Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Jurisprudence Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Articles 1 - 30 of 159

Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence

Judicious Imprisonment, Gregory Jay Hall Sep 2018

Judicious Imprisonment, Gregory Jay Hall

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Starting August 21, 2018, Americans incarcerated across the United States have been striking back — non-violently. Inmates with jobs are protesting slave-like wages through worker strikes and sit-ins. Inmates also call for an end to racial disparities and an increase in rehabilitation programs. Even more surprisingly, many inmates have begun hunger strikes. Inmates are protesting the numerous ills of prisons: overcrowding, inadequate health care, abysmal mental health care contributing to inmate suicide, violence, disenfranchisement of inmates, and more. While recent reforms have slightly decreased mass incarceration, the current White House administration could likely reverse this trend. President Donald Trump’s and ...


A Brief Summary And Critique Of Criminal Liability Rules For Intoxicated Conduct, Paul H. Robinson Jan 2018

A Brief Summary And Critique Of Criminal Liability Rules For Intoxicated Conduct, Paul H. Robinson

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

This essay provides an overview of the legal issues relating to intoxication, including the effect of voluntary intoxication in imputing to an offender a required offense culpable state of mind that he may not actually have had at the time of the offense; the effect of involuntary intoxication in providing a defense by negating a required offense culpability element or by satisfying the conditions of a general excuse; the legal effect of alcoholism or addiction in rendering intoxication involuntary; and the limitation on using alcoholism or addiction in this way if the offender can be judged to be reasonably responsible ...


Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler Jan 2018

Arguing With Friends, William Baude, Ryan D. Doerfler

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

It is a fact of life that judges sometimes disagree about the best outcome in appealed cases. The question is what they should make of this. The two purest possibilities are to shut out all other views, or else to let them all in, leading one to concede ambiguity and uncertainty in most if not all contested cases.

Drawing on the philosophical concepts of “peer disagreement” and “epistemic peerhood,” we argue that there is a better way. Judges ought to give significant weight to the views of others, but only when those others share the judge’s basic methodology or ...


Modest Retributivism, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2016

Modest Retributivism, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Judge Posner’S Simple Law, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2015

Judge Posner’S Simple Law, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

The world is complex, Richard Posner observes in his most recent book, Reflections on Judging. It follows that, to resolve real-world disputes sensibly, judges must be astute students of the world’s complexity. The problem, he says, is that, thanks to disposition, training, and professional incentives, they aren’t. Worse than that, the legal system generates its own complexity precisely to enable judges “to avoid rather than meet and overcome the challenge of complexity” that the world delivers. Reflections concerns how judges needlessly complexify inherently simple law, and how this complexification can be corrected.

Posner’s diagnoses and prescriptions range ...


Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein Mar 2014

Catalogs, Gideon Parchomovsky, Alex Stein

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

It is a virtual axiom in the world of law that legal norms come in two prototypes: rules and standards. The accepted lore suggests that rules should be formulated to regulate recurrent and frequent behaviors, whose contours can be defined with sufficient precision. Standards, by contrast, should be employed to address complex, variegated, behaviors that require the weighing of multiple variables. Rules rely on an ex ante perspective and are therefore considered the domain of the legislator; standards embody a preference for ex post, ad-hoc, analysis and are therefore considered the domain of courts. The rules/standards dichotomy has become ...


Privacy Law: Positive Theory And Normative Practice, Anita L. Allen Jan 2013

Privacy Law: Positive Theory And Normative Practice, Anita L. Allen

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


On What Distinguishes New Originalism From Old: A Jurisprudential Take, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2013

On What Distinguishes New Originalism From Old: A Jurisprudential Take, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Alexander's Genius, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2013

Alexander's Genius, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Conditional Spending And The (General) Conditional Offer Puzzle, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2013

Conditional Spending And The (General) Conditional Offer Puzzle, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Coercion, Compulsion, And The Medicaid Expansion: A Study In The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2013

Coercion, Compulsion, And The Medicaid Expansion: A Study In The Doctrine Of Unconstitutional Conditions, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


The Normativity Of Copying In Copyright Law, Shyamkrishna Balganesh Nov 2012

The Normativity Of Copying In Copyright Law, Shyamkrishna Balganesh

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Not all copying constitutes copyright infringement. Quite independent of fair use, copyright law requires that an act of copying be qualitatively and quantitatively significant enough or “substantially similar” for it to be actionable. Originating in the nineteenth century, and entirely the creation of courts, copyright’s requirement of “substantial similarity” has thus far received little attention as an independently meaningful normative dimension of the copyright entitlement. This Article offers a novel theory for copyright’s substantial-similarity requirement by placing it firmly at the center of the institution and its various goals and purposes. As a common-law-style device that mirrors the ...


Copyright And Personhood Revisited, Christopher S. Yoo Sep 2012

Copyright And Personhood Revisited, Christopher S. Yoo

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

Personhood theory is almost invariably cited as one of the primary theoretical bases for copyright. The conventional wisdom, which typically invokes the work of Immanuel Kant and Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel as its philosophical foundation, views creative works as the embodiment of their creator’s personality. This unique connection between authors and their works justifies giving authors property interests in the results of their creative efforts.

This Essay argues that the conventional wisdom is fundamentally flawed. It is inconsistent both with Kant’s and Hegel’s theories about the relationship between property and personality and with their specific writings about ...


What Must We Hide: The Ethics Of Privacy And The Ethos Of Disclosure, Anita L. Allen Jan 2012

What Must We Hide: The Ethics Of Privacy And The Ethos Of Disclosure, Anita L. Allen

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Notice-And-Comment Sentencing, Stephanos Bibas, Richard A. Bierschbach Jan 2012

Notice-And-Comment Sentencing, Stephanos Bibas, Richard A. Bierschbach

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Introduction: Punishment And Culpability, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2012

Introduction: Punishment And Culpability, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Rehabilitating Retributivism, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2012

Rehabilitating Retributivism, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

This review essay of Victor Tadros’s new book, ‘‘The Ends of Harm: The Moral Foundations of Criminal Law,’’ responds to Tadros’s energetic and sophisticated attacks on retributivist justifications for criminal punishment. I argue, in a nutshell, that those attacks fail. In defending retributivism, however, I also sketch original views on two questions that retributivism must address but that many or most retributivists have skated past. First, what do wrongdoers deserve – to suffer? to be punished? something else? Second, what does it mean for them to deserve it? That is, what is the normative force or significance of valid ...


What Will Our Future Look Like And How Will We Respond?, Michael A. Fitts Jan 2011

What Will Our Future Look Like And How Will We Respond?, Michael A. Fitts

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Punishment As Contract, Claire Oakes Finkelstein Jan 2011

Punishment As Contract, Claire Oakes Finkelstein

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

This paper provides a sketch of a contractarian approach to punishment, according to a version of contractarianism one might call “rational contractarianism,” by contrast with the normative contractarianism of John Rawls. Rational contractarianism suggests a model according to which rational agents, with maximal, rather than minimal, knowledge of their life circumstances, would agree to the outlines of a particular social institution or set of social institutions because they view themselves as faring best in such a society governed by such institutions, as compared with a society governed by different institutional schemes available for adoption. Applied to the institution of punishment ...


The Myth Of The Fully Informed Rational Actor, Stephanos Bibas Jan 2011

The Myth Of The Fully Informed Rational Actor, Stephanos Bibas

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Two Cheers, Not Three For Sixth Amendment Originalism, Stephanos Bibas Jan 2011

Two Cheers, Not Three For Sixth Amendment Originalism, Stephanos Bibas

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Advocacy Revalued, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Dana A. Remus Jan 2011

Advocacy Revalued, Geoffrey C. Hazard Jr., Dana A. Remus

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

A central and ongoing debate among legal ethics scholars addresses the moral positioning of adversarial advocacy. Most participants in this debate focus on the structure of our legal system and the constituent role of the lawyer-advocate. Many are highly critical, arguing that the core structure of adversarial advocacy is the root cause of many instances of lawyer misconduct. In this Article, we argue that these scholars’ focuses are misguided. Through reflection on Aristotle’s treatise, Rhetoric, we defend advocacy in our legal system’s litigation process as ethically positive and as pivotal to fair and effective dispute resolution. We recognize ...


James Wilson And The Scottish Enlightenment, William Ewald Apr 2010

James Wilson And The Scottish Enlightenment, William Ewald

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Constitutional Constructions And Constitutional Decision Rules: Thoughts On The Carving Of Implementation Space, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2010

Constitutional Constructions And Constitutional Decision Rules: Thoughts On The Carving Of Implementation Space, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Should Bush Administration Lawyers Be Prosecuted For Authorizing Torture?, Claire Oakes Finkelstein, Michael Lewis Jan 2010

Should Bush Administration Lawyers Be Prosecuted For Authorizing Torture?, Claire Oakes Finkelstein, Michael Lewis

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Law, Society, And Medical Malpractice Litigation In Japan, Eric Feldman Jan 2009

Law, Society, And Medical Malpractice Litigation In Japan, Eric Feldman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Policing Politics At Sentencing, Stephanos Bibas, Max M. Schanzenbach, Emerson H. Tiller Jan 2009

Policing Politics At Sentencing, Stephanos Bibas, Max M. Schanzenbach, Emerson H. Tiller

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Time Out, Stephen B. Burbank Jan 2009

Time Out, Stephen B. Burbank

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Originalism Is Bunk, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2009

Originalism Is Bunk, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.


Symposium: Supreme Court Review, Symposium Foreword, Mitchell N. Berman Jan 2009

Symposium: Supreme Court Review, Symposium Foreword, Mitchell N. Berman

Faculty Scholarship at Penn Law

No abstract provided.