Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 3 of 3

Full-Text Articles in Law

The Battered Wife Syndrome: A Potential Defense To A Homicide Charge, Thomas G. Kieviet Feb 2013

The Battered Wife Syndrome: A Potential Defense To A Homicide Charge, Thomas G. Kieviet

Pepperdine Law Review

No abstract provided.


Corporate Homicide: The Stark Realities Of Artificial Beings And Legal Fictions , Douglas S. Anderson Feb 2013

Corporate Homicide: The Stark Realities Of Artificial Beings And Legal Fictions , Douglas S. Anderson

Pepperdine Law Review

In the aftermath of one of the most highly publicized trials in product liability annals-the celebrated Pinto case-the legal question raised by that litigation remains unresolved. Controversy continues as to whether a corporation should be convicted of homicide when it knowingly markets an unsafe product that results in death. Today the answer is a resounding "no", in light of state statutes defining homicide as the killing of one human being by another, difficulties in finding the requisite criminal intent; and the practical problems of placing a legal fiction behind bars. However, there are recent indications that these present obstacles to …


Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich Jan 2013

Certainty In A World Of Uncertainty: Proposing Statutory Guidance In Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole., Sonia Mardarewich

The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Race and Social Justice

In Miller v. Alabama, the United States Supreme Court held that mandatory life sentences without parole imposed upon juveniles was unconstitutional. The Court reasoned that the sentence was cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The Court, however, did not hold it was unconstitutional to sentence a juvenile to life without parole if there was “transferred intent” or “reckless disregard.” Nonetheless, the Court effectively abolished state discretion and required sentencing courts to consider an offender’s youth and attendant characteristics as mitigating circumstances. The Court, however, did not specify what sentencing guidelines should dictate. Thus, states are now …