Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Constitutional Law (8)
- Criminal Law and Procedure (8)
- Eighth Amendment (5)
- Cruel and unusual punishment (3)
- Originalism (3)
-
- Common law (2)
- Constitution (2)
- Constitutional Interpretation (2)
- Criminal law (2)
- Cruel and Unusual (2)
- Instrumentalism (2)
- Original Meaning (2)
- Punishment (2)
- Sentencing (2)
- Affirmative defense (1)
- Basis of proportionality review (1)
- Bill of rights (1)
- Burden of proof (1)
- Catholic Social Thought (1)
- Chemical castration (1)
- Common Law (1)
- Criminal Law (1)
- Criminal Procedure (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
- Cruel and Unusual Punishment (1)
- Cruel and Unusual Punishments (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Death penalty (1)
- Double Jeopardy (1)
- Eighth amendment (1)
- File Type
Articles 1 - 10 of 10
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments, John F. Stinneford
Dividing Crime, Multiplying Punishments, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
When the government wants to impose exceptionally harsh punishment on a criminal defendant, one of the ways it accomplishes this goal is to divide the defendant’s single course of conduct into multiple offenses that give rise to multiple punishments. The Supreme Court has rendered the Double Jeopardy Clause, the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, and the rule of lenity incapable of handling this problem by emptying them of substantive content and transforming them into mere instruments for effectuation of legislative will. This Article demonstrates that all three doctrines originally reflected a substantive legal preference for life and liberty, and a …
Rethinking Proportionality Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause, John Stinneford
Rethinking Proportionality Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishments Clause, John Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
Although a century has passed since the Supreme Court started reviewing criminal punishments for excessiveness under the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause, this area of doctrine remains highly problematic. The Court has never answered the claim that proportionality review is illegitimate in light of the Eighth Amendment’s original meaning. The Court has also adopted an ever-shifting definition of excessiveness, making the very concept of proportionality incoherent. Finally, the Court’s method of measuring proportionality is unreliable and self contradictory. As a result, a controlling plurality of the Court has insisted that proportionality review be limited to a narrow class of cases. …
The Original Meaning Of "Unusual": The Eighth Amendment As A Bar To Cruel Innovation, John F. Stinneford
The Original Meaning Of "Unusual": The Eighth Amendment As A Bar To Cruel Innovation, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
In recent years, both legal scholars and the American public have become aware that something is not quite right with the Supreme Court's Eighth Amendment jurisprudence. Legal commentators from across the spectrum have described the Court's treatment of the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause as "embarrassing," "ineffectual and incoherent," a "mess," and a "train wreck." The framers of the Bill of Rights understood the word "unusual" to mean "contrary to long usage." Recognition of the word's original meaning will precisely invert the "evolving standards of decency" test and ask the Court to compare challenged punishments with the longstanding principles and …
Youth Matters: Miller V. Alabama And The Future Of Juvenile Sentencing, John F. Stinneford
Youth Matters: Miller V. Alabama And The Future Of Juvenile Sentencing, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
In the Supreme Court's latest Eighth Amendment decision, Miller v. Alabama, the Court held that statutes authorizing mandatory sentences of life in prison with no possibility of parole are unconstitutional as applied to offenders who were under eighteen when they committed their crimes. This short essay examines several themes presented in Miller, including the constitutional significance of youth and science, the legitimacy of mandatory life sentences and juvenile transfer statutes, and the conflict between “evolving standards of decency” and the Supreme Court’s “independent judgment.” This essay also introduces important articles by Richard Frase, Carol Steiker and Jordan Steiker, Franklin Zimring …
The Illusory Eighth Amendment, John F. Stinneford
The Illusory Eighth Amendment, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
Although there is no obvious doctrinal connection between the Supreme Court’s Miranda jurisprudence and its Eighth Amendment excessive punishments jurisprudence, the two are deeply connected at the level of methodology. In both areas, the Supreme Court has been criticized for creating “prophylactic” rules that invalidate government actions because they create a mere risk of constitutional violation. In reality, however, both sets of rules deny constitutional protection to a far greater number of individuals with plausible claims of unconstitutional treatment than they protect. This dysfunctional combination of over- and underprotection arises from the Supreme Court’s use of implementation rules as a …
Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford
Punishment Without Culpability, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
For more than half a century, academic commentators have criticized the Supreme Court for failing to articulate a substantive constitutional conception of criminal law. Although the Court enforces various procedural protections that the Constitution provides for criminal defendants, it has left the question of what a crime is purely to the discretion of the legislature. This failure has permitted legislatures to evade the Constitution’s procedural protections by reclassifying crimes as civil causes of action, eliminating key elements (such as mens rea) or reclassifying them as defenses or sentencing factors, and authorizing severe punishments for crimes traditionally considered relatively minor. The …
Incapacitation Through Maiming: Chemical Castration, The Eighth Amendment, And The Denial Of Human Dignity, John F. Stinneford
Incapacitation Through Maiming: Chemical Castration, The Eighth Amendment, And The Denial Of Human Dignity, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
This year marks the tenth anniversary of California's enactment of the nation's first chemical castration law. This law requires certain sex offenders to receive, as part of their punishment, long-term pharmacological treatment involving massive doses of a synthetic female hormone called medroxyprogesterone acetate (MPA). MPA treatment is described as chemical castration because it mimics the effect of surgical castration by eliminating almost all testosterone from the offender's system. The intended effect of MPA treatment is to alter brain and body function by reducing the brain's exposure to testosterone, thus depriving offenders of most (or all) capacity to experience sexual desire …
The "Not A Search" Game, John F. Stinneford
Evolving Away From Evolving Standards Of Decency, John F. Stinneford
Evolving Away From Evolving Standards Of Decency, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
No abstract provided.
Subsidiarity, Federalism, And Federal Prosecution Of Street Crime, John F. Stinneford
Subsidiarity, Federalism, And Federal Prosecution Of Street Crime, John F. Stinneford
John F. Stinneford
No abstract provided.