Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Entire DC Network
Unacceptable Risk: The Failure Of Georgia’S “Guilty But Intellectually Disabled” Statute And A Call For Change, Logan Purvis
Unacceptable Risk: The Failure Of Georgia’S “Guilty But Intellectually Disabled” Statute And A Call For Change, Logan Purvis
Georgia Law Review
In 1988, Georgia became the first state in the nation to prohibit the execution of intellectually disabled criminal defendants. At the time, this groundbreaking action played a critical role in shaping the national debate surrounding the criminal justice system’s treatment of this group of individuals, culminating in the United States Supreme Court’s own prohibition in 2002. A drafting error in Georgia’s statute, however, created a highly prejudicial process for determining intellectual disability, all but ensuring that the law’s protections are unattainable for those who seek it. Despite this error, Georgia’s process has remained the same since the statute’s enactment with …
Faithful Execution In The Fifty States, Zachary S. Price
Faithful Execution In The Fifty States, Zachary S. Price
Georgia Law Review
Amid heightened political conflict over criminal-justice policy, norms surrounding prosecutorial discretion have shifted rapidly. Under the prior mainstream approach, prosecutors exercised broad charging discretion, but generally did so tacitly and in case-by-case fashion out of deference to statutory law’s primacy. Under an emerging alternative approach, associated for the moment with progressive politics, prosecutors categorically and transparently suspend enforcement of laws they consider unjust or unwise. The federal government under President Obama employed this theory in high-profile policies relating to marijuana crimes, as well as immigration and the Affordable Care Act. More recently, a number of self-described “progressive prosecutors” have employed …
You’Re Out!: Three Strikes Against The Plra’S Three Strikes Rule, Kasey Clark
You’Re Out!: Three Strikes Against The Plra’S Three Strikes Rule, Kasey Clark
Georgia Law Review
As federal court caseloads increased in the twentieth century, concerned jurists and academics pointed their fingers at many potential culprits. One culprit in particular, however, caught the attention of Congress: suits brought by prisoners. To curtail what it believed was an influx of frivolous prisoner litigation, Congress passed the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) in 1996. One provision of the PLRA, known as the “three strikes rule,” prohibits a prisoner from proceeding in forma pauperis if three or more of the prisoner’s prior actions or appeals have been dismissed as frivolous or malicious or for failure to state a claim …