Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 14 of 14
Full-Text Articles in Law
A Solution To Michigan's Child Shackling Problem, Gabe Newland
A Solution To Michigan's Child Shackling Problem, Gabe Newland
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Detained children routinely appear before Michigan's juvenile courts shackled with handcuffs, leg irons, and belly chains. Once security officers bring a child to court in these shackles, the child usually remains in them for her hearing or trial. In Michigan, as in many other states, no statute or court rule requires the judge to decide whether shackles are necessary. This Essay argues that Michigan should pass legislation or amend state court rules to create a presumption against shackling children. Unless a child poses a substantial risk of flight or physical danger and less restrictive alternatives to shackling will not adequately …
Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle
Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In the late 1980s and 1990s, many state legislatures radically altered the way that their laws treated children accused of crimes. Responding to what was perceived of as an epidemic of juvenile violence, academics and policymakers began to think of child criminals as a "new breed" of incorrigible "superpredators." States responded by making it easier for prosecutors to try and sentence juveniles as adults, even making it mandatory in some circumstances. Yet in the past decade, the Supreme Court handed down four opinions that limit the states' ability to treat children as adults in the justice system. Roper v. Simmons …
Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl: Two-And-A-Half Ways To Destroy Indian Law, Marcia A. Yablon-Zug
Adoptive Couple V. Baby Girl: Two-And-A-Half Ways To Destroy Indian Law, Marcia A. Yablon-Zug
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In December 2011, Judge Malphrus of the South Carolina family court ordered Matt and Melanie Capobianco to relinquish custody of Veronica, their two-year-old, adopted daughter, to her biological father, Dusten Brown. A federal statute known as the Indian Child Welfare Act ("ICWA") mandated Veronica's return. However, the court's decision to return Veronica pursuant to this law incited national outrage and strident calls for the Act's repeal. While this outrage was misplaced, it may nonetheless have influenced the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear the appeal. The case of Adoptive Couple v. Baby Girl is emotionally complicated, but it is not …
Who's Bringing The Children?: Expanding The Family Exemption For Child Smuggling Offenses, Rebecca M. Abel
Who's Bringing The Children?: Expanding The Family Exemption For Child Smuggling Offenses, Rebecca M. Abel
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Under immigration law, an alien smuggling offense takes place when one knowingly encourages, induces, assists, abets, or aids an alien to enter or to try to enter the United States. Committing this offense is cause for either removal or inadmissibility charges under the Immigration and Nationality Act ("INA"). In addition, a federal criminal conviction for alien smuggling under INA section 274(a)(1)(A) or 274(a)(2) classifies the immigrant as an aggravated felon, leading to near certain deportation. Although the INA levies harsh penalties against smugglers, the practice has not showed any signs of slowing. In 2010, the United States Border Patrol apprehended …
J.D.B. V. North Carolina And The Reasonable Person, Christopher Jackson
J.D.B. V. North Carolina And The Reasonable Person, Christopher Jackson
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
This Term, the Supreme Court was presented with a prime opportunity to provide some much-needed clarification on a "backdrop" issue of law-one of many topics that arises in a variety of legal contexts, but is rarely analyzed on its own terms. In J.D.B. v. North Carolina, the Court considered whether age was a relevant factor in determining if a suspect is "in custody" for Miranda purposes, and thus must have her rights read to her before being questioned by the police. Miranda, like dozens of other areas of law, employs a reasonable person test on the custodial question: it asks …
Kids Are Different, Stephen St.Vincent
Kids Are Different, Stephen St.Vincent
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The Supreme Court recently handed down its decision in Graham v. Florida. The case involved a juvenile, Graham, who was sentenced to life in prison after being convicted as an adult of a nonhomicidal crime. The offense, a home invasion robbery, was his second; the first was attempted robbery. Due to Florida's abolition of parole, the judge's imposition of a life sentence meant that Graham was constructively sentenced to life without parole for a nonhomicide crime. Graham challenged this sentence as unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment. Somewhat surprisingly, the Supreme Court invalidated Graham's sentence by a 6-3 majority. By a …
Strong Medicine: Toward Effective Sentencing Of Child Pornography Offenders, Kristin Carlson
Strong Medicine: Toward Effective Sentencing Of Child Pornography Offenders, Kristin Carlson
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In recent years, possessors of child pornography have entered the federal criminal justice at an alarming rate. In 2006, child pornography cases accounted for sixty-nine percent of the child exploitation cases that were prosecuted federally. Average federal sentences for these offenses also rose sharply, by about 300 percent over the past fourteen years. The mean sentence imposed for child pornography offenses increased from thirty-six months in 1994 to 109 months by 2008. The severe sentences imposed on possessors of child pornography in federal courts have inspired an ongoing deb ate. Critics feel the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines are too harsh on …
Parents Should Not Be Legally Liable For Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children, Jay Gordon
Parents Should Not Be Legally Liable For Refusing To Vaccinate Their Children, Jay Gordon
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Should a parent who takes advantage of a personal belief exemption to avoid vaccinating a child be held liable if that child infects other people? No, because there are valid medical reasons for choosing this exemption and tracing direct transmission of these illnesses from an unvaccinated child to another person is virtually impossible.
The Problem Of Vaccination Noncompliance: Public Health Goals And The Limitations Of Tort Law, Daniel B. Rubin, Sophie Kasimow
The Problem Of Vaccination Noncompliance: Public Health Goals And The Limitations Of Tort Law, Daniel B. Rubin, Sophie Kasimow
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Imposing tort liability on parents who fail to vaccinate their children would not serve the public health and public policy interests that drive childhood immunization efforts. The public policy goals of vaccination are to slow the spread of disease and to reduce mortality and morbidity. Our country’s public health laws already play a substantial role in furthering these goals. Although application of tort law may be an appropriate response to some of the problems that result from vaccination noncompliance, there also is a need to cultivate public understanding of the connection between individual actions and collective wellbeing. It is doubtful …
Gambling With The Health Of Others, Stephen P. Teret, Jon S. Vernick
Gambling With The Health Of Others, Stephen P. Teret, Jon S. Vernick
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The health and wellbeing of the public is, in part, a function of the behavior of individuals. When one individual’s behavior places another at a foreseeable and easily preventable risk of illness or injury, tort liability can play a valuable role in discouraging that conduct. This is true in the context of childhood immunization.
Unintended Consequences: The Primacy Of Public Trust In Vaccination, Jason L. Schwartz
Unintended Consequences: The Primacy Of Public Trust In Vaccination, Jason L. Schwartz
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
The increasing availability of personal belief exemptions from state vaccination requirements is a growing concern among proponents of vaccination. Holding parents of non-vaccinated children liable to those they infect is among the responses proposed to maintain high vaccination rates. Even if motivated by a sincere desire to maximize the benefits of vaccination throughout society, such a step would be inadvisable, further entrenching opponents of vaccination and adding to the atmosphere of confusion and unnecessary alarm that has become increasingly common among parents of children for whom vaccination is recommended.
Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exemptions: Considering Legal Responses, Alexandra Stewart
Challenging Personal Belief Immunization Exemptions: Considering Legal Responses, Alexandra Stewart
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
Public health agencies and citizens should employ legal approaches to hold parents accountable for refusing to vaccinate their children. The judiciary would craft an effective response to defeat the threat posed by these parents. Public-nuisance law may offer a legal mechanism to hold vaccine objectors liable for their actions.
Choices Should Have Consequences: Failure To Vaccinate, Harm To Others, And Civil Liability, Douglas S. Diekema
Choices Should Have Consequences: Failure To Vaccinate, Harm To Others, And Civil Liability, Douglas S. Diekema
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
A parent’s decision not to vaccinate a child may place others at risk if the child becomes infected and exposes others to the disease. Should an individual harmed by an infection transmitted from a child whose parents chose to forgo vaccination have a negligence claim against those parents? While I do not hold a legal degree and therefore cannot speak directly to issues of law, as a physician and ethicist it seems to me that the basic elements that comprise negligence claims—harm, duty, breach of duty, and causation—are met in some cases where parents forgo vaccination.
Still "Left In The Dark": The Confrontation Clause And Child Abuse Cases After Davis V. Washington, Anthony J. Franze, Jacob E. Smiles
Still "Left In The Dark": The Confrontation Clause And Child Abuse Cases After Davis V. Washington, Anthony J. Franze, Jacob E. Smiles
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In his concurring opinion in Crawford v. Washington, Chief Justice Rehnquist criticized the majority for holding that the Confrontation Clause applies to “testimonial” statements but leaving for “another day” any effort to define sufficiently what “testimonial” means. Prosecutors and defendants, he said, “should not be left in the dark in this manner.” Over the next two years, both sides grappled with the meaning of testimonial, each gleaning import from sections of Crawford that seemingly proved their test was the right one. When the Court granted certiorari in Davis v. Washington and Hammon v. Indiana (hereinafter Davis), hopes were high that …