Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Shackling Prejudice: Expanding The Deck V. Missouri Rule To Nonjury Proceedings, Sadie Shourd
Shackling Prejudice: Expanding The Deck V. Missouri Rule To Nonjury Proceedings, Sadie Shourd
Vanderbilt Law Review
Courts in the United States have traditionally held that criminal defendants have the right to be free from unwarranted restraints visible to the jury during the guilt phase of a trial. The term “unwarranted restraints” refers to the use of restraints on a defendant absent a court’s individualized determination that such restraints are justified by an essential state interest. In Deck v. Missouri, the Supreme Court expanded the prohibition against unwarranted restraints to the sentencing phase of a trial. The law regarding the unwarranted shackling of defendants in nonjury proceedings, however, remains unsettled. The U.S. Courts of Appeals for the …
Detecting Mens Rea In The Brain, Owen D. Jones, Read Montague, Gideon Yaffe
Detecting Mens Rea In The Brain, Owen D. Jones, Read Montague, Gideon Yaffe
Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications
What if the widely used Model Penal Code (MPC) assumes a distinction between mental states that doesn’t actually exist? The MPC assumes, for instance, that there is a real distinction in real people between the mental states it defines as “knowing” and “reckless.” But is there?
If there are such psychological differences, there must also be brain differences. Consequently, the moral legitimacy of the Model Penal Code’s taxonomy of culpable mental states – which punishes those in defined mental states differently – depends on whether those mental states actually correspond to different brain states in the way the MPC categorization …