Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 7 of 7
Full-Text Articles in Law
The Disutility Of Injustice, Paul H. Robinson, Geoffrey P. Goodwin, Michael Reisig
The Disutility Of Injustice, Paul H. Robinson, Geoffrey P. Goodwin, Michael Reisig
All Faculty Scholarship
For more than half a century, the retributivists and the crime-control instrumentalists have seen themselves as being in an irresolvable conflict. Social science increasingly suggests, however, that this need not be so. Doing justice may be the most effective means of controlling crime. Perhaps partially in recognition of these developments, the American Law Institute's recent amendment to the Model Penal Code's "purposes" provision – the only amendment to the Model Code in the 47 years since its promulgation – adopts desert as the primary distributive principle for criminal liability and punishment. That shift to desert has prompted concerns by two …
Judging Cruelty, Meghan J. Ryan
Judging Cruelty, Meghan J. Ryan
Faculty Journal Articles and Book Chapters
he wisdom of the death penalty has recently come under attack in a number of states. This raises the question of whether states’ retreat from the death penalty, or other punishments, will pressure other states - either politically or constitutionally - to similarly abandon the punishment. Politically, states may succumb to the trend of discontinuing a punishment. Constitutionally, states may be forced to surrender the punishment if it is considered cruel, and, as a result of a large number of states renouncing it, the punishment also becomes unusual. If a punishment is thus found to be both cruel and unusual, …
A Distributive Theory Of Criminal Law, Aya Gruber
A Distributive Theory Of Criminal Law, Aya Gruber
Publications
In criminal law circles, the accepted wisdom is that there are two and only two true justifications of punishment-retributivism and utilitarianism. The multitude of moral claims about punishment may thus be reduced to two propositions: (1) punishment should be imposed because defendants deserve it, and (2) punishment should be imposed because it makes society safer. At the same time, most penal scholars notice the trend in criminal law to de-emphasize intent, centralize harm, and focus on victims, but they largely write off this trend as an irrational return to antiquated notions of vengeance. This Article asserts that there is in …
The Ongoing Revolution In Punishment Theory: Doing Justice As Controlling Crime, Paul H. Robinson
The Ongoing Revolution In Punishment Theory: Doing Justice As Controlling Crime, Paul H. Robinson
All Faculty Scholarship
This lecture offers a broad review of current punishment theory debates and the alternative distributive principles for criminal liability and punishment that they suggest. This broader perspective attempts to explain in part the Model Penal Code's recent shift to reliance upon desert and accompanying limitation on the principles of deterrence, incapacitation, and rehabilitation.
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Instrumentalizing Jurors: An Argument Against The Fourth Amendment Exclusionary Rule, Todd E. Pettys
Fordham Urban Law Journal
In this symposium contribution, I contend that the application of the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule in cases tried by juries raises troubling moral issues that are not present when a judge adjudicates a case on his or her own. Specifically, I argue that the exclusionary rule infringes upon jurors’ deliberative autonomy by depriving them of available evidence that rationally bears upon their verdict and by instrumentalizing them in service to the Court’s deterrence objectives. After considering ways in which those moral problems could be at least partially mitigated, I contend that the best approach might be to abandon the exclusionary …
Moving Targets: Placing The Good Faith Doctrine In The Context Of Fragmented Policing, Hadar Aviram, Jeremy Seymour, Richard A. Leo
Moving Targets: Placing The Good Faith Doctrine In The Context Of Fragmented Policing, Hadar Aviram, Jeremy Seymour, Richard A. Leo
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The debate sparked by Herring v. United States is a microcosm of the quintessential debate about the scope of the Fourth Amendment’s exclusionary rule and ultimately the appropriate breadth of police authority and constitutional review by courts. Offering a new reading of the decision, this article argues that Herring reflects a healthy dosage of real politic and an acknowledgment that American policing is characterized by a fragmented, localized structure with little overview and control, and much reliance on local agencies. Part I presents the authors’ interpretation of Herring as a case hinging upon the question “who made the mistake?” as …
The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps
The 'New' Exclusionary Rule Debate: From 'Still Preoccupied With 1985' To 'Virtual Deterrence', Donald A. Dripps
Fordham Urban Law Journal
The justices of the Supreme Court have drawn new battle lines over the exclusionary rule. In Hudson v. Michigan, 547 U.S. 586 (2006), a five-justice majority, over a strong dissent, went out of the way to renew familiar criticisms of the rule. Just this January, in Herring v. United States, 129 S.Ct. 695 (2009), the justices again divided five to four. This time the dissenters raised the ante, by arguing that the Court's cost-benefit approach to applying the rule is misguided. For the first time since Justice Brennan left the Court, some of the justices appealed to broader justifications for …