Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Law
Judge William Wayne Justice: A Life Of Human Dignity And Refractory Mules Tribute., Albert H. Kauffman
Judge William Wayne Justice: A Life Of Human Dignity And Refractory Mules Tribute., Albert H. Kauffman
St. Mary's Law Journal
Judge Wayne Justice had a deep impact on the lives of many people and was an unyielding advocate who protected the rights of all U.S. citizens. Many of the Judge’s orders and consent decrees forced Texas to comply with more stringent federal requirements in education and health care and had a far reaching effect across the nation. Judge Justice presided over Doe v. Plyler that ensured the benefit of public education for the children of undocumented immigrants. In United States v. Texas, Judge Justice required that the Texas Education Agency monitor school district actions and policies to assure that they …
Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta
Texas Law's Life Or Death Rule In Capital Sentencing: Scrutinizing Eight Amendment Violations And The Case Of Juan Guerrero, Jr., John Niland, Riddhi Dasgupta
St. Mary's Law Journal
The United States Supreme Court has never explained the Eighth Amendment’s impact in noncapital cases involving a mentally retarded or brain-injured defendant. The Court has not provided guidance to legislatures or lower courts concerning the acceptable balancing of aggravating and mitigating factors and the role that mitigating factors must play in the sentencing decision. A definitive gap exists between the protections afforded to a criminal defendant facing a life sentence as opposed to those confronted with the death penalty. The Court requires sentencing procedures to consider aggravating and mitigating factors, including mental retardation and brain damage, when imposing a death …
The React Security Belt: Stunning Prisoners And Human Rights Groups Into Questioning Whether Its Use Is Permissible Under The United States And Texas Constitutions Comment., Shelley A. Nieto Dahlberg
The React Security Belt: Stunning Prisoners And Human Rights Groups Into Questioning Whether Its Use Is Permissible Under The United States And Texas Constitutions Comment., Shelley A. Nieto Dahlberg
St. Mary's Law Journal
The Remote Electronically Activated Control Technology (REACT) belt infringes upon criminal defendants’ and prisoners’ fundamental rights; therefore, it cannot withstand judicial scrutiny under the United States and Texas Constitutions. This Comment attempts to address and answer issues regarding the REACT belt. The belt constitutes cruel and unusual punishment with the potential to deprive prisoners of their due process rights. The belt disrupts attorney-client communication and destroys a criminal defendant’s presumption of innocence. Furthermore, other alternatives provide effective means to prevent unruly prisoners from destroying the integrity of the courts. Part II of this Comment discusses how the belt works, and …
Use Of Excessive Physical Force Against An Inmate May Constitute Cruel And Unusual Punishment Even Though The Prisoner Does Not Suffer Significant Injury., Anthony A. Avey
St. Mary's Law Journal
In Hudson v. McMillian, the Supreme Court held that use of excessive physical force against an inmate may constitute cruel and unusual punishment even though the prisoner does not suffer any significant injury. The Eighth Amendment has evolved significantly since its adoption in 1791, becoming a complex line of authority which over time expanded the rights of criminals and convicts. Recent cases have attempted to mold the varying Eight Amendment standards into a more cohesive legal doctrine. These efforts were meant to clarify the doctrine of cruel and unusual punishments; however, the divergent interpretations of these decisions rendered Eighth Amendment …
A License To Kill: The Categorical Exemption Of The Mentally Retarded From The Death Penalty., David L. Rumley
A License To Kill: The Categorical Exemption Of The Mentally Retarded From The Death Penalty., David L. Rumley
St. Mary's Law Journal
This Comment will show there is no merit to the argument the Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of capital punishment on all persons considered mentally retarded. This Comment begins with an overview of the historical treatment of mental disabilities, articulating the levels of mental deficiency required for exculpation of criminal responsibility. Next, this Comment discusses the characteristics of persons with mental retardation. This Comment will also discuss the recently enacted statutes’ use of I.Q. tests for determinations of mental retardation. In analyzing these statutes, it becomes apparent a person’s I.Q. should not be prima-facie proof of mental retardation, although state …