Defendant's Liability Research Articles

Criminal Liability for Defendants Who Commit Crimes in the Field of Medical Practice

Physicians and dentists knowingly practising medicine without a practice license are subject to penalties under Article 76 of Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practice. These penalties can include up to three years in prison or a fine of up to IDR 100,000,000..00 (one hundred million rupiah). The defendant, Putri Regita Yuniar, was referred to as Putri Binti, the late Edward Sebastian, in Decision Number 598/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Pdg. The problem is formulated as follows: First, based on Decision Number 598/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Pdg, what factors does the court consider when rendering a criminal decision for offences in the medical practice area? Second, according to Decision Number 598/Pid.Sus/2022/PN.Pdg, what is the criminal liability of defendants who commit offences in the medical practice area? This research's specifications are descriptive. This thesis was written using a normative juridical method. This study exclusively employed secondary data sources. The collected data was given descriptively after undergoing qualitative analysis. The following conclusions can be drawn from the research and discussion: first, the judge's factors when rendering a criminal decision for criminal acts in the medical practice area are classified as non-juridical factors, which include the defendant's aggravating and mitigating circumstances, and juridical factors, which are based on information presented during the trial, including the public prosecutor's indictment, witness statements, and the defendant's statements. Second, the defendant Putri Regita Yuniar, also known as Putri Binti, the late Edward Sebastian, was condemned by Law Number 29 of 2004 concerning Medical Practice, Article 78 in connection with Article 73 paragraph (2).

Criminal Application by Judges Against Defendants of Mining Without Permits in Forest Areas


 The use of criminal law in dealing with criminal acts of mining without a permit certainly does not always involve criminal sanctions, but sanctions can also be applied which have the same status as criminal sanctions. This research was conducted to determine the validity of the law related to criminal acts of mining without a permit in forest areas, to determine the criminal liability of defendants in criminal acts of mining without permits in forest areas according to Indonesian law and to find out the application of criminal penalties by judges to defendants of criminal acts of mining without permits. in forest areas (Study Decision No. 53/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Wgw). This research method uses normative juridical research with a statutory approach and a case approach (the cash approach). The research results show that the legal validity related to criminal acts of mining without a permit in forest areas has been stated in Law Number 4 of 2009 concerning Mineral and Coal Mining (UU Minerba) and other applicable legislation where perpetrators who commit violations without permits will be given administrative sanctions. in the form of compensation according to the level of damage caused to the state. As well as criminal liability for defendants of criminal acts of mining without a permit in forest areas according to Indonesian law, they will be subject to criminal action in accordance with applicable legislation, such as being subject to sanctions in the form of administrative sanctions. And the application of punishment by the judge to the defendant for the crime of mining without a permit in a forest area (Study Decision No. 53/Pid.Sus/2021/PN Wgw) has been carried out as stated in Law no. 32 of 2009 concerning Environmental Protection and Management by applying other appropriate legal bases from the laws and regulations that regulate the criminal act of mining without a permit in forest areas.

Stepwise liability: Between the preponderance rule and proportional liability

There are two familiar decision rules: the binary, preponderance of the evidence and the continuous, proportional liability rule. This article proposes a thought experiment. Instead of all-or-nothing or a continuous rule, the law can utilise a middle ground—assigning liability stepwise, according to the procedural progression of the case—stepwise liability. Stepwise liability relies on the gradual design of civil procedure. Under the current system, the plaintiff has to pass several procedural thresholds with increasing evidentiary requirements in order to proceed to trial. Examples are a motion to dismiss and then a summary judgment. I propose that, corresponding to the procedural progression of the case, after surviving each step the plaintiff will be entitled to a gradually increasing share of the damages. Stepwise liability offers several advantages relative to the traditional rules. It provides partial compensation where the defendant's liability falls short of the 50% threshold, hence restoring incentives to take care. Unlike the proportional rule, this outcome can be achieved without major modifications to the existing decision rules. Unlike both rules, the proposal enables plaintiffs to cash in with some award before trial. I analyse the foregoing advantages together with the potential pitfalls, such as over-deterrence, larger legal expenses, and the day-in-court ideal.

Analisis Putusan No. 88/Pdt.G/2021/PN Jember Tentang Kewajiban Tergugat Terhadap Perbuatan Melawan Hukum Pada Penggunaan Tanah Bersertifikat Ganda

Land dispute cases often occur in the community, one of which is the issuance of double land certificates, namely a state where a piece of land has been registered into two or more certificates by BPN Jambi, one of which occurred in the case in decision No. 88 / Pdt.G / 2021 / PN Jember. The research was conducted to determine and analyze the defendant's liability for unlawful acts against the use of double-certified land. The research was conducted using normative and doctrinal juridical methods with descriptive analysis. The results showed that the issuance of multiple land certificates caused losses to overlapping rights to a land so that it became a loss of certainty of the rights and freedoms of one of the aggrieved parties to exercise control and to all control over the land that actually belonged to him. For such losses, then in accordance with Article 1365 of the Civil Code, ordered the defendant to return all double certificates to the Jambi City Land Agency and return the land owned by the plaintiff by legally purchasing the land owned by the plaintiff.

Law, justice and the role of courts in changing the social superstructure narrative in climate litigation

Law, justice and the role of courts in changing the social superstructure narrative in climate litigation

The Law of Contribution – An Equitable Doctrine or Part of the Law of Unjust Enrichment?

This article looks at the changes made to the equitable doctrine of contribution by the New Zealand Supreme Court in a 2016 decision, Hotchin v New Zealand Guardian Trust Co Ltd. The approach now favoured by the Supreme Court is that to establish a claim for contribution by one defendant against another, there is no need to find any greater degree of coordination between the liabilities other than that the plaintiff could pursue either defendant for its loss and either would be liable for it, in whole or in part. The underlying rationale is that by paying the plaintiff, the defendant who was pursued not only discharges itself but also discharges the other defendant's liability. If mutual discharge is established, the court then determines the amount of contribution based on what is just and reasonable in the circumstances. The Supreme Court's approach to the doctrine of equitable contribution, which is a significant change to previous law, bears similarities to the approach proposed in the leading text on unjust enrichment, raising the issue of whether a future claim for contribution could be approached using an unjust enrichment analysis.

The Gist of Juries: Testing a Model of Damage Award Decision Making.

Despite the importance of damage awards, juries are often at sea about the amounts that should be awarded, with widely differing awards for cases that seem comparable. We tested a new model of damage award decision making by systematically varying the size, context, and meaningfulness of numerical comparisons or anchors. As a result, we were able to elicit large differences in award amounts that replicated for 2 different cases. Although even arbitrary dollar amounts (unrelated to the cases) influenced the size of award judgments, the most consistent effects of numerical anchors were achieved when the amounts were meaningful in the sense that they conveyed the gist of numbers as small or large. Consistent with the model, the ordinal gist of the severity of plaintiff's damages and defendant's liability predicted damage awards, controlling for other factors such as motivation for the award-judgment task and perceived economic damages. Contrary to traditional dual-process approaches, numeracy and cognitive style (e.g., need for cognition and cognitive reflection) were not significant predictors of these numerical judgments, but they were associated with lower levels of variability once the gist of the judgments was taken into account. Implications for theory and policy are discussed.

Tort Reform and Access to Justice: How Legal Environments Shape Lawyers’ Case Selection

Howdolawyersdecidewhichcasestoaccept?Previousstudiessuggestthattheyuse a simple risk/return formula to make such decisions. I argue, however, that legal environments also shape lawyers' decisions. Analyses of in-depth interviews with lawyers across four states demonstrate that lawyers make different decisions about cases in different legal environments. Lawyers in states without tort reform emphasize the importance of how likeable ac lient may beto a potentialjury, whereaslawyersinstates withtortreforminstead focusonthe defendant's liability. These differences have important implications for who has access to the civil justice system, and for consumer and medical protections more generally.

Community Characteristics and Tort Law: The Importance of County Demographic Composition and Inequality to Tort Trial Outcomes

Long‐standing trial folklore holds that those counties with higher proportions of low‐income and minority residents are places where tort plaintiffs are more likely to prevail in establishing the defendant's liability and to recover high damages. Although a handful of empirical legal studies have looked at this question, none have considered the possible role of a community effect of county income inequality. This article tests these propositions with hierarchical linear models of two types of tort trial outcomes—plaintiff success in establishing defendant liability and damage award—using a number of county‐level predictors. The results show that no county‐level variables measuring jury pool demographic composition or income inequality are associated with the odds of plaintiff success. However, both county poverty rate and income inequality are associated with increased levels of expected damages. The final section of this article offers a substantive theoretical discussion of why we might observe a relationship between community characteristics and tort trial outcomes.

Victims' rights and victims' wrongs: comparative liability in criminal law

Don't blame the is a cornerstone maxim of Anglo-American jurisprudence, but should the law generally ignore a victim's behavior in determining a defendant's liability? Victims' Rights and Victims' Wrongs criticizes the current criminal law approach and outlines a more fair, coherent, and efficient set of rules to recognize that victims sometimes co-author their own losses or injuries. Evaluating a number of controversial cases involving euthanasia, sadomasochism, date rape, battered wives, and innocent aggressors, Vera Bergelson builds a theoretical foundation for reform. Her approach to comparative criminal liability takes into account the actions of both the perpetrator and the victim and offers a unitary explanation for consent, self-defense, and provocation. This innovative book supplies a practical and coherent mechanism for evaluating the impact of a victim's conduct on a perpetrator's liability in a variety of circumstances, including those that are now artificially excluded from comparative analysis.

All anchors are not created equal: The effects of per diem versus lump sum requests on pain and suffering awards.

This experiment examined whether different quantifications of the same damage award request ($175,000 lump sum, $10/hour, $240/day, $7300/month for 2 years) influenced pain and suffering awards compared to no damage award request. Jury-eligible community members (N = 180) read a simulated personal injury case in which defendant liability already had been determined. Awards were: (1) larger for the $10/hour and $175,000 conditions than the $7300/month and control conditions and (2) more variable for the $10/hour condition than the $7300/month and control conditions. No differences emerged on ratings of the parties, their attorneys, or the difficulty of picking a compensation figure. We discuss the theoretical implications of our data for the anchoring and adjustment literature and the practical implications for legal professionals.

Prospective lawyers’ rape stereotypes and schematic decision making about rape cases

Two studies explored stereotypic information processing in rape cases by prospective lawyers in Germany. In Study 1, 451 undergraduate law students rated rape scenarios varying with respect to defendant–complainant relationship and coercive strategy (force versus exploitation of the complainant's alcohol-induced defencelessness). Acceptance of rape myths was also measured. Likelihood of defendant liability was rated to be lower when there was a prior relationship between the parties and when the defendant exploited the complainant's defencelessness as compared to when he used force (except in the ex-partner rapes where blame was higher in the alcohol-related than in the force-related cases). Complainant blame was higher when there was a prior relationship between the parties and was higher in the alcohol-related cases than in the force-related cases, except in the ex-partner rape where the pattern was reversed. Participants with high rape myth acceptance held the defendant less liable and blamed the complainant more, especially when the two had known each other. Study 2 largely replicated these findings with 129 postgraduate trainee lawyers and showed that sentencing recommendations also varied as a function of defendant–complainant relationship and coercive strategy. Providing participants with the legal definition of rape did not reduce reliance on rape stereotypes.

The Requirement of an 'Express Agreement' for Joint Criminal Enterprise Liability: A Critique of Brdanin

The mode of liability known as joint criminal enterprise (JCE) has emerged in the case law of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) as a means of assigning criminal liability to individuals for activities carried out by a collective. As a result, the doctrine must be carefully defined so as not to allow it to extend a defendant's liability beyond the appropriate limits of individual criminal responsibility. In this regard, a recent ICTY Trial Chamber decision in Brđanin held that, where a defendant is not alleged to have participated in the physical perpetration of the crimes charged but to have contributed in some other way to the commission of the crimes by a group, the prosecution must demonstrate that the defendant entered into an express agreement with the physical perpetrators to commit the crimes charged. The author argues that this ‘express agreement requirement’ is both conceptually unsound and practically unhelpful. Conceptually, it would be inconsistent with core principles of JCE liability to require an express agreement between a defendant and the physical perpetrators of crimes, at least in circumstances in which it is alleged that there existed a structure of two or more overlapping JCEs. Moreover, because this structure allows the accused and the physical perpetrators to be operating in two separate JCEs, they need not even share a common criminal purpose. On a practical level, arguably in a ‘system-criminality’ context such as the one that developed in the former Yugoslavia during the time period in question, the organizers of criminal activity are unlikely to enter into express criminal agreements with those who physically carry out crimes, because existing organized hierarchies provide much more efficient mechanisms by which leaders are able to ensure the realization of their criminal plans.

Against Compromise: A Mechanism Design Approach

We solve for the settlement mechanism and fee-shifting rule that minimize the likelihood of litigation yet maintain optimal deterrence under the assumption that the main dispute between the parties is about the defendant's liability. The solution turns out to be surprisingly simple: let the defendant plead liable or not, and then, if the plaintiff decides to proceed to trial although the defendant pleads not liable, discourage any further settlement between the parties, and shift all litigation costs to the loser in trial (following the English fee-shifting rule). Using a mechanism design approach we demonstrate that no other mechanism can implement a lower rate of litigation without undermining deterrence. We discuss our result in the context of recent legal reforms in the U.S. and U.K.

Hadley v. Baxendale: Contract Doctrine or Compensation Rule?

There is little doubt that historically the 'reasonable foreseeability' criterion in Hadley v. Baxendale was thought of as a fairly general damages limitation exercise whose chief function was to prevent liability for consequential loss getting out of control, and that it was only somewhat later that lawyers got the idea that there should be a fundamental cleavage between tort and contract. The aim of this article has been to show that, despite what has since become modern orthodoxy, the arguments against applying Hadley to non-contractual claims do not stand up. The way should therefore be open to regard Hadley as what it was always intended to be: a general rule applying to all forms of compensation for non-deliberate damage, whatever the formal source of the defendant's liability. Whether courts will explicitly accept my common sense proposition remains, of course, to be seen.

A Model of Welfare-Reducing Settlement

While it is typically taken for granted that settlement of lawsuits increases social welfare, this paper shows that settlement can lower welfare. If the defendant has private information about the harm from his action both at the time of the action and the time of settlement bargaining, then defendants who cause different levels of harm can pay the same settlement amount in a partial pooling equilibrium. Settlement acts as a damage cap, preventing the defendant's liability from increasing with the harm over the full range of possible harms, leading to under-deterrence. This result holds even though the social planner can choose the socially optimal damage rule.

Dominion and Dependence in the Law of Freedom and Slavery

associated with the world of slavery-terms such as contract, caveat emptor, competition, and market economy. By my reading, Horwitz's book does include three references to slavery, however. One of these is developed at some length and, indeed, has been treated quite prominently in current, influential scholarship on slave law. This is Horwitz's discussion of the 1802 South Carolina case, Snee v. Trice (pp. 91-93). The case concerns the liability of a slave master for a fire that his slaves set-a fire that, after the winds began to blow and stirred up the smoldering embers, accidentally spread to adjoining land and destroyed the plaintiffs house and cornfield. During the fire, the slave master was away from home. The South Carolina court found that the defendant-the slave master-was not liable for the damage done by the fire. Horwitz analyzes the case in light of the emergence of modem negligence doctrine-the doctrine which, he explains, served to limit the liability of defendants. And he sets this entire discussion within the context of his broader claims about the

Identification of anabolic steroids in serum, urine, sweat and hair: Comparison of metabolic patterns

Anabolic steroids usually undergo a complex metabolism which is mainly dependent on structural variation and application pathway. In contrast to doping analysis, where the presence of a prohibited substance constitutes a doping offence without regarding the origin or application, in forensic cases any information related to anabolic steroids may be required to evaluate the cause of death, liability of defendants, or self-consumption. 19-Norsteroids proved to be appropriate model compounds for the investigation, because of their prevalence in recent doping cases, analytical and biochemical similarity to endogenous steroids, well explored biochemistry, and the availability of numerous reference standards. Typical urinary metabolites are conjugates of terminal biotransformation products like norandrosterone–glucuronide, which are relatively unspecific and do not reveal details about administration time, pathway, dosages or structural details. Therefore, metabolic patterns in blood, hair and sweat were examined to study metabolism, distribution and incorporation behaviour of the steroids and hence the traceability in the respective matrices. Concentration profiles of the steroids in blood and the resulting bioavailability show distinct particularities after oral or transdermal application of steroids. Oral application of steroid precursors is followed by extensive first pass biotransformation of the steroid to inactive metabolites, while transdermal administration appears to be an efficient pathway, leading to effective and durable concentrations of active steroids in blood. Due to the mutual similarity of metabolic patterns in hair and sweat corresponding to the regional presence of sweat and sebum glands, steroid incorporation appears to proceed mainly via sweat absorption.

Copyright, Prevention, and Rational Governance: File-Sharing and Napster

This paper views the Napster case in the paradigm of law and economics. Legal decision-making is viewed as a choice among four alternative procedures for resolving property damage and defendant liability. First, a court can choose a winner by evaluating the legal consistency of each position based on a statutory or common law precedent. This outcome would subsume subcases where Napster would be either enjoined from authorized distribution or granted fair protection from any liability whatsoever. Second, a court can establish a property right for one party, believing in a Coasian sense that affected players will resolve outstanding allocational inefficiencies through multilateral negotiation. Third, a court may foresake an injunction or a fair but can permit a use that is contingent upon a general liability payment for actual or estimated damages. Fourth, a court can impose specific safeguards upon the contending parties that would require unilateral or joint prevention based on the relative costs to each party. I shall argue that the District Court's initial injunction opinion is of the first category, while the Circuit Court's remand tends to be of the last.

Optimal Design Settlement Devices for Cases of Disputed Liability: Fee-Shifting Rules and Pleadings Mechanisms

We study the effect of alternative fee shifting rules on the probability of settlement when the defendant's liability is under dispute. Using a mechanism design approach we demonstrate that the probability of settlement is maximized by a particular Pleadings mechanism: Both parties are given the choice to opt into the mechanism; if they choose to do so, the defendant is asked to plead liable or not. Based on the defendant's pleading the plaintiff is offered a settlement amount which if accepted would be binding to both parties. If the plaintiff refuses the offer, then the case goes to trial and the allocation of litigation costs between the parties is set according to the outcome of the trial and the defendant's pleading of liability. When the background rule for allocation of litigation costs is given by the American rule, we show that the probability of settlement is maximized by requiring the plaintiff to bear both litigants' costs when the defendant has admitted liability irrespective of the outcome of the trial, and by applying the Pro-Plaintiff rule in the event that the defendent has denied liability. Extensions that allow for court inaccuracy, different background rules, variable shares of costs shifted, and detterence are considered.