Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
Smoke And Mirrors: Model Penal Code § 305.7 And Compassionate Release, E. Lea Johnston
Smoke And Mirrors: Model Penal Code § 305.7 And Compassionate Release, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
The American Law Institute has revised the sentencing articles of the Model Penal Code to include three important sentence modification measures. One of these provisions, Model Penal Code § 305.7, would allow a judge to reduce a prison sentence at any time for any “compelling” reason, if the purposes of sentencing justify sentence modification. Compelling circumstances may include advanced age, physical infirmity, or any other circumstance that sufficiently affects the retributive or utilitarian aims that animate limiting retributivism, the philosophy undergirding the revised Model Penal Code sentencing articles. Limiting retributivism provides that individual sentences should occur within the bounds of …
Representational Competence: Defining The Limits Of The Right To Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
Representational Competence: Defining The Limits Of The Right To Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
In 2008, the Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competence standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to delineate a permissible representational competence standard but indicated that findings of incompetence based on a lack of decisionmaking ability would withstand constitutional scrutiny. To date, no court or commentator has suggested a comprehensive competence standard to address the particular decisional context of self-representation at trial. Conceptualizing self-representation as an exercise in problem solving, this Article draws upon social problem-solving theory to identify abilities necessary for autonomous decisionmaking. The Article develops …
Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
Setting The Standard: A Critique Of Bonnie's Competency Standard And The Potential Of Problem-Solving Theory For Self-Representation At Trial, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
In Indiana v. Edwards, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Sixth Amendment permits a trial court to impose a higher competency standard for self-representation than to stand trial. The Court declined to specify the contents of a permissible representational competence standard, but cited with support the construct of adjudicative competence developed by Professor Richard Bonnie. While Bonnie's proposal may provide an appropriate framework for evaluating the competence of represented defendants' decisions, it is at most a starting point for defining the capacities needed for self-representation at trial. This Article begins by exposing three reasons why Bonnie's approach is …
Humane Punishment For Seriously Disordered Offenders: Sentencing Departures And Judicial Control Over Conditions Of Confinement, E. Lea Johnston
Humane Punishment For Seriously Disordered Offenders: Sentencing Departures And Judicial Control Over Conditions Of Confinement, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
At sentencing, a judge may foresee that an individual with a major mental disorder will experience serious psychological or physical harm in prison. In light of this reality and offenders’ other potential vulnerabilities, a number of jurisdictions currently allow judges to treat undue offender hardship as a mitigating factor at sentencing. In these jurisdictions, vulnerability to harm may militate toward an order of probation or a reduced term of confinement. Since these measures do not affect offenders’ day-to-day experience in confinement, these expressions of mitigation fail to protect adequately those vulnerable offenders who must serve time in prison. This Article …
Vulnerability And Just Desert: A Theory Of Sentencing And Mental Illness, E. Lea Johnston
Vulnerability And Just Desert: A Theory Of Sentencing And Mental Illness, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
This Article analyzes risks of serious harms posed to prisoners with major mental disorders and investigates their import for sentencing under a just deserts analysis. Drawing upon social science research, the Article first establishes that offenders with serious mental illnesses are more likely than non-ill offenders to suffer physical and sexual assaults, endure housing in solitary confinement, and experience psychological deterioration during their carceral terms. The Article then explores the significance of this differential impact for sentencing within a retributive framework. It first suggests a particular expressive understanding of punishment, capacious enough to encompass foreseeable, substantial risks of serious harm …
An Administrative "Death Sentence" For Asylum Seekers: Deprivation Of Due Process Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(D)(6)'S Frivolousness Standard, E. Lea Johnston
An Administrative "Death Sentence" For Asylum Seekers: Deprivation Of Due Process Under 8 U.S.C. § 1158(D)(6)'S Frivolousness Standard, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
In 1996, Congress amended the Immigration and Nationality Act by providing a new sanction for asylum seekers: if an immigration judge makes a finding that a noncitizen has knowingly filed a fraudulent asylum application, then that person is permanently ineligible for immigration benefits. For eleven years, immigration judges, the Board of Immigration Appeals, and federal courts have imposed and reviewed this sanction without specifying a burden of proof. When it did act to fill the statutory gap in April 2007, the Board held that the government must prove the elements of the statute by a preponderance of the evidence. This …
Conditions Of Confinement At Sentencing: The Case Of Seriously Disordered Offenders, E. Lea Johnston
Conditions Of Confinement At Sentencing: The Case Of Seriously Disordered Offenders, E. Lea Johnston
E. Lea Johnston
At sentencing, a judge can often foresee that an individual, given his major mental disorder and other vulnerabilities, will experience serious harm in prison. These harms may include psychological deterioration and mental distress, attempted suicide, or victimization by staff or other inmates. In response, some jurisdictions allow a judge to commit a disordered offender for treatment in lieu of incarceration, while others designate need for treatment and undue offender hardship as mitigating factors for use at sentencing. None of these measures, however, goes far enough to protect vulnerable prisoners. This Article builds a case for expanding judges’ sentencing power by …