Law Commons^™

Free Will's Enormous Cost: Why Retribution, Grounded In Free Will, Is An Invalid And Impractical Penal Goal, Matthew D. Moyer

Notre Dame Law Review

The lack of free will in human experience causes clear problems for criminal punishment. Free will is a central assumption of retribution; without the free choice to tear the moral fabric of society, one’s actions cannot warrant that she receives punishment. For its invalidity and cost, retribution should not be used as a penological goal in the creation of laws or sentencing. Utilitarian goals, aimed at the social good, should be used in retribution’s place.

Preclusion And Criminal Judgment, Lee Kovarsky

Notre Dame Law Review

The defining question in modern habeas corpus law involves the finality

of a state conviction: What preclusive effect does (and should) a criminal

judgment have? Res judicata and collateral estoppel —the famous preclusion

rules for civil judgments—accommodate basic legal interests in fairness,

certitude, and sovereignty. Legal institutions carefully calibrate the preclusive

effect of civil judgments because judicial resources are scarce, because

the reliability and legitimacy of prior process can vary, and because courts

wield the authority of a repeat-playing sovereign that will find its own civil

judgments attacked in foreign litigation. In stark contrast to the legal sophistication

lavished on …

Beyond Law And Fact: Jury Evaluation Of Law Enforcement, Lauren M. Ouziel

Notre Dame Law Review

Criminal trials today are as much about the adequacy and legitimacy of the defendant’s accusers—police and prosecutors—as the alleged deeds of the accused. Yet we lack theory to conceptualize this reality, doctrine to set its parameters, and institutional mechanisms to adapt to it. The traditional framework used by courts and scholars to delineate the jury’s role—along the continuum between “fact-finding” and “law-finding”—is inadequate to the task. Jury evaluations of law enforcement are more accurately conceptualized as enforcement-finding, a process that functions both in and outside that continuum. In considering enforcement-finding’s justification and proper scope, history offers a useful analytical frame. …

The Consequences Today Of The United States' Brutal Post-9/11 Interrogation Techniques, Peter Jan Honigsberg

Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy

Penetrating the minds and souls of alleged terrorists while still upholding the constitution, federal law, and the human rights obligation to treat the suspects with dignity and without torture or cruel, inhuman, and degrading treatment was not the immediate objective for high-ranking American officials and military interrogators in the early years following the attacks on the World Trade Center in New York and the Pentagon in Washington, D.C. on September 11, 2001. Although the United States was a party to the Geneva Conventions (GC), the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), and the Convention Against Torture (CAT)—all three …

Efficiency, Enforcement, And Punishment, Jim Staihar

Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy

The law and economics literature on punishment reveals strong reasons of efficiency to adopt an extreme enforcement policy for any type of crime as a means to promoting deterrence. Under such an extreme policy, a crime’s severity of punishment would be set extremely high, but its probability of punishment would be set extremely low by minimizing the resources devoted to enforcing the law against the crime. This sort of policy applied to a moderately serious crime, such as a simple assault, would seem strongly unreasonable all things considered. However, it is not immediately obvious why such a policy would be …

Representing The United States Government: Reconceiving The Federal Prosecutor's Role Through A Historical Lens, Scott Ingram

Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy

For nearly 100 years courts and legal scholars have held prosecutors to the “justice” standard, meaning that the prosecutor’s first duty is to ensure that justice is done. With this command, prosecutors have increased their discretion. The modern prosecutor’s power is unrivaled in the criminal justice system. Judges and defense attorneys have ceded some of their power to prosecutors. The prosecutor’s power has led a host of commentators to critique prosecutorial use of power for a variety of reasons. Rather than add to this voluminous literature by defending or critiquing prosecutorial power, this Article challenges the underlying assumption of prosecutorial …

Competent Hunger Strikers: Applying The Lessons From Northern Ireland To The Force-Feeding In Guantanamo, Sara Cloon

Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy

The United States allows force-feeding of prisoners, regardless of their state of mind or mental health because they deem preservation of life as paramount. In the United Kingdom, a prisoner who is of a sound mind “can be allowed to starve himself to death.”1 This difference is due to the balance between the importance of preservation of life and of the right to self-determination and autonomy in medical decisions. My note will first briefly explore the history of force-feeding prisoners who are protesting for political purposes in both countries, and the relevant cases and statues that led up to the …

Capital Punishment Of Unintentional Felony Murder, Guyora Binder, Brenner Fissell, Robert Weisberg

Notre Dame Law Review

Under the prevailing interpretation of the Eighth Amendment in the lower courts, a defendant who causes a death inadvertently in the course of a felony is eligible for capital punishment. This unfortunate interpretation rests on an unduly mechanical reading of the Supreme Court’s decisions in Enmund v. Florida and Tison v. Arizona, which require culpability for capital punishment of co-felons who do not kill. The lower courts have drawn the unwarranted inference that these cases permit execution of those who cause death without any culpability towards death. This Article shows that this mechanical reading of precedent is mistaken, because the …

Subconstitutional Checks, Shima Baradaran Baughman

Notre Dame Law Review

Constitutional checks are an important part of the American justice system. The Constitution demands structural checks where it provides commensurate power. The Constitution includes several explicit checks in criminal law. Criminal defendants have rights to counsel, indictment by grand jury, and trial by jury; the public or executive elects or appoints prosecutors; legislatures limit actions of police and prosecutors; and courts enforce individual constitutional rights and stop executive misconduct. However, these checks have rarely functioned as intended because the Constitution and criminal law have failed to create—what I call—“subconstitutional checks” to adapt to the changes of the modern criminal state. …

Coordinating Compliance Incentives, Veronica Root

Journal Articles

In today’s regulatory environment, a corporation engaged in wrongdoing can be sure of one thing: regulators will point to an ineffective compliance program as a key cause of institutional misconduct. The explosion in the importance of compliance is unsurprising given the emphasis that governmental actors — from the Department of Justice, to the Securities and Exchange Commission, to even the Commerce Department — place on the need for institutions to adopt “effective compliance programs.” The governmental actors that demand effective compliance programs, however, have narrow scopes of authority. DOJ Fraud handles violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, while the …

A Humble Justice, Marah S. Mcleod

Journal Articles

Media and scholarly critics often claim that Justice Thomas's criminal law opinions reflect intentional cruelty or callousness, and dismiss his opinions without engaging seriously with their substance.
This Essay contends that judicial humility is a far more plausible explanation for Justice Thomas's criminal case decisions. If observers recognize that his approach to the law is guided by humility, rather than his own cruel or callous views, they will be more likely to consider the substance of his opinions and will benefit from wrestling with his challenging jurisprudential and historical perspective - even if they do not agree with the conclusions …