Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Due Process (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- Abuse (1)
- Accountability (1)
-
- Admissibility (1)
- Adult Criminal Court (1)
- Aggravating Circumstances (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Capital Sentence (1)
- Client (1)
- Clientless (1)
- Confession (1)
- Conflict of Interest (1)
- Constitutional Law (1)
- County (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Death Eligibility (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Death Selection (1)
- Debt Collection (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Discretion (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Ethics (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Fourth Amendment (1)
- Furman v. Georgia (1)
- Gregg v. Georgia (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Legal History
Prosecutorial Discretion: The Difficulty And Necessity Of Public Inquiry, Bruce A. Green
Prosecutorial Discretion: The Difficulty And Necessity Of Public Inquiry, Bruce A. Green
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Prosecutors’ discretionary decisions have enormous impact on individuals and communities. Often, prosecutors exercise their vast power and discretion in questionable ways. This Article argues that, to encourage prosecutors to use their power wisely and not abusively, there is a need for more informed public discussion of prosecutorial discretion, particularly with regard to prosecutors’ discretionary decisions about whether to bring criminal charges and which charges to bring. But the Article also highlights two reasons why informed public discussion is difficult—first, because public and professional expectations about how prosecutors should use their power are vague; and, second, because, particularly in individual cases, …
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Where The Constitution Falls Short: Confession Admissibility And Police Regulation, Courtney E. Lewis
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
A confession presented at trial is one of the most damning pieces of evidence against a criminal defendant, which means that the rules governing its admissibility are critical. At the outset of confession admissibility in the United States, the judiciary focused on a confession’s truthfulness. Culminating in the landmark case Miranda v. Arizona, judicial concern with the reliability of confessions shifted away from whether a confession was true and towards curtailing unconstitutional police misconduct. Post-hoc constitutionality review, however, is arguably inappropriate. Such review is inappropriate largely because the reviewing court must find that the confession was voluntary only by …
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 …
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 …