Law Commons^™

Federal Criminal Conspiracy, Todd R. Russell, O. Carter Snead

O. Carter Snead

No abstract provided.

Criminalizing The State, François Tanguay-Renaud

François Tanguay-Renaud

François Tanguay-Renaud, Associate Professor, Osgood Hall Law School speaks about political theory and criminal law, asking the underexplored question of whether the state, as opposed to its individual members, can intelligibly and legitimately be criminalized, with a specific focus on the possibility of its domestic criminalization. He identifies the core objections to the criminalization of states, for example, objections to the condemnation and punishment of the state, as a result of a suitably ‘criminal’ process of public accountability, for the culpable perpetration of legal wrongs. He then investigate ways in which these objections can be challenged.

Discussion Of Antony Duff's 'Or 'Emet Lecture: Legal Philosophy Between State And Transnationalism, Antony Duff, François Tanguay-Renaud, Michael Giudice

François Tanguay-Renaud

Follow-up seminar on Antony Duff’s ‘Or ‘Emet Lecture, delivered on Thursday, March 14, 2013. Part of the Legal Philosophy Between State and Transnationalism Seminar Series. Respondents: Michael Giudice, York Philosophy and François Tanguay-Renaud, Osgoode Hall Law School.

The Charter And Criminal Justice: Twenty-Five Years Later, Jamie Cameron, James Stribopoulos

Jamie Cameron

When the Charter of Rights and Freedoms turned twenty-five in 2007, Professors Jamie Cameron and James Stribopoulos organized a conference which brought together leading thinkers on the Charterand criminal justice. A strong faculty of academics, judges and practitioners debated and discussed the Charter's impact on criminal justice. The papers from this conference, which have now been edited by Professors Cameron and Stribopoulos, provide a fascinating look at how the Charter has transformed the Canadian criminal justice system.

The Improper Use Of Presumptions In Recent Criminal Law Adjudication, Charles W. Collier

Charles W. Collier

This note argues that, in developing the contemporary mandatory-permissive standard, the Supreme Court has misunderstood the effects of presumptions on juries. Presumptions that are ‘permissive’ in theory may nevertheless be ‘mandatory’ in fact, thereby leading some juries to convict regardless of their beliefs and inclinations. Thus, these legal presumptions may undermine the moral sense and political function of the jury. Part I of this note shows, through doctrinal analysis, that the mandatory-permissive distinction is an anomaly in the Court's jurisprudence. Part II shows that this distinction is at variance with a substantial body of empirical social science research. This part …

State V. Stone: Problems And Case File, James Seckinger

James H. Seckinger

No abstract provided.

United States V. Peters Case File, James Seckinger, Kenneth Broun.

James H. Seckinger

No abstract provided.

International Criminal Law: Cases And Materials, Jimmy Gurule, Jordan Paust, Bruce Zagaris, Leila Sadat, Michael Scharf, M. Cherif Bassiouni

Jimmy Gurule

The fourth edition has been significantly updated, especially to reflect case trends in the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunals for Former Yugoslavia and for Rwanda (encompassing, among other matters, individual responsibility, defenses, war crimes, genocide, and other crimes against humanity). Some of the chapters have new sub-subtitles and relevant domestic cases have been added or noted in various chapters. There are also additions to the Documents Supplement.

Shredded Fish Redux, Robert Sanger

Robert M. Sanger

The Yates case, in which certiorari had been granted to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit had been discussed in a previous column of Criminal Justice. The article was entitled “Shredded Fish” because the sea captain in Yates was prosecuted under the document shredding provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 for destroying fish. That case has now been decided by the United States Supreme Court in Yates v. United States, on February 25, 2015. The case involves the rule of lenity as well as a discussion of overcriminalization.

Female Genital Mutilation And Designer Vaginas In Britain: Crafting An Effective Legal And Policy Framework, Lisa Avalos

Lisa Avalos

"Continually Reminded Of Their Inferior Position": Social Dominance, Implicit Bias, Criminality, And Race, Darren Lenard Hutchinson

Darren L Hutchinson

This Article contends that implicit bias theory has improved contemporary understanding of the dynamics of individual bias. Implicit bias research has also helped to explain the persistent racial disparities in many areas of public policy, including criminal law and enforcement. Implicit bias theory, however, does not provide the foundation for a comprehensive analysis of racial inequality. Even if implicit racial biases exist pervasively, these biases alone do not explain broad societal tolerance of vast racial inequality. Instead, as social dominance theorists have found, a strong desire among powerful classes to preserve the benefits they receive from stratification leads to collective …

United States V. William Lloyd, Jimmy Gurule

Jimmy Gurule

No abstract provided.

International Criminal Law Documents Supplement, Jimmy Gurule, Jordan Paust, Bruce Zagaris, Leila Sadat, Michael Scharf, M. Bassiouni

Jimmy Gurule

This Documents Supplement accompanies the casebook International Criminal Law, Fourth Edition(2013). It is the most thorough compilation of documents available for classroom use with respect to international criminal law and related aspects of more general international law and human rights law. It is the first documents supplement to contain the Arab Charter on Human Rights and the Amendment to the Rome Statute of the ICC with respect to the Crime of Aggression.

Believe It Or Not: Mitigating The Negative Effects Personal Belief And Bias Have On The Criminal Justice System, Sarah Mourer

Sarah Mourer

This article examines the prosecutor’s and defense attorney’s personal pre-trial beliefs regarding the accused’s guilt or innocence. This analysis suggests that when an attorney does hold pretrial beliefs, such beliefs lead to avoidable bias and errors. These biases may alter the findings throughout all stages of the case. The procedure asking that the prosecution seek justice while having nothing more than probable cause results in the prosecutor’s need to have a belief in guilt before proceeding to trial. While this belief is intended to foster integrity and fairness in the criminal justice system, to the contrary, it actually contributes to …

Constrained Choice: Mothers, The State, And Domestic Violence, Rona Kaufman Kitchen

Rona Kaufman Kitchen

Mothers who are the victims of domestic violence face unique challenges in their quest for safety. The legal response to domestic violence requires that mothers respond to abuse in specific state-sanctioned manners. However, when mothers respond accordingly, such as by reporting abuse and leaving the abusive relationship, their safety and the safety of their children is not guaranteed. Moreover, by responding in state-sanctioned manners, mothers risk a host of negative consequences including increased threat to their immediate and long-term safety, the loss of their children, undesired financial, health, and social consequences, and criminal prosecution. On the other hand, when mothers …

Nsa And Dea Intelligence Sharing: Why It's Legal And Why Reuters Got It Wrong, Melanie M. Reid

Melanie M. Reid

No abstract provided.

Holistic Pregnancy: Rejecting The Theory Of The Adversarial Mother, Rona Kaufman Kitchen

Rona Kaufman Kitchen

In its zealous effort to protect the lives and health of unborn children, the law frequently views the expecting mother with suspicion. In its most extreme form, the law regards the potential mother as a potential murderess. This perspective does not reflect the nature of pregnancy, it undermines the autonomy of loving mothers, and it is detrimental to children. Regardless of whether there is any conflict between mother and fetus, the State presumes the mother to be a threat to her fetus and subjugates her rights as a result. The State interferes with the mother’s autonomy, bodily integrity, parental rights, …

Expunging America's Rap Sheet In The Information Age, Jenny Roberts

Jenny Roberts