Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Essential Elements, Nancy J. King, Susan R. Klein
Essential Elements, Nancy J. King, Susan R. Klein
Vanderbilt Law Review
For well over a century the United States Supreme Court has debated who has final authority to define what is a "crime" for purposes of applying the procedural protections guaranteed by the Constitution in criminal cases. After numerous shifts back and forth from judicial to legislative supremacy,' the Court has settled upon a multi-factor analysis for policing the criminal-civil divide, an analysis that permits courts to override legislative intent to define an action as civil in the rare case where the action waddles and quacks like a crime. This tug-of-war over the finality of legislative labels in defining crime and …
Specific Crime Vs. Criminal Ways: Criminal Conduct And Responsibility In Rule 3e1.1, Matthew Richardson
Specific Crime Vs. Criminal Ways: Criminal Conduct And Responsibility In Rule 3e1.1, Matthew Richardson
Vanderbilt Law Review
The United States Sentencing Commission ("Sentencing Commission") drafted Rule 3E1.1 with an inherent ambiguity, one that concerns both the Rule's purpose and design. Rule 3E1.1 allows for a reduction in sentence if a criminal "accepts responsibility" for his offense.' As result of the Rule's ambiguous language, prior tensions in interpretation of its meaning have spilled over into the current debate over sentence reductions.
The inherent ambiguity results from the Rule's genesis. The Sentencing Commission enacted the Rule with the purpose of increasing predictability in sentencing by reducing judicial discretion. Before the enactment of the Rule, mitigating and aggravating circumstances allowed …