Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Moral credibility (2)
- Acceptance of a new norm (1)
- Common law criminal law (1)
- Criminal code reform (1)
- Criminal law (1)
-
- Criminal law and procedure (1)
- Criminal law politics (1)
- Criminal sentencing law and policy (1)
- Desert (1)
- Diminished capacity (1)
- Drafting (1)
- Extreme emotional disturbance (1)
- Grading offenses (1)
- Inconsistent statutory language (1)
- International Criminal Court (1)
- International law (1)
- Intuitions of justice (1)
- Legislation (1)
- Limiting judicial discretion (1)
- Mandatory minimum sentences (1)
- Mental illness negating an element (1)
- Military action (1)
- Model Penal Code (1)
- Murder mitigations (1)
- Offense grading (1)
- Partial insanity (1)
- Partial responsibility (1)
- Pennsylvania criminal law (1)
- Pleas (1)
- Proportional punishment (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
Report On Offense Grading In New Jersey, Paul H. Robinson, Rebecca Levenson, Nicholas Feltham, Andrew Sperl, Kristen-Elise Brooks, Agatha Koprowski, Jessica Peake, Benjamin Probber, Brian Trainor
Report On Offense Grading In New Jersey, Paul H. Robinson, Rebecca Levenson, Nicholas Feltham, Andrew Sperl, Kristen-Elise Brooks, Agatha Koprowski, Jessica Peake, Benjamin Probber, Brian Trainor
All Faculty Scholarship
The University of Pennsylvania Criminal Law Research Group was commissioned to do a study of offense grading in New Jersey. After an examination of New Jersey criminal law and a survey of New Jersey residents, the CLRG issued this Final Report. (For the report of a similar project for Pennsylvania, see Report on Offense Grading in Pennsylvania, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1527149, and for an article about the grading project, see The Modern Irrationalities of American Criminal Codes: An Empirical Study of Offense Grading, http://ssrn.com/abstract=1539083, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology (forthcoming 2011).) The New Jersey study found serious conflicts between the relative grading …
Regulating The Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor To Consumer Protection, Stephanos Bibas
Regulating The Plea-Bargaining Market: From Caveat Emptor To Consumer Protection, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
Padilla v. Kentucky was a watershed in the Court’s turn to regulating plea bargaining. For decades, the Supreme Court has focused on jury trials as the central subject of criminal procedure, with only modest and ineffective procedural regulation of guilty pleas. This older view treated trials as the norm, was indifferent to sentencing, trusted judges and juries to protect innocence, and drew clean lines excluding civil proceedings and collateral consequences from its purview. In United States v. Ruiz in 2002, the Court began to focus on the realities of the plea process itself, but did so only half-way. Not until …
Advantaging Aggressors: Justice & Deterrence In International Law, Paul H. Robinson, Adil Ahmad Haque
Advantaging Aggressors: Justice & Deterrence In International Law, Paul H. Robinson, Adil Ahmad Haque
All Faculty Scholarship
Current international law imposes limitations on the use of force to defend against unlawful aggression that improperly advantage unlawful aggressors and disadvantage their victims. The Article gives examples of such rules, governing a variety of situations, showing how clearly unjust they can be. No domestic criminal law system would tolerate their use.
There are good practical reasons why international law should care that its rules are perceived as unjust. Given the lack of an effective international law enforcement mechanism, compliance depends to a large degree upon the moral authority with which international law speaks. Compliance is less likely when its …
Abnormal Mental State Mitigations Or Murder – The U.S. Perspective, Paul H. Robinson
Abnormal Mental State Mitigations Or Murder – The U.S. Perspective, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
This paper examines the U.S. doctrines that allow an offender's abnormal mental state to reduce murder to manslaughter. First, the modern doctrine of "extreme emotional disturbance," as in Model Penal Code Section 210.3(1)(b), mitigates to manslaughter what otherwise would be murder when the killing "is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse." While most American jurisdictions are based upon the Mode Code, this is an area in which many states chose to retain their more narrow common law "provocation" mitigation. Second, the modern doctrine of "mental illness negating an …