Law Commons^™

Creating Cautionary Tales: Institutional, Judicial, And Societal Indifference To The Lives Of Incarcerated Individuals, Nicole B. Godfrey

Arkansas Law Review

It has long been said that a society’s worth can be judged by taking stock of its prisons. That is all the truer in this pandemic, where inmates everywhere have been rendered vulnerable and often powerless to protect themselves from harm. May we hope that our country’s facilities serve as models rather than cautionary tales. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, issued the above-quoted clarion call to protect the lives of incarcerated people on May 14, 2020. At that point, the COVID-19 pandemic had brought American society to a standstill for a little more than two months, …

Redeeming Justice, Terrell Carter, Rachel López, Kempis Songster

Northwestern University Law Review

Approximately three decades ago, two of us, Terrell Carter and Kempis Songster, were sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. The U.S. Supreme Court has said that this sentence, effectively an order to die in prison, represented a legal determination that we were irredeemable. In this Article, with insights from our coauthor and friend, human rights scholar Rachel López, we ask: What does it mean for the law to judge some human beings as incapable of redemption? Isn’t the capacity for change core to the human condition, and shouldn’t that be reflected in the law?

This Article …

Lengthy Minimum Parole Requirements: A Denial Of Hope, Heather Walker

Brigham Young University Prelaw Review

Using the Eighth Amendment, which prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, the Supreme Court has made sweeping changes to juvenile sentencing in the last fifteen years. The Court has stated that mandatory life sentences without the possibility of parole and life sentences without the possibility of parole for non-homicide offenders are unconstitutional. Nevertheless, there are still unanswered questions in juvenile sentencing. One under-researched aspect of this is the role that lengthy minimum parole requirements play in the constitutionality of juvenile sentencing. This type of sentencing lacks express legislative support, it does not have a legitimate penological justification, and it denies juveniles …

Giving Due Process Its Due: Why Deliberate Indifference Should Be Confined To Claims Arising Under The Cruel And Unusual Punishment Clause, Shad M. Brown

Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice

This Note discusses culpability requirements for claims brought by pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners. The initial focus is on deliberate indifference, a culpability requirement formulated under the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause but symmetrically applied to claims arising under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The Note then shifts to Kingsley v. Hendrickson, a landmark Supreme Court decision that casts doubt on the application of Eighth-Amendment standards to Fourteenth-Amendment claims. Finally, this Note advocates for the application of objective unreasonableness, a different culpability requirement, to claims arising under the Due Process Clause. It does so on the …

The War On Drugs: Moral Panic And Excessive Sentences, Michael Vitiello

Cleveland State Law Review

The United States’ War on Drugs has not been pretty. Moral panic has repeatedly driven policy when states and the federal government have regulated drugs. Responding to that panic, legislators have authorized severe sentences for drug offenses.

By design, Article III gives federal judges independence, in part, to protect fundamental rights against mob rule. Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has often failed to protect fundamental rights in times of moral panic. For example, it eroded Fourth Amendment protections during the War on Drugs. Similarly, it failed to protect drug offenders from excessive prison sentences during the War on Drugs. This Article …

Handle With Care: Constitutional Standards For Information Sharing In Medical-Correctional Transition, Andrew R. Hayes

Duke Journal of Constitutional Law & Public Policy Sidebar

Correctional institutions have an Eighth Amendment obligation to provide healthcare to inmates. In practice though, jails and prisons struggle to provide adequate care to millions of incarcerated individuals, roughly half of whom have at least one chronic health condition. As a result, harsh conditions of confinement routinely threaten the health of inmates who require specific medical accommodations. Recognizing this risk, the courts hold corrections institutions liable for harm when government officials are “deliberately indifferent” to prisoner medical needs.

Beginning with the HITECH Act of 2009, mainstream medicine embraced tools that eliminate gaps in medical communication. Today, most Americans rely on …

Revoking Supervised Release In The Age Of Legal Cannabis, Zachary J. Weiner

St. John's Law Review

(Excerpt)

Supervised release—part of the original sentence following a guilty verdict—is a system by which federal probation officers monitor prisoners released from federal prison. In imposing supervised release, sentencing judges set conditions that each supervisee must comply with, or risk reincarceration at the discretion of the sentencing judge. Certain conditions of supervised release are prescribed by statute and others are crafted by judges.

If a defendant violates the terms of supervised release by possessing cannabis products, the statutory regime provides the sentencing judge with two options: revoke the defendant’s supervised release and reincarcerate her or, alternatively, release the defendant from …

Rethinking The Reasonable Response: Safeguarding The Promise Of Kingsley For Conditions Of Confinement, Hanna Rutkowski

Michigan Law Review

Nearly five million individuals are admitted to America’s jails each year, and at any given time, two-thirds of those held in jail have not been convicted of a crime. Under current Supreme Court doctrine, these pretrial detainees are functionally protected by the same standard as convicted prisoners, despite the fact that they are formally protected by different constitutional amendments. A 2015 decision, Kingsley v. Hendrickson, declared that a different standard would apply to pretrial detainees and convicted prisoners in the context of use of force: consistent with the Constitution’s mandate that they not be punished at all, pretrial detainees …

Transgender Rights & The Eighth Amendment, Jennifer Levi, Kevin M. Barry

Faculty Scholarship

The past decades have witnessed a dramatic shift in the visibility, acceptance, and integration of transgender people across all aspects of culture and the law. The treatment of incarcerated transgender people is no exception. Historically, transgender people have been routinely denied access to medically necessary hormone therapy, surgery, and other gender-affirming procedures; subjected to cross-gender strip searches; and housed according to their birth sex. But these policies and practices have begun to change. State departments of corrections are now providing some, though by no means all, appropriate care to transgender people, culminating in the Ninth Circuit’s historic decision in Edmo …

Detention Of At-Risk Individuals During Covid-19: Humanitarian Parole And The Eighth Amendment, Kaylette Clark

American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & the Law

I. Introduction

Manuel Amaya Portillo is a 23-year-old asylum seeker from Honduras who is detained at LaSalle Detention Center in Louisiana. Amaya Portillo has neurological issues, heart issues, and a physical deformity. While detained, Amaya Portillo has not received the accommodations he needs, such as a wheelchair and accessible housing. On January 8, 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) wrote a letter to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) requesting that Amaya Portillo’s request for humanitarian parole be granted in light of his disabilities. Even with access to a wheelchair, Amaya Portillo will continue to face challenges while detained, including …

Covid-19, Courts, And The 'Realities Of Prison Administration.' Part Ii: The Realities Of Litigation, Chad Flanders

All Faculty Scholarship

Lawsuits challenging prisons and jails for not doing enough to stop the spread of COVID-19 among inmates have faced mixed results in the courts: wins at the district court level are almost always followed by losses (in the form of stays of any orders to improve conditions) at the appeals court level or at the Supreme Court. This short article tries to explain why this is happening, and makes three comparisons between how district courts and appeals courts have analyzed these lawsuits. First, district courts and appeals courts tend to emphasize different facts in their decisions. District courts focus more …

Meaningless Guarantees: Comment On Mitchell E. Mccloy's “Blind Justice: Virginia's Jury Sentencing Scheme And Impermissible Burdens On A Defendant's Right To A Jury Trial", Alexandra L. Klein

Faculty Articles

Despite the important role that jurors play in the American criminal justice system, jurors are often deprived of critical information that might help them make sense of the law their oaths require them to follow. Such information with regard to sentencing might include the unavailability of parole, geriatric release, sentencing guidelines, or other information that is relevant to determining a defendant's penalty. Withholding information from juries, particularly in sentencing, risks unjust and inequitable sentences. Keeping jurors in the dark perpetuates injustices and undermines public confidence and trust in the justice system.

Mitch McCloy's excellent Note provides a compelling illustration of …

Memory, Moral Reasoning, And Madison V. Alabama, Elias Feldman

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

Modernizing U.S. Tax Code Section 280e: How An Outdated “War On Drugs” Tax Law Is Failing The United States Legal Cannabis Industry And What Congress Can Do To Fix It, David Butter

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

That Is Enough Punishment: Situating Defunding The Police Within Antiracist Sentencing Reform, Jalila Jefferson-Bullock, Jelani Jefferson Exum

Faculty Publications

(Excerpt)

During the summer of 2020, the police killings of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and others created a movement that unearthed a reality that Black people in the United States have always been aware of: systemic racism, in the form of police brutality, is alive and well. While the blatant brutality of George Floyd’s murder at the hands of police is the flame, the spark was ignited long ago. One need only review the record of recent years — the killings of Eric Garner, Michael Brown, Tamir Rice, Antwon Rose, Alton Sterling, Philando Castile, Breonna Taylor, and countless other souls …

The Two Percent: How Florida’S Capital Punishment System Defies The Eighth Amendment, Sofia Perla

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

“Juveniles Are Different”: Easier Said Than Done Resolving Disparities Among Courts Regarding The Constitutionality Of Sentencing Juveniles To De Facto Life-Without-Parole, Audrey Fernandez

FIU Law Review

No abstract provided.

Beyond "Children Are Different": The Revolution In Juvenile Intake And Sentencing, Joshua Gupta-Kagan

Faculty Scholarship

For more than 120 years, juvenile justice law has not substantively defined the core questions in most delinquency cases — when should the state prosecute children rather than divert them from the court system (the intake decision), and what should the state do with children once they are convicted (the sentencing decision)? Instead, the law has granted certain legal actors wide discretion over these decisions, namely prosecutors at intake and judges at sentencing. This Article identifies and analyzes an essential reform trend changing that reality: legislation, enacted in at least eight states in the 2010s, to limit when children can …