Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
- Keyword
-
- United States Supreme Court (2)
- Access to the courts (1)
- Children (1)
- Constitutionality (1)
- Crimes (1)
-
- Cruel and unusual punishment (1)
- Decision making (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Expected value (1)
- Graham v. Florida (1)
- Injuries (1)
- Judical review (1)
- Judicial overreach (1)
- Juvenile justice (1)
- Legislative intent (1)
- Legislative purpose (1)
- Life without parole (1)
- Precedents (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Severance (1)
- Standing (1)
- Stare decisis (1)
- Trials (1)
- Value (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle
Transforming Juvenile Justice: Making Doctrine Out Of Dicta In Graham V. Florida, Jason Zolle
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In the late 1980s and 1990s, many state legislatures radically altered the way that their laws treated children accused of crimes. Responding to what was perceived of as an epidemic of juvenile violence, academics and policymakers began to think of child criminals as a "new breed" of incorrigible "superpredators." States responded by making it easier for prosecutors to try and sentence juveniles as adults, even making it mandatory in some circumstances. Yet in the past decade, the Supreme Court handed down four opinions that limit the states' ability to treat children as adults in the justice system. Roper v. Simmons …
Statutory Interdependence In Severability Analysis, Rachel J. Ezzell
Statutory Interdependence In Severability Analysis, Rachel J. Ezzell
Michigan Law Review
According to conventional wisdom, when a court rules a statutory provision unconstitutional, it must sever that provision or strike down the entire statute. This understanding is incomplete. In practice, courts may engage in compound severance: invalidating additional, otherwise constitutional provisions of the statute without striking down the entire statute. They reason that the degree of interrelation between those provisions is so significant that severance of one compels severance of the other. As a result, a subset of the statute remains law. The power to craft such subsets raises constitutional concerns, and yet the jurisprudence concerning statutory interdependence is inconsistent and …
Standing's Expected Value, Jonathan Remy Nash
Standing's Expected Value, Jonathan Remy Nash
Michigan Law Review
This Article argues in favor of standing based on expected value of harm. Standing doctrine has been constructed in a way that is oblivious to the idea of expected value. If people have suffered a loss with a positive expected value, they have suffered an "injury in fact." The incorporation of expected value into standing doctrine casts doubt on many of the Supreme Court's decisions in which it denies standing because the relevant injury is too "speculative" or is not "likely" to be redressed by a decree in the plaintiff's favor. This Article addresses this shortcoming in standing jurisprudence by …
The Rule Of Law And The Perils Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel
The Rule Of Law And The Perils Of Precedent, Randy J. Kozel
Michigan Law Review First Impressions
In a world where circumstances never changed and where every judicial decision was unassailably correct, applying the doctrine of stare decisis would be a breeze. Fidelity to precedent and commitment to sound legal interpretation would meld into a single, coherent enterprise. That world, alas, is not the one we live in. Like so much else in law, the concept of stare decisis encompasses a series of trade-offs-and difficult ones at that. Prominent among them is the tension between allowing past decisions to remain settled and establishing a body of legal rules that is flexible enough to adapt and improve over …