Category Archives: Scholarship

Toward a Jurisprudence of Psychiatric Evidence: Examining the Challenges of Reasoning from Group Data in Psychiatry to Individual Decisions in the Law

BY CARL E. FISHER, DAVID L. FAIGMAN & PAUL S. APPELBAUM, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 631 (2015). Introduction: In the conventional view, scientific fields advance through the concerted efforts of researchers dedicated to studying phenomena to better describe, predict, and not infrequently, control them. As basic research data accumulate, they often are applied to specific instances of the phenomena being studied. Meteorologists, […]

When God Demands Blood: Unusual Minds and the Troubled Juridical Ties of Religion, Madness, and Culpability

BY RABIA BELT, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 755 (2015). Introduction: When Robert Crenshaw and his wife were on their honeymoon in Canada in 1982, Robert got into a fight and was deported back to the United States. He found a motel room just across the border in Blaine, Washington and waited for his wife. Upon her arrival two […]

What’s the Harm in Issuer-Licensed Insider Trading?

BY JOHN P. ANDERSON, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 795 (2015). Introduction: I have argued elsewhere that insider trading is morally harmless where the issuer approves the trade in advance and has disclosed that it permits such trading pursuant to published guidelines. I have also suggested that reforming the law to permit such issuer-licensed insider trading “would […]

The Importance of “The Law of Conservation of Securities”: A Reply to John P. Anderson’s “What’s the Harm in Issuer-Licensed Insider Trading?”

BY WILLIAM K.S. WANG, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 811 (2015). Introduction: Professor John P. Anderson’s article, What’s the Harm in Issuer-Licensed Insider Trading?, argues that my “Law of Conservation of Securities” has no moral relevance to the question whether to allow such trading. Although the Law of Conservation of Securities does not resolve the issue, the “law” does […]

The Problem with Consenting to Insider Trading

BY LEO KATZ, 69 U. Miami L. Rev. 827 (2015). Introduction: Professor Anderson argues that so long as insider trading is consented to by all market participants, it is hard to find a strong moral objection to it. I agree that explaining why we prohibit consensual transactions is always a tall order. Nonetheless, the fact remains that the law […]