Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Terrorism (2)
- Arizona (1)
- Chemical warfare (1)
- Chemical weapons (1)
- Combatants (1)
-
- Courts (1)
- Death (1)
- Defenses (1)
- Diplomatic immunity (1)
- Extradition (1)
- Government officials (1)
- Heinous (1)
- High crimes (1)
- Human rights (1)
- International law (1)
- Jurisdiction (1)
- Maynard (1)
- Noncombatants (1)
- Penalty (1)
- Prosecution (1)
- Refugee camps (1)
- Sovereign immunity (1)
- Violations of human rights (1)
- Warfare (1)
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Modern Blood Feud: Thoughts On The Philosophy Of Terrorism, Christopher L. Blakesley
The Modern Blood Feud: Thoughts On The Philosophy Of Terrorism, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
Herman Melville brilliantly lets us feel, through Captain Ahab, the sensation of destructive rage, hatred and violence. Sadly, Melville's insight penetrates to the core of society, perhaps of each of us, in today's omnipresent terroristic melodrama. We have all suffered moments of vicarious terror and rage over the past few years as we watched news accounts of terrorist incidents, such as the downing of Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. The melodrama of terrorism has penetrated each of our lives. We see it and feel the rage nearly on a daily basis. Innocent children, women and men aboard Pan …
Major Contemporary Issues In Extradition Law, Christopher L. Blakesley
Major Contemporary Issues In Extradition Law, Christopher L. Blakesley
Scholarly Works
In this piece Professor Blakesley provides remarks on high crimes in international law, and the ability to extradite state and high government officials for committing them.
Note, Maynard V. Cartwright: Channeling Arizona's Use Of The Heinous, Cruel Or Depraved Aggravating Circumstance To Impose The Death Penalty, Terrill Pollman
Note, Maynard V. Cartwright: Channeling Arizona's Use Of The Heinous, Cruel Or Depraved Aggravating Circumstance To Impose The Death Penalty, Terrill Pollman
Scholarly Works
“Death is qualitatively different from other punishments that can be imposed by the state.” Recognition of this disturbing conclusion led to the heightened scrutiny demonstrated in a series of United States Supreme Court rulings beginning with Furman v. Georgia, which set forth the constitutionally acceptable range of discretion that a judge or jury may use in imposing the death penalty. States have attempted to bring their statutes within the Furman v. Georgia range by articulating aggravating circumstances that warrant the imposition of the death penalty. One controversial circumstance that many states employ permits a capital sentence where the offense …