Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Supreme Court (3)
- Confrontation Clause (2)
- Criminal law (2)
- International law (2)
- 1906-1975; criminal law; international law (1)
-
- Administration of justice - Great Britain - history (1)
- Analyst testimony (1)
- Arendt (1)
- Bribery (1)
- Confrontation rights (1)
- Congress (1)
- Criminal defense (1)
- Criminal justice reform (1)
- Criminal law - Great Britain (1)
- Criminal trials (1)
- Evidence (1)
- Expert testimony (1)
- Forensic evidence (1)
- Forensic reports (1)
- Hannah (1)
- Honest-services fraud (1)
- Incarceration rates (1)
- Kickbacks (1)
- Law - Great Britain - history (1)
- Military law (1)
- National security law (1)
- Prisoners (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Skilling (1)
- Statue (1)
Articles 1 - 9 of 9
Full-Text Articles in Law
Hannah Arendt As A Theorist Of International Criminal Law, David Luban
Hannah Arendt As A Theorist Of International Criminal Law, David Luban
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This paper examines Hannah Arendt's contributions as a theorist of international criminal law. It draws mostly on Eichmann in Jerusalem, particularly its epilogue, but also on Arendt's correspondence, her writings from the 1940s on Jewish politics, and portions of The Human Condition and her essays. The paper focuses on four issues: (1) Arendt's conception of international crimes as universal offenses against humanity, and the implications she draws for theories of criminal jurisdiction; (2) her "performative" theory of group identity as acts of political affiliation and disaffiliation, from which follows a radically different account of the crime of genocide than …
Risk Taking And Force Protection, David Luban
Risk Taking And Force Protection, David Luban
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This paper addresses two questions about the morality of warfare: (1) how much risk must soldiers take to minimize unintended civilian casualties caused by their own actions (“collateral damage”), and (2) whether it is the same for the enemy's civilians as for one's own.
The questions take on special importance in warfare where one side is able to attack the other side from a safe distance, but at the cost of civilian lives, while safeguarding civilians may require soldiers to take precautions that expose them to greater risk. In a well-known article, Asa Kasher and Amos Yadlin argue that while …
Turning The Corner On Mass Incarceration?, David Cole
Turning The Corner On Mass Incarceration?, David Cole
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
For the first time in forty years, the national incarceration rate is flattening out, even falling in state prisons. For the first time in three decades, the number of adults under any kind of correctional supervision—in prison or jail or on probation or parole—fell in 2009. At the same time, legal reforms that might have seemed impossible in prior years have increasingly been adopted, reducing penalties for certain crimes, eliminating mandatory sentencing for others, and increasing expenditures for reintegration of prisoners into society. And racial disparities, a persistent and deep-rooted problem in the American criminal justice system, after rising for …
Grabbing The Bullcoming By The Horns: How The Supreme Court Could Have Used Bullcoming V. New Mexico To Clarify Confrontation Clause Requirements For Csi-Type Reports, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Grabbing The Bullcoming By The Horns: How The Supreme Court Could Have Used Bullcoming V. New Mexico To Clarify Confrontation Clause Requirements For Csi-Type Reports, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In the pilot episode of the hit television show CSI, Grissom says to Warrick: "Concentrate on what cannot lie. The evidence." Although Grissom is a beloved figure in U.S. popular culture, the U.S. is currently unwilling to accept that evidence never lies. In stark contrast to Grissom's statement, the common law has a long history of allowing criminal defendants to cross-examine and question witnesses providing evidence against them. The right to confront an accusatory witness is reflected in the historical legal documents of Great Britain, in Shakespearean writing, and even in the Bible. In the United States, the right to …
Williams V. Illinois And The Confrontation Clause: Does Testimony By A Surrogate Witness Violate The Confrontation Clause?, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Williams V. Illinois And The Confrontation Clause: Does Testimony By A Surrogate Witness Violate The Confrontation Clause?, Paul F. Rothstein, Ronald J. Coleman
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
This article comprises a four-part debate between Paul Rothstein, Professor of Law at Georgetown Law Center, and Ronald J. Coleman, who works in the litigation practice group at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, on Williams v. Illinois, a Supreme Court case that involves the Confrontation Clause, which entitles a criminal defendant to confront an accusing witness in court. The issue at hand is whether said clause is infringed when a report not introduced into evidence at trial is used by an expert to testify about the results of testing that has been conducted by a non-testifying third party. …
No Longer A Privileged Few: Expense Claims, Prosecution And Parliamentary Privilege, Yvonne Tew
No Longer A Privileged Few: Expense Claims, Prosecution And Parliamentary Privilege, Yvonne Tew
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
THE publication of the expenses claims of Members of Parliament by the Daily Telegraph in 2009 revealed false claims made by MPs for costs incurred in the performance of their Parliamentary duties. David Chaytor, James Devine, and Elliot Morley, three MPs, were subsequently charged with false accounting, under section 17(l)(b) of the Theft Act 1968, for claiming non-existent expenses. The MPs argued that the criminal courts did not have jurisdiction to try their cases because they were protected by parliamentary privilege. This contention was rejected in the Crown Court and the Court of Appeal. The Lord Chief Justice, giving judgment …
Mental Torture: A Critique Of Erasures In U.S. Law, David Luban, Henry Shue
Mental Torture: A Critique Of Erasures In U.S. Law, David Luban, Henry Shue
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Both international and federal law criminalize mental torture as well as physical torture, and both agree that “severe mental pain or suffering” defines mental torture. However, U.S. law provides a confused and convoluted definition of severe mental pain or suffering—one that falsifies the very concept and makes mental torture nearly impossible to prosecute or repress. Our principal aim is to expose the fallacies that underlie the U.S. definition of mental torture: first, a materialist bias that the physical is more real than the mental; second, a substitution trick that defines mental pain or suffering through a narrow set of causes …
Informal Law-Making In England By The Twelve Judges In The Late 18th And Early 19th Centuries, James Oldham
Informal Law-Making In England By The Twelve Judges In The Late 18th And Early 19th Centuries, James Oldham
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
In 1848, Parliament created the Court for Crown Cases Reserved, in which all of the common law judges heard and decided questions reserved by trial judges in criminal cases. As Sir John Baker explains, this was “a court of record, which would now sit in public and give reasons for its decisions,” even though “the reservation of cases was still at the discretion of the trial judge and the court did not have the powers of the court en banc in civil cases.” The Court for Crown Cases Reserved formalized an off-the-record procedure that had been followed for centuries. When …
Skilling: More Blind Monks Examining The Elephant, Julie R. O'Sullivan
Skilling: More Blind Monks Examining The Elephant, Julie R. O'Sullivan
Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works
Most academics and practitioners with whom the author has discussed the result in Skilling v. United States believe that it is a sensible decision. That is, the Supreme Court did the best it could to limit the reach of 18 U.S.C. § 1346, which all nine justices apparently believed—correctly—was, on its face, unconstitutionally vague. Congress responded quickly and with little consideration with the supremely under-defined § 1346. In the over twenty years since the statute's enactment, the Courts of Appeals have been unable to come up with any unified limiting principles to contain its reach. The Skilling Court, evidently reluctant …