Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Extraordinary And Compelling: Madison V. Alabama And The Issue Of Prison Reform For Elderly Prisoners, Jennifer Leto
Extraordinary And Compelling: Madison V. Alabama And The Issue Of Prison Reform For Elderly Prisoners, Jennifer Leto
University of Miami Race & Social Justice Law Review
No abstract provided.
Recent Developments, Raelynn J. Hillhouse
A Comparative Study On Death Penalty Statutes And Their Effects On Certain Minority Groups In Light Of Furman V. Georgia, Analise Nuxoll
A Comparative Study On Death Penalty Statutes And Their Effects On Certain Minority Groups In Light Of Furman V. Georgia, Analise Nuxoll
Journal of the National Association of Administrative Law Judiciary
Part One of this comment will address the recent history of the death penalty in the United States, focusing on Furman v. Georgia, which placed a four-year moratorium on the death penalty in 1972. Part Two examines which states still have death penalty statutes and the reasons for choosing the selected states for further analysis. Part Two also addresses the difference between facial and as-applied attacks on the state statutes and the reason for analyzing the statutes under as applied unconstitutionality. Part Three explains the thought behind choosing to examine the death penalty’s effect on racial minorities, low socio-economic classes, …
Individualized Sentencing, William W. Berry
Individualized Sentencing, William W. Berry
Washington and Lee Law Review
In Woodson v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court proscribed the use of mandatory death sentences. One year later, in Lockett v. Ohio, the Court expanded this principle to hold that defendants in capital cases were entitled to “individualized sentencing determinations.” The Court’s reasoning in both cases centered on the seriousness of the death penalty. Because the death penalty is “different” in its seriousness and irrevocability, the Court required the sentencing court, whether judge or jury, to assess the individualized characteristics of the offender and the offense before imposing a sentence. In 2012, the Court expanded this Eighth Amendment concept …
Criminally Homeless? The Eighth Amendment Prohibition Against Penalizing Status, Tim Donaldson
Criminally Homeless? The Eighth Amendment Prohibition Against Penalizing Status, Tim Donaldson
Concordia Law Review
The article examines the extent to which the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause of the Eighth Amendment protects the ability of homeless persons to subsist in public places. It reviews Martin v. City of Boise and how the Eighth Amendment has been applied to test the constitutionality of local laws targeted at the homeless. It discusses whether homelessness constitutes a recognizable status protected by the Eighth Amendment, and, if so, whether protection is extended to unavoidable conduct resulting from that status.
Punishing Poverty: Robinson & The Criminal Cash Bond System, Lauren Bennett
Punishing Poverty: Robinson & The Criminal Cash Bond System, Lauren Bennett
Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice
The current cash bail system works in a way that punishes poverty. In Robinson v. California, the Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment to punish an individual for a status or condition. Poverty is a status. The cash bail system is unconstitutional under Robinson and the Eighth Amendment because it punishes the status of poverty. Similar to drug addiction, poverty “may be contracted innocently or involuntarily or it might even take hold from the moment of a person’s birth.” Kalief Browder had no control over his family’s financial position. Yet, this financial position kept him …
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …