Applying the Due Diligence Framework Northeastern University School of Law November 7, 2013 Professor Julie Goldscheid, CUNY Law School Professor Debra J. Liebowitz, Drew University
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Applying the Due Diligence Framework Northeastern University School of Law
November 7, 2013
Professor Julie Goldscheid, CUNY Law School Professor Debra J. Liebowitz, Drew University
} United States } Canada } Australia } New Zealand
} (for more information on the report, contact either author)
} Expands domestic conception of rights
} Substantive equality } Non-discrimination } Positive obligation } Root causes } Public / private divide } Non-state actors } Participation
} Prevention } Protection } Prosecution / Investigation } Punishment } Provision of Redress
} Comprehensive ◦ Encompass all jurisdictions ◦ Include clear goals and measurable outcomes ◦ Be adequately funded and supported ◦ Be culturally competent ◦ Should be available to and targeted at all communities
} Coordination } Root causes
} Research-based program design
} Services should be:
◦ Comprehensive ◦ Multi-sectoral and coordinated ◦ Empowering
} Types of services: ◦ integrated health services; ◦ helplines and websites; ◦ shelter and housing; ◦ counseling and legal services; ◦ tailored for specific groups of victims.
} Access to services - Barriers
} Provision is inadequate and uneven } Chronically underfunded } Lack of coordination } Prejudicial treatment
} Critical strategies:
◦ Civil orders of protection
◦ Training
} Laws authorizing arrest, investigation and prosecution are a start, but not enough.
} Laws should apply to all communities in all contexts.
} Concerns about under- and over-enforcement.
} Differences of opinion about all mandatory interventions.
Reporting, Arrest, Prosecution
} Favored practices: ◦ Streamlining policing and prosecutorial
practices. ◦ Multi-agency facilities and specialized
courts. ◦ Translation services. ◦ Coordination with immigration authorities. ◦ Training. ◦ Civil legal services. ◦ Support for survivors.
} Barriers to justice: ◦ Low rates of reporting, charging and prosecution. ◦ Lack of law enforcement accountability. ◦ Jurisdictional barriers. ◦ Law enforcement bias. ◦ Custody and visitation.
} Controversies: ◦ Role of customary and religious laws and practices;
◦ Use of alternative dispute resolution.
} Inconsistent sentencing
} Need for research
} Batterers’ programs
} Alternative approaches
} Restitution } Victim compensation } Civil suits } Alternative approaches ◦ Redress ◦ Medical and psychological care ◦ Economic independence
} Persuasive authority in law enforcement
accountability cases ◦ “State-created danger” ◦ Equal protection ◦ State law claims
} Legislation ◦ Local human rights resolutions,
ordinances
} Persuasive authority in other domestic violence cases ◦ Orders of protection ◦ Custody ◦ Hague convention ◦ Writs of mandamus ◦ Contempt ◦ Tort
} DOJ investigations ◦ New Orleans ◦ Puerto Rico
} Community organizing and public education
Related Documents
