Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Institutional Antiracism And Critical Pedagogy: A Quantum Leap Forward For Legal Education And The Legal Academy, Danielle M. Conway
Institutional Antiracism And Critical Pedagogy: A Quantum Leap Forward For Legal Education And The Legal Academy, Danielle M. Conway
Faculty Scholarly Works
A fundamental launchpad for redeeming American society is to look to the historical and contextual goals of the Second Founding—the Reconstruction Amendments—and grasp the lessons about justice and equality for all by focusing on the principles of institutional antiracism. While our nation should deploy teaching and learning strategies at all levels of the American system of education, legal education must be out front leading the way to incorporate institutional antiracism through critical pedagogy.
This article provides the historical context in which legal education developed in the antebellum and postbellum periods and up to what might be deemed the “Third Founding” …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …