were altered by the Wills Act 1837.

Trover is a form of lawsuit in common-law countries for recovery of damages for wrongful taking of personal property. Trover belongs to a series of remedies for such wrongful taking, its distinctive feature being recovery only for the value of whatever was taken, not for the recovery of the property itself. Overview Although actions in trover can be traced to the time of Bracton, and later Edward the 1st of England, it became more clearly defined later during the reign of Henry the 6th of England, 1422–1461 and 1470–1471. Action in trover became a mature legal doctrine during the reign of Elizabeth the 1st of England, 1558–1603. Early trover cases involved the keeping or taking of a bailment by the bailee (the person charged to hold the property with "ordinary care"). Others concerned the use of lost chattels found by another and determining who was the real owner. Early on, there was difficulty in dealing with situations where chattels held by a bailee were used by a third party. Examples could be sheep, horses, farm goods, grains or other chattels left in the care of a person who was required to exercise ordinary care. If negligence led to damages, an action could be had. A third person might use the chattel, returning it in a damaged condition. The early common law had some difficulty in dealing with this kind of situation. This led to expansions of actions in trover. The theory of trover was that the defendant, by "converting" the chattel to his own use, had appropriated the plaintiff's property, for which he was required to make compensation. The plaintiff was not required to accept the chattel when it was tendered back to him. He could recover damages for the full value of the chattel at the time and place of conversion. The effect was that the defendant was compelled to buy the chattel at a forced sale, carried out by means of an action in trover. Trover actions frequently concerned the finding of lost property. It could also involve cargo on ships, such as those lost at sea and later found. Trover often involved cases in which the only "most correct" owner could be determined. For instance, if an envelope of bank notes or currency were to be found, the court would attempt to identify the true owner, but this would often prove to be impossible. In that case, the finder would be the next best owner and be considered the rightful possessor. Trover cases have been described as "finders keepers, losers weepers" cases. Trover damages came to be measured by the market value of the object, not necessarily its replacement cost if it were new. Sometimes, compensation for deprivation of use and compensation for other losses naturally and approximately caused by the wrongful taking could be added. Case law results are mixed. The plaintiff could also recover interest that would have been earned by the money value of the object and any expense (except attorney's fees) incurred in attempting to recover the object. If the taker sold the object for more than its market value, the plaintiff could receive the higher price. However, selling the chattel could change the action to that of a true conversion which was a form of theft. If the taker had made improvements on the object (for example, repainted it), the value of such improvements are not deducted from the plaintiff's recovery unless the taking was by mistake.

Plant genetic resources describe the variability within plants that comes from human and natural selection over millennia. Their intrinsic value mainly concerns agricultural crops (crop biodiversity). According to the 1983 revised International Undertaking on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), plant genetic resources are defined as the entire generative and vegetative reproductive material of species with economical and or social value, especially for the agriculture of the present and the future, with special emphasis on nutritional plants. In the State of the World’s Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (1998) the FAO defined Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (PGRFA) as the diversity of genetic material contained in traditional varieties and modern cultivars as well as crop wild relatives and other wild plant species that can be used now or in the future for food and agriculture. History. The first use of plant genetic resources dates to more than 10,000 years ago, when farmers selected from the genetic variation they found in wild plants to develop their crops. As human populations moved to different climates and ecosystems, taking the crops with them, the crops adapted to the new environments, developing, for example, genetic traits providing tolerance to conditions such as drought, water logging, frost and extreme heat. These traits - and the plasticity inherent in having wide genetic variability - are important properties of plant genetic resources. In recent centuries, although humans had been prolific in collecting exotic flora from all corners of the globe to fill their gardens, it wasn’t until the early 20th century that the widespread and organized collection of plant genetic resources for agricultural use began in earnest. Russian geneticist Nikolai Vavilov, considered by some as the father of plant genetic resources, realized the value of genetic variability for breeding and collected thousands of seeds during his extensive travels to establish one of the first gene banks. Vavilov inspired the American Jack Harlan to collect seeds from across the globe for the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). David Fairchild, another botanist at USDA, successfully introduced many important crops (for example cherries, soybeans, pistachios) into the United States. It wasn’t until 1967 that the term genetic resources was coined by Otto Frankel and Erna Bennett at the historic International Conference on Crop Plant Exploration and Conservation, organized by the FAO and the International Biological Program (IBP) “The effective utilization of genetic resources requires that they are adequately classified and evaluated” was a key message from the conference.