Law Commons^™

Think Again: The Thought Crime Doctrine And The Limits Of Criminal Law, Jordan Wallace-Wolf

Faculty Scholarship

According to the thought crime doctrine, neither beliefs nor intentions may be subject to criminal punishment. The doctrine is widely endorsed, but puzzling in its scope. Beliefs have a free speech credential: they play a straightforward role in the sincere exchange of ideas. Moreover, they are harmless, in the specific sense that they do not aim at action and so not at lawbreaking. But intentions are otherwise. They do not necessarily further the exchange of ideas and they may aim at wrongful, illegal conduct.

So why should the thought crime doctrine categorically protect them in addition to beliefs? Why not …

Creating Kairos At The Supreme Court: Shelby County, Citizens United, Hobby Lobby, And The Judicial Construction Of Right Moments, Linda L. Berger

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

No abstract provided.

A Case Of Deduction, Or, Upon The First Meeting Of Sherlock Holmes And Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., John H. Watson M.D.

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Congressional Oath Of Office: Responses To Congressman Vic Snyder, Dale Bumpers, Bob Filner, J. Dennis Hastert, Blanche Lambert Lincoln, David E. Price

University of Arkansas at Little Rock Law Review

No abstract provided.

Conscience, Judging, And Conscientious Judging, Gene E. Franchini

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Judging requires applying the law instead of personal morals, philosophy, or policy of the community. Doing so requires a respect for the separation of powers between branches of government. Justice Franchini of the New Mexico Supreme Court reflects on this challenge for judges through a personal anecdote.

Agenda Setting In The Courts Of Appeals: The Effect Of Ideology On En Banc Rehearings, Phil Zarone

The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process

Intermediate appellate courts hear whatever case is brought before them on appeal. Therefore, the courts are unable to set an agenda through selecting which cases to hear. Appellate courts may be able to set an agenda, though, through en banc rehearings. This article discusses how courts of appeals decide when to grant en banc proceedings and the effect of ideological use of en banc rehearings.

Is Tragedy Possible?: A Comment On George Fletcher's "The Right And The Reasonable", Kenneth S. Gallant

Faculty Scholarship

No abstract provided.