Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Judges (2)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional theory (1)
- Criminal justice system (1)
-
- Criminal law (1)
- Deterrence and incapacitation (1)
- Forensic psychiatry (1)
- J. Skelly Wright (1)
- Judicial discretion (1)
- Justifications for blame and punishment (1)
- Legal liberalism (1)
- Nonpaternalistic and paternalistic rehabilitation (1)
- Ponsor (1)
- Remorse and forensic practice (1)
- Restitution (1)
- Retribution (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Separation of powers (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Book Review: American Jericho: A Book Review Of The Hanging Judge By Michael A. Ponsor, Giovanna Shay
Book Review: American Jericho: A Book Review Of The Hanging Judge By Michael A. Ponsor, Giovanna Shay
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
J. Skelly Wright And The Limits Of Liberalism, Louis Michael Seidman
J. Skelly Wright And The Limits Of Liberalism, Louis Michael Seidman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This essay, written for a symposium on the life and work of United States Court of Appeals Judge J. Skelly Wright, makes four points. First, Judge Wright was an important participant in the liberal legal tradition. The tradition sought to liberate law from arid formalism and to use it as a technique for progressive reform. However, legal liberals also believed that there were limits on what judges could do–-limits rooted in both its liberalism and its legalism. Second, Wright occupied a position on the left fringe of the liberal legal tradition, and he therefore devoted much of his career to …
Commentary: Reflections On Remorse, Stephen J. Morse
Commentary: Reflections On Remorse, Stephen J. Morse
All Faculty Scholarship
This commentary on Zhong et al. begins by addressing the definition of remorse. It then primarily focuses on the relation between remorse and various justifications for punishment commonly accepted in Anglo-American jurisprudence and suggests that remorse cannot be used in a principled way in sentencing. It examines whether forensic psychiatrists have special expertise in evaluating remorse and concludes that they do not. The final section is a pessimistic meditation on sentencing disparities, which is a striking finding of Zhong et al.