Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Grappling With Our Own Errors: Lessons From State V. Blake, Alicia Ochsner Utt
Grappling With Our Own Errors: Lessons From State V. Blake, Alicia Ochsner Utt
Washington and Lee Law Review Online
After fifty years of a failed war on drugs, many states are just now beginning to take steps toward attempting to repair a half-century of harm. By examining the response of Washington’s government at the executive and legislative levels to the Washington Supreme Court’s decision in State v. Blake, this Note identifies some key factors that must be present in the paths forward for all states in their own processes of reform. The stakeholders involved in transforming the criminal legal system must ensure that relief from prior drug-related convictions is automatic, geographically standardized, and complete. Any form of relief …
Juries, Democracy, And Petty Crime, John D. King
Juries, Democracy, And Petty Crime, John D. King
Scholarly Articles
The right to trial by jury in criminal cases is basic to the design of American criminal justice and to the structure of American government. Guaranteed by Article III of the Constitution, the Sixth Amendment, and every one of the original state constitutions, the criminal jury was seen as critically important not only to the protection of individual rights but also to the architecture of American democracy. The vast majority of criminal prosecutions today, however, are resolved without even the prospect of community review by a jury. Despite the textual clarity of the guarantee, the Supreme Court has long recognized …
Individualized Sentencing, William W. Berry
Individualized Sentencing, William W. Berry
Washington and Lee Law Review
In Woodson v. North Carolina, the Supreme Court proscribed the use of mandatory death sentences. One year later, in Lockett v. Ohio, the Court expanded this principle to hold that defendants in capital cases were entitled to “individualized sentencing determinations.” The Court’s reasoning in both cases centered on the seriousness of the death penalty. Because the death penalty is “different” in its seriousness and irrevocability, the Court required the sentencing court, whether judge or jury, to assess the individualized characteristics of the offender and the offense before imposing a sentence. In 2012, the Court expanded this Eighth Amendment concept …