Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 6 of 6
Full-Text Articles in Law
On Silence: A Reply To Professors Cribari And Judges, Ted Sampsell-Jones
On Silence: A Reply To Professors Cribari And Judges, Ted Sampsell-Jones
Faculty Scholarship
In 2009, the author wrote an article on the Self-Incrimination Clause. In response to this article, Professors Cribari and Judges wrote a Response suggesting that the author was an abolitionist of the Self-Incrimination Clause. This article is intended to clarify the author's position on the Self-Incrimination Clause and on Griffin v. California. The article begins by explaining the purposes of the Self-Incrimination Clause and highlighting the differences between the right to testify and the right to remain silent. It then analyzes the "test the prosecution" reasoning for the Griffin rule, pointing out its shortcomings and lack of Constitutional basis. The …
Meditaciones Postmodernas Sobre El Castigo: Acerca De Los Límites De La Razón Y De Las Virtudes De La Aleatoriedad (Una Polémica Y Un Manifiesto Para El Siglo Xxi), Bernard E. Harcourt
Meditaciones Postmodernas Sobre El Castigo: Acerca De Los Límites De La Razón Y De Las Virtudes De La Aleatoriedad (Una Polémica Y Un Manifiesto Para El Siglo Xxi), Bernard E. Harcourt
Faculty Scholarship
Abstract in Spanish
Durante la Modernidad, el discurso sobre la pena ha girado circularmente en torno a tres grupos de interrogantes. El primero, surgido de la propia Ilustración, preguntaba: ¿En qué basa el soberano su derecho de penar? Nietzsche con mayor determinación, pero también otros, argumentaron que la propia pregunta implicaba ya su respuesta. Con el nacimiento de las ciencias sociales, este escepticismo hizo surgir un segundo conjunto de interrogantes: ¿Cuál es, entonces, la verdadera función de la pena? ¿Qué es lo que hacemos cuando penamos? Una serie de críticas ulteriores – de metanarrativas, funcionalistas o de objetividad científica – …
Disenfranchisement As Punishment: Reflections On The Racial Uses Of Infamia, George P. Fletcher
Disenfranchisement As Punishment: Reflections On The Racial Uses Of Infamia, George P. Fletcher
Faculty Scholarship
The practice of disenfranchising felons, though decreasing, is still widespread. In this Article, Professor George Fletcher reflects on the use of disenfranchisement as punishment, the lack of a convincing theoretical justification for it, and its disproportionate impact on the African.American community. Fletcher presents a number of powerful arguments against the constitutionality of the practice, but he emphasizes that there is a deeper problem with disenfranchisement as punishment: It reinforces the branding of felons as an "untouchable" class and thus helps to prevent their effective reintegration into our society.
A Constitutional Right Of Religious Exemption: An Historical Perspective, Philip A. Hamburger
A Constitutional Right Of Religious Exemption: An Historical Perspective, Philip A. Hamburger
Faculty Scholarship
Did late eighteenth-century Americans understand the Free Exercise Clause of the United States Constitution to provide individuals a right of exemption from civil laws to which they had religious objections? Claims of exemption based on the Free Exercise Clause have prompted some of the Supreme Court's most prominent free exercise decisions, and therefore this historical inquiry about a right of exemption may have implications for our constitutional jurisprudence. Even if the Court does not adopt late eighteenth-century ideas about the free exercise of religion, we may, nonetheless, find that the history of such ideas can contribute to our contemporary analysis. …
Constitutional Constraints On Proving "Whodunnit?", John O. Sonsteng
Constitutional Constraints On Proving "Whodunnit?", John O. Sonsteng
Faculty Scholarship
American system places these constraints on the age old criminal law question: “WHODUNIT?” This article explores these issues.
Is Law Politics?, Philip Chase Bobbitt
Is Law Politics?, Philip Chase Bobbitt
Faculty Scholarship
Red, White, and Blue addresses the pervasive presence of five general theories of American constitutional law. These theories reflect particular jurisprudential ideologies governing, among other things, the legitimacy of certain arguments, the appropriateness of certain occasions for judicial intervention and the constitutional basis for judicial review. What makes this book interesting and important is that it provides an unwitting or at least unself-conscious example of the general theorizing it wishes to explain. For this reason, its descriptions of the particular family of theories that characterize American constitutional jurisprudence are distorted, while it disclaims any account of the particular set of …