Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Bucklew V. Precythe : Brief Of Arizona Voice For Crime Victims, Inc., And Melissa Sanders As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Paul Cassell, Allyson N. Ho, Daniel Nowicki, Daniel Chen
Bucklew V. Precythe : Brief Of Arizona Voice For Crime Victims, Inc., And Melissa Sanders As Amici Curiae In Support Of Respondents, Paul Cassell, Allyson N. Ho, Daniel Nowicki, Daniel Chen
Utah Law Faculty Scholarship
This amicus brief in Bucklew v. Precythe discusses how undue delay in capital cases can harm crime victims’ families. After reviewing the facts of the cases, the brief draws on the available scholarship to show how extended delays in criminal cases – and particularly death penalty cases – can compound the harms and exacerbate the trauma that victims’ families suffer. The brief concludes that the important interests of victims should be vindicated by affirming the judgment reached below.
Rethinking The Boundaries Of “Criminal Justice", Benjamin Levin
Rethinking The Boundaries Of “Criminal Justice", Benjamin Levin
Scholarship@WashULaw
This review of The New Criminal Justice Thinking (Sharon Dolovich & Alexandra Natapoff, eds.) tracks the shifting and uncertain contours of “criminal justice” as an object of study and critique. Specifically, I trace two themes in the book: (1) the uncertain boundaries of the “criminal justice system” as a web of laws, actors, and institutions; and (2) the uncertain boundaries of “criminal justice thinking” as a universe of interdisciplinary scholarship, policy discourse, and public engagement. I argue that these two themes speak to critically important questions about the nature of criminal justice scholarship and reform efforts. Without a firm understanding …
The Consensus Myth In Criminal Justice Reform, Benjamin Levin
The Consensus Myth In Criminal Justice Reform, Benjamin Levin
Scholarship@WashULaw
It has become popular to identify a “bipartisan consensus” on criminal justice reform, but how deep is that consensus, actually? This article argues that the purported consensus is largely illusory. Despite shared reformist vocabulary, the consensus rests on distinct critiques that identify different flaws and justify distinct policy solutions. The underlying disagreements transcend traditional left/right political divides and speak to deeper disputes about the state and the role of criminal law in society. The article offers a typology of the two prevailing, but fundamentally distinct, critiques of the system: (1) the quantitative approach (what I call the “over” frame); and …