Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Child pornography (1)
- Criminal punishment (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Hung jury (1)
- Incapacitation (1)
-
- Legal limbo (1)
- Misconduct (1)
- Mistrials (1)
- Ohio Due Course of Law clause (1)
- Ohio Supreme Court (1)
- Plea deals (1)
- Rehabilitation (1)
- Retributivism (1)
- Sentencing Reform Act (1)
- Sexual exploitation (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Trial judges (1)
- U.S. Sentencing Commission (1)
- United States v. Booker (1)
- Utilitarianism (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Criminal Law
Stuck In Ohio's Legal Limbo, How Many Mistrials Are Too Many Mistrials?: Exploring New Factors That Help A Trial Judge In Ohio Know Whether To Exercise Her Authority To Dismiss An Indictment With Prejudice, Especially Following Repeated Hung Juries, Samantha M. Cira
Cleveland State Law Review
Multiple mistrials following validly-prosecuted trials are becoming an increasingly harsh reality in today’s criminal justice system. Currently, the Ohio Supreme Court has not provided any guidelines to help its trial judges know when to make the crucial decision to dismiss an indictment with prejudice following a string of properly-declared mistrials, especially due to repeated hung juries. Despite multiple mistrials that continue to result in no conviction, criminal defendants often languish behind bars, suffering detrimental psychological harm and a loss of personal freedom as they remain in “legal limbo” waiting to retry their case. Furthermore, continuously retrying defendants cuts against fundamental …
Punishment Without Purpose: The Retributive And Utilitarian Failures Of The Child Pornography Non-Production Sentencing Guidelines, Brittany Lowe
Punishment Without Purpose: The Retributive And Utilitarian Failures Of The Child Pornography Non-Production Sentencing Guidelines, Brittany Lowe
Cleveland State Law Review
Pursuant to the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984, Congress established the U.S. Sentencing Commission to formulate an empirical set of federal sentencing Guidelines. With the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines, Congress intended to further the basic purposes of criminal punishment—deterrence, incapacitation, just punishment, and rehabilitation. Nevertheless, the Guidelines were instantaneously met with disapproval. Asserting that the mandatory Guidelines violated the Constitution, scholars and judges argued that the Commission usurped Congress’s role by prescribing punishments that were essentially binding law. In 2005, the Supreme Court held that the Guidelines were discretionary in United States v. Booker.
While this decision resolved many of …