Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Law
Dangerous Diagnoses, Risky Assumptions, And The Failed Experiment Of "Sexually Violent Predator" Commitment, Deirdre M. Smith
Dangerous Diagnoses, Risky Assumptions, And The Failed Experiment Of "Sexually Violent Predator" Commitment, Deirdre M. Smith
Faculty Publications
In its 1997 opinion, Kansas v. Hendricks, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a law that reflected a new model of civil commitment. The targets of this new commitment law were dubbed “Sexually Violent Predators” (SVPs), and the Court upheld indefinite detention of these individuals on the assumption that there is a psychiatrically distinct class of individuals who, unlike typical recidivists, have a mental condition that impairs their ability to refrain from violent sexual behavior. And, more specifically, the Court assumed that the justice system could reliably identify the true “predators,” those for whom this unusual and extraordinary deprivation of liberty …
Notice(Ing) Ex-Offenders: A Case Study Of The Manifest Injustice Of Passively Violating A "Felon-In-Possession" Statute, S. David Mitchell
Notice(Ing) Ex-Offenders: A Case Study Of The Manifest Injustice Of Passively Violating A "Felon-In-Possession" Statute, S. David Mitchell
Faculty Publications
Changing a law and criminalizing formerly legal conduct without providing notice of the change and without providing a reasonable period of time for the offending individual to comply with the change not only violates due process but is also manifestly unjust, especially given the scope and breadth of the collateral consequences that attach upon a felony conviction, such as the loss of the right to vote, to serve on a jury, or to receive certain benefits. With the far-reaching impact of a felony conviction on all areas of an individual's life, the maxim that "ignorance of the law excuses no …
Our Unconstitutional Recusal Procedure, Dmitry Bam
Our Unconstitutional Recusal Procedure, Dmitry Bam
Faculty Publications
In this article, I argue that the recusal procedure used in state and federal courts for nearly all of American history is unconstitutional. For centuries, recusal procedure in the United States has largely resembled that of England before American independence. To this day, in most American courtrooms, the judge hearing the case decides whether recusal is required under the applicable substantive recusal rules. If the judge determines that she can act impartially, or that her impartiality could not reasonably be questioned, the judge remains on the case. And although the judge’s decision is typically subject to appellate review — with …