Law Commons^™

Privately Failing: Recidivism In Public And Private Prisons, Lee N. Gilgan

Lee N Gilgan

This study would add to available research regarding recidivism rates following incarceration in private prisons in contrast to incarceration in government-run prisons. This is a non-experimental meta-analysis viewing numerous studies discussing the effects of multiple covariants within public and private prisons. Based on the information and conclusion in these studies, we find that there is little overall consensus concerning the effects of increased privatization on recidivism. While many studies find certain aspects of privatization to have some potential effect on recidivism, there are many other aspects that either are out of scope or have a negative effect on recidivism. However, …

Do We Know How To Punish?, Benjamin L. Apt

Benjamin L. Apt

A number of current theories attempt to explain the purpose and need for criminal punishment. All of them depend on some sort of normative basis in justifying why the state may penalize people found guilty of crimes. Yet each of these theories lacks an epistemological foundation; none of them explains how we can know what form punishments should take. The article analyses the epistemological gaps in the predominant theories of punishment: retributivism, including limited-retributivism; and consequentialism in its various versions, ranging from deterrence to the reparative theories such as restorative justice and rehabilitation. It demonstrates that the common putative epistemological …

Unreasonable Doubt: Warren Hill, Aedpa, And The Unconstitutionality Of Georgia's Reasonable Doubt Standard, Adam Lamparello

Adam Lamparello

Georgia’s “beyond a reasonable doubt” standard for determining intellectual disability has led to an absurd—and arbitrary—result. A Georgia state court held that defendant Warren Hill was intellectually disabled, yet still sentenced Hill to death. Seven experts—and the court—deemed Hill disabled under a preponderance of the evidence standard. He remains on death row, however, because Georgia’s “preposterous burden of proof” requires that intellectual disability be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, a standard experts have said is nearly impossible to satisfy. It “effectively limits the constitutional right protected in Atkins,” and creates a conditional, not categorical, ban.

Co-Occurring Substance Use Disorder And Mental Illness In Criminal Offenders, Jayme M. Reisler

Jayme M Reisler

The high rate of comorbid substance use disorder and other mental illness (“dual diagnosis”) poses an enormous obstacle to public policy and sentencing in criminal cases. It is estimated that almost half of all Federal, State, and jail inmates suffer from dual diagnosis – a significantly higher prevalence than in the general population. Yet such inmates lack access to proper and effective treatments for their conditions. Several etiological theories have been put forth to explain the occurrence of dual diagnosis in general. However, virtually no studies have explored possible etiological reasons for the higher prevalence of dual diagnosis specifically in …

Taking Another Look At Second-Look Sentencing, Meghan J. Ryan

Meghan J. Ryan

An unprecedented number of Americans are currently behind bars. Our high rate of incarceration, and the high bills that it generates for American taxpayers, has led to a number of proposals for sentencing reform. For example, a bill recently introduced in Congress would roll back federal mandatory minimum sentences for certain drug offenders, and the Obama Administration has announced a plan to grant clemency to hundreds of non-violent drug offenders. Perhaps the most revolutionary proposal, though, is one advanced by the drafters of the Model Penal Code, namely that judges be given the power to resentence offenders who have been …

The Homicide Survivors’ Fairness-For-Victims Manifesto, Lester Jackson

LESTER JACKSON

Murderer advocates place a far greater value on the lives of the most savage murderers than on the lives of their victims. Let them deny it; their words and deeds conclusively give the lie to that denial. The critical question is this: Whose concept of justice is going to prevail? The concept of a small but vocal well-financed minority with influence and power out of all proportion to its numbers, or that of the large but poorly financed and disorganized majority. In recent decades, the former have dominated. Tragically, compared to media-dominant murderer advocates, victims have been virtually voiceless. Yes, …

Paroline, Restitution, And Transferred Scienter: Child Pornography Possessors And Restitution Based On A Commerce-Clause Derived, Aggregate Proximate Cause Theory, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

This Article responds to the Fifth Circuit’s decision in In re Amy Unknown, which is before the United States Supreme Court on granted writ of certiorari. This Article poses a more logical and legal construct, derived from Commerce Clause analysis, that although each individual possessor of child pornography appears to contribute almost imperceptibly to the victim’s harm, the aggregate effect of possession is sufficient to satisfy the causal nexus required for restitution.

Amicus Brief -- Freddie Lee Hall V. State Of Florida, Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

IQ cutoffs violate the Constitution. In Atkins v. Virginia, the United States Supreme Court recognized three distinct components to intellectual disability: (1) an intelligence quotient; (2) deficits in adaptive functioning; and (3) onset prior to eighteen. The Florida Supreme Court interpreted Fla. Stat. § 921.137(1) to bar evidence of adaptive disability and early onset if a defendant scored above a 70 on an IQ test. As Justice Perry recognized in his partial dissent, that interpretation will lead to the execution of a retarded man. The Amicus brief argues that the Florida Supreme Court's decision should be reversed because it prohibits …

Beyond Finality: How Making Criminal Judgments Less Final Can Further The Interests Of Finality, Andrew Chongseh Kim

Andrew Chongseh Kim

Courts and scholars commonly assume that granting convicted defendants more liberal rights to challenge their judgments would harm society’s interests in “finality.” According to conventional wisdom, finality in criminal judgments is necessary to conserve resources, encourage efficient behavior by defense counsel, and deter crime. Thus, under the common analysis, the extent to which convicted defendants should be allowed to challenge their judgments depends on how much society is willing to sacrifice to validate defendants’ rights. This Article argues that expanding defendants’ rights on post-conviction review does not always harm these interests. Rather, more liberal review can often conserve state resources, …

An Anachronism Too Discordant To Be Suffered: A Comparative Study Of Parliamentary And Presidential Approaches To Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Derek R. Verhagen

Derek R VerHagen

It is well-documented that the United States remains the only western democracy to retain the death penalty and finds itself ranked among the world's leading human rights violators in executions per year. However, prior to the Gregg v. Georgia decision in 1976, ending America's first and only moratorium on capital punishment, the U.S. was well in line with the rest of the civilized world in its approach to the death penalty. This Note argues that America's return to the death penalty is based primarily on the differences between classic parliamentary approaches to regulation and that of the American presidential system. …

Partially Concurrent Sentences, Statutory Interpretation, And Legislative Intent: Amicus Brief Filed In State V. Bryant Wilson (Indiana Supreme Court), Adam Lamparello, Charles Maclean

Adam Lamparello

Indiana Code § 35-50-1-2 states that terms of imprisonment “shall be served concurrently or consecutively.” The Code’s plain language does not authorize courts to impose partially consecutive, blended, or “split sentences. Partially consecutive sentences would impermissibly read into the Code a third sentencing option, thus contradicting Indiana’s well-settled jurisprudence and undermining the goal of reasonable uniformity in sentencing. The decision of the Indiana Court of Appeals should therefore be reversed.

Foreword: A Global Perspective On Sentencing Reforms, Oren Gazal-Ayal

Oren Gazal-Ayal

The articles published in this issue of Law and Contemporary Problems examine the effects of different sentencing reforms across the world. While the effects of sentencing reforms in the United States have been studied extensively, this is the first symposium that examines the effects of sentencing guidelines and alternative policies in a number of western legal systems from a comparative perspective. This issue focuses on how different sentencing policies affect prison population rates, sentence disparity, and the balance of power between the judiciary and prosecutors, while also assessing how sentencing policies respond to temporary punitive surges and moral panics. The …

Do Sentencing Guidelines Increase Prosecutorial Power? An Empirical Study, Oren Gazal-Ayal, Hagit Turjeman, Gideon Fishman

Oren Gazal-Ayal

Traditionally, judges have had tremendous flexibility in sentencing. Offering judges maximum discretion in the sentencing process allows them to consider not only an offender’s criminal history and the severity of the crime committed, but also the complex web of mitigating and aggravating factors present in each case and additional qualitative factors, such as a defendant’s testimony or selfpresentation in a courtroom. When judges are empowered with more discretion, however, there is heightened potential for inter-judge variability in sentencing. In order to reduce sentencing disparities caused by individual sentencers, several countries and jurisdictions, most notably in the United States, have enacted …

The Label Of Life Imprisonment In Australia: A Principled Or Populist Approach To An Ultimate Sentence, John L. Anderson

John L Anderson

No abstract provided.

Breakthrough Science And The New Rehabilitation, Meghan J. Ryan

Meghan J. Ryan

Breakthroughs in pharmacology, genetics, and neuroscience are transforming how society views criminals and thus how society should respond to criminal behavior. Although the criminal law has long been based on notions of culpability, science is undercutting the assumption that offenders are actually responsible for their criminal actions. Further, scientific advances have suggested that criminals can be changed at the biochemical level. The public has become well aware of these advances largely due to pervasive media reporting on these issues and also as a result of the pharmaceutical industry’s incessant advertising of products designed to transform individuals by treating everything from …

The Skeptic's Guide To Information Sharing At Sentencing, Ryan W. Scott

Ryan W. Scott

The “information sharing” model, a leading method of structuring judicial discretion at the sentencing stage of criminal cases, has attracted broad support from scholars and judges. Under this approach, sentencing judges should have access to a robust body of information, including written opinions and statistics, about previous sentences in similar cases. Armed with that information, judges can conform their sentences to those of their colleagues or identify principled reasons for distinguishing them, reducing inter-judge disparity and promoting rationality in sentencing law. This Article takes a skeptical view, arguing that information sharing suffers from three fundamental weaknesses as an alternative to …

Cruel And Unusual Federal Punishments, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Virtually all federal defendants who have challenged their sentences as “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment have failed. This is because the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on cruel and unusual carceral punishments is extraordinarily deferential to legislative judgments about how harsh prison sentences ought to be for particular crimes. This deferential approach stems largely from concerns of federalism, for all of the Court’s modern cases on the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause have addressed state, not federal, sentencing practices. Thus, they have addressed the Eighth Amendment only as incorporated by the Fourteenth. Federal courts accordingly find themselves …

Information Sharing In A Common Law Of Sentencing: A Skeptic's Guide, Ryan W. Scott

Ryan W. Scott

For decades, prominent scholars and judges have called for the development of a “common law of sentencing” in the United States. One strand of scholarship stresses the information sharing function of the common law: sentencing judges need access to a body of written opinions that reveals how other courts have handled similar cases. The idea is that, fueled by better information, case-by-case common law reasoning will promote inter-judge consistency and rationality in sentencing law. This Article takes a skeptical view, identifying three sets of challenges for an information-sharing approach. First, there are daunting information-collection challenges. A healthy common law depends …

The Eleventh Circuit's Selective Assault On Sentencing Discretion, Adam Shajnfeld

Adam Shajnfeld

Ever since the Supreme Court declared that the sentences which district courts impose on criminal defendants are to be reviewed on appeal for “unreasonableness,” the standard’s contours have remained elusive and mired in controversy, despite the Court’s repeated attempts at elucidation. In few instances is this confounding state of affairs more apparent and acute than in the Eleventh Circuit’s recent lengthy and factious en banc decision in United States v. Irey. This article explores Irey’s merits, mistakes, and lessons, trying to locate each within the broader context of the Eleventh Circuit’s sentencing jurisprudence. In doing so, the article advances three …

"Terror Among The Gum Trees" - Is Our Criminal Legal Framework Adequate To Curb The Peril Of Bushfire Arson In Australia, John L. Anderson

John L Anderson

No abstract provided.

Empowering The Sentencing Commission: A Different Resolution To The Cocaine Sentencing Drama, Kip D. Nelson

Kip D Nelson

No abstract provided.

Empowering The Sentencing Commission: A Different Resolution To The Cocaine Sentencing Drama, Kip D. Nelson

Kip D Nelson

No abstract provided.

A Good Time With The Sixth Amendment: The Application Of Apprendi To The Denial Of Good Time Credit, Nicholas J. Xenakis

Nicholas J Xenakis

This Article is about a unique aberration in post-Blakely sentencing jurisprudence. It explains why the Due Process the Sixth Amendment guarantees as articulated in Apprendi v. New Jersey apply to some factual determinations related to the denial of good time credit. At first glance, this is something that should not be. Denials of good time credit are typically evaluated under a ‘some evidence’ standard, and juries normally play no role in such denials since they usually take place post-conviction. Nonetheless, Apprendi does indeed apply to some factual determinations related to the pre-trial behavior of the defendant while incarcerated. In states …

Inter-Judge Sentencing Disparity After Booker: A First Look, Ryan W. Scott

Ryan W. Scott

A central purpose of the Sentencing Reform Act was to reduce inter-judge sentencing disparity, driven not by legitimate differences between offenders and offense conduct, but by the philosophy, politics, or biases of the sentencing judge. The federal Sentencing Guidelines, despite their well-recognized deficiencies, succeeded in reducing that form of unwarranted disparity. But in a series of decisions from 2005 to 2007, the Supreme Court rendered the Guidelines advisory (Booker), set a highly deferential standard for appellate review (Gall), and explicitly authorized judges to reject the policy judgments of the Sentencing Commission (Kimbrough). Since then, the Commission has received extensive anecdotal …

Graham V. Florida: Justice Kennedy's Vision Of Childhood And The Role Of Judges, Tamar R. Birckhead

Tamar R Birckhead

This short essay examines Graham v. Florida, the United States Supreme Court decision holding that the Eighth Amendment’s Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause does not permit a juvenile offender to be sentenced to life in prison without parole for a nonhomicide crime. This essay argues that Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion is grounded not only in Roper v. Simmons, which invalidated the death penalty for juvenile offenders on Eighth Amendment grounds, and Kennedy v. Louisiana, which held that the Eighth Amendment prohibited the death penalty for the offense of rape of a child, but also in Establishment Clause cases set …

Appellate Review Of Sentences: Reconsidering Deference, Michael O'Hear

Michael O'Hear

For the past three decades, the national debate on sentencing policy has focused on the strengths and weaknesses of mandatory guidelines, with guidelines proponents arguing that unfettered judicial discretion at sentencing violates rule-of-law values. However, the number of states with mandatory guidelines, never a majority, has been declining in recent years, and even the federal system switched from mandatory to advisory guidelines in 2005. The trend away from mandatory guidelines has prompted renewed interest in the potential for appellate review of sentences to address rule-of-law concerns. But the appellate courts themselves have long resisted robust review on the ground that …

Why March To A Uniform Beat?: Adding Honesty And Proportionality To The Individualized Tunes Of Federal Sentencing, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Jelani Jefferson Exum

The Federal Sentencing Guidelines were initially created to increase uniformity in sentencing by diminishing the influence of individual judges’ biases in the sentencing determination. However, now that the Guidelines have been rendered advisory by the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker , and circuit courts have been directed to review sentences for “unreasonableness”, most of the Supreme Court’s attention has been focused on ensuring the preservation of uniformity, rather than recognizing the continued importance of bias reduction. The assumption, it seems, is that once uniformity in sentencing is achieved then the potential of judicial bias has been erased. However, …

Debacle: How The Supreme Court Has Mangled American Sentencing Law And How Justice Sotomayor Might Help Fix It, Frank O. Bowman

Frank O. Bowman III

This Article argues that the line of Supreme Court Sixth Amendment jury right cases that began with McMillan v. Pennsylvania in 1986, crescendoed in Blakely v. Washington and United States v. Booker in 2004-2005, and continues in 2009 in cases such as Oregon v. Ice, has been a colossal judicial failure. First, the Court has failed to provide a logically coherent, constitutionally based answer to the fundamental question of what limits the Constitution places on the roles played by the institutional actors in the criminal justice system. It failed to recognize that defining, adjudicating and punishing crimes implicates both the …

“Taking Lives: How The United States Has Violated The International Covenant Of Civil And Political Rights By Sentencing Juveniles To Life Without Parole”, Marina A. Magnuson

Marina A Magnuson

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Roper v. Simmons, which outlawed death sentences for juveniles, several human rights organizations have begun to question the legality of life sentences without parole for juvenile offenders. I will explore the issue of life sentences without the possibility of parole for juvenile offenders and how they violate specific articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). The United States ratified the ICCPR in 1992. However, it reserved the right, in exceptional circumstances, to treat juveniles as adults.

My comment will begin with a brief discussion of the …

The Mercy Of Judges As An Expression Of Natural Law, Mark Osler

Mark Osler

Even though there are strong personal incentives against it, federal judges abandon the sentencing guidelines in about one-third of all cases. Shockingly, when they sentence outside of the range, 96% of the time the sentence is below the range rather than above. The author argues that this tendancy can be seen as a natural law impulse towards mercy, and one that ultimately will undermine any limitation on sentencing discretion in the form of guidelines.