Law Commons^™

Lost Souls: Constitutional Implications For The Deficiencies In Treatment For Persons With Mental Illness In Custody, Katherine L. Smith

Golden Gate University Law Review

This Comment explores systemic deficiencies of access to mental health care in prison systems and the Eighth Amendment implications of those deficiencies. Because the Eighth Amendment prohibits, among other things, infliction of cruel and unusual punishments, when denial of adequate mental health care results in undue suffering, the conditions of confinement may violate the Constitution. Therefore, there must be mechanisms in place to ensure necessary treatment is provided while protecting individual rights.

Part I of this Comment addresses the duty a state owes to those it incarcerates (e.g., to provide food, clothing, recreation, education, medical care) and what standards exist …

Just Desserts, Or A Rotten Apple? Will The Ninth Circuit's Decision In Doe V. Otte Stand To Ensure That Convicted Sex Offenders Are Not Excessively Punished?, Colleen Miles

Golden Gate University Law Review

In Doe v. Otte, the Ninth Circuit addressed the constitutionality of Alaska's sex offender registration and notification statute. In finding that Alaska's statute violated the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Ninth Circuit focused on the legislature's intent and the statute's punitive effect in deciding how far a state, and more specifically Alaska, can go to inform its citizens of the whereabouts of released sex offenders.

Mckenzie V. Day: Is Twenty Years On Death Row Cruel And Unusual Punishment?, Amber A. Bell

Golden Gate University Law Review

In 1976, the United States Supreme Court decided that capital punishment does not violate the Eighth Amendment's protection against cruel and unusual punishment. This note raises the question whether extended incarceration on death row invokes the protections of the Eighth Amendment. This note examines four aspects of this issue. First, it traces the facts and procedural history of McKenzie. Second, the history of cruel and unusual punishment jurisprudence is discussed. Third, it details and analyzes the majority and dissenting opinions. Finally, it demonstrates that McKenzie is a poorly reasoned opinion.