Cities and Policing for Crime Prevention: Refocusing the Agenda to Maximize Benefits and Minimize Unintended Harms

Clinician Perspectives on Ethics and COVID-19: Minding the Gap in Sexual and Reproductive Health.

Purpose The purpose of publishing this viewpoint is to critically analyze the relationship between public health interventions and individual liberties, during recent and potential future pandemics. By exploring the interplay of the right to health, privacy, and autonomy, this viewpoint seeks to highlight the complexities and challenges faced by decision-makers in balancing collective well-being with the protection of individual rights. Through detailed discussions on lockdowns, contact tracing, and international border closures, this paper aims to foster a deeper understanding of how these measures impact fundamental human rights and proposes ways to achieve harmony in future pandemics and crises. Design/methodology/approach The viewpoint has a qualitative approach, using critical analysis and examination of legal frameworks, scholarly literature, and real-world examples to explore the interplay between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. It draws upon diverse sources, including international declarations, legal instruments, and empirical studies to elucidate the complexities of balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights. Through in-depth discussions on lockdowns, contact tracing, and international border closures, this paper aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the challenges and opportunities in harmonizing public health with individual liberties. Findings The findings of the viewpoint highlight the relationship between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. It underscores the importance of balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights, particularly the right to health, privacy, and autonomy. The analysis reveals the shortcomings of certain measures, such as restrictive lockdowns, border closure, and unchecked contact tracing in respecting individual rights. However, it also identifies opportunities for adopting an altruistic approach that upholds both public health imperatives and individual freedoms. Ultimately, the findings emphasize the need for a nuanced understanding and inclusive approach to crisis management. Research limitations/implications This analysis predominantly addresses the COVID-19 pandemic, potentially limiting the generalizability of findings to other public health crises. It is limited by its focus primarily on legal frameworks and theoretical analysis, which may not fully capture the practical complexities and nuances of implementing public health measures. Furthermore, while proposing ways to achieve harmony between public health and individual liberties, practical challenges and potential trade-offs in implementation are not extensively explored. Future research could benefit from empirical studies and case analyses to better understand the real-world implications of balancing public health imperatives with individual rights. Practical implications The viewpoint underscores the importance of adopting an altruistic approach that respects both public health imperatives and individual rights during pandemics. Practical implications include the need for policymakers to prioritize transparency, accountability, and citizen engagement in implementing public health measures. By fostering trust, ensuring data privacy, and promoting active participation, authorities can mitigate concerns about infringements on individual liberties while effectively managing public health threats. Furthermore, the analysis highlights the importance of considering diverse perspectives and potential trade-offs in decision-making processes to achieve a balanced and inclusive approach to crisis management. Social implications The viewpoint’s social implications lie in building a society where public health measures are implemented with respect for individual rights, fostering trust, and promoting community engagement. By prioritizing transparency, accountability and inclusivity, authorities can mitigate social tensions and promote collective resilience during pandemics. Moreover, upholding principles of equity and fairness in crisis management can help address disparities and ensure that vulnerable populations are not disproportionately affected. Overall, the viewpoint advocates for a societal framework that values both public health and individual liberties, thereby contributing to the development of a more cohesive and resilient society in the face of future health crises. Originality/value The originality and value of this viewpoint lie in its comprehensive exploration of the interplay between public health interventions and individual liberties during pandemics. By synthesizing legal frameworks, scholarly literature, and real-world examples, it offers unique insights into the complexities and challenges faced by decision-makers in balancing collective well-being with the protection of fundamental human rights. Additionally, the viewpoint’s proposal of an altruistic approach that respects both public health imperatives and individual freedoms contributes to the discourse on ethical crisis management. Overall, it provides valuable perspectives and recommendations for achieving harmony between public health and individual liberties in future pandemics.

Gun violence surged in American cities with the 2020 arrival of the COVID-19 pandemic. Effective policing is an essential component of any comprehensive effort to reduce gun violence. Many observers are skeptical of this position given the troubled relationship between the police and minority communities that experience a vastly disproportionate number of shootings. Recent innovations in policing make it possible to prevent shootings in a legitimate manner that respects individual rights. Properly motivated police departments can implement proactive strategies to control repeat gun offenders and gun violence hot spot areas. The police can strengthen shooting investigations to hold violent offenders accountable, disrupt cycles of violence, and deliver justice to victims. Working with federal law enforcement partners, police can work to disrupt the illegal supply of guns to violent criminals. Equally important, police departments can reduce lethal use of force by having clear rules of engagement and personnel rules that ensure accountability.

The COVID-19 pandemic precipitated the largest public health emergency so far experienced in the twenty-first century. As the world frantically pursues a sustainable solution, several vaccines have been tested and approved by the World Health Organization (WHO) under the Emergency Use Listing procedure. On the heels of this development have been moves by some States to adopt mandatory vaccination policies. Several private firms have also required their employees to be vaccinated as a pre-condition for resuming work. This fast-evolving situation brings into sharp focus the tensions between the rights to health, privacy, bodily autonomy and the right to consent to medical treatment on the one hand, and the public health and safety imperatives of protecting global populations against a ravaging pandemic on the other hand. This article argues that aggressive mandatory vaccination policies being propagated globally violate human rights by strengthening prejudices, and stereotypes, and furthering discrimination against those who may be unwilling to take the vaccines for one reason or another. Ultimately, therefore, there will be a need for States to adopt their own tailor-made vaccination frameworks that ensure the respect of individual rights on the one hand, but also ensures that it does not prejudice public safety in the wake of a ravenous pandemic.

The purpose of the article is to identify and analyze the ideological foundations of Western legal culture. The main attention is paid to the philosophical and legal, socio-political, religious and moral, natural and climatic factors that determined the processes of evolution of legal culture in the West. Many scientists turn to the problem of the ideological foundations of Western legal culture. The topic is interesting not only for lawyers, but also for philosophers, political scientists, historians, sociologists, as well as for representatives of other branches of science. At each stage of the development of science, different interpretations of the problems can be found, but almost all scientists agree in assessing the common roots of modern legal culture in Western countries. Usually, scholars single out Roman private law, canon law, as well as the philosophy of natural law as unifying principles. Of course, it is difficult to dispute the obvious, but it cannot be said that from a scientific point of view, this problem has been fully studied and is no longer of research interest. This article attempts to delve into the essence of the ideological foundations of Western legal culture. The author examines the problem through the prism of the forms of Western civilization - Romano-Germanic and Anglo-American, deeply interconnected and having common roots. The importance of natural and climatic conditions, geographical space, universal connections provided by the united church, which revealed that special type of personality who sought to individualize his life, is also noted. If in the East people aspired to communality, then the isolation of the individual was characteristic of the West, but it should be noted that due to the densely populated Europe, its multinational nature, the lack of free land, people were inclined to resolve conflict cases through the conclusion of an agreement on a compromise basis. These circumstances obliged people, through compromise, to establish uniform rules, the observance of which was ensured by the state. These rules were primarily focused on respect for individual rights and freedoms, respect for private property, etc. The further development of Western civilization, which was based on the ideas of respect for individual rights and freedoms, led to the birth of the foundations of civil society, the existence of which was determined by the postulates of the rule of law. The realization of the ideas of the rule of law and civil society has determined the vector of development of Western countries, which is the basis for their development in the paradigm of liberal values.

The study aims to examine the Islamic approach to tribal differences concerning the tribal crisis in northern Nigeria, also to deliberate on the significance of discarding tribal differences to unity based on Shari’ah guidance as related to the north of Nigeria, and to assess the implications and challenges of upholding tribal differences as a basis of disunity in northern Nigeria. This study utilizes a qualitative descriptive design to deeply analyze the Islamic approach to conflict resolution, focusing on religious disputes among Semitic religious followers in Northern Nigeria. The design will allow for an understanding of cultural, social, and religious factors influencing tribal conflicts and religious disputes. The results of this study indicate that Islamic teachings have great potential in easing religious and ethnic conflicts in Northern Nigeria, which are often triggered by tensions between tribes and religions. Islam teaches principles of peace that are not only theological but also practical in everyday life, such as respect for individual rights and the importance of brotherhood (ukhuwah). this study also found that tolerance is one of the most emphasized values in Islamic teachings. This tolerance is reflected in the behavior of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) who showed respect for other religions, such as in the Medina Charter which gave full rights to non-Muslim groups to practice their beliefs without coercion. The study concludes that to achieve sustainable peace, the people of Northern Nigeria must implement Islamic teachings that emphasize social justice, equality, and respect for individual rights.

<p><em>Виокремлено основні риси прояву інформаційного суспільства в умовах процесу глобалізації. Визначено сутність понять «інформаційного суспільства» та «інститути демократії», а також проаналізовано взаємозв’язок між цими поняттями в умовах сучасних глобалізаційних процесів. Розглянуто особливості функціонування інститутів демократії і можливості їх трансформації в умовах сучасного інформаційного суспільства. Визначено, що державі належить провідна роль у формуванні інформаційного суспільства, вона координує діяльність різних суб’єктів суспільства в процесі його становлення, сприяє інтеграції людей в нове інформаційно-технологічне оточення, розвитку галузей інформаційної індустрії, забезпеченню прогресу інститутів демократії і дотримання прав особистості в умовах інформаційного суспільства.</em></p>

The Fundamental Right to Property enjoys the unique distinction of not only being the second most contentious provision in the drafting of the Indian Constitution, but also the most amended provision, and the only fundamental right to be ultimately abolished. The debate over property rights began early in the Constituent Assembly even while the terms of independence were being worked out and the controversy was more prolonged and acute than that over any subject, except that of official languages. The contentious origins of the right to property in the Constitution had a tremendous impact not only on India’s socio-political and legal history, but also within the commonwealth. Existing scholarly literature has described the history of the fundamental right to property as a tussle between progressive legislatures, that were trying to bring about much needed land reform in India, and reactionary courts, that impeded such reform efforts by protecting the property rights of rich zamindars. I have argued elsewhere that this narrative is simplistic, and therefore somewhat misleading both as to the real issues at stake in the contentious history of the right to property, but also the learnings we can take from that history for political and constitutional reform in India and other constitutional democracies that are also developing countries. In this paper, I trace the intellectual currents, and political and social movements, that framed the contours of the contentious debates surrounding the adoption of the fundamental right to property and restrictions on this right, during the late 19th century and the first half of the 20th century. I show that there were two broad discourses underpinning the debates on the right to property. The first was the “rights” discourse, with its sub-discourses on “civil and political rights” and “social and economic rights”. The second was the “development” discourse with its concomitant focus on “land reform” and “industrialisation and capital formation”. Both were enabling discourses, but grounded in different premises. While the Development discourse was a utilitarian discourse premised on the philosophy of the “greatest good of the greatest number”, the Rights discourse was a dignitarian discourse, premised on the dignity of individuals and their right to realise their full potential as human beings and equal citizens of newly independent India. The contention over the inclusion of the right to property in the Constitution was a contention between the Rights discourse that sought to empower the disempowered and respect individual rights, and the Development discourse which sought to give the state, as representatives of the people, power to take measures to bring about development according to a utilitarian calculus that fundamentally contradicted rights of individual citizens, including, but not limited to, the right to property.

The Fundamental Right to Property enjoys the unique distinction of not only being the second most contentious provision in the drafting of the Indian Constitution, but also the most amended provision, and the only fundamental right to be ultimately abolished. The debate over property began early in the Constituent Assembly even while the terms of independence were being worked out and the controversy was more prolonged and acute than that over any subject, except that of official languages. In this paper, I outline key debates on the inclusion, content, and judicial enforcement of the right to property within the Assembly. My aim is to present a snapshot of the deliberative process that transmuted abstract policy goals of the founders into guaranteed fundamental of Indians, especially pertaining to the right to property. I show that there were two broad discourses underpinning the debates on the right to property. The first was the “rights” discourse, with its sub-discourses on “civil and political rights” and “social and economic rights”. The second was the “development” discourse with its concomitant focus on “land reform” and “industrialisation and capital formation”. Both were enabling discourses, but grounded in different premises. While the discourse was a utilitarian discourse premised on the philosophy of the “greatest good of the greatest number”, the rights discourse was a dignitarian discourse, premised on the dignity of individuals and their right to realise their full potential as human beings and equal citizens of newly independent India. The contention over the inclusion of the right to property in the Constitution was a contention between the rights discourse that sought to empower the disempowered and respect individual rights, and the discourse which sought to give the state, as representatives of the people, power to take measures to bring about development according to a utilitarian calculus that fundamentally contradicted of individual citizens, including, but not limited to, the right to property. Existing scholarly literature has described the history of the fundamental right to property as a tussle between progressive legislatures, that were trying to bring about much needed land reform in India, and reactionary courts, that impeded such reform efforts by protecting the property of rich zamindars. I have argued elsewhere that this narrative is simplistic, and therefore somewhat misleading both as to the real issues at stake in the contentious history of the right to property, but also the learnings we can take from that history for political and constitutional reform in India and other constitutional democracies that are also developing countries. Through this paper, I hope to reveal that the final unwieldy draft of the provisions relating to constitutional property adopted by the Constituent Assembly reflected an uneasy compromise between competing interests represented within the Assembly. But this compromise failed to please any of the constituencies entirely and resolved nothing. At best, it postponed the resolution of these issues to a future time and foreshadowed the conflicts that emerged in the courts. It is clear that the Constituent Assembly expected resistance from traditional elites on the abolition of the zamindari system, but it seems to have either wilfully ignored or underestimated the extent of resistance it would face on the issue to reach a resolution that would enable the Assembly to have a fundamental chapter, or perhaps to even have a Constitution in the first place.

Improving access and quality for ethnic minority women— panel discussion

This chapter explores the importance of ‘getting the culture’ right. Culture is not an immutable trait or an essential characteristic of a people, nation or group, but as a set of dynamic values that evolve over time. The prevailing climate of opinion, determined by intellectuals and various dealers of ideas, affects whether society supports growth-enhancing activities or socially sanctions them. Accordingly, liberal values rooted in respect for individual rights, dignity and agency are essential ingredients for economic development and progress. By dignifying wealth-creating activities of entrepreneurship, work and investments, liberalism unlocks the economic potential of nations. Ultimately, however, the prevailing cultural climate in society is a product of an uncertain process of competition in the cultural marketplace, where various entrepreneurs put forth different social values and struggle for dominance.

In the context of the modern globalized world, an important aspect is the study of the ethical principles laid down in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant and their impact on the interaction between representatives of different cultures. Kant’s philosophy offers a deep analysis of these principles, which serve as the basis for assessing moral values. Ethical principles offer fundamental approaches to the foundations of intercultural interaction based on the understanding of duty, good will, autonomy of will, categorical imperative, respect for individual rights and human dignity. The categorical imperative supports the idea of universal principles that can be accepted by all rational beings as general rules of conduct. Studying them in the context of interpersonal and intercultural communication allows us to more deeply understand the foundations of interaction between cultures and effectively apply them in everyday life. The article analyzes the ethical aspects of Kant’s philosophy in order to identify opportunities to improve mutual understanding and cooperation in the context of cultural diversity. Let us consider each of the key principles that make up Kant’s ethical philosophy. The first of these principles is that humans are the only beings that inhabit both a material (phenomenal) and a moral (noumenal) realm. Biological life corresponds to the material realm, while freedom corresponds to the moral realm. Closely related to this concept is his premise that we only know what we can experience. The next principle is formulated in terms of the concept of “duty.” Although this term may seem outdated, the fundamental idea that underlies it will probably seem familiar to many. There are a number of obligations that we perceive as unchangeable and necessary to fulfill, regardless of our true desires and preferences. The third principle has to do with good will. What is important is to do the right thing because it is right. What is important, Kant tells us, is that a good deed be done because it is right - regardless of whether it gives us pleasure. A good will is not determined by what it achieves, in particular not by its effectiveness in achieving any intended goal, but only by its desire, which is good in itself. The next principle draws our attention to the concept of a universal moral law. When we accept Kant’s position and seek to act for the sake of duty, the question arises: what exactly should we do? Kant gives the following answer: we are obliged to act out of respect for the moral law. However, before we are allowed to accept this principle as a guiding one, it is necessary to understand more deeply what Kant means by acting out of respect for the moral law. The next basic principle in Kant’s philosophy is personal autonomy. Autonomy of the will, according to Kant, implies the ability of an individual to act in accordance with the moral law that he himself establishes with the help of his rational nature. This is in contrast to conceptions of ethics based on external sources of morality, such as tradition, authority or customs. It should be noted here that the central concept in Kant’s philosophy is the process of formation of a person as an individual. He says that a person becomes a person thanks to the ability to improve himself and respect both himself and others. In conclusion, the article concludes on the importance of Kant’s moral principles for modern intercultural interaction. The principles of autonomy, respect for the individual, reciprocity and justice, universalization of moral norms and ideals proposed by Kant can serve as an important guide for the formation of ethical foundations for interaction between people from different cultures and contribute to the creation of a common language for intercultural dialogue and an increase in the degree of mutual understanding.

This article aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the legal framework related to catcalling perpetrators and their physiological impact on victims in Indonesia as well as more effective law enforcement efforts in tackling this phenomenon. The focus is on increasing awareness of legal protection for victims and supporting stronger law enforcement against perpetrators of catcalling. In the research context, catcalling often occurs in open public places, especially with the majority of victims being women who wear the hijab. Forms of catcalling include comments, teasing, gestures, and touching. The research method used is qualitative with a literature review study approach. Data regarding catcalling cases was obtained from the researcher's personal experience, supported by journal research highlighting similar cases in Indonesia. Catcalling is a serious form of sexual harassment, with detrimental impacts on victims such as feelings of insecurity and emotional stress. Strong legal protection, public awareness, and more specific regulations are needed to address this problem effectively. With these steps, it is hoped that we can create a safer environment and respect individual rights. In order to deal with the problem of catcalling, there needs to be a synergy between strengthening the existing legal framework, outreach campaigns, and improving regulations governing behavior in public spaces. In addition, the importance of support from authorities such as the police and other law enforcement agencies to ensure that catcalling cases are handled seriously and fairly. In addition, there is a need for a holistic approach that involves providing psychological and social support for victims to help them recover from the impact of the trauma they may have experienced. Overall, efforts to overcome the catcalling phenomenon require collaboration between the government, the community and various other stakeholders. Only with comprehensive and coordinated measures can we create a safer environment that respects individual rights, and prevent the recurrence of catcalling cases in the future.

Pareto efficiency with spatial rights

Dozens of federal statutes authorize federal agencies to give money and power to local police departments and municipalities in order to improve public safety. While these federal programs encourage better coordination of police efforts and make pursuing public safety less financially costly for local communities, they also encourage harmful policing. Of course, policing often interferes with our interests in autonomy, privacy, and property, and those harms are often worthwhile in exchange for security and order. Federal public safety programs, however, are designed, implemented, and evaluated without reference to the nonbudgetary costs of policing. When those costs are high, federal programs can make local policing seem cheaper for communities, but actually make it more costly in its impacts and therefore less efficient.The coercion costs of policing are overlooked in most assessments of policing policy, not just in federal programs. Ordinarily, however, even when they are not formally recognized, those costs are accounted for, at least to some degree, in local political processes because local government officials experience public ire when the harms of policing become too great. Unfortunately, federal programs also frequently undermine this check on the intrusiveness of local policing. Internalizing the nonbudgetary costs of policing depends on public capacity to monitor harmful police conduct and on city officials’ capacity to influence police conduct. Some federal programs interfere with these conditions by clouding responsibility for law enforcement coercion and by giving money directly to departments rather than to municipalities. Thus, federal programs not only ignore significant costs of the policies they subsidize, they also interfere with the usual local mechanisms for managing those costs. Until federal public safety programs are approached with a more complete understanding of policing - one that attends to its full costs and the need for accountability - federal programs will continue to promote policing practices that do more harm than necessary and maybe even more harm than good.