Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
Justice Scalia's Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence: An Unabashed Foe Of Criminal Defendants, Michael Vitiello
Justice Scalia's Eighth Amendment Jurisprudence: An Unabashed Foe Of Criminal Defendants, Michael Vitiello
Akron Law Review
Justice Scalia’s death has already produced a host of commentary on his career. Depending on the issue, Justice Scalia’s legacy is quite complicated. Justice Scalia’s commitment to originalism explains at least some of his pro-defendant positions. Some of his supporters point to such examples to support a claim that Justice Scalia was principled in his application of his jurisprudential philosophy. However, in one area, Justice Scalia was an unabashed foe of criminal defendants: his Eighth Amendment jurisprudential dealing with terms of imprisonment. There, based on his reading of the historical record, he argued that the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel …
Suspicious Person Ordinances - Due Process Standards; Columbus V. Thompson, Joel R. Campbell
Suspicious Person Ordinances - Due Process Standards; Columbus V. Thompson, Joel R. Campbell
Akron Law Review
In the absence of circumstances involving First Amendment rights, we are left without guidelines as to the conduct which may be made criminal by local suspicious person ordinances. Because of this lack of adequate standards, a case by case determination of criminal conduct under the various ordinances is necessary. In Thompson the defendant's conduct was questionable and the court found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague. We can only hope that this decision has a sufficient impact upon law enforcement officials and local courts to minimize the injury resulting from vagueness.
Suspicious Person Ordinances - Due Process Standards; Columbus V. Thompson, Joel R. Campbell
Suspicious Person Ordinances - Due Process Standards; Columbus V. Thompson, Joel R. Campbell
Akron Law Review
In the absence of circumstances involving First Amendment rights, we are left without guidelines as to the conduct which may be made criminal by local suspicious person ordinances. Because of this lack of adequate standards, a case by case determination of criminal conduct under the various ordinances is necessary. In Thompson the defendant's conduct was questionable and the court found the ordinance unconstitutionally vague. We can only hope that this decision has a sufficient impact upon law enforcement officials and local courts to minimize the injury resulting from vagueness.
Book Review: Psychiatric Justice, Alice M. Batchelder
Book Review: Psychiatric Justice, Alice M. Batchelder
Akron Law Review
In an era in which extensive judicial emphasis has been placed on "due process of law" in criminal proceedings, both in the federal courts and in the state courts, Dr. Szasz's book serves as a jarring reminder that in at least one vital area of the concept of due process, much remains to be done. The emerging definition of due process has enunciated the rights guaranteed the individual by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and Fourteenth Amendments; and viewed within that framework, this book, although published in 1965, remains particularly timely, for Szasz, speaking as a psychiatrist, endeavors to demonstrate how …
Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders; In The Matter Of Gault, Robert M. Kunczt
Constitutional Rights Of Youthful Offenders; In The Matter Of Gault, Robert M. Kunczt
Akron Law Review
After the decisions in Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), and Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478 (1964), which revealed the Supreme Court's solicitude of the constitutional rights of adults, it seemed improbable that the lower courts would long be permitted to continue ignoring the constitutional rights of juveniles. Thus the decision in the principal case, which represents a breakthrough in the assurance of a fair hearing to minors, comes as no surprise. The case holds that under the Fourteenth Amendment a juvenile has a right to notice of …
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst
Death Penalty; Cruel And Unusual Punishment; Individualized Sentencing Determination; Lockett V. Ohio; Bell V. Ohio, James C. Ellerhorst
Akron Law Review
“In Bell v. Ohio and Lockett v. Ohio the United States Supreme Court found the sentencing provisions of the Ohio capital punishment statute to be incompatible with the eighth and fourteenth amendments which prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. These two opinions represent the most recent attempt by the Supreme Court to explain what elements must be included in a constitutionally valid capital punishment statute.”