Law Commons^™

The High Price Of Poverty: A Study Of How The Majority Of Current Court System Procedures For Collecting Court Costs And Fees, As Well As Fines, Have Failed To Adhere To Established Precedent And The Constitutional Guarantees They Advocate., Trevor J. Calligan

Trevor J Calligan

No abstract provided.

Lethal Injection And The Right Of Access: The Intersection Of The Eighth And First Amendments, Timothy F. Brown

Timothy Brown

The Spring and Summer of 2014 have witnessed renewed debate on the constitutionality of the death penalty after a series of high profile legal battles concerning access to lethal injection protocols and subsequent questionable executions. Due to shortages in the drugs traditionally used for the lethal injection, States have changed their lethal injection protocols to shield information from both the prisoners and the public. Citing public safety concerns, the States refuse to release information concerning the procurement of the drugs to the public. Such obstruction hinders the public’s ability to determine the cruelty of the punishment imposed and creates the …

An Anachronism Too Discordant To Be Suffered: A Comparative Study Of Parliamentary And Presidential Approaches To Regulation Of The Death Penalty, Derek R. Verhagen

Derek R VerHagen

It is well-documented that the United States remains the only western democracy to retain the death penalty and finds itself ranked among the world's leading human rights violators in executions per year. However, prior to the Gregg v. Georgia decision in 1976, ending America's first and only moratorium on capital punishment, the U.S. was well in line with the rest of the civilized world in its approach to the death penalty. This Note argues that America's return to the death penalty is based primarily on the differences between classic parliamentary approaches to regulation and that of the American presidential system. …

From Weems To Graham: The Curious Evolution Of Evolving Standards Of Decency, Zachary Baron Shemtob

Zachary Shemtob

Since the 1958 case of Trop v. Dulles, the Supreme Court has held that grossly disproportionate punishments are cruel and unusual if they violate “the evolving standards of decency of a maturing society.” Traditionally, this was interpreted as prohibiting capital sentences for certain types of crimes and classes of offenders. More recently, in Graham v. Florida, the Court applied evolving standards to incarceration, banning the sentencing of juveniles who committed non-homicide crimes to life without parole.

This article breaks the Court’s understanding of evolving standards of decency into distinct periods. In each period the justices encountered a host of novel …

Greater And Lesser Powers, Samuel Levin

Samuel Levin

During much of the twentieth century it was relatively stylish for lawyers, judges and justices to argue that an exercise of power was permissible because "the greater power [to do something else] necessarily includes the lesser power [to do this]." Unfortunately, sloppy and unprincipled uses that merely reflected the intuitions of those who invoked it has largely discredited the argument, although it still makes some relevant appearances.

This paper argues that there is a principled way to apply the argument: by looking to the relative harms caused by each exercise of power. However, any notion of "necessarily includes" needs to …

The Mandatory Meaning Of Miller, William W. Berry Iii

William W Berry III

In June 2012, the United States Supreme Court held in Miller v. Alabama that the imposition of mandatory life-without-parole sentences on juveniles violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on “cruel and unusual” punishment. This case continued the Supreme Court’s slow but steady expansion of the scope of the Eighth Amendment over the past decade. In light of the Court’s decision in Miller to preclude mandatory sentences of life without parole for juveniles, this article explores the possibility of further expansion of the Eighth Amendment to proscribe other kinds of mandatory sentences. Applying the approach of the Court in Miller to other …

Execution By Accident: Evidentiary And Constitutional Problems With The "Childhood Onset" Requirement In Atkins Claims, Steven Mulroy

Steven Mulroy

The article discusses claims by capital defendants asserting that they are mentally retarded (MR) and thus cannot be executed under the 2002 Supreme Court holding in Atkins v. Virginia. Courts hearing such claims require proof that any intellectual deficits first occurred during childhood. This “childhood onset” prong is problematic for practical and theoretical reasons. As a practical matter, courts often improperly: (a) expect (rarely available) IQ test results dating from childhood; (b) dismiss MR proof if the defendant has minimal day-to-day competence, despite the medical consensus that MR persons can drive, cook, etc.; and (c) reject Atkins claims because the …

The Real Lethal Punishment: The Inadequacy Of Prison Healthcare And How It Can Be Fixed, G. Nicholas Wallace

G. Nicholas Wallace

There are over 2 million prisoners in the United States and all of them have a fundamental right to healthcare, which, currently, is the only population group to enjoy such a right. This paper focuses on the quality of healthcare that is to be provided to prisoners and some of the reasons why the healthcare that is currently being provided is inadequate. Part II looks at the issue through an ethical lens. It summarizes Kantian ethics and how that theory shapes this issue. Part III will focus on exactly what quality of healthcare prisoners are entitled to and what their …

Unlocking The Eighth Amendment’S Power To Make Innocence A Constitutional Claim, David Niven

david niven

The U.S. Supreme Court has articulated no definitive constitutional bar to executing the innocent. While the text of the Constitution may not directly speak to the question, the court has elsewhere held, repeatedly and unanimously, that the operative meaning of the Eighth Amendment is shaped by decisions of state legislators. That is, if state legislators deem something cruel and unusual (executing minors, for example) it has therefore been rejected by society and is constitutionally barred. If legislators deem a particular practice acceptable, it is acceptable to society and thus permitted by the Constitution. Despite their significance in death penalty jurisprudence …

Cruel And Unusual Federal Punishments, Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Michael J.Z. Mannheimer

Virtually all federal defendants who have challenged their sentences as “cruel and unusual punishment” in violation of the Eighth Amendment have failed. This is because the Supreme Court’s jurisprudence on cruel and unusual carceral punishments is extraordinarily deferential to legislative judgments about how harsh prison sentences ought to be for particular crimes. This deferential approach stems largely from concerns of federalism, for all of the Court’s modern cases on the Cruel and Unusual Punishments Clause have addressed state, not federal, sentencing practices. Thus, they have addressed the Eighth Amendment only as incorporated by the Fourteenth. Federal courts accordingly find themselves …

Repudiating Death, William W. Berry Iii

William W Berry III

In recent years, three Supreme Court justices, Powell, Blackmun, and Stevens, have all called for the abolition of the death penalty, repudiating their prior approval of the use of capital punishment. This article conceptualizes these reversals not as normative shifts on the morality of capital punishment, but instead as shifts in the justices' views concerning their own need to exercise judicial restraint towards the states with respect to the death penalty. Two separate decisions comprise their abandonment of judicial restraint. First, Powell, Blackmun, and Stevens all acquiesce to the decision of the Court to use the Eighth Amendment to regulate …

Sugarcoating The Eighth Amendment: Gross Disproportionality Review Is Simply The Fourteenth Amendment Rational-Basis Test, Christopher J. Declue

Christopher J DeClue

It is extremely difficult for a defendant to successfully challenge the length of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. To succeed in such a challenge, a defendant must establish that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. However, the Court has never offered consistent, workable guidelines to determine whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate.

This Article demonstrates that gross disproportionality review is simply a rational-basis test, one which is virtually identical to the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test. Under the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test, a law is upheld so long as it furthers a …

Sugarcoating The Eighth Amendment: Gross Disproportionality Review Is Simply The Fourteenth Amendment Rational-Basis Test, Christopher J. Declue

Christopher J DeClue

It is extremely difficult for a defendant to successfully challenge the length of a sentence under the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment. To succeed in such a challenge, a defendant must establish that his sentence is grossly disproportionate to the offense. However, the Court has never offered consistent, workable guidelines to determine whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate.

This Article demonstrates that gross disproportionality review is simply a rational-basis test, one which is virtually identical to the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test. Under the Fourteenth Amendment rational-basis test, a law is upheld so long as it furthers a …

Ending Death By Dangerousness, William W. Berry Iii

William W Berry III

The use of the death penalty (both in number of new death sentences and actual executions) has been steadily decreasing in the past decade. This decrease has largely been attributed to two phenomena: (1) the continued discovery of individuals on death row who are actually innocent of the crimes they committed and (2) the increasing use of life without parole as a sentencing alternative to the death penalty. Abolitionists have successfully seized upon the first of these in raising continuing doubts about the use of the death penalty. This article proposes a deeper exploration of the second, the availability of …

More Different Than Life, Less Different Than Death, William W. Berry Iii

William W Berry III

The Supreme Court has traditionally divided its application of the Eighth Amendment into two categories, capital and non-capital cases, based on the longstanding notion that “death- is-different.” In the recent case of Graham v. Florida, however, the Supreme Court applied its “evolving standards of decency” standard, heretofore reserved for capital cases, to a non-capital case in holding that the Eighth Amendment prohibited states from sentencing juvenile offenders to life without parole for non-homicide crimes. The dissenting justices argued that this decision marked the end of the Court’s “death-is-different” jurisprudence. This article argues, however, that the decision instead creates the opportunity …

Proportionality And Prosecutorial Discretion: Challenges To The Constitutionality Of Georgia’S Death Penalty Laws And Procedures Amidst The Deficiencies Of The State’S Mandatory Appellate Review Structure, Kristen M. Nugent

Kristen Nugent

Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent denial of certiorari in Walker v. Georgia—in which Justice Stevens and Justice Thomas expressed sharply divergent interpretations of the Court’s precedent regarding the importance of a thorough proportionality review to Georgia’s capital sentencing scheme—the Court seems poised to reexamine the constitutional implications of Georgia’s death penalty statute and the manner in which it is implemented. In anticipation of such an analysis, and in order to advocate that the U.S. Supreme Court clarify its position in a way that aligns with its longstanding tradition of requiring moderation in the infliction of death, this article dissects …

Federal Courts As Constitutional Laboratories: The Rat's Point Of View, Maureen N. Armour

Maureen N Armour

This article examines the operation of the lower federal courts as constitutional laboratories where problems related to implementing the Supreme Court's problematic constitutional decisions are routinely addressed. By using the methodology of a detailed case study of Eighth Amendment litigation the author provides critical insights into the workings of the federal trial courts and three judge appellate panels and insights into the applied phenomenology of ajudicative discretion, the moving force of this judicial laboratory. The article also examines the problematic nature of the Supreme Court's constitutional decisions, their textual openness, doctrinal malleability,and prudential "errors," and how this effects the institutional …

Proportionality In The Criminal Law: The Differing American Versus Canadian Approaches To Punishment, Roozbeh (Rudy) B. Baker

Roozbeh (Rudy) B. Baker

The focus of this Article shall be upon the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution and s. 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, both of which prohibit “cruel and unusual punishment”; and their effect on mandatory criminal sentencing (via penal statute) in the two countries. The Article shall begin by briefly explain the differences between the jurisdictional application of criminal justice in the United States and Canada. The Article will next present and explain the American Eighth Amendment approach to the constitutionality of mandatory criminal sentencing and contrast this to the Canadian s. 12 approach to …

Rearranging Deck Chairs On The Titanic: Why The Incarceration Of Individuals With Serious Mental Illness Violates Public Health, Ethical, And Constitutional Principles And Therefore Cannot Be Made Right By Piecemeal Changes To The Insanity Defense, Jennifer Bard

Jennifer Bard

The author argues that the problem of adjudicating the mentally ill who commit crimes is too large a societal issue to be resolved by refining the insanity defense. Since this is a threat to the public's health, it is fair to describe the current situation as a public health crisis. First, by not providing adequate mental health resources we create conditions in which people with mental illness find themselves in situations where due to their illness they have the opportunity to commit criminal acts which are causally related to the impairment of their thought process. Second, when people with mental …