Prologue
While the version of this Article published in the Yale Law Journal explains the history of American sex law, grapples with traditional justifications for excluding rape-by-deception from rape law, and maps the main options available to rape law once its difficulties are exposed, this Article jumps right to the heart of the argument. It explains why the popular coercion-based compromise—in which coercive sex would be rape, but deceptive sex would not be—cannot solve the riddle of rape by deception. It opposes the principle of sexual autonomy and suggests that there is and should be no fundamental right to sexual autonomy. Finally, it shows that rape is better conceived as a violation of a right akin to slavery and torture—crimes which violate a person’s fundamental right to self-possession—than to a violation of individual autonomy. This argument solves the riddle of rape-by-deception but at a cost. It means the much-maligned “force… Read More »
- Yale Law Journal
- 01 March 2013
- Law Review Article
The Riddle of Rape-by-Deception and the Myth of Sexual Autonomy
Jed Rubenfeld
- William and Mary Law Review
- 22 February 2013
The Relational Structure of Family Businesses
Benjamin Means - University of South Carolina School of Law
- Duke Law Journal
- 15 February 2013
- Law Review Note
DNA PROFILES, COMPUTER SEARCHES, AND THE FOURTH AMENDMENT
Catherine W. Kimel
Pursuant to federal statutes and to laws in all fifty states, the United States government has assembled the Combined DNA Index System (CODIS), a database containing DNA profiles of over eleven million citizens. Without judicial authorization, the government searches these profiles one hundred thousand times every day, seeking to link… Read More »
- Cornell Law Review
- 13 February 2013
Shareholder Eugenics in the Public Corporation
Edward B. Rock
In a world of active, empowered shareholders, the match between shareholders and public corporations is more important than ever before. A good match can increase firm value, while a bad match can have the opposite effect. But can publicly held firms choose their shareholders? Warren Buffett posed the challenge decades… Read More »
- Cornell Law Review
- 13 February 2013
- Law Review Article
Making Sense of Intellectual Property Law
Christopher Buccafusco - Chicago-Kent College of Law
Imagine three designers working separately from one another but each producing the same thing: a ball made from floppy, elastomeric filaments that radiate from a central core region. The first designer, an engineer, creates the ball because she thinks it will be easier for small children to catch. The second… Read More »
- William and Mary Law Review
- 04 February 2013
- Law Review Note
Knowledge is Power: The Fundamental Right to Record Present Observations in Public
Travis Gunn
Americans seeking to record public life often find themselves victims of government suppression. Police have used physical methods to prevent journalists from recording public protest events. Police have trained their guns on unarmed citizens for recording their activities in public. Citizens have been arrested for recording police officers’ public conduct.… Read More »
- Georgetown Law Journal
- 04 February 2013
- Law Review Article
Testation and Speech
David Horton
Introduction
When I was practicing, I represented a mechanic, Barry, who was bitter rivals with his brother, Stan. Their father had left the lion’s share of his property to Barry. Stan challenged the will on the grounds of undue influence. Barry and Stan proceeded to litigate tooth-and-nail until they’d spent… Read More »
- Yale Law Journal
- 30 January 2013
- Law Review Essay
Courts as Managers: Summary Disposition at the Roberts Court
Alex Hemmer
Summary disposition at the Supreme Court presents a puzzle. Appellate courts generally act in two capacities: a lawmaking capacity, in which they announce, clarify, and harmonize the rules of decision employed by the legal system in which they serve; and an error-correction capacity, in which they determine if prejudicial errors… Read More »
- Cornell Law Review
- 21 January 2013
- Law Review Note
The Age of Consent: When is Sexting No Longer “Speech Integral to Criminal Activity?”
Antonio M. Haynes
Jane met her boyfriend Jim at a high school football game. Jane was just a few days shy of sixteen at the time, and she and Jim, seventeen, instantly connected. They began dating, and, a few months later but before Jim’s eighteenth birthday, the two had sex together for the… Read More »
- 21 January 2013
Double Jeopardy as a Limit on Punishment
Carissa Byrne Hessick & F. Andrew Hessick
The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that no “person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” As the Supreme Court has recognized, the Clause protects not only against multiple trials, but also against “multiple punishments for the same offense.” Even so, courts have… Read More »