Volume 43 | Issue 1| Fall 2014
Table Of Contents
Hofstra Law Review Alumni Issue
Starting a business is a significant undertaking. Entrepreneurs often work grueling, around-the-clock hours in high-pressure environments for the opportunity to be one of the rare successful businesses that survive the first few tumultuous years. Recently, the impetus behind entrepreneurship has been a shot at quick and tremendous success, as exemplified by companies like Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Rovio, and Zynga.
Within the U.S. policy discourse, it has long been taken for granted that the body of human rights law does not—and should not—include economic rights, which include the right to adequate food, shelter, and health care. This is an irony of history, since the origins of modern-day economic rights law lie in the policies advocated by the U.S. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt. This Note argues that (1) the common justifications for neglecting economic rights are not sound; (2) there is a pressing need to recognize economic rights in the United States; and (3) the best way to do so is to ratify and implement the International Covenant for Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights, or ICESCR. This Note illustrates how this can be successfully accomplished through a blueprint for enforcing one right from the Covenant—the right to adequate food—in the United States. By restoring Roosevelt’s vision through the ICESCR, the U.S. government will strengthen its moral stance on the world stage and help secure the integrity of Americans’ human rights.
The Three Laws of Robotics (“Three Laws”) are an elegant set of hierarchical rules that ethically and physically govern Isaac Asimov’s science fiction robots. The Three Laws are programmatically embedded in the robots’ “positronic brains,” and control their behavior and reasoning primarily to safeguard the human beings they were built to serve. The Three Laws—successful in fiction for their simplicity, novelty, and literary purposes—are ill suited for the contemporary military reality, and are generally regarded as an inadequate basis for machine ethics.
The ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (“Guidelines”), as revised in 2003, continue to stand as the single most authoritative summary of the prevailing professional norms in the realm of capital defense practice. Hundreds of court opinions have cited the Guidelines. They have been particularly useful in helping courts to assess the investigation and presentation of mitigating evidence in death penalty cases. This Article will discuss how these Guidelines have come to reflect prevailing professional norms in this critical area of capital defense practice and how that practice has developed in the era of the modern U.S. death penalty. One of the principal arguments we will make in this Article is that courts interpreting the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel should look to what competent lawyers ought to do rather than what some lawyers appointed to represent capital defendants actually do . . . .
In 2003, Professor Eric M. Freedman, Reporter for the revised ABA Guidelines for the Appointment and Performance of Defense Counsel in Death Penalty Cases (“ABA Guidelines”), observed that one of the ABA Guidelines’ central virtues was to recognize that the death penalty is expensive.1 Fairness in the application of the ultimate punishment requires governments to develop systems to allocate essential resources, like compensation for counsel and funds for experts and investigators.2 Ten years later, this Article revisits Professor Freedman’s observation by exploring the question of resources and urging counsel to increase their use of the ABA Guidelines in fighting for the irreducible minima of reasonably effective representation: time and money.