Law Commons^™

Conclusion: Trigger Crimes & Social Progress, Paul H. Robinson, Sarah M. Robinson

All Faculty Scholarship

Can a crime make our world better? Crimes are the worst of humanity’s wrongs but, oddly, they sometimes do more than anything else to improve our lives. It is often the outrageousness itself that does the work. Ordinary crimes are accepted as the background noise of everyday existence but some crimes make people stop and take notice – because they are so outrageous or so heart-wrenching.

This brief essay explores the dynamic of tragedy, outrage, and reform, illustrating how certain kinds of crimes can trigger real social progress. Several dozen such “trigger crimes” are identified but four in particular are …

Abortion In The Court: The Impact Of Abortion Views On Public Opinion Of The Supreme Court, Robert Heins

Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters

Abortion has long been considered one of the most controversial topics the United States Supreme Court has ruled on. My research examines how one’s opinion on abortion impacts their view of the United States Supreme Court. This analysis will show how much of an impact one policy stance has on the public’s overall view of a much larger institution. To analyze my question, I will utilize American National Election Studies Time Series data from the years 1976, 1988, and 2016. These years will allow me to study the role abortion plays in crafting opinion of the court before the politicization …

Strict Liability's Criminogenic Effect, Paul H. Robinson

All Faculty Scholarship

It is easy to understand the apparent appeal of strict liability to policymakers and legal reformers seeking to reduce crime: if the criminal law can do away with its traditional culpability requirement, it can increase the likelihood of conviction and punishment of those who engage in prohibited conduct or bring about prohibited harm or evil. And such an increase in punishment rate can enhance the crime-control effectiveness of a system built upon general deterrence or incapacitation of the dangerous. Similar arguments support the use of criminal liability for regulatory offenses. Greater punishment rates suggest greater compliance.

But this analysis fails …

Separation Of Powers Legitimacy: An Empirical Inquiry Into Norms About Executive Power, Cary Coglianese, Kristin Firth

All Faculty Scholarship

The continuing debate over the President’s directive authority is but one of the many separation-of-powers issues that have confronted courts, scholars, government officials, and the public in recent years. The Supreme Court, for instance, has considered whether the President possesses the power to make appointments of agency heads without Senate confirmation during certain congressional recesses. The Court has passed judgment recently, but has yet to resolve fully, questions about Congress’s authority to constrain the President’s power to remove the heads of administrative agencies. And the Court has considered the limits on Congress’s ability to delegate legislative authority to other rulemaking …

Perceptions Of Immigration In America, Manuel Cardoza

Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters

Throughout history the United States as a nation saw many waves of immigrants who collectively shaped and helped build the America we see today. Today immigration has become a prevalent issue that is impeding progress and potentially facilitating the rise of new conflicts in a country plagued by civil injustices toward minority groups who are feeling marginalized and discriminated. Immigration desperately needs the attention of the U.S government in order to reach a solution and stop a community from being ostracized. Much of this great nation has been formed and built on the fundamental idea of immigrant forces coming together …

Judicial Activism’S Effect On Judicial Elections, Nick Fernandes

Student Scholar Symposium Abstracts and Posters

High profile Supreme Court cases have become increasingly commonplace, particularly with the Citizens United court decision granting unprecedented rights to corporations. Many in the media have decried these as examples of increasing “judicial activism”. This trend has trickled down to the state supreme courts as justices have increasingly played a more active role in developing policy. Gay marriage has become legalized in numerous states due to this trend. While public sentiment is unlikely to affect the appointed Supreme Court, it could have a substantial impact on state judicial elections.

This paper will specifically be looking at judicial elections in Kentucky. …

The Death Penalty’S “Finely Tuned Depravity Calibrators” Fairness Follies Of Fairness Phonies Fixated On Criminals Instead Of Crimes, Lester Jackson

LESTER JACKSON

It has been loudly and repeatedly proclaimed by opponents that capital punishment is “unfair.” In their view, it is unfair because (1) only some murderers receive the ultimate sentence and (2) they are not the most deserving. Underlying this view is the remarkable assumption that fairness is subject to “fine tuning” and “moral accuracy.” It is argued here that this assumption is indefensible both in theory and in practice. As a theoretical matter, it is insupportable to suggest that matters of conscience, right and wrong, are subject to calibration or “accuracy.” Right and wrong are not determined in the same …

Are Approval Ratings An Accurate Reflection Of Success? Effects Of Media Coverage On Public Opinion Of Colin Powell, Michaela Dalton

e-Research: A Journal of Undergraduate Work

No abstract provided.

American Constitutional Conventions: The Judicially Unenforceable Rules That Combine With Judicial Doctrine And Public Opinion To Regulate Political Behavior, James G. Wilson

Law Faculty Articles and Essays

The concept of nonjusticiability, reflected primarily through the “political question” and the “standing” doctrines, fails to give the Supreme Court (and the rest of us) adequate guidance on how to resolve many constitutional disputes, such as impeachment procedures and standards, congressional expulsions, the scope of federal court jurisdiction, and the use of force abroad. These two doctrines put the Supreme Court on the horns of a false dichotomy. The Court tends to withdraw completely from an issue and from enforcing a textual passage, such as the Republican Guarantee Clause, whenever it makes a determination of nonjusticiability. Conversely, once the Court …