Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
30 = 20: ‘Understanding’ Maximum Sentence Enhancements, Frank R. Herrmann S.J.
30 = 20: ‘Understanding’ Maximum Sentence Enhancements, Frank R. Herrmann S.J.
Frank R. Herrmann, S.J.
In this article, Professor Herrmann argues that the due process protections of a criminal trial should apply to aggravating factors that under current “maximum-enhancing statutes” allow judges to impose lengthier punishments in the sentencing phase. Part I considers the Supreme Court's rationale for refusing to apply full due process safeguards to all types of sentencing schemes. This background will reveal the unique quality of maximum-enhancing statutes and establish why the due process protections of a criminal trial should apply to sentencing under maximum-enhancing statutes. Part I, therefore, undertakes to explain courts' rationales to deny criminal defendants full criminal due process …
Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right, Dan Markel, Chad Flanders, David C. Gray
Beyond Experience: Getting Retributive Justice Right, Dan Markel, Chad Flanders, David C. Gray
David C. Gray
How central should hedonic adaptation be to the establishment of sentencing policy? In earlier work, Professors Bronsteen, Buccafusco, and Masur (BBM) drew some normative significance from the psychological studies of adaptability for punishment policy. In particular, they argued that retributivists and utilitarians alike are obliged on pain of inconsistency to take account of the fact that most prisoners, most of the time, adapt to imprisonment in fairly short order, and therefore suffer much less than most of us would expect. They also argued that ex-prisoners don't adapt well upon re-entry to society and that social planners should consider their post-release …
The Eleventh Circuit's Selective Assault On Sentencing Discretion, Adam Shajnfeld
The Eleventh Circuit's Selective Assault On Sentencing Discretion, Adam Shajnfeld
Adam Shajnfeld
Ever since the Supreme Court declared that the sentences which district courts impose on criminal defendants are to be reviewed on appeal for “unreasonableness,” the standard’s contours have remained elusive and mired in controversy, despite the Court’s repeated attempts at elucidation. In few instances is this confounding state of affairs more apparent and acute than in the Eleventh Circuit’s recent lengthy and factious en banc decision in United States v. Irey. This article explores Irey’s merits, mistakes, and lessons, trying to locate each within the broader context of the Eleventh Circuit’s sentencing jurisprudence. In doing so, the article advances three …
"Terror Among The Gum Trees" - Is Our Criminal Legal Framework Adequate To Curb The Peril Of Bushfire Arson In Australia, John L. Anderson
"Terror Among The Gum Trees" - Is Our Criminal Legal Framework Adequate To Curb The Peril Of Bushfire Arson In Australia, John L. Anderson
John L Anderson
No abstract provided.