Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Due Process (2)
- Fifth Amendment (2)
- Fourteenth Amendment (2)
- Fourth Amendment (2)
- Adult Criminal Court (1)
-
- Aggravating Circumstances (1)
- Apprendi v. New Jersey (1)
- Article III (1)
- CASM (1)
- Capital Punishment (1)
- Capital Sentence (1)
- Cell Phones (1)
- Child Abuse (1)
- Congress (1)
- Constitution (1)
- Constitutional departmentalism (1)
- Constitutional departmentalists (1)
- Constitutional interpretation (1)
- Constitutional interpretive authority (1)
- County (1)
- Death Eligibility (1)
- Death Penalty (1)
- Death Selection (1)
- Deterrence (1)
- Eighth Amendment (1)
- Executive branch (1)
- Furman v. Georgia (1)
- Gregg v. Georgia (1)
- Hashing Algorithm (1)
- Hildwin v. Florida (1)
Articles 1 - 4 of 4
Full-Text Articles in Law
Scanning Iphones To Save Children: Apple’S On-Device Hashing Algorithm Should Survive A Fourth Amendment Challenge, Timothy Gernand
Scanning Iphones To Save Children: Apple’S On-Device Hashing Algorithm Should Survive A Fourth Amendment Challenge, Timothy Gernand
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
When Apple announced it would combat the growth of child sexual abuse material (CSAM) on its platform by scanning all its users’ devices without their consent, many of its loyal customers felt betrayed. With tech companies such as Google and Facebook arranging their business models around selling their customers’ personal information, Apple customers saw the company’s focus on privacy as a refreshing alternative. However, as Apple itself privately acknowledged, this emphasis on privacy had led to it becoming a haven for CSAM. Despite the reputational damage it would incur with its customers, Apple resolved to confront CSAM on its platform …
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
The People's Court: On The Intellectual Origins Of American Judicial Power, Ian C. Bartrum
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
This article enters into the modern debate between “consti- tutional departmentalists”—who contend that the executive and legislative branches share constitutional interpretive authority with the courts—and what are sometimes called “judicial supremacists.” After exploring the relevant history of political ideas, I join the modern minority of voices in the latter camp.
This is an intellectual history of two evolving political ideas—popular sovereignty and the separation of powers—which merged in the making of American judicial power, and I argue we can only understand the structural function of judicial review by bringing these ideas together into an integrated whole. Or, put another way, …
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
When Big Brother Becomes “Big Father”: Examining The Continued Use Of Parens Patriae In State Juvenile Delinquency Proceedings, Emily R. Mowry
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
The U.S. Constitution grants American citizens numerous Due Process rights; but, historically, the Supreme Court declined to extend these Due Process rights to children. Initially, common-law courts treated child offenders over the age of seven in the same manner as adult criminals. At the start of the 20th century, though, juvenile reformers assisted in creating unique juvenile courts that used the parens patriae doctrine and viewed children as delinquent youths in need of judicial parental guidance rather than punishment. Later, starting in 1967, the Supreme Court released multiple opinions extending certain constitutional Due Process rights to children in juvenile delinquency …
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Judges Do It Better: Why Judges Can (And Should) Decide Life Or Death, Andrew R. Ford
Dickinson Law Review (2017-Present)
Following its decision in Furman v. Georgia, the Supreme Court of the United States has attempted to standardize procedures that states use to subject offenders to the ultimate penalty. In practice, this attempt at standardization has divided capital sentencing into two distinct parts: the death eligibility decision and the death selection decision. The eligibility decision addresses whether the sentencer may impose the death penalty, while the selection decision determines who among that limited subset of eligible offenders is sentenced to death. In Ring v. Arizona, the Court held for the first time that the Sixth Amendment right to …