Northeastern University Law Review
What is a “Meaningful Opportunity?” Disparities ...

BY EILIDH CURRIE

When it comes to criminal culpability, the Supreme Court has consistently treated children in a manner different than adults. Because of this understanding, the Court has recognized that sentences of life without parole may be too harsh for minors. The Court has banned mandatory juvenile life without parole (JLWOP) but permits courts to issue discretionary JLWOP sentences. The Supreme Court also permits courts to impose lengthy sentences, often called “virtual” or “de facto” life sentences. However, when issuing these lengthy sentences, courts must ensure that a minor retains a meaningful opportunity for release. Striking this balance is a challenge for sentencing courts: how long of a sentence is too long? Which sentences equate to JLWOP? What is a meaningful opportunity?…

Enforcing Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights: A Stark Dichotomy

By Scheagbe Mayumi Grigsby

On April 20, 2010, the Deepwater Horizon oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico burst into flames, dumping millions of barrels of oil into the Gulf. The incident killed eleven people and caused irreparable harm to the environment and local economy. Eventually, hundreds of plaintiffs filed suit against British Petroleum (BP) and others. A subsequent class action lawsuit resulted in a settlement of medical claims arising out of the spill and the ensuing clean-up effort amounted to approximately $7.8 billion. As of May 6, 2015, BP had paid approximately $5 billion to more than 62,000 businesses and individuals. On July 2, 2015, the U.S. Department of Justice announced that BP had agreed to pay the “largest environmental fine in U.S. history for the Gulf oil spill.” Pending judicial approval, BP has agreed to pay $18.7 billion to Louisiana, Mississippi, Texas, and Florida over 18 years.

Contracting for Value: Performance-Based Payments in Contracts Between Health Insurers and Drug Manufacturers

By Jonathan Herrick

Health care in the United States is a complex and expensive industry, and consumers who contribute financially to the industry presumably hope to derive some value or benefit from their participation. However, many consumers may not perceive a proportionate relationship between financial contribution and the value or benefit they receive. For example, “[m]ost Americans do not believe that price and quality of health care are associated” with each other. It is no wonder that Americans today have doubts about whether the amount they spend on health care is associated with the quality of care they receive; despite spending a larger portion per capita on health care services than many other industrialized nations, the United States lags behind in important measures, such as life expectancy. Although the relationship between health care services and life expectancy is complex, it is clear that the United States is spending more per person on health care than many other countries, but consumers are not benefitting proportionately with regard to certain measured health outcomes.

Voisine v. United States, the Orlando Shooting, and the Suspension of Constitutional Rights

By Marvin Lim

In the wake of the 2016 Orlando nightclub mass shooting, Voisine v. United States, a case the U.S. Supreme Court decided only two weeks later has even more significance now than ever. Voisine v. United States raises an important, timely question: When can constitutional rights, and in particular the Second Amendment right to bear arms, be suspended? The case – which involved a defendant who, like the Orlando perpetrator, had a history of domestic violence – further emphasizes why our society must be more principled and consistent in making this kind of determination.

Plain Error at Sentencing

By Anthony Copple

Any defendant in our criminal justice system is faced with overwhelming odds. Part of this stems from the fact that the vast majority of criminal defendants will be convicted of the crimes of which they are accused. They all, guilty or innocent, feel the weight of that fact. This is particularly true for those with appointed counsel by the Court. The public defender agencies do an admirable job of representing their clients, however; they are stretched to the limit and simply do not have the time or resources to cross every “t” and dot every “i.” One possible mistake is through failure to preserve error for appellate review. This article examines the way in which unpreserved claims of error at sentencing may affect the substantive rights of criminal defendants within the First Circuit.

Combating Off-Label Drug Use with a Tort Modernization Solution

By David Tobias

It is common practice for doctors to prescribe drugs for uses that have not been approved by the FDA, a phenomenon known as “off-label” use. In fact, at least 20% of all drug prescriptions are off-label, and some scholars quote figures as high as 60%. In the fields of oncology and psychiatry, off-label drug use is even higher. This practice has significant pros and cons. Many healthcare providers and patients consider off-label use necessary in order to get drugs to patients who need them. However, off-label drug use correlates with significant increases in adverse drug effects for patients, especially when the use is not supported by significant scientific research, and it has caused significant harm to the public. In order to stop these negative effects without stifling off-label drug use’s benefits, this article proposes a two-part solution that will encourage physicians to prescribe and administer off-label drugs in accordance with society's expectations of safety.

The Commodification of Human Beings

By Lauren Maloney

The Moore and Myriad decisions poorly interpret the statutory language in the Patent Act, making it easier for human beings to become fungible objects bought and sold in the marketplace. Although that statute requires that inventions and discoveries be new, both decisions fail to recognize this. The courts ignore the uniqueness of each person’s body parts, leading to two practices: the coercion/corruption marketplace dichotomy and the loss of “personhood” within a person’s property. The cases reduce people to mere objects, commodifying human beings and objectifying them in the marketplace.