Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (2)
- Criminal Law (2)
- Criminal Procedure (2)
- Law and Politics (2)
- Law and Race (2)
-
- Public Law and Legal Theory (2)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (2)
- Anthropology (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Biological and Physical Anthropology (1)
- Civil Rights and Discrimination (1)
- Comparative and Foreign Law (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- European Law (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Health Law and Policy (1)
- History (1)
- Holocaust and Genocide Studies (1)
- Human Rights Law (1)
- Inequality and Stratification (1)
- International Humanitarian Law (1)
- International Law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Juvenile Law (1)
- Law Enforcement and Corrections (1)
- Legal (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Keyword
-
- 18 USC 7 (1)
- Adjudicative facts (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Behavioral Biology (1)
- Crimes against humanity (1)
-
- Decisionmaking (1)
- Domestic Relations (1)
- Domestic Violence (1)
- Due Process Clause (1)
- Fair trial (1)
- Family Law (1)
- Foster Care (1)
- French courts (1)
- Harmless error (1)
- Human Behavior (1)
- International humanitarian law (1)
- International tribunals (1)
- Judge (1)
- Judicial notice (1)
- Jurisdictional element (1)
- Jurisprudence (1)
- Jury (1)
- Juveniles (1)
- Law and Society (1)
- Legal process (1)
- Legislative facts (1)
- Politicization (1)
- Research (1)
- Ring v. Arizona (1)
- Rule 201 (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Trust Me, I’M A Judge: Why Binding Judicial Notice Of Jurisdictional Facts Violates The Right To Jury Trial, William M. Carter Jr.
Articles
The conventional model of criminal trials holds that the prosecution is required to prove every element of the offense beyond the jury's reasonable doubt. The American criminal justice system is premised on the right of the accused to have all facts relevant to his guilt or innocence decided by a jury of his peers. The role of the judge is seen as limited to deciding issues of law and facilitating the jury's fact-finding. Despite these principles,judges are reluctant to submit to the jury elements of the offense that the judge perceives to be . routine, uncontroversial or uncontested.
One such …
Politicizing The Crime Against Humanity: The French Example, Vivian Grosswald Curran
Politicizing The Crime Against Humanity: The French Example, Vivian Grosswald Curran
Articles
The advantages of world adherence to universally acceptable standards of law and fundamental rights seemed apparent after the Second World War, as they had after the First. Their appeal seems ever greater and their advocates ever more persuasive today. The history of law provides evidence that caution may be in order, however, and that the human propensity to ignore what transpires under the surface of law threatens to dull and silence the ongoing self-examination and self-criticism required in perpetuity by the law if it is to be correlated with justice.
This Essay presents one side, the dark side, of the …
Child Placement Decisions: The Relevance Of Facial Resemblance And Biological Relationships, David J. Herring
Child Placement Decisions: The Relevance Of Facial Resemblance And Biological Relationships, David J. Herring
Articles
This article discusses two studies of evolution and human behavior addressing child-adult relationships and explores implications for policies and practices surrounding placement of children in foster homes. The first study indicates that men favor children whose facial features resemble their own facial features. This study may justify public child welfare decisionmakers in considering facial resemblance as they attempt to place children in safe foster homes.
The second study indicates that parents are likely to invest more in children who are biologically related to them, thus enhancing their long term well-being. Among other implications, this study may justify public child welfare …