Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Broken windows policing (1)
- Bureaucracy (1)
- CCTV (1)
- Checks and balances (1)
- Civic disengagement (1)
-
- Constitutional law (1)
- Criminal law (1)
- Criminal procedure (1)
- Equality (1)
- Information society (1)
- Law & society (1)
- Law & technology (1)
- Legal history (1)
- Localism (1)
- Mistrust of institutions (1)
- Monitoring of poor (1)
- Privacy (1)
- Public safety (1)
- Punishment (1)
- Race & ethnicity (1)
- Realignment (1)
- Restorative justice (1)
- Sentencing (1)
- Sentencing guidelines (1)
- Social control (1)
- Stop and frisk (1)
- Surveillance harms (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law and Race
The History, Means, And Effects Of Structural Surveillance, Jeffrey L. Vagle
The History, Means, And Effects Of Structural Surveillance, Jeffrey L. Vagle
All Faculty Scholarship
The focus on the technology of surveillance, while important, has had the unfortunate side effect of obscuring the study of surveillance generally, and tends to minimize the exploration of other, less technical means of surveillance that are both ubiquitous and self-reinforcing—what I refer to as structural surveillance— and their effects on marginalized and disenfranchised populations. This Article proposes a theoretical framework for the study of structural surveillance which will act as a foundation for follow-on research in its effects on political participation.
What's Wrong With Sentencing Equality?, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas
What's Wrong With Sentencing Equality?, Richard A. Bierschbach, Stephanos Bibas
All Faculty Scholarship
Equality in criminal sentencing often translates into equalizing outcomes and stamping out variations, whether race-based, geographic, or random. This approach conflates the concept of equality with one contestable conception focused on outputs and numbers, not inputs and processes. Racial equality is crucial, but a concern with eliminating racism has hypertrophied well beyond race. Equalizing outcomes seems appealing as a neutral way to dodge contentious substantive policy debates about the purposes of punishment. But it actually privileges deterrence and incapacitation over rehabilitation, subjective elements of retribution, and procedural justice, and it provides little normative guidance for punishment. It also has unintended …