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?…

Compassion for Patients but Not for Parents? Medical Marijuana, Decriminalization & Child Protective Services

By Jess Cochrane

Despite the federal Controlled Substances Act’s wholesale prohibition of cannabis—classifying marijuana as a Schedule I substance with no potential medical use—twenty states and Washington D.C. have approved medicinal marijuana programs, and 17 have “decriminalized” possession of small amounts of the plant for personal use. In 2008 and 2012, Massachusetts voters approved marijuana reform ballot initiatives in recognition of marijuana’s potential medicinal value and the unnecessarily harsh consequences for petty possession of the substance. Both laws carve out certain circumstances under which an adult may use and possess limited amounts of marijuana, subject to minimal oversight from state agencies.

In this article, I analyze the protections which both laws offer to pregnant women, parents, and caretakers of minor children, who, compared with non-parenting individuals, face an added layer of possible state sanctions for marijuana possession in the form of child protective services (“CPS”) actions.

Tripping Over TRIPS: Developing Countries’ Access to Lifesaving Medications

By Ashley Cohen and Cassandra Montgomery

After years of pressure, the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) has become a prerequisite for any country if it wishes to join the World Trade Organization (WTO).  TRIPS is an international treaty which globalizes and regulates intellectual property.  Article 31 in the TRIPS Agreement deals with authorized use of patents without the authorization of the patent holder.   In this article we specifically examine some problems and potential solutions of authorized use for emergencies provided for in Article 31.   Many countries sign onto the TRIPS Agreement in order to benefit from joining the WTO.  However, most developing countries are not equipped to meet the demands of the TRIPS Agreement, though they are allowed four years to comply with its requirements.   These third-world countries often need lifesaving drugs they cannot afford to produce themselves and cannot acquire without special provisions.  Consequently, it is necessary to allow special provisions in the TRIPS Agreement to meet the pharmaceutical and health care needs of these developing countries.  New provisions and clarifications are required to remove this barrier to pharmaceutical access. The dilemma lies in how to successfully implement such provisions.