Jurisprudence Commons^™

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

Do We Know How To Punish?, Benjamin L. Apt

Benjamin L. Apt

A number of current theories attempt to explain the purpose and need for criminal punishment. All of them depend on some sort of normative basis in justifying why the state may penalize people found guilty of crimes. Yet each of these theories lacks an epistemological foundation; none of them explains how we can know what form punishments should take. The article analyses the epistemological gaps in the predominant theories of punishment: retributivism, including limited-retributivism; and consequentialism in its various versions, ranging from deterrence to the reparative theories such as restorative justice and rehabilitation. It demonstrates that the common putative epistemological …

Decisions Rules And Conduct Rules: On Acoustic Separation In Criminal Law, Meir Dan-Cohen

Meir Dan-Cohen

No abstract provided.

0n Executing Treatment-Resistant Schizophrenics: Identity And The Construction Of “Synthetic” Competency, Theodore Y. Blumoff

Theodore Y. Blumoff

Since 2003, death penalty jurisdictions have been permitted to use psychotropic drugs to “restore” the competency of schizophrenics so they can execute them. Exactly why it is permissible to execute a “synthetically” or “artificially” competent individual is unclear in light of Ford v. Wainwright, a 1986 decision in which the United States Supreme Court, following ancient custom and common law rule, held that the cruel and unusual prohibition of the Eighth Amendment prohibited execution of the insane. The lack of clarity follows from the inability of the Court to agree on the reason the tradition persists. Nonetheless, health care providers …

Dualism And Doctrine, Alex Stein, Dov Fox

Alex Stein

What kinds of harm among those that tortfeasors inflict are worthy of compensation? Which forms of self-incriminating evidence are privileged against government compulsion? What sorts of facts constitute a criminal defendant’s intent? Existing doctrine pins the answer to all of these questions on whether the injury, facts, or evidence at stake are “mental” or “physical.” The assumption that operations of the mind are meaningfully distinct from those of the body animates fundamental rules in our law.

A tort victim cannot recover for mental harm on its own because the law presumes that he is able to unfeel any suffering arising …