Conference on Quantum Theory, Law, and Ethics, St. Mary's University, April 13, 2018: Call For Papers @thomgiddens

Via @thomgiddens:

Quantum Law: An Interdisciplinary Examination of Quantum Theory, Law, and Ethics

To be hosted at St Mary’s University, in connection with the Centre for Law and Culture. Call for papers and other details of the project can be found here: https://quantumlaw2018.wordpress.com/call-for-papers/ 
Deadline for proposals is Friday 9 March 2018, with the conference taking place 13 April 2018. Contact: quantum.law@stmarys.ac.uk Conference overview and aims: Quantum theory, the study of the nature and behaviour of matter and energy on the atomic and subatomic level, has come to occupy a dominant position in theoretical physics. It is however increasingly important also as both the basis of new or potential technologies and as a broader idea outside of subatomic physics itself, as both an artefact of popular culture but also a means of explaining other complex phenomena. The need for quantum theory to engage directly with other areas is pressing for various reasons, both in order to prevent the misuse of its ideas in inappropriate ways, but also in order to consider how its models for understanding can be fruitfully applied to other areas of study. Legal and ethical theory is an obvious candidate for various reasons, yet this relationship has been almost entirely neglected. At the same time, the legal regulation of the application and use of quantum theory and technologies is on the verge of becoming a pressing regulatory concern of public policy given the novel regulatory dilemmas and ethical concerns which such technologies pose. This workshop proposes to create a unique and necessary environment where quantum theorists and scholars of law and legal and ethical theory, as well as any other interested parties, can discuss these matters in order to articulate ideas, problems and solutions in a manner which reflects the needs, ideas, limits and potential of all concerned parties. Conference themes and potential focus of contributions: Contributions on any element of the broad themes of the conference are welcome. We particularly welcome contributions might with a focus on the following themes: Quantum theory and legal theory In the field of legal and ethical theory, ideas from quantum mechanics are a potential source of inspiration and for models of understanding to characterise, map and resolve areas of tension within legal theory which seek to characterise and understand issues which overlap with and relate to the concerns of quantum theory in various ways. The expansion of ideas stemming from quantum theory into other areas has occurred in recent years in various ways, including the development of the fields of ‘quantum cognition’, ‘quantum biology’, ‘quantum fiction’, and quantum visions of social theory expressed in such notions as ‘quantum society’, as well as more ambitious projects to see quantum theory as a way of bridging the perceived divide between the natural and social sciences. Building on the successes of these burgeoning fields, and mindful of their perceived failures, this workshop will seek to examine the possibility that legal problems and phenomena can be better understood or re-evaluated through making use of ideas or models of understanding which stem from quantum theory. These might include but are not limited to: ·       Is there an equivalent ‘quantum’ level within law regarding micro-level decisions and adjudication which possesses different properties to that witnessed in macro-level understandings of doctrine or general principles? Can models from quantum theory help us understand this better?
·       Do legal systems possess similar or overlapping characteristics to those explained through quantum theory? Can legal systems and their operation be better understood by drawing upon these ideas? Such questions might include questions of unpredictability, indeterminism, simultaneously conflicting but equally valid legal interpretations, etc. Are judges ‘collapsing a wave function’ when they make a decision, for instance?
·       Are the core notions of the uncertainty principle and the observer effect equally applicable to law and its content? Do such questions alter notions of certainty within the law and its justness?
·       Do rival understandings of quantum theory, such as the multiverse theory, whether as scientific or pop culture concepts, change our core legal concepts of causation, or responsibility?
·       Do quantum models of probability explain questions of adjudication and allow for the better prediction of judicial outcomes? Can work on quantum cognition add to our understanding of legal decision making?
·       Can ideas from quantum theory be creatively drawn upon as the model for ethical or legal models in a way which improves or changes our understanding of questions of justice, law or morality, in the way, for instance, that popular understandings of evolutionary biology have done? Are there particular dangers in this regard?
·       Can quantum theory draw upon legal notions or methods, particularly methods in legal reasoning such as reasoning by analogy, to better understand the outer limits of the theoretical aspects of quantum mechanics?
 Legal, regulatory and ethical responses to a quantum world Similarly, the overlapping question of the legal regulation of the application of quantum theory within new and potential quantum technologies and the carrying out of research in quantum mechanics poses an exciting and important set of questions which require legal scholars and physicists, among others, to discuss the potential problems, goals and solutions. The uptake of new applications based on nanotechnology was greatly slowed by a lack of such discussion and consequent public and policy-maker fears induced by misunderstanding. Conversely the massive success of mobile communications technology was produced by rapid and early agreement global standards. The impending development of quantum technology poses a potentially novel set of problems for policy makers regarding the goals, methods and viability of any existing or future legal regulatory framework. Such discussions will allow the development of ideal models for regulation. This project also fits in with the European Commission’s ‘Better regulation for new technologies’ agenda, and can draw upon and inform the expertise of that project. Drawing on the expertise, requirements and goals of physicists working in the area of quantum theory and legal scholars and people engaged in public policy in the field of regulation will allow discussion of topics including the following: ·       What is the current regulatory framework for research in quantum theory and the development and use of quantum technologies?
·       What regulatory problems does the development of quantum technology pose? What are the ethical and risk distribution issues which must be confronted?
·       Does the current regulatory framework provide an appropriate basis for all relevant stakeholders?
·       How does the existing thinking on the regulation of new technologies apply to quantum theory and its technological application?
·       How do specific legal standards apply, such as the precautionary principle, to quantum technology? How should specific areas of law, such as IP law, trade law and the legal regulation of military use of technology apply to quantum technologies?
·       Are there deeper problems posed by quantum theory to legal regulation and its viability? Is the hyper-specialised nature of quantum theory and its application capable of regulation by a non-specialist? Is self-regulation desirable/necessary/inevitable?
·       What broader tensions regarding the legal regulation of science are brought to the fore by the question of quantum technology and how should they be resolved? How can the law regulate notions such as probability? How should the law best deal with uncertainty?
·       Who should be responsible for such regulatory frameworks, their articulation and their enforcement?
 See the website for more details: https://quantumlaw2018.wordpress.com/Contact: quantum.law@stmarys.ac.uk 

Ng on Analytical Jurisprudence in the Age of Naturalized Ethics

Alina Ng, Mississippi College School of Law, is publishing Picking at Morals: Analytical Jurisprudence in the Age of Naturalized Ethics in volume 25 of the Southern California Interdisciplinary Law Journal (2017). Here is the abstract.

Morality in analytical jurisprudence has always assumed a metaphysical and theoretical character. As morality and the law are connected in distinctive ways, morality plays a pivotal role in one’s understanding of the concept of law. Thus far, we have taken moral norms as providing a reliable measure of right and wrong actions. But the naturalization of ethics in moral philosophy has introduced research findings from the natural sciences which suggest that morality is far more nuanced and varied than we have come to assume. Some moral norms, evolutionary biology has shown us, have less to do with propriety, righteousness, or civility, and more to do with developed biological responses to our surrounding environment. Other moral norms emerged because of political reasons rather than rectitude. This paper argues that we should consider seriously these new findings about our moral psychology in the conceptualization of law in analytical jurisprudence. Morality, if it is an unreliable source of good conscience, cannot and should not be used to provide laws with the normative force it needs to justify the imposition of obligations or to govern with legitimate authority. Until neuroscientists and developmental psychologist are able to determine with some definiteness how our capacity for moral decisions functions and establish morality as a universal feature of humankind, we need to be cautious in how much faith we place on morality as a standard setting norm to separate right from wrong.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Bandes @BandesSusan on What Executioners Can and Cannot Teach Us About the Death Penalty

Susan A. Bandes, DePaul University College of Law, is publishing What Executioners Can -- And Cannot -- Teach Us About the Death Penalty in volume 35 of Criminal Justice Ethics (2016). Here is the abstract.

Executioners and others who come into close proximity with the condemned often come to reject the death penalty. They reject it not only in individual cases, and not only on the ground that the death penalty is poorly implemented. They conclude that capital punishment is wrong. I argue that the perspective of the executioner helps illuminate the debate about whether to abolish capital punishment, and raises the troubling possibility that support for the death penalty can survive only at a great remove. The essay responds to a recent article by Jeffrie Murphy focusing on the question of whether executioners can take pride in their work. I contend that the better question is whether anyone ought to be asked to do such work. On this latter question, the perspective of the executioner sheds important light. Like Murphy, I draw on works by and about Albert Pierrepoint, the “last hangman” of Britain. I also draw on the perspectives of numerous executioners, wardens, chaplains and other death row personnel. I argue that their perspectives offer a powerful argument against the main rationale for the death penalty: retribution. If retribution is keyed to the offender’s character as well as his wrongful act, then post-conviction character ought to matter. The executioners’ accounts share a common theme: that death row inmates change over time and hold the potential for redemption.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Plagiarism on "Criminal Minds"

Plagiarism Today discusses the issue of plagiarism as it appears in pop culture on "The Gathering," an episode of the series Criminal Minds. Read the post here. 

Conference on Ethics, Art, and International Law, Case Western Reserve University School of Law, September 16, 2016

From the mailbox:

Panelists for annual conference to be selected by paper competition

Friday, April 8, 2016  /

 

The Center for Professional Ethics will sponsor a panel on ”Ethics, Art, and International Law“ as part of the Cox Center's annual conference on Friday, September 16, 2016. Speakers for this panel will be selected via a paper competition, with winning entries given a cash award and travel and lodging expenses to participate in the conference.

The title of the conference is “The Art of International Law.” In addition to celebrating the Cleveland Museum of Art’s 100th Anniversary, the conference will explore several topics at the intersection of law and art, including the repatriation and return of art looted by the Nazis, the destruction of cultural heritage and archaeological sites, and the increasingly transnational character of the film industry. Confirmed speakers include Mark Ellis (Executive Director of the International Bar Association). William Schabas (Middlesex), Margaret Miles (UC Irvine), and Allan Gerson (former Counsel to the US mission to the United Nations).

ELIGIBILITY: We encourage law students, faculty, and practicing attorneys to submit original, unpublished papers for consideration. Papers should address one or more issues within the broad framework of ethics, art, and international law. There are no length restrictions, though we generally encourage submissions between 20 and 50 pages (roughly 10,000 to 30,000 words). Prizes will be awarded to the top submissions, with a $500 award to the winning paper in the Student category and a $1000 award to the winning paper in the Faculty/Attorney category. The author of the winning Faculty/Attorney paper will be invited to participate in a symposium panel, and others may be invited as well if space permits. Travel and lodging expenses will be reimbursed for the presenting authors and discussants. As a condition of acceptance, award winners must agree to publish the paper, if selected, in the Symposium edition of the
Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law.

PAPER SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: Please submit papers in a Microsoft Word version no later than July 1, 2016. If you do not have a final draft at that time, you may submit a shorter précis; however, preference will go to submissions with completed drafts, and all award winners will be expected to produce a final draft by the date of the Symposium. Please indicate in a cover letter whether you are a current law student, faculty member, or practicing attorney. You may submit your papers to Professor Cassandra Burke Robertson at cbr10@case.edu. Alternatively, you may send a hard-copy to:

Cassandra Burke Robertson
Professor of Law and Laura B. Chisolm
Distinguished Research Scholar
Director, Center for Professional Ethics

Case Western Reserve University School of Law
11075 East Boulevard
Cleveland, OH  44106
216-368-3302

Decisions regarding the symposium program will be made no later than July 15, 2016. General inquiries regarding the conference should be directed to Professor Tim Webster (tjw71@case.edu) or Nancy Pratt (npk3@case.edu), Director of Academic Centers.

More here at the website.

Little on The Big Lebowski's Lessons in Law and Leadership for Military and National Security Attorneys

Ryan Little, United States Military Academy, is publishing The Big Lebowski -- The Dude's Lessons in Law and Leadership for Military and National Security Attorneys in the Pace Law Review. Here is the abstract.

The Big Lebowski is a cultural phenomenon that has prompted academic research into the nature of cult cinema, provided fodder for a host of law review quotes, and motivated a tradition of fan festivals and midnight screenings. However, most viewers do not realize that The Big Lebowski also serves as an engaging training tool for military and national security attorneys. Disguised as an impish play on film noir and hard-boiled detective fiction, The Big Lebowski’s unpretentious treatment of delicate topics contains poignant lessons for military and national security attorneys that include: (1) the risks facing national security attorneys when they lose focus on their professional and moral responsibilities, (2) military attorneys should expect to encounter mental health concerns and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) in unexpected ways; (3) the importance of values and how they impact the success of a national security legal office, and (4) the role of the attorney in military operations. Military and national security attorneys who adopt the lessons of The Big Lebowski will be better lawyers and leaders.

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Law, Tech, and Star Trek

The ABA For Law Students Blog has posted Searching for the Mr. Spock in You, a piece about the importance of being knowledgeable both about technology and the ethics of its use. A nice mind meld among law, tech, and pop culture (can one mind meld three things at once?)

Twitter thanks to Rick Peltz-Steele @RJPeltzSteele.

The Culture and Ethics of Copying

Aram Sinnreich, American University, School of Communication, has published Ethics, Evolved: An International Perspective on Copying in the Networked Age. Here is the abstract.

   
   
This chapter examines international trends in adoption, attitudes and ethics surrounding "configurable" cultural forms, which blur the lines between traditional notions of production and consumption. In order to understand these trends, I analyze qualitatively and quantitatively the results of a survey fielded in 2014 and 2015 to 1,397 English-speaking adults in 11 different nations in Europe, North America, Africa and the Asia/Pacific region. The survey is substantially similar to earlier ones fielded by the author in 2006 and 2010. The survey combines quantitative, multiple-choice questions regarding the prevalence of configurable cultural practices and attitudes with qualitative, open-ended, questions in which respondents’ write-in responses reflect their ethical beliefs regarding these practices. As I will argue below, configurable culture has emerged as a definitively mainstream global phenomenon in the past five years, and despite global efforts to “harmonize” IP laws, residents of different nations and regions continue to employ a variety of different ethical frameworks – most of which bear very little resemblance to the contours of the law – when evaluating the validity of these emerging cultural behaviors.
   

Download the article from SSRN at the link.

Sociology, Ethics, and Law

Steven Lubet, Northwestern University School of Law, has published Ethics On The Run in The New Rambler Review, May 2015. Here is the abstract.

Alice Goffman’s widely acclaimed On the Run: Fugitive Life in an American City has drawn more positive attention than almost any sociology book in recent years. The success of the book led to a lecture tour of at least twenty sociology departments and conferences. Her TED talk, which was often interrupted by applause, has had nearly 700,000 views. A careful reading of On the Run, however, leaves me with vexing questions about the author’s accuracy and reliability. There are just too many incidents that strike me as unlikely to have occurred as she describes them. One must try to keep an open mind about such things – especially regarding someone as obviously brilliant and dedicated as Goffman – so readers may disagree with me about the extent of her embellishments. In any event, there is a bigger problem. As I will explain below, Goffman appears to have participated in a serious felony in the course of her field work – a circumstance that seems to have escaped the notice of her teachers, her mentors, her publishers, her admirers, and even her critics.

Download the article from SSRN at the link. Here is a link to the article in the New Rambler Review.

Law and Ethics in Greek and Roman Law: A New Publication

AIDEL (the Associazione Italiana Diritto e Letteratura) announces the publication of Law and Ethics in Greek and Roman Declaration, volume 10 in the series Law & Literature (DeGruyter). Link to the publisher's description here.

Euthanasia

Ravulapati Madhavi, The ICFAI Foundation for Higher Education, has published Merciless Thoughts on Mercy Killing: A Critique, at 2 The IUP Law Review 11 (July 2012). Here is the abstract. 

The nature is known for the coexistence of opposites — latent and patent. Ugliness is shrouded by beauty, cruelty shrouded by kindness, love concealing hatred and life concealing death. Life and death are two ends of a scale. It is unfair to consider life as a respectful end and death as a disrespectful one. Both are same. Probably because of this, in Greek language, the two components — EU and THANATONA — have given birth to euthanasia. The term appears to sound highly controversial, bitter and condemned by a major chunk of the human race throughout the globe. Passions rise high, emotions explode and acrimonious debates alarm the serenity of humanity when the word ‘mercy killing’ is uttered. Yes, the subject is controversial because it is interesting and intriguing too. Interesting as it envelops multiple facets of social, economic and moral and ethical life, and intriguing because of its subtle clash with religion and faith trends. There is an adage that “a thing ceases to be a thing of interest when it ceases to be a thing of controversy.” It is true for ‘mercy killing.

The full text is not available from SSRN.

 

Setting the Scenes of the Crimes

Alan W. Norrie, University of Warwick School of Law, has published Inaugural Lecture 'The Scene and the Crime' as Warwick School of Law Research Paper No. 2011-05. Here is the abstract.

What is the scene in relation to the crime? That question can be answered in many ways. It may be the legal process, the political, cultural and literary milieu, the social conditions, the historical context. This is an area where a thousand flowers may bloom. I don’t intend to pick them here, but to focus on where I have come from, and where I am headed. What I am going to say this evening will be tentative, and in a way risky, because I focus on something that contextual lawyers have generally avoided, perhaps for good reason. What I am going to dip my toes in is, indeed, something generally not seen as contextual at all, and that is how an understanding of ethical categories of good and evil may be required for the scene and the crime.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

A "Mad Scientist" For Real? And In a Movie?

The Scientist features Jim Fields' documentary about neurologist Robert White, who died last year. Mr. Fields notes that Dr. White might fall into the class of the "real" "mad scientist," someone whose thoughtful integration of research and imagination led him toward the boundaries of what we now consider commonplace. But he did some unusual things in the lab, too--things we still consider odd, and maybe off-limits, such as grafting one monkey's head onto another body.

Bioethicists Will Gaylin and Dan Callahan, who co-founded bioethics think tank, The Hastings Center, in 1969, remember talk of brain transplantation when organ transplant technology was developing. "It used to be kind of a joke," says Callahan. "If you transplant my brain into somebody else's head, who would that person be? Is a person the brain or the body?"

....

"Real mad scientists...are not lone wolves like in the movies," says Fields. "They're doing things that are sanctioned in their time and place, in society, that are only considered by later values to be wrong."

...

While Callahan doubts that White would have been allowed to do this research today, he notes that he likely received approval from a number of organizations in his day. But does that context of permission make his actions ethical? "I don't think you can go back and prejudge generations of people," says Gaylin, "but by the time he was doing his research, there were a significant number of people talking about medical ethics in an advanced form."

So which is it? Was White a researcher outside the boundaries of bioethics or a man doing right by the standards of his time?

Play That Funky Music, Your Honor

New York's Committee on Judicial Ethics says that Acting Supreme Court Judge Matthew D'Emic can play with his band after hours if potential parties aren't likely to appear before him, so Judge D'Emic, and other judges are free to rock to house, saying, ""The judge who wishes to pursue part-time employment as a solo musician may do so only occasionally, for a fee, for family, friends, neighbors and others who are unlikely to appear in the judge's court."

As it turns out, ethics committees in other states have examined this problem as well, coming to essentially the same conclusion. So the only worry Judge D'Emic has now is whether to rename his band. He seems have rejected current suggestions: (Rock-n-Robes, L.L. Cool Judge and The Electric Chairs). What about "Conflict of Interest"? ("No Conflict of Interest" just sounds too long). "Sidebar"? "Inadmissible"? "Judicial Conference"?

Robin Hood-Itry

Nicholas Adam Curott and Alexander Fink, George Mason University, have published Bandit Heroes: Social, Mythical or Rational?. Here is the abstract.

Bandits steal from their fellow men. Yet they are regularly subjects of folksongs, novels and movies. In these outlets they are presented as folk heroes despite their crimes. Sociological explanations for this phenomenon based upon the concept of the ‘social bandit’ and psychological explanations based upon myth building, have been brought forth to explain the seeming contradiction. We argue that the available approaches are misled or incomplete. We propose an alternative explanation for the bandit hero phenomenon and maintain that by acting in their self-interest bandits provide valuable services to society. The benefits that bandits generate form the foundation for their positive reception.

Download the paper from SSRN at the link.

Law and the Humanities Institute Presents a Symposium

Law & Humanities Institute, the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law Program in Holocaust and Human Rights Studies, and the
Louise and Arde Bulova Fund

present

The Risks of Interpretive Flexibility When Basic Traditions Are
Challenged by an “Emergency”

August 11, 2010
at
Prospect House
Princeton University
Princeton, New Jersey 08544

Registration 8:30am to 9:00am Program 9:00am to 5:30pm

Panelists:


Richard Weisberg
Event Co-Chair,
President, Law & Humanities Institute,
Walter Floersheimer Professor of Constitutional Law and Founding Director, Program for Holocaust and Human Rights Studies, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Elaine Scarry
Walter M. Cabot Professor of Aesthetics and General Theory of Values, Harvard University

Marci Hamilton
Paul R. Verkuil Chair in Public Law, Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law

Peter Brooks
Event Co-Chair,
Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Scholar,
Professor in Comparative Literature and the University Center for Human Values, Princeton University



Sanford Levinson
Charles Tilford McCormick Professor Law, University of Texas
Author of Torture the Debate






This program examines why professional communities have yielded their finest traditions to a perceived sense of “emergency.” The results are often disastrous, as in the case of the French legal community during World War II, and perhaps with the equivocal redefinition and application of “torture” in our own country. This program brings the methods, sources, and readings of the Humanities to a focused inquiry into the reasons lawyers, theologians, and many other professional communities have so often lost their way. A panel and public discussion will delve into the inquiry of professional communities in an “emergency.” CLE credit will be available. Please RSVP to stephanie.spangler@gmail.com with intention of attendance and CLE option.

This program was made possible by a grant from the New Jersey Council for the Humanities, a state partner of the National Endowment for the Humanities. Any views, findings, conclusions or recommendations in this program do not necessarily represent those of the National Endowment for the Humanities or the New Jersey Council for the Humanities.

Star Trek Time: Ethics In Space

The New York Times has an interview with NASA bioethicist Paul Root Wolpe here.