Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
-
- Southern Methodist University (10)
- University of Michigan Law School (8)
- Columbia Law School (5)
- University of Kentucky (5)
- Cornell University Law School (4)
-
- University of Florida Levin College of Law (4)
- University of Baltimore Law (3)
- University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School (3)
- American University Washington College of Law (2)
- Florida State University College of Law (2)
- New York Law School (2)
- Roger Williams University (2)
- St. John's University School of Law (2)
- University of Missouri School of Law (2)
- Barry University School of Law (1)
- Florida International University College of Law (1)
- Fordham Law School (1)
- Maurer School of Law: Indiana University (1)
- San Jose State University (1)
- Santa Clara Law (1)
- University of Arkansas at Little Rock William H. Bowen School of Law (1)
- University of Colorado Law School (1)
- University of Denver (1)
- University of Georgia School of Law (1)
- University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law (1)
- University of Nevada, Las Vegas -- William S. Boyd School of Law (1)
- University of Pittsburgh School of Law (1)
- University of Richmond (1)
- Yeshiva University, Cardozo School of Law (1)
- Publication Year
- Publication
-
- Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters (10)
- Faculty Scholarship (9)
- Articles (7)
- All Faculty Scholarship (6)
- Faculty Publications (6)
-
- Law Faculty Scholarly Articles (5)
- Cornell Law Faculty Publications (4)
- UF Law Faculty Publications (4)
- Articles & Chapters (2)
- Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals (2)
- Scholarly Publications (2)
- Scholarly Works (2)
- Articles by Maurer Faculty (1)
- Book Chapters (1)
- Faculty Articles (1)
- Faculty Publications, School of Management (1)
- Law School Blogs (1)
- Law Student Publications (1)
- Life of the Law School (1993- ) (1)
- Other Publications (1)
- Publications (1)
- Sturm College of Law: Faculty Scholarship (1)
Articles 61 - 69 of 69
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Defining Excessiveness: Applying The Eighth Amendment To Civil Forfeiture After Austin V. United States, Sarah N. Welling, Medrith Lee Hager
Defining Excessiveness: Applying The Eighth Amendment To Civil Forfeiture After Austin V. United States, Sarah N. Welling, Medrith Lee Hager
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
In 1971, agents of the federal government seized a $20,000 yaught after finding a small quantity of marijuana on board. Ten years later government agents confiscated a twenty-eight foot boat that held drugs consisting of one marijuana twig and two marijuana leaves. Since then, the government has taken possession of a $250,000 home because a drug transaction occurred in a car parked in the driveway and of a smaller dwelling because the owner used the telephone inside to set up a drug deal at another location. In another incident, local, county, state, and federal agents shot and killed the owner …
Hardening Of The Attitudes: Americans' Views On The Death Penalty, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Samuel R. Gross
Hardening Of The Attitudes: Americans' Views On The Death Penalty, Phoebe C. Ellsworth, Samuel R. Gross
Articles
American support for the death penalty has steadily increased since 1966, when opponents outnumbered supporters, and now in the mid-1990s is at a near record high. Research over the last 20 years has tended to confirm the hypothesis that most people’s death penalty attitudes (pro or con) are based on emotion rather than information or rational argument. People feel strongly about the death penalty, know little about it, and feel no need to know more. Factual information (e.g., about deterrence and discrimination) is generally irrelevant to people’s attitudes, and they are aware that this is so. Support for the death …
“Endgame”: Competency And The Execution Of Condemned Inmates—A Proposal To Satisfy The Eighth Amendment's Prohibition Against The Infliction Of Cruel And Unusual Punishment, Roberta M. Harding
“Endgame”: Competency And The Execution Of Condemned Inmates—A Proposal To Satisfy The Eighth Amendment's Prohibition Against The Infliction Of Cruel And Unusual Punishment, Roberta M. Harding
Law Faculty Scholarly Articles
The first section of this Article provides a brief historical overview of the proscription against executing the incompetent and the proffered rationales. This section also examines key factors contributing to the increase in the number of mentally dysfunctional condemned inmates. Then the Article explores the traditional competency-to-execute model that remains in use. This analysis will include a discussion of specific issues, such as: the term used to describe the requisite mental affliction, how that term is defined in order to identify who may ultimately benefit from the rule in Ford v. Wainwright, what standard is appropriate to determine whether …
Overbroad Civil Forfeiture Statutes Are Unconstitutionally Vague, Deborah Duseau, David Schoenbrod
Overbroad Civil Forfeiture Statutes Are Unconstitutionally Vague, Deborah Duseau, David Schoenbrod
Articles & Chapters
No abstract provided.
On The Perils Of Line-Drawing: Juveniles And The Death Penalty, Joseph L. Hoffmann
On The Perils Of Line-Drawing: Juveniles And The Death Penalty, Joseph L. Hoffmann
Articles by Maurer Faculty
No abstract provided.
Sentencing The Mentally Retarded To Death: An Eighth Amendment Analysis, John H. Blume, David Bruck
Sentencing The Mentally Retarded To Death: An Eighth Amendment Analysis, John H. Blume, David Bruck
Cornell Law Faculty Publications
Today, on death rows across the United States, sit a number of men with the minds of children. These people are mentally retarded. Typical of these individuals is Limmie Arthur, who currently is imprisoned at Central Correctional Institution in Columbia, South Carolina. Although Arthur is twenty-eight years old, all the mental health professionals who have evaluated him, including employees of the South Carolina Department of Corrections, agree he has the mental capacity of approximately a 10-year-old child. Arthur was convicted and sentenced to death for the murder of a neighbor. At his first trial, his court appointed attorneys did not …
Eighth Amendment Challenges To The Length Of A Criminal Sentence: Following The Supreme Court “From Precedent To Precedent”, Thomas E. Baker, Fletcher N. Baldwin Jr
Eighth Amendment Challenges To The Length Of A Criminal Sentence: Following The Supreme Court “From Precedent To Precedent”, Thomas E. Baker, Fletcher N. Baldwin Jr
Faculty Publications
Defendant A was convicted twice previously of felonies and sentenced to prison for fraudulent use of a credit card ($80.00) and for passing a forged check ($28.36). Upon his third felony conviction for obtaining money by false pretenses ($120.75), he received a mandatory life sentence under a state recidivist statute.
Punitive Conditions Of Prison Confinement: An Analysis Of Pugh V. Locke And Federal Court Supervision Of State Penal Administration Under The Eighth Amendment, Ira Robbins
Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals
The 1960's marked a watershed for the criminal justice system. In such areas as search and seizure, right to counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination, the federal courts first defined substantive constitutional rights and then imposed them upon disinclined functionaries at the state level. At first, these innovations raised thorny questions of constitutional interpretation about the rights involved, but, as is especially visible in the search and seizure area, the debate more recently has focused on the remedy chosen by the Supreme Court for enforcing these rights against the states.' This pattern of escalating federal involvement in the criminal justice …
"Uncontrollable" Actions And The Eighth Amendment: Implications Of Powell V. Texas, Kent Greenawalt
"Uncontrollable" Actions And The Eighth Amendment: Implications Of Powell V. Texas, Kent Greenawalt
Faculty Scholarship
No questions of criminal justice are more fundamental than the bases for imposing criminal punishment, yet the Federal Constitution says nothing explicit about them. It is, therefore, understandable that the increasing limitations imposed by constitutional interpretation upon procedures for ascertaining criminal guilt have not been accompanied by similar limits upon principles of criminal responsibility. That the difference in treatment is understandable does not, of course, necessarily mean it has been justified.
When the Court struck down a law punishing addiction in Robinson v. California in 1962, it was still unclear whether it was willing to become significantly implicated in developing …