Law Commons^™

Death And Deterrence Redux: Science, Law And Causal Reasoning On Capital Punishment, Jeffrey Fagan

Faculty Scholarship

The essay shows that the new deterrence studies are fraught with numerous technical and conceptual errors: inappropriate methods of statistical analysis, failures to consider several relevant factors that drive murder rates such as drug epidemics, missing data on key variables in key states, the tyranny of a few outlier states and years, weak to non-existent tests of concurrent effects of incarceration, statistical confounding of murder rates with death sentences, failure to consider the general performance of the criminal justice system, artifactual results from truncated time frames, and the absence of any direct test of the components of contemporary theoretical constructions …

The Legality Of The Nsa Wiretapping Program, Evan Tsen Lee

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Multicultural Feminism: Assessing Systemic Fault In A Provocative Context, Camille Nelson

Articles in Law Reviews & Other Academic Journals

INTRODUCTION Strictly speaking, the cultural defense is really no defense at all. Instead, it is the moniker attached by defense attorneys to their advocacy which seeks to personalize the accused in one of two ways: First by injecting a reasonable doubt into the mens rea intent requirement - this would result in acquittal, or second, by contextualizing an affirmative defense, like provocation, by the provision of cultural information about the accused - this would result in mitigated sentencing. Central to defense attorneys' uses of the cultural defense is the criminal defendant's perceived "foreignness." This much has been recognized by scholars …

Compelled Self-Reporting And The Principle Against Compelled Self-Incrimination: Some Comparative Perspectives, Mark Berger

Faculty Works

This article examines the tension between mandatory self-reporting and identification statutes and the right to be free of compelled self-incrimination. The author reviews decisions addressing this issue taken by the European Court of Human Rights ('ECtHR'), the Privy Council, and the Supreme Courts of Canada and the United States. He then analyses applicable public policies and assesses the alternative approaches available to accommodate these conflicting interests.

Cost-Benefit Analysis, The Death Penalty, And Rationales For Punishment, Rahiim Manji

Senior Thesis Projects, 2003-2006

No abstract provided.

Judicial Participation In Plea Negotiations: A Comparative View, Jenia I. Turner

Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters

Current rules in most U.S. jurisdictions prohibit judges from becoming involved in plea negotiations and limit the judges' role to reviewing a plea bargain once it is presented by the parties. The enclosed article surveys three systems that provide for more significant judicial involvement - Germany, Florida, and Connecticut - and suggests that a judge's early input into plea negotiations can render the final disposition more accurate and procedurally just. Based on interviews with practitioners and a review of the case law, the article outlines a model for greater judicial involvement in plea negotiations.

The Death Penalty's Future: Charting The Crosscurrents Of Declining Death Sentences And The Mcveigh Factor, Scott E. Sundby

Articles

No abstract provided.

The Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines Project: Sentencing Factors Applicable To All Offense Types, Model Sentencing Guidelines §3.1 - 3.6, Frank O. Bowman Iii

Faculty Publications

This Article is the ninth of twelve parts of a set of Model Federal Sentencing Guidelines designed to illustrate the feasibility and advantages of a simplified approach to federal sentencing proposed by the Constitution Project Sentencing Initiative. The Model Sentencing Guidelines and the Constitution Project report are all to be published in Volume 18, Number 5 of the Federal Sentencing Reporter. The project is described in an essay titled 'Tis a Gift To Be Simple: A Model Reform of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines.

The Story Of Crawford, Richard D. Friedman

Book Chapters

Michael Crawford had been charged with assault. At his trial, the prosecution offered a statement made in the police station on the night of the incident by Crawford's wife Sylvia, who did not testify at trial. He objected, in part on the ground that this violated his right under the Confrontation Clause. The trial court nevertheless admitted the statement, and Crawford was convicted. The Washington Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the judgment. In rejecting the Confrontation Clause challenge, that court purported to apply the then governing doctrine of Ohio v. Roberts, under which the Clause posed no obstacle to admissibility if …

Summary Of George V. State, 122 Nev. Adv. Op 1, David T. Gluth

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

In 2002, appellant, George, filed a writ of habeas corpus with the Nevada Supreme Court claiming he was deprived his right to appeal. The Nevada Supreme Court then discovered that defendant's original 1985 notice of appeal was never transmitted. The court directed the district court to transmit defendant's notice of appeal and appoint appellate counsel.

Shame And The Meanings Of Punishment, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

Debates over shaming punishments have raged over the past few years, with people like Dan Kahan and Eric Posner for them, while James Whitman and Martha Nussbaum have entered the fray strongly against them. This Essay argues that both sides in the shaming punishment debate have it only party right. Those who favor shaming sanctions are correct that we should (all else being equal) favor those punishments which are expressive rather than those that involve some form of hard treatment. And those who reject shaming sanctions are correct that such sanctions involve forms of humiliation and denials of dignity that …

On Justitia, Race, Gender, And Blindness, Bennett Capers

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Souter Passant, Scalia Rampant: Combat In The Marsh, Samuel R. Gross

Articles

Kansas law provides that unless a capital sentencing jury concludes that the mitigating factors that apply to the defendant’s crime outweigh the aggravating factors, it must sentence the defendant to death. The Kansas Supreme Court held that this law violates the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments because it “impermissibly mandates the death penalty when the jury finds that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances are in equipoise.” On June 26, in Kansas v. Marsh, the Supreme Court reversed in a 5 to 4 opinion by Justice Thomas.

The Paradox Of The Drug Elimination Program In New York City Public Housing, Jeffrey A. Fagan, Garth Davies, Jan Holland

Faculty Scholarship

In this study, we examine the effects of the DEP intervention at three levels of complementary theoretical and practical relevance: the public housing development itself, the neighborhood in which public housing is situated, and the police precinct where the tract is located. From surveys of residents, observations of program activities, and analyses of NYCHA's program records, we compiled detailed information on the components of DEP and the reactions of public housing residents to each type of intervention. We then analyzed panel data from 1985-1996 to estimate the effects of DEP on crime rates in and around the city's public housing …

The Crisis In Indigent Defense: A National Perspective, Mary Sue Backus, Paul Marcus

Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

Procuring Guilty Pleas For International Crimes: The Limited Influence Of Sentencing Discounts, Nancy Amoury Combs

Faculty Publications

International tribunals prosecuting those responsible for genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes face many of the same resource constraints that bedevil national criminal justice systems. Consequently, international tribunals have begun to utilize various procedural devices long used by national prosecutors to speed case dispositions. One such procedural device is the guilty plea. National prosecutors induce criminal defendants to plead guilty and waive their rights to trial through a process of plea bargaining; that is, by offering defendants sentencing concessions in exchange for their guilty pleas. International prosecutors who seek to engage in plea bargaining, however, face a host of …

Crawford At Two: Testimonial Hearsay And The Confrontation Clause, H. Patrick Furman

Publications

This article addresses the response of Colorado courts, and that of certain other jurisdictions, to the 2004 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Crawford v. Washington.

Restorative Processes & Doing Justice, Paul H. Robinson

All Faculty Scholarship

This essay argues that, while many restorative processes are quite valuable, there is the potential for their use to produce results that conflict with the community's shared intuitions of justice and to thereby undermine the criminal law's moral credibility. Because such moral credibility can have practical crime-control value, it ought not be undermined unless the crime-control benefits of doing so clearly outweigh the costs. In practice, it is entirely possible to rely upon restorative processes in ways that avoid injustice and that assure justice is done.

Washington's "War Against Terrorism" And Human Rights: The View From Abroad, Douglass Cassel

Journal Articles

"When it comes to human rights, there is no greater leader than the United States of America," White House spokesman Scott McClellan has said.

The view from abroad is less kind. A recent resolution of the European Parliament, for example, "condemns" our government's treatment of prisoners at Guantanamo. It urges Washington to guarantee all prisoners "minimum human rights in accordance with international human rights law and fair trial procedures" and to "immediately clarify the situation of the prisoners." European objections run so deep that a New York Times account finds a "high level of anger in Europe at reports that …

The Supervisory Power Of The Supreme Court, Amy Coney Barrett

Journal Articles

Relying on something it calls supervisory power or supervisory authority, the Supreme Court regularly prescribes rules of procedure and evidence for inferior courts. Both scholars and the Court have treated the Court's exercises of this authority as unexceptional exercises of the inherent authority that Article III grants every federal court to regulate procedure in the course of adjudication. Article III's grant of inherent authority, however, is conventionally understood as permitting a federal court to regulate its own proceedings. When the Supreme Court exercises supervisory power, it regulates the proceedings of other federal courts. More than a reference to every court's …

Meta-Blackmail And The Evidentiary Theory: Still Taking Motives Seriously, Mitchell N. Berman

All Faculty Scholarship

For generations, criminal law theorists, moral and political philosophers, and economists have struggled to resolve one of the law's great puzzles: whether, why, and under what circumstances the law should criminalize the conditional threat to do what is lawful. This is the so-called paradox of blackmail. Although libertarians have insisted that blackmail should be lawful, most commentators agree that at least some forms of blackmail are properly criminalized, disagreeing over the proper rationale. In his provocative article, Meta-blackmail, Russell Christopher presents a wholly novel argument in support of the libertarian conclusion. Christopher's argument relies upon the imaginary device of a …

Miranda's Reprieve: How Rehnquist Spared The Landmark Confession Case, But Weakened Its Impact, Yale Kamisar

Articles

June marks the 40th anniversary of one of the most praised, most maligned-and probably one of the most misunderstood-U.S. Supreme Court cases in American history, Miranda v. Arizona. The opinion by Chief Justice Earl Warren conditions police questioning of people in custody on the giving of warnings about the right to remain silent, the right to counsel and the waiver of those rights. 384 U.S. 436. This ruling represents a compromise of sorts between the former elusive, ambiguous and subjective voluntariness/totality-of-the-circumstances test and extreme proposals that would have eliminated police interrogation altogether. But William H. Rehnquist didn't see Miranda that …

Adolescence And The Regulation Of Youth Crime, Elizabeth S. Scott

Faculty Scholarship

I am delighted to be a part of this Symposium on Law and Adolescence. My talk today is about adolescent development and juvenile justice policy. Specifically, I will focus on why a legal regime that is grounded in scientific knowledge about adolescence and the role of criminal activity during this developmental period is better for young offenders and for society than the contemporary policy, which often pays little attention to differences between adolescents and adults.

My talk is based on a book on juvenile justice policy I am currently writing with Larry Steinberg, a developmental psychologist who is a leading …

Reasonableness Review After Booker, Nancy J. King

Vanderbilt Law School Faculty Publications

About a year ago, the Supreme Court in United States v. Booker declared a new standard for the appellate review of federal sentences-reasonableness. Justice Breyer, writing for the Court, asserted reassuringly that the reasonableness standard is not really new at all because judges had been applying it for years to review sentences for crimes lacking specific guidelines, sentences imposed after probation revocation, and, at least until 2003, sentences based upon departures from the recommended guideline range. Like most new legal standards that take shape case-by-case through the appellate process, reasonableness review is developing incrementally, creeping more clearly into view with …