Law Commons^™

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. …

Mercenary Criminal Justice, Ronald F. Wright, Wayne A. Logan

Ronald F. Wright

Lately, a growing number of bill collectors stand in line to collect on the debt that criminals owe to society. Courts order payment of costs; legislatures levy conviction surcharges; even private, for-profit entities get a piece of the action, collecting fees for probation supervision services and the like. And some of these collectors beckon even before a final bill is due, such as prosecutors who require suspects to pay diversion fees before they file any charges.

Government budgetary cutbacks during the Great Recession have led criminal justice actors to rely on legal financial obligations (LFOs) as a source of revenue …

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 …

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure In 2013: An Annual Survey Of Developments In The Case Law, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

This is another in a series of articles on developments in the federal case law relating to criminal forfeiture procedure. It covers the cases decided in 2012 and early 2013. The article begins with the cases that illustrate the concept that criminal forfeiture is part of the defendant’s sentence in a criminal case. It then takes the reader more or less chronologically through the litigation of a case, beginning with the seizure and restraint of the property and continuing through the trial and sentencing of the defendant and the adjudication of third-party issues in the post-trial ancillary proceeding. Except in …

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.

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure In 2012: An Annual Survey Of Developments In The Case Law, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

This is an annual review of the case law regarding asset forfeiture in federal criminal cases. It discusses the permissible scope of a forfeiture order, and then takes the reader through each step in the forfeiture process from seizure and restraint to indictment, trial or plea, sentencing, and the ancillary proceeding which the rights and interests of third parties are resolved.

Death Ineligibility And Habeas Corpus, Lee B. Kovarsky

Lee Kovarsky

I examine the interaction between what I call 'death ineligibility' challenges and the habeas writ. A death ineligibility claim alleges that a criminally-confined capital prisoner belongs to a category of offenders for which the Eighth Amendment forbids execution. By contrast, a 'crime innocence' claim alleges that, colloquially speaking, a capital prisoner 'wasn’t there, and didn’t do it.' In the last eight years, the Supreme Court has identified several new ineligibility categories, including mentally retarded offenders. Configured primarily to address crime innocence and procedural challenges, however, modern habeas law is poorly equipped to accommodate ineligibility claims. Death Ineligibility traces the genesis …

Harmelin's Faulty Originalism, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

In Harmelin v. Michigan, in 1991, Justice Scalia, writing only for himself and Chief Justice Rehnquist, set forth the claim that the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, as understood in 1791, did not require proportionality in sentencing. Instead, he argued, it was understood at that time as addressing only certain methods of punishment. Twenty-one years later, the plurality opinion in Harmelin remains the foundation for conservative originalist arguments against the notion that the Clause forbids disproportionate punishment. It has continued to be cited by its adherents, Justices Scalia and Thomas, as recently as the last week of the October 2011 …

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 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 …

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 …

30 = 20: ‘Understanding’ Maximum Sentence Enhancements, Frank R. Herrmann S.J.

Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.

In this article, Professor Herrmann argues that the due process protections of a criminal trial should apply to aggravating factors that under current “maximum-enhancing statutes” allow judges to impose lengthier punishments in the sentencing phase. Part I considers the Supreme Court's rationale for refusing to apply full due process safeguards to all types of sentencing schemes. This background will reveal the unique quality of maximum-enhancing statutes and establish why the due process protections of a criminal trial should apply to sentencing under maximum-enhancing statutes. Part I, therefore, undertakes to explain courts' rationales to deny criminal defendants full criminal due process …

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 …

Tough On Crime (On The State's Dime): How Violent Crime Does Not Drive California Counties’ Incarceration Rates—And Why It Should

W. David Ball

California’s prisons are dangerously and unconstitutionally overcrowded; as a result of the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Plata v. Schwarzenegger, the state must act to reduce its prison population or face court-ordered prisoner releases. The state’s plans to reduce overcrowding are centered around what it calls criminal justice “realignment”, whereby California will send a portion of the state prison population to county facilities. The plan faces opposition from county officials, who see it as pushing the state’s problem on to the counties.

But what if state prison overcrowding is really a county problem? I argue that state prison overcrowding is …

Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right, Dan Markel, Chad Flanders, David C. Gray

David C. Gray

How central should hedonic adaptation be to the establishment of sentencing policy? In earlier work, Professors Bronsteen, Buccafusco, and Masur (BBM) drew some normative significance from the psychological studies of adaptability for punishment policy. In particular, they argued that retributivists and utilitarians alike are obliged on pain of inconsistency to take account of the fact that most prisoners, most of the time, adapt to imprisonment in fairly short order, and therefore suffer much less than most of us would expect. They also argued that ex-prisoners don't adapt well upon re-entry to society and that social planners should consider their post-release …

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.

Rethinking Proportionality Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause, John F. Stinneford

John F. Stinneford

Although a century has passed since the Supreme Court started reviewing criminal punishments for excessiveness under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, this area of doctrine remains highly problematic. The Court has never answered the claim that proportionality review is illegitimate in light of the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning. The Court has also adopted an ever-shifting definition of excessiveness, making the very concept of proportionality incoherent. Finally, the Court’s method of measuring proportionality is unreliable and selfcontradictory. As a result, a controlling plurality of the Court has insisted that proportionality review be limited to a narrow class of cases. This …

Criminal Forfeiture Procedure In 2011: An Annual Survey Of Developments In The Case Law, Stefan D. Cassella

Stefan D Cassella

This is another in a series of articles on developments in the federal case law relating to criminal forfeiture procedure. It covers the cases decided in 2010. Like the earlier articles in this series, this one does not attempt to discuss every topic related to criminal forfeiture, but covers those matters on which there was a significant development in the case law in the past year, or a significant change in the rules or statutes governing criminal forfeiture procedure.

Civil, Criminal, Or Mary Jane: Stigma, Legislative Labels, And The Civil Case At The Heart Of Criminal Procedure, W. Ball

W. David Ball

In criminal cases, any fact which increases the maximum punishment must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. This rule, which comes from Apprendi v. New Jersey, looks to what facts do, not what they are called; in Justice Scalia’s memorable turn of phrase, it applies whether the legislature has labeled operant facts “elements, enhancements, or Mary Jane.” Civil statutes, however, can deprive an individual of her liberty on identical facts without needing to meet the beyond a reasonable doubt standard of proof. If Apprendi is, indeed, functional, why is it limited to formally criminal cases? Why does …

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.

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 …

Sentencing Paris, Jodie O'Leary

Jodie O'Leary

Extract: For a number of years now punishing Paris Hilton may have been on the mind of many a person for different reasons. She is guilty of crimes against fashion some would say. Cries of cruelty to animals could also be heard for, among other things, dressing her Chihuahua Tinkerbell in pink Chanel. Parents scorned her as a bad role model for their children.