As computational power, the volume of available data, IT systems’ autonomy, and the human-like capabilities of machines increase, robots and AI systems have substantial and growing implications for the law and raise a host of challenges to current legal doctrines. The main question to be answered is whether the foundations and general principles of private law and criminal law offer a functional and adaptive legal framework for the “autonomous systems” phenomena. The main purpose of this book is to identify and explore possible trajectories for the development of civil and criminal liability; for our understanding of the attribution link to autonomous systems; and, in particular, for the punishment of unlawful conduct in connection with their operation. AI decision-making processes – including judicial sentencing – also warrant close attention in this regard. Since AI is moving faster than the process of regulatory recalibration, this book provides valuable insights on its redesign and on the harmonization, at the European level, of the current regulatory frameworks, in order to keep pace with technological changes. Providing a broader and more comprehensive picture of the legal challenges posed by autonomous systems, this book covers a wide range of topics, including the regulation of autonomous vehicles, data protection and governance, personality rights, intellectual property, corporate governance, and contract conclusion and termination issues arising from automated decisions, blockchain technology and AI applications, particularly in the banking and finance sectors. The authors are legal experts from around the world with extensive academic and/or practical experience in these areas.

Forty years after Tom Wolfe, Hunter S. Thompson, and Gay Talese launched the New Journalism movement, Robert S. Boynton sits down with nineteen practitioners of what he calls the New New Journalism to discuss their methods, writings and careers. The New New Journalists are first and foremost brilliant reporters who immerse themselves completely in their subjects. Jon Krakauer accompanies a mountaineering expedition to Everest. Ted Conover works for nearly a year as a prison guard. Susan Orlean follows orchid fanciers to reveal an obsessive subculture few knew existed. Adrian Nicole LeBlanc spends nearly a decade reporting on a family in the South Bronx. And like their muckraking early twentieth-century precursors, they are drawn to the most pressing issues of the day: Alex Kotlowitz, Leon Dash, and William Finnegan to race and class; Ron Rosenbaum to the problem of evil; Michael Lewis to boom-and-bust economies; Richard Ben Cramer to the nitty gritty of politics. How do they do it? In these interviews, they reveal the techniques and inspirations behind their acclaimed works, from their felt-tip pens, tape recorders, long car rides, and assumed identities; to their intimate understanding of the way a truly great story unfolds. Interviews with: Gay Talese Jane Kramer Calvin Trillin Richard Ben Cramer Ted Conover Alex Kotlowitz Richard Preston William Langewiesche Eric Schlosser Leon Dash William Finnegan Jonathan Harr Jon Krakauer Adrian Nicole LeBlanc Michael Lewis Susan Orlean Ron Rosenbaum Lawrence Weschler Lawrence Wright

From today’s vantage point it can be denied that the confidence in the abilities of globalism, mobility, and cosmopolitanism to illuminate cultural signification processes of our time has been severely shaken. In the face of this crisis, a key concept of this globalizing optimism as World Literature has been for the past twenty years necessarily is in the need of a comprehensive revision. World Literature, Cosmopolitanism, Globality: Beyond, Against, Post, Otherwise offers a wide range of contributions approaching the blind spots of the globally oriented Humanities for phenomena that in one way or another have gone beyond the discourses, aesthetics, and political positions of liberal cosmopolitanism and neoliberal globalization. Departing basically (but not exclusively) from different examples of Latin American literatures and cultures in globalized contexts, this volume provides innovative insights into critical readings of World Literature and its related conceptualizations. A timely book that embraces highly innovative perspectives, it will be a mustread for all scholars involved in the field of the global dimensions of literature.

The North American Mosaic has four overarching features. First, it is, to the extent feasible, based on comparable information on the status and trends of major indicators of the state of the environment in Canada,Mexico, and the United States. Second, the report confirms that these three countries together make up an incredibly complex, dynamic, and interconnected ecosystem in which humans play a dominant and decisive role. Third, the report raises important and sometimes disquieting questions concerning the sustainability of some current trends. Finally, the report is a reminder that our economic, social, and physical well-being are utterly dependent on the life-sustaining services provided by nature. This report emphasizes the importance of developing mutually compatible economic, social, and environmental goals and policies across the three-country region.

A theme that has persisted throughout the history of American corrections is that efforts should be made to reform offenders. In particular, at the beginning of the 1900s, the rehabilitative ideal was enthusiastically trumpeted and helped to direct the renovation of the correctional system (e.g., implementation of indeterminate sentencing, parole, probation, a separate juvenile justice system). For the next seven decades, offender treatment reigned as the dominant correctional philosophy. Then, in the early 1970s, rehabilitation suffered a precipitous reversal of fortune. The larger disruptions in American society in this era prompted a general critique of the “state run” criminal justice system. Rehabilitation was blamed by liberals for allowing the state to act coercively against offenders, and was blamed by conservatives for allowing the state to act leniently toward offenders. In this context, the death knell of rehabilitation was seemingly sounded by Robert Martinson's (1974b) influential “nothing works” essay, which reported that few treatment programs reduced recidivism. This review of evaluation studies gave legitimacy to the antitreatment sentiments of the day; it ostensibly “proved” what everyone “already knew”: Rehabilitation did not work. In the subsequent quarter century, a growing revisionist movement has questioned Martinson's portrayal of the empirical status of the effectiveness of treatment interventions. Through painstaking literature reviews, these revisionist scholars have shown that many correctional treatment programs are effective in decreasing recidivism. More recently, they have undertaken more sophisticated quantitative syntheses of an increasing body of evaluation studies through a technique called “meta-analysis.” These meta-analyses reveal that across evaluation studies, the recidivism rate is, on average, 10 percentage points lower for the treatment group than for the control group. However, this research has also suggested that some correctional interventions have no effect on offender criminality (e.g., punishment-oriented programs), while others achieve substantial reductions in recidivism (i.e., approximately 25 percent). This variation in program success has led to a search for those “principles” that distinguish effective treatment interventions from ineffective ones. There is theoretical and empirical support for the conclusion that the rehabilitation programs that achieve the greatest reductions in recidivism use cognitive-behavioral treatments, target known predictors of crime for change, and intervene mainly with high-risk offenders. “Multisystemic treatment” is a concrete example of an effective program that largely conforms to these principles. In the time ahead, it would appear prudent that correctional policy and practice be “evidence based.” Knowledgeable about the extant research, policymakers would embrace the view that rehabilitation programs, informed by the principles of effective intervention, can “work” to reduce recidivism and thus can help foster public safety. By reaffirming rehabilitation, they would also be pursuing a policy that is consistent with public opinion research showing that Americans continue to believe that offender treatment should be an integral goal of the correctional system.