Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Keyword
-
- Judges (3)
- Judicial discretion (2)
- Capital punishment (1)
- Chemical Weapons Convention Implementation Act (1)
- Congress (1)
-
- Correctional policy (1)
- Corrections (1)
- Criminal justice reform (1)
- Criminal justice system (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Cross Examination (1)
- Deterrence and incapacitation (1)
- Forensic psychiatry (1)
- Juror (1)
- Jurors (1)
- Jury (1)
- Justifications for blame and punishment (1)
- Mass incarceration (1)
- Nonpaternalistic and paternalistic rehabilitation (1)
- Ponsor (1)
- Prison (1)
- Public prosecutors (1)
- Remorse and forensic practice (1)
- Restitution (1)
- Retribution (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Statutory interpretation (1)
- Supreme Court (1)
- Trial Advocacy (1)
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Judges
Proportionality, Discretion, And The Roles Of Judges And Prosecutors At Sentencing, Palma Paciocco
Proportionality, Discretion, And The Roles Of Judges And Prosecutors At Sentencing, Palma Paciocco
Articles & Book Chapters
The Supreme Court of Canada recently held that prosecutors are not constitutionally obligated to consider the principle of proportionality when exercising their discretion in a manner that narrows the range of available sentences: since only judges are responsible for sentencing, they alone are constitutionally required to ensure proportionality. When mandatory minimum sentences apply, however, judges have limited sentencing discretion and may be unable to achieve proportionality. If the Court takes the principle of proportionality seriously, and if it insists that only judges are constitutionally bound to enforce that principle, it must therefore create new tools whereby judges can avoid imposing …
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.
The Growth Of Incarceration In The United States: Exploring Causes And Consequences, Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, F. Stevens Redburn
The Growth Of Incarceration In The United States: Exploring Causes And Consequences, Jeremy Travis, Bruce Western, F. Stevens Redburn
Publications and Research
After decades of stability from the 1920s to the early 1970s, the rate of incarceration in the United States more than quadrupled in the past four decades. The Committee on the Causes and Consequences of High Rates of Incarceration in the United States was established under the auspices of the National Research Council, supported by the National Institute of Justice and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, to review evidence on the causes and consequences of these high incarceration rates and the implications of this evidence for public policy.
Our work encompassed research on, and analyses of, the …
The Jury Wants To Take The Podium -- But Even With The Authority To Do So, Can It? An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Jurors' Questioning Of Witnesses At Trial, Mitchell J. Frank
The Jury Wants To Take The Podium -- But Even With The Authority To Do So, Can It? An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Jurors' Questioning Of Witnesses At Trial, Mitchell J. Frank
Faculty Scholarship
No abstract provided.
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.
Bond V. United States: Concurring In The Judgment, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Bond V. United States: Concurring In The Judgment, Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Bond v. United States presented the deep constitutional question of whether a treaty can increase the legislative power of Congress. Unfortunately, a majority of the Court managed to sidestep the constitutional issue by dodgy statutory interpretation. But the other three Justices—Scalia, Thomas, and Alito—all wrote important concurrences in the judgment, grappling with the constitutional issues presented. In particular, Justice Scalia’s opinion (joined by Justice Thomas), is a masterpiece, eloquently demonstrating that Missouri v. Holland is wrong and should be overruled: a treaty cannot increase the legislative power of Congress.
Objective Mens Rea And Attenuated Subjectivism: Guidance From Justice Charron In R. V. Beatty, Palma Paciocco
Objective Mens Rea And Attenuated Subjectivism: Guidance From Justice Charron In R. V. Beatty, Palma Paciocco
Articles & Book Chapters
Justin Ronald Beatty was driving on the Trans-Canada Highway on July 23, 2003 when, for no apparent reason, his truck suddenly crossed the solid centre line and collided with an oncoming car, killing three people. Beatty was charged with dangerous operation of a motor vehicle causing death. He was acquitted at trial on the grounds that his momentary lapse of attention was not enough to establish fault. The Crown appealed, and the Court of Appeal ordered a new trial after concluding that the trial judge had misapplied the fault standard. Beatty appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, which undertook …