Kenneth S. Gallant

Crime control and harassment of the innocent

Crime control through law enforcement is generally considered to be a two-part process of apprehending and incapacitating or rehabilitating the guilty, and deterring the innocent from crime by the threat of punishment. The analysis presented here shows that the protection of the innocent from harassment–detention, arrest, punishment, and other intrusions by the criminal justice system–is important in deterring crime. Specifically, the analysis shows that deterrence from crime is weakened and then lost for a rational individual who holds the majority attitude toward risk, if the levels of rightful punishment and wrongful harassment are increased, as in a war on crime, and the likelihoods of wrongful and rightful punishment are reasonably close. The analysis is employed to show how the perceived likelihood of harassment may be a contributing factor to the disproportionately high representation of minority groups in the U.S. prison system.

The Enforceability Deficit Concerning Victims’ Remedies

Traditionally, states would not grant enforcement of criminal judgments from other states. As a result, there has been a large deficit in enforcement of monetary and other remedies for victims of criminal violations of international humanitarian law and international human rights law. In recent decades, there has been some progress in national law and treaty law towards allowing or requiring transnational enforcement of victims’ remedies contained in foreign criminal judgments. This article examines the traditional law, modern progress concerning criminal remedies, and recent United Nations work in the area. Even with modern trends in the international law of criminal enforcement jurisdiction, it may turn out that civil judgments of restitution and reparation will be easier to obtain and enforce than criminal judgments in many, if not most, cases.

The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law Chapter 2: A Partial History to World War II

This is a Chapter 2 of Kenneth S. Gallant, The Principle of Legality in International and Comparative Criminal Law (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2009).Chapter 2 briefly reviews the history of the principle of legality in criminal law up to World War I, drawing material from common law, civil law, Islamic law, and a few other sources. Then it covers interwar events, focusing on the German abandonment of the principle in the 1930s and the international legal reaction.

The International Criminal Court in the System of States and International Organizations

This paper addresses many of the issues raised by the existence of the International Criminal Court as an international organization. It includes such issues as the possible identity of the Assembly of States Parties as an Organ of the international organization created by the Rome Statute of the ICC, the ICC in the UN System, and the relationship between the ICC and the UN (especially concerning the relationship of the UN Security Council to the ICC).

Anti-Utopianism Among Arms Controllers

Abstract [T]he Presidents embrace of the goal, both utopian and dangerous, of a world without nuclear weapons will inevitably weaken support for the strategy of nuclear deterrence upon which the defense of the West continues to rest.

The sale of a unique object in an open market

ConclusionMy purpose in this article is not to probe the sorts of deals most likely to be made by the wealthy—though the examples chosen are obviously from a restricted class of deals. Neither am I attempting to “show up” principled negotiation as a general rule. Most of the examples used in this article are so clearly atypical that a general system of negotiating could not be impeached solely by reference to them.Rather, my goal here is to show that the negotiator ought to be sensitive to those elements of a deal that may not be subject to principled valuation, as well as to those that are. It is also to begin to delineate the legitimate place of will in a negotiating system generally founded on externally verifiable claims to fairness.