Law Commons^™

Criminal Law And Procedure, Aaron J. Campbell

University of Richmond Law Review

No abstract provided.

Important Is Not Important Enough: Forcibly Medicating Defendants For Sentencing Using The Important Interest Standard, Sarah Viebrock

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

This Note analyzes whether the Government’s interest in sentencing is the same as its interest in trial, and whether the “important interest” standard is a high enough threshold for the Government when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing. This Note will conclude that because of the procedural alternatives to forcible medication at sentencing, the functional differences between trial and sentencing, and the spirit of the Supreme Court’s decision in Sell, the Government should be required to demonstrate a compelling, rather than an important, interest when it seeks to forcibly medicate a defendant for sentencing.

Part …

Fourteen Years Later: The Capital Punishment System In California, Robert M. Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

Mason V. State, 132 Nev. Adv. Op. 42 (June 16, 2016), Shannon Diaz

Nevada Supreme Court Summaries

The Court determined that pursuant to NRS 176.035(1), a district court must pronounce aggregate minimum and maximum terms of imprisonment in a defendant’s judgment of conviction.

Implementing Change In Sentencing And Corrections: The Need For Broad-Based Research, Nora V. Demleitner

Scholarly Articles

None available

How To Change The Philosophy And Practice Of Probation And Supervised Release: Data Analytics, Cost Control, Focus On Reentry, And A Clear Mission, Nora V. Demleitner

Scholarly Articles

None available.

Shakin' And Bakin': The Supreme Court's Remarkable Criminal Law Rulings Of The 1999 Term, William E. Hellerstein

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

How Much Punishment Is Enough?: Embracing Uncertainty In Modern Sentencing Reform, Jalila Jefferson-Bullock

Journal of Law and Policy

This article examines federal sentencing reform and embraces the principle of uncertainty in this process. In order to properly reapportion federal criminal sentencing laws, reformers must account for the impracticality of determining appropriate incarceration lengths at sentencing. Thus, this article proposes an alternative federal sentencing model that includes a sentencing effectiveness assessment tool to help lawmakers implement rational sentences that appropriately punish offenders, prepare them to successfully reenter society, and reduce recidivism rates. Modern sentencing reform should adopt constant review and evaluation of sentencing to measure effectiveness and ensure that appropriate sentences are implemented to avoid the pitfalls of an …

From Simple Statements To Heartbreaking Photographs And Videos: An Interdisciplinary Examination Of Victim Impact Evidence In Criminal Cases, Mitchell J. Frank

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.

Values And Assumptions In Criminal Adjudication, Benjamin Levin

Publications

This Response to Andrew Manuel Crespo's Systemic Facts: Toward Institutional Awareness in Criminal Courts proceeds in two Parts. In Part I, I argue that Crespo presents a compelling case for the importance of systemic factfinding to the task of criminal court judges. If, as a range of scholars has argued, criminal courts are increasingly serving a quasi-administrative function, then shouldn’t they at least be administrating accurately? Systemic Facts provides a novel account of how — with comparatively little institutional reform — courts might begin to serve as more effective administrators. However, in Part II, I also argue that Crespo’s account …

What's Wrong With Sentencing Equality?, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas

All Faculty Scholarship

Equality in criminal sentencing often translates into equalizing outcomes and stamping out variations, whether race-based, geographic, or random. This approach conflates the concept of equality with one contestable conception focused on outputs and numbers, not inputs and processes. Racial equality is crucial, but a concern with eliminating racism has hypertrophied well beyond race. Equalizing outcomes seems appealing as a neutral way to dodge contentious substantive policy debates about the purposes of punishment. But it actually privileges deterrence and incapacitation over rehabilitation, subjective elements of retribution, and procedural justice, and it provides little normative guidance for punishment. It also has unintended …

The Meaning Of "Meaningful Appellate Review" In Capital Cases: Lessons From California, Steven Shatz

Steven F. Shatz