The Mengistu genocide trial in Ethiopia

This article analyses the sentencing judgment issued on 11 January 2007 bythe Ethiopian Federal High Court in the case of Mengistu Hailemariam andhis co-accused who had been tried, among others, on charges of genocide andcrimes against humanity. This was the first African trial where an entire regimewas brought to justice before a national court for atrocities committed while inpower. Twenty-five of the 55 accused found guilty, including Mengistu, were triedin absentia (Mengistu remains in exile in Zimbabwe). The trial took 12 years,making it one of the longest ever trials for genocide. In December 2006, Mengistuwas convicted by majority vote of genocide and crimes against humanity pursuant toArticle 281of the1957 Ethiopian Penal Code, which includes ‘political groups’amongthe groups protected against genocide. A dissenting judge took the position that theaccused should have been convicted of aggravated homicide because the relevant part of the provision had been repealed. A few weeks later, the Court, by majority,sentenced the top tier of the accused to life imprisonment, taking into accountcertain extenuating circumstances. If not for these, the death penalty would havebeen imposed. In addition to ensuring some accountability, the judgmentis important for providing an official and detailed account of what happenedin those years in Ethiopia under Mengistu’s reign. Given that in Ethiopia there areno official gazettes where court judgments are published, it is unlikely that the publicwill be able to read the judgment and thus become aware of what had happened.In addition to analysing the reasoning of the court, this article also looks intothe prevailing political circumstances in the country and reflects upon the trialand the reception that this important decision has had, and will receive, in thewider community.

Legal issues: Disciplinary proceedings for inappropriate prescription of opioid medications by medical practitioners in Australia (2010-2014)

An analysis of 32 cases reported between July 2010 and September 2014 byprofessional disciplinary tribunals in New South Wales and Victoria againstmedical practitioners found guilty of inappropriately prescribing Sch 8 medications(mainly opioids) and Sch 4 drugs (mainly benzodiazepines) demonstrated, among others, a lengthy delay between the occurrence of the miscreant conduct and the conclusion of disciplinary proceedings. The study also raised questions about the appropriateness of utilising common criminal law theories of punishment and deterrence by non-judicial tribunals.

Naming and shaming: a report on media shaming for minor crimes in Victoria

This exploratory study examines the power of the news media to publicly name ordinary people who receive non-convictions for committing minor crimes. If a magistrate imposes a non-conviction, it means the offender is guilty, but gets a chance to reform away from the public gaze. They are not required to reveal the crime in any job application, and it does not restrict them from overseas travel. This report argues that the power of media to report non-convictions is an issue of national importance in this changing digital landscape because the news media can impose relatively permanent public records, especially in digital space, that detail's one's minor misdemeanour.

Sentencing offenders with mental impairment: the case of arsonists with intellectual disability

Purpose: Offenders with intellectual disability (ID) who commit arson and other acts of fire setting are over-represented in the criminal justice system in Australia, as in many other jurisdictions. The purpose of this paper is to provide insight into the judicial considerations that influence sentencing in these cases. Design/methodology/approach: Case law was utilised to locate and analyse judges’ sentencing remarks for offenders with ID found guilty of an offence of arson. These data were subject to Inductive Content Analysis to establish the major judicial considerations in sentencing. Findings: Seven common issues emerged: general deterrence, seriousness of arson, rehabilitation, sentencing options, moral culpability, protection of the community, and punishment. Judges noted that they handed down reduced sentences to persons with ID relative to the severity of their offending, that they considered people with ID to have low levels of moral culpability, and that these offenders did not provide good examples for community deterrence. Originality/value: The current study highlights the need for judges to have available a range of sentencing options, including diversion and treatment/rehabilitation programmes for persons with ID, particularly for those involved in more serious offences such as arson.

Jurors' consideration of inadmissible evidence: A motivational explanation

Procedural justice research suggests that, as decision makers in a trial, jurors may be unwilling to disregard inadmissible evidence if they believe it will lead to a just outcome. In an experimental study, three hypotheses were tested: participants reading trial evidence while assuming the role of a juror (rather than observer) would report stronger motivations to protect the community; motivations to protect the community would be associated with higher conviction rates; and participants would be more likely to follow judicial instructions to disregard inadmissible evidence when they assumed an observer (rather than juror) role. Findings indicated that participants were more likely to convict the defendant when they experienced higher motivations to protect the community, reinforcing the importance of studying juror motivations. However, results revealed a complex pattern of factors affecting juror motivations as well as verdict decisions. Results are discussed in terms of the effectiveness of the curative instruction, and key directions for future research.

Viewing The Biggest Loser : modes of reception and reflexivity among obese people

This article builds on previous reception research and scholarship on makeover TV through an analysis of obese people's views of The Biggest Loser (TBL). TBL involves obese people competing to lose weight as personal trainers push them through dietary and physical activity regimes. We articulate four themes characterizing responses to TBL: “That's not reality,” “Public ownership and judgment of the fat body,” “The lure of the transformation,” and “A guilty pleasure.” We consider how these themes are reflected in participants' movement between mediated, discursive, transparent, and referential modes of reception. While some were adamant in their rejection of the program, others were ambivalent in accepting and identifying with the desire for weight loss but questioning TBL's aesthetic dimensions and moralizing undertones. We argue that the reflexivity of viewers complicates appraisals of TBL as governing at a distance and offer some alternative readings of the impact and appeal of the program.

Identifying the characteristics of child sexual abuse cases associated with the child or child's parents withdrawing the complaint

Most child sexual abuse cases do not result in a full trial or guilty plea; rather, case attrition occurs at earlier stages of the criminal justice system. One reason for the attrition of these cases is the withdrawal of complaints, by children or their caregivers. The aim of the current study was to determine the case characteristics associated with complaint withdrawal in child sexual abuse cases by the child or his or her parents once a report has been made to authorities. All child sexual abuse incidents reported to authorities in one jurisdiction of Australia in 2011 were analyzed (N=659). A multinomial logistic regression was used to predict the following case outcomes: (1) withdrawn by the child or his or her parents, (2) exited for other reasons (e.g., the alleged offender was not identified, the child refused to be interviewed), and (3) resulted in a charge. Five predictors significantly added to the prediction of case outcome: child age, suspect gender, suspect age, child-suspect relationship, and abuse frequency. These results should contribute to the design of interventions in order to reduce complaint withdrawals if these withdrawals are not in the child's best interests.

A rational (unapologetically pragmatic) approach to dealing with the irrational - the setencing of offenders with mental disorders

People with mental impairment are so heavily over-represented in prisons and jails that jails have been labeled “warehouses for the mentally ill.” In many parts of the United States, there are more mentally impaired offenders in prisons than in hospitals for the mentally unwell. Offenders laboring with impaired mental functioning are often regarded as being less morally culpable for their crimes and hence less deserving of punishment. However, the reduced mental functioning of offenders does not diminish the harm caused to victims. People are no less dead if mentally unwell offenders kill them rather than offenders who are mentally sound. This tension has proven an intractable problem for sentencing law and practice. There are no clear, fair, and effective principles or processes for accommodating impaired mental functioning in the sentencing inquiry. It is an under-researched area of the law. In this Article, I explore this tension. Key to ascertaining the proper manner in which to incorporate mental illness into the sentencing system is clarity regarding the importance of consequences to the offender, as opposed to moral culpability. I analyze current approaches to sentencing offenders with mental health problems in both the United States and Australia. Despite the vastly different sentencing regimes in these countries, both systems are deficient in dealing with mentally ill offenders, but for different reasons. I propose a solution to administering sentences to offenders with a mental disorder that is equally applicable to both sentencing systems. Mental impairment should mitigate penalty. However, in determining the extent and circumstances in which it should do so, it is cardinal not to lose sight of the fact that those who are sentenced for a crime are not insane, and they were aware that their acts were wrong--otherwise they would not have been found guilty in the first instance. I argue that a standard ten percent sentencing discount should be accorded to offenders who were mentally disordered at the time of sentencing. There should be an even more substantial discount when it is likely that offenders will find the sanction--in particular imprisonment--more burdensome due to their mental state. This difference would ensure some recognition of the reduced blameworthiness of mentally impaired offenders and the extra hardship that some forms of punishment inflict on mentally *2 ill offenders, while not compromising the important objectives of proportionality and community protection. The only situations when mental disorder should not mitigate penalty are when the offender is a recidivist, serious sexual or violent offender. In these circumstances, the interests of the community are the paramount consideration. The analysis in this paper applies most directly when a term of imprisonment is imposed. However, the reasoning also extends to the threshold decision of whether or not a term of imprisonment should be imposed in the first place.

Narratives of a race: how the media judged a presidential debate

The first debate in 2008 was a turning point in the presidential electioncampaign: a race that was close before the debate turned decisively inObama’s favor following it. This article explores how the media reachedtheir verdict that “Obama won.” We examine two aspects of this problem:how, in practice, the media reached this verdict and whether they madethe right decision from a normative standpoint. Based on content analysisof debate transcripts, we argue that the media interpreted the debate bysynthesizing three pre-debate narratives in roughly equal proportions.Crucially, two of these narratives favored Obama. We also find that the“Obama won” verdict was consistent with what we might expect had thedebate been judged by a public-spirited umpire.