No description available.

Torture survivors find difficulty navigating through an unfamiliar healthcare and social service system. Many survivors who already face Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), anxiety, and depression also endure a secondary threat which leads to re-traumatization through the struggles of acculturation. The aim of this study is to determine: 1. Identify differences and assumptions between service providers’ and clients’ definitions of self-sufficiency; 2. Examine prominent barriers to self-sufficiency that survivors encounter; 3. Pinpoint the survival strategies that survivors use in order to cope with life in DFW; 4. Determine what resources CST staff, area service providers, and survivors feel need to be improved for CST and the DFW metroplex.

If there is any fixed star in our constitutional and criminal procedure constellation, it is that torture is illegal and torture-introduced evidence is inadmissible. The purposes of this research are to (1) assess the exclusionary rule in the United Kingdom and United States; (2) explore the theoretical constitutional foundation of the rule; and (3) establish the Chinese exclusionary rule. Currently, there is no exclusionary rule explicitly in the Chinese Code of Criminal Procedure. If the wrongful conviction of the innocent is a pressing issue in China today, police torture is the flashpoint. Police torture in China is the prevalent evil not the isolated anecdote. This thesis combines diagnosis and prescription – the problem of police torture in China and the solution of the exclusionary rule. The ultimate goal of the research is to find a suitable exclusionary rule for China to solve the serious problem of police torture and wrongdoing. At the level of theory, my exclusionary rule framework is grounded in the separation of powers. Previous research about the separation of powers doctrine has focused almost entirely on constitutional law and political theory. They completely ignored the special role that the doctrine plays in the criminal justice system, a role consisting of the exercise of a reviewing function to ensure executive compliance with the criminal law. Separation of powers is a core component of the constitution’s system of checks and balances, a system in which each branch of the government is endowed with a constitutional control over the others. Without any judicial supervision or due process, the potential for arbitrary enforcement is high. The alternatives to the exclusionary rule are mainly illusory and of no practical avail. Past history also demonstrates that the very idea of protecting the defendant’s right is completely empty unless it is linked to an efficient mechanism. China grants the police too much power and has too little judicial supervision over police investigations. It creates imbalance in the existing Chinese criminal justice system. It is such an imbalance and the lack of separation of powers in the criminal justice system that poses a significant and growing threat for the protection of defendants’ rights.

This thesis will assess the United Kingdom’s implementation of the United Nations Convention Against Torture and other Cruel Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment. It will first focus on a contextual analysis of the problem of torture, examining the circumstances in which it has historically been used, philosophical and theoretical perspectives on the practice and the political aspects of torture, including its effect on international relations. This will illustrate the circumstances in which torture is used, the motivation behind it and the way in which it affects its victims. The argument will then be made that, in view of the uniquely grave nature of the practice of torture, it is insufficient for States to merely criminalise it and punish the offenders. They must actively seek to eradicate it from society and ultimately prevent it from occurring. It is against this aim that the thesis will examine the compliance of the United Kingdom with its obligations under the Convention. This examination will look first at the international regime for the prevention of torture, focusing on the work of the United Nations Committee Against Torture. The engagement of the United Kingdom with this body will be explored in detail and the argument made that more needs to be done in order to ensure that the Committee’s recommendations are put into effect and that treatment contrary to the Convention is prevented from taking place. The final part of the thesis will assess the United Kingdom’s State practice with a focus on key institutions of the State including the courts and the legislature. This part of the thesis will seek to explore the extent to which the practices of these institutions is consistent with an overall aim of preventing torture and the extent to which they show awareness of the Convention and its requirements of the Convention in the discharge of their functions. The conclusion will be drawn that, while the Human Rights Act has gone some way towards improving compliance, more needs to be done to insure a complete implementation by the United Kingdom of its obligations under the Convention and full prevention of torture. The State must actively engage with the Committee and the organs of the State must consider the Convention Against Torture in the discharge of all of their functions to ensure that these aims are achieved.

Resumé Aj The purpose of my thesis is to provide a detailed view of prohibition of torture in contemporary practice of States. De iure is the absolute prohibition of torture unquestionable. However situation de facto is more complicated. States are very inventive in finding ways of circumventing this absolute prohibition. Their justification for circumventing the prohibition of torture may be called various things, such as diplomatic assurances, extraordinary rendition, interpretation of the definition of torture, national security, etc. Due to the limited scope of this work, I have selected the approaches of those States, which I find most worrisome and I will address them by presenting the practice of these individual States. This thesis has focused on an approach of certain European States, USA and Israel in their attempts to circumvent the absolute prohibition of torture. All examples support the topic of this thesis, however in different contexts. The thesis is composed of three core chapters. Chapter One deals with the legal status of the prohibition of torture. Chapter Two affirms the absolute prohibition of torture by case - law of ECtHR in cases Chahal v UK and Saadi v Italy. Chapter Three is subdivided into three parts. Part one reveals disturbing willingness of German courts as well as German...

A research report submitted to the Faculty of Humanities University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg, in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts (Philosophy), 2017 / This study seeks to investigate whether torture is fundamentally wrong and, if so, whether its status is a question of morality or of that which is prior to morality. According to the thought of Jacques Derrida, the play of différance makes it syntactically impossible for any term to signify meaning outside of the interplay of mutually opposing signifiers. Since Deontological and Utilitarian moral principles unfold within this differential play, they are syntactically incapable of signifying a concrete and constant moral status for torture. Even though différance is the syntactic possibility of being, I argue that there is a second and distinct category of experience. Drawing on the writing of Emmanuel Levinas and Bernard Lonergan, I contend that this category is our subjectivity as self-awareness, which always-already unfolds anterior to, as the primordial possibility of, and as otherwise than both différance and being. As an irreducibility constitutive of each person, the alterity of such self-awareness constitutes an absolute and singular relation of otherness between persons; this proximity functions as an absolute obligation and, in fact, constitutes ethics itself. Each subject therefore becomes an individual living ethicality. On this basis, it is always-already incoherent to identify any subject with any idea that we might have of him/her, including the idea of a person as a means to our ends. Since torture intentionally violates the living ethicality of the victim, it follows that torture must be ethically unjustifiable by primordial necessity under any and all possible circumstances. The ethical unjustifiability of torture therefore precedes all moral structures, although I suggest that torture may become permissible under certain practical circumstances, if saving human lives is at stake. Keywords: Torture; self-awareness; alterity; living ethicality; otherwise than being; différance; Emmanuel Levinas; Jacques Derrida; Bernard Lonergan. / GR2018

No description available.

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.

This thesis examines the world of solitary confinement within the prison system. My research was inspired by Ashley Smith, a 19-year old segregated inmate who died in isolation while seven guards watched. This outrageous occurrence prompted me to question the practice of solitary confinement and a prison system in which such an event could occur. Studying the history of solitary confinement left me surprised to learn that it was originally intended as a therapeutic and merciful alternative to the punishments of the day. This revelation was one of a series of inversions that led me to conclude that solitary confinement is a world apart, not just physically, but also socially, temporally and legally. I have concluded that improving the lives of those segregated within our prisons requires the world of solitary confinement to become anchored within the broader legal and social context.

This comparative legal analysis evaluates the issue of terrorism and how it has been dealt with respectively by the United States and Israeli Supreme Courts. Since the events of 9/11, combating terrorism has become one of the primary concerns of the US government while it is a matter that has pervaded Israeli policy since its birth as a nation-state. The analysis is centered on examining how each state‘s Supreme Court has confronted the issue with the Israeli Supreme Court using a ―Business as Usual‖ model and the US taking an ―Emergency Powers‖ approach. It is argued that terrorism is an ongoing issue that cannot be justified as an emergency and the US Court would do better in adopting Israel‘s method of adjudication in these matters. It is also suggested that the US could learn from Israel‘s policy towards torture as the US policy has largely been cruel and unsuccessful.