Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: November 22, 2024 Fri
Time: 11:57 am
Time: 11:57 am
Results for due process
30 results foundAuthor: Boruchowitz, Robert C. Title: Minor Crimes, Massive Waste: The Terrible Toll of America's Broken Misdemeanor Courts Summary: The National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers's comprehensive examination of misdemeanor courts demonstrated that misdemeanor courts across the country are incapable of providing accused individuals with the due process guaranteed them by the Constitution. This report explains, in depth, these and other problems observed in misdemeanor courts and offers recommendations for reform, while highlighting best practices from across the country. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2009 Source: Foundation for Criminal Justice Year: 2009 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 115204 Keywords: CourtsDue Process |
Author: Roos, Mari-Ann Title: Analysis of the Criminal Justice System of Albania: Report by the Fair Trial Development Project Summary: This analysis of the criminal justice system of Albania addresses the following issues: rights during pre-trial detention; rights to an effective defense; two case studies (Revenge for Albania Justice Case and a corruption case); domestic violence and the criminal justice system; transparency and access to information; and efficient trails and witness issues. Details: Tirana, Albania: OSCE, 2006. 245p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2006 Country: Albania URL: Shelf Number: 111760 Keywords: CorruptionDomestic ViolenceDue ProcessPretrial DetentionTrials |
Author: Seattle University School of Law. International Human Rights Clinic Title: Voices from Detention: A Report on Human Rights Violations at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington Summary: This study examined the conditions at the Northwest Detention Center in Tacoma, Washington. It found violations of international human rights law, the Constitution and the Refugee Convention, including lack of due process, mistreatment of detainees (including strip searches), insufficient food and medical care and language barriers, among others. Details: Seattle: International Human Rights Clinic, Seattle University School of Law, 2008. 80p. Source: Internet Resource Year: 2008 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 118300 Keywords: Due ProcessHuman Rights ViolationsIllegal AliensImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsPrison Conditions |
Author: Koh, Jennifer Lee Title: Deportation Without Due Process Summary: Over the past decade, the United States government has dramatically expanded its use of a program called “stipulated removal” that has allowed immigration officials to deport over 160,000 non-U.S. citizens without ever giving them their day in court. This report synthesizes information obtained from never-before-released U.S. government documents and data about stipulated removal that became available for analysis as a result of a lawsuit filed under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). According to the previously unreleased data, the federal government has used stipulated removal primarily on noncitizens in immigration detention who lack lawyers and are facing deportation due to minor immigration violations. These noncitizens were given a Hobson’s choice: Accept a stipulated removal order and agree to your deportation, or stay in immigration detention to fight your case. Many of these government records reveal that the stipulated removal program has been implemented across the U.S. at the expense of immigrants’ due process rights. Government records obtained through FOIA litigation suggest that government officials offering stipulated removal to immigrant detainees routinely provided them with inaccurate, misleading, and confusing information about the law and removal process. For example, government agents overemphasized the length of time detainees would spend in detention if they chose to fight their cases and see a judge, yet failed to tell detainees that they could secure release from detention on bond while fighting their cases, or that some might win the right to remain legally in the country. In addition, detainees often had no chance to understand the consequences of signing a stipulated removal order due to systemic language barriers and the lack of quality interpretation and translation that are known to plague many immigration detention facilities. The government documents reveal that immigration judges who sign off on stipulated removal orders have expressed serious concerns about whether the stipulated removal program comports with due process. In fact, some immigration judges have refused to sign stipulated removal orders without seeing detainees for brief, in-person hearings. These hearings at least provide immigration judges the opportunity to determine whether immigrant detainees in fact opted for stipulated removal on a voluntary, intelligent, and knowing basis — as required by the current internal rules governing stipulated removal. The government documents summarized in this report present a dismal picture of the stipulated removal program — a program that, until recently, has operated with little public scrutiny. In September 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals shone a spotlight on the program when it issued its decision in United States v. Ramos, 623 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2010), a case addressing due process and regulatory violations inherent in the stipulated removal program. The documents analyzed for this report show that the Ramos case was not an aberration, but rather an example of the stipulated removal program’s systemic and pervasive shortcomings. In order to ensure that the stipulated removal program meets the minimum standards of due process and fairness, the federal government should implement the recommendations set forth in this report. These recommendations are geared towards ensuring that immigrants’ due process rights and the rule of law are respected in immigration detention facilities and immigration courts throughout the country. Details: Fullerton, CA: Western State University School of Law; Stanford, CA: Stanford Law School; Los Angeles: National Immigration Law Center, 2011. 30p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 23, 2011 at: http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nilc.org/immlawpolicy/arrestdet/Deportation-Without-Due-Process-2011-09.pdf Shelf Number: 122882 Keywords: Due ProcessIllegal ImmigrantsImmigrant DetentionImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.) |
Author: National Lawyers Guild. Immigration Court Observation Project Title: Fundamental Fairness: A Report on the Due Process Crisis in New York City Immigration Courts Summary: This report is a summary of 414 immigration hearings observed by New York City law students in New York City’s Immigration Courts from October 2009 through November 2010. Although numerous sources have documented inadequacies of the United States’ immigration laws and Immigration Court system, this report provides a unique perspective on the difficulties experienced by the individuals and communities affected by the Immigration Court system in New York City. It concludes with recommendations to ameliorate the identified problems. Chapter I shows the diversity of the immigrant population in New York City and the human impact that deportations have on immigrant families and immigrant communities. Many immigrants observed in removal proceedings have lived in the United States for decades, and were placed in proceedings notwithstanding their deep roots in, and familial connections to, this country. Chapter II turns to three elements of the due process crisis faced by immigrants in removal proceedings: (A) detention, (B) problematic courtroom procedures, and (C) inadequate access to representation and, when represented, to competent counsel. Each issue is addressed with anecdotes demonstrating the harsh reality faced by immigrants in New York City’s Immigration Courts. Harrowing stories of detained immigrants lacking adequate medical care and incompetent attorneys prolonging immigrants’ detention or improperly expediting immigrants’ removal, show the deep-seated faults in the system. Chapter III outlines an emerging and pressing issue in Immigration Court: the lack of protection provided to individuals with mental disabilities. ICOP chose to highlight its observations of proceedings involving individuals with mental disabilities because they demonstrate the urgent need for additional procedural and substantive safeguards for all immigrants in removal proceedings. The substance of the report concludes with proposed recommendations that address the due process issues documented through ICOP’s observations. These include: A. Reforming the detention system by ensuring meaningful review of liberty deprivation, and minimizing the impact of detention on a respondent’s immigration case. B. Addressing lapses in courtroom procedural fairness by ensuring language access and promoting transparency and professionalism in the courtroom. C. Firmly establishing a respondent’s right to counsel, and promoting and enforcing adequate representation. Finally, the appendix of the report includes direction on how to implement an observation project in your city and a glossary of pertinent terms. Details: New York: National Lawyers Guild, Immigration Court Observation Project, 2011. 37p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 24, 2011 at: http://nycicop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/icop-report-5-10-2011.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://nycicop.files.wordpress.com/2011/05/icop-report-5-10-2011.pdf Shelf Number: 122896 Keywords: Due ProcessIllegal ImmigrantsImmigration (U.S.)Immigration Courts |
Author: Smith, Alisa Title: Three-Minute Justice: Haste and Waste in Florida’s Misdemeanor Courts Summary: Nearly a half million people, or approximately 3% of the state’s adults, pass through Florida’s misdemeanor courts each year. While the charges adjudicated in these courts are often viewed as minor, the consequences of conviction are significant. Not only are there direct, immediate costs of such a conviction (fines and/or imprisonment), but often there are also long-term, collateral consequences (employment barriers and possible deportation). Despite these serious stakes, an eight-month investigation of one-third of Florida’s counties reveals disturbing evidence that efficiency commonly trumps due process in Florida’s misdemeanor courts, particularly in the larger counties. Most individuals accused of misdemeanors resolve their cases at the first hearing, the arraignment. A large percentage does so without a lawyer, notwithstanding the well-recognized importance of counsel to ensure the accused “may know precisely what he is doing, so that he is fully aware of the prospect of going to jail or prison, and so that he is treated fairly by the prosecution.” The overwhelming majority plead guilty. Indeed, 94% of misdemeanor cases are resolved before trial. On average, these arraignment proceedings lasted fewer than three minutes, even when defendants were pleading guilty at the hearing. Some defendants were informed of their rights by video or rights-waiver form, but in less than 50% of cases were the defendants who were pleading guilty directly advised by the trial judge of the rights they were forfeiting. Upon entering a plea, few were advised of their right to appeal or the immigration consequences of entering a plea. In-custody defendants and defendants without counsel were most likely to enter a guilty plea at arraignment. Defendants who entered a plea at arraignment were three times more likely to be unrepresented. Pleading guilty without counsel occurred more often in larger, rather than small counties. Moreover, defendants who were less informed of their rights to counsel were also more likely to enter a plea at arraignment. Based on this quantitative analysis of Florida’s misdemeanor courts, the following recommendations are offered to improve compliance with due process and ensure fundamental fairness: Provide counsel to all accused persons facing misdemeanor charges; Ensure a level of due process that is compatible with the seriousness and consequences of a misdemeanor prosecution; Reduce fines for less-serious, non-violent offenses; and Create citizen boards that provide oversight and review of county courts; Conduct a systemic review of Florida’s criminal code to identify misdemeanors that warrant reclassification or decriminalization. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2011. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed November 15, 2011 at: http://www.nacdl.org/ Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.nacdl.org/ Shelf Number: 123360 Keywords: Due ProcessMisdemeanor CourtsMisdemeanors (Florida) |
Author: McCarger, Laura Title: Invisible Students: The Role of Alternative and Adult Education in the Connecticut School-to-Prison Pipeline Summary: There are thousands of young people across the state of Connecticut pursuing their education outside of traditional high schools. Some have left high school by choice; others have been counseled, coerced, or otherwise forced to leave. This report examines the systematic removal of struggling and vulnerable students from traditional high school. It finds that furtive practices employed by school districts across the state flout the due process and procedural protections promised to students by state law and, in the worst instances, effectually eradicate students’ constitutionally granted right to education. Nationwide, nearly 1.2 million teens – more than one third of all high school students – drop out of high school every year. Until recently, this devastating reality remained one of our nation’s best-kept secrets. Recent efforts on the part of students, parents, activists, advocates and education reformers across the country have led states to report graduation and dropout rates more accurately and to develop new pathways to help youth on the margins get back on track to graduation. While this progress is laudable, there remains another troubling truth we must confront: students rarely “drop out” of school simply because they do not desire to finish; in fact, for many students who stop short of finishing, leaving high school is not really a choice at all. A growing body of research, informed by a decade’s worth of analysis of what has come to known as the school-to-prison pipeline, explores and documents how many of our nation’s most vulnerable and struggling students do not chose to leave school, but are in effect pushed out. The school-to-prison pipeline refers to laws, policies and practices that remove students from places of learning and place them on a path towards prison. There are actually two pipelines. One is overt and well documented. A plethora of research, both statewide and nationally, has documented how factors such as zero tolerance school discipline; suspensions and expulsions; school-based arrests; increasingly prison-like school environments; criminalization of everyday student behaviors; pressures created by high stakes tests; and budgets that prioritize incarceration over education, work in concert to place many of our struggling students on a conveyer belt into the justice system. There is also a “secret pipeline” which has not received adequate attention nor been thoroughly investigated. The secret pipeline refers to the mechanisms and strategies employed by school districts to remove students who present academic and behavioral challenges while circumventing due process and skirting accountability and responsibility for the educational outcomes of those students. Once funneled into this secret pipeline, some students never return to school. Those that attempt to finish often find themselves in alternative or adult education programs which are often ill equipped to meet students’ needs, yield startlingly low completion rates, and risk accelerating rather than curbing the flow of young people into the justice system. Gaps and loopholes in data collection and reporting mechanisms sustain the secret pipeline by rendering the experiences and outcomes of these students largely invisible. Using Connecticut as a case study, this report explores the pressures propelling the secret pipeline, documents the “de facto discipline” practices that place students on it, examines the educational experiences and outcomes of students that land in alternative and adult education programs, and advances recommendations for reform. Details: Connecticut: A Better Way Foundation; Connecticut Pushout Research and Organizing Project, 2011. 88p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 12, 2012 at http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/wsd/Education/InvisibleStudents.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.hartfordinfo.org/issues/wsd/Education/InvisibleStudents.pdf Shelf Number: 124109 Keywords: Due ProcessEducation (Connecticut)Education and CrimeJuvenile Offenders |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Tennessee's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Tennessee assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, and Indiana. In the future, it plans to release reports in, at a minimum, Ohio and Pennsylvania. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Tennessee Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Tennessee death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2007. 422p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/tennessee/finalreport.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/tennessee/finalreport.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124374 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Tennessee)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Tennessee)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Georgia's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As our capital punishment system now stands, however, we fall short in protecting these bedrock principles. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that there is a crisis in our country’s death penalty system and that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine sixteen U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. The Project is conducting state assessments in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. These assessments examine the above-mentioned jurisdictions’ death penalty systems, using as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration, including defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project includes for review five new areas associated with death penalty administration, including the preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each state’s assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based Assessment Team, which is comprised of or has access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) evolution of the state death penalty statute; (3) law enforcement tools and techniques; (4) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (5) prosecutors; (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (9) clemency; (10) jury instructions; (11) judicial independence; (12) the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings provide information about how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law of the land in each of the assessment states and because the ABA has no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. Moreover, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the Georgia death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Georgia Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team is unanimous in many of the conclusions. Even though not all team members support the call for a moratorium, they are unanimous in their belief that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly enhance the accuracy and fairness of Georgia’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 391p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/georgia/report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/georgia/report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124372 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Georgia)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Georgia)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Alabama's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As our capital punishment system now stands, however, we fall short in protecting these bedrock principles. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that there is a crisis in our country’s death penalty system and that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine sixteen U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. The Project has conducted or is conducting state assessments in Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. This assessment of Alabama is the second in this series. These assessments examine the above-mentioned jurisdictions’ death penalty systems, using as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration, including defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project includes for review five new areas associated with death penalty administration, including the preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each state’s assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based Assessment Team, which is comprised of or has access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) evolution of the state death penalty statute; (3) law enforcement tools and techniques; (4) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (5) prosecutors; (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (9) clemency; (10) jury instructions; (11) judicial independence; (12) the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings provide information about how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law of the land in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. Moreover, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the Alabama death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Alabama Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team is unanimous in many of the conclusions, including its belief that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly enhance the accuracy and fairness of Alabama’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 300p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/alabama/report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/alabama/report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124373 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Alabama)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Alabama)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Kentucky Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Kentucky's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments, conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues, publishes periodic reports, encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions, convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty, and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project began in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and minimize the risk of executing the innocent. It undertook assessments examining the administration of the death penalty in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee and released reports on these states’ capital punishment systems from 2006 through 2007. A summary report was also published in 2007 in which the findings of the eight reports completed to date were compiled. Due in large part to the success of the state assessments produced in the eight jurisdictions described above, the Project began a second round of assessments in late 2009. In addition to this report on Kentucky, the Project also plans to release reports in, at a minimum, Missouri, Texas, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. Past state assessment reports have been used as blueprints for state-based study commissions on the death penalty, served as the basis for new legislative and court rule changes on the administration of the death penalty, and generally informed decision-makers’ and the public’s understanding of the problems affecting the fairness and accuracy of their state’s death penalty system. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments in 2006: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, (2) DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence, (3) law enforcement tools and techniques, (4) crime laboratories and medical examiner offices, (5) prosecutors, (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process, (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings, (9) clemency, (10) jury instructions, (11) judicial independence, (12) racial and ethnic minorities, and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The findings of each assessment team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations, impose reforms, or in some cases, impose moratoria. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Kentucky Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this Report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail, followed by an Appendix. The Project and the Kentucky Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Kentucky death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any factual errors or omissions in this Report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2011. 520p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-content/files_flutter/1323199256kydeathpenaltyreport_120711.pdf Year: 2011 Country: United States URL: http://www.abanow.org/wordpress/wp-content/files_flutter/1323199256kydeathpenaltyreport_120711.pdf Shelf Number: 124371 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Kentucky)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Kentucky)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Missouri's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it offers a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide suspension of executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the fall of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project began in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In its first round of assessments, the Project examined the administration of the death penalty in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee and released reports on these states’ capital punishment systems from 2006 to 2007. A summary report was also published in 2007 in which the findings of the eight reports were compiled. Due in large part to the success of the state assessments produced in the eight jurisdictions described above, the Project began a second round of assessments in late 2009. In addition to this Report on Missouri, the Project released its report on Kentucky in December 2011. The Project also plans to release reports in Texas and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. Past state assessment reports have been used as blueprints for state-based study commissions on the death penalty, served as the basis for legislative and court rule changes, and generally informed decision-makers’ and the public’s understanding of the problems affecting the fairness and accuracy of their state’s death penalty system. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments in 2006: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment is conducted by a state-based assessment team. Team members typically include current and former judges, state legislators, current and former prosecutors, current and former defense attorneys, state bar association leaders, and law professors. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. They are also not required to support the Protocols, but they have agreed to follow them for the purposes of this assessment. The state assessment teams are responsible for analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. The findings of each assessment team illuminate how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and identify areas of strength and areas in need of reform. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a synopsis of the findings and proposals of the Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this Report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail, followed by an Appendix. Citations in the Report conform to rules set forth by the Supreme Court of Missouri, and thus deviate from The Bluebook citation rules where appropriate. The Project and the Missouri Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Missouri death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any factual errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2012. 488p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/death_penalty_moratorium/final_missouri_assessment_report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/administrative/death_penalty_moratorium/final_missouri_assessment_report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 124370 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Missouri)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Missouri)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Ohio's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Ohio assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama, Arizona, Florida Georgia, Indiana, and Tennessee. In the future, it plans to release an additional report in Pennsylvania. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive statefunded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Ohio death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Ohio Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team believes that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly improve Ohio’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2007. 495p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 108608 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Ohio)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Ohio)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Pennsylvania Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Pennsylvania's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Pennsylvania assessment, the Project has released state assessments in Alabama, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Ohio, and Tennessee. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focus exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and do not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Pennsylvania Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Pennsylvania Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the death penalty in Pennsylvania. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2007. 324p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/pennsylvania/finalreport.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/pennsylvania/finalreport.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 107717 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Pennsylvania)Court ProcedureDeath Penalty (Pennsylvania)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Indiana Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Indiana's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Indiana assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama, Arizona, Florida and Georgia. In the future, it plans to release reports in, at a minimum, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Tennessee. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive statefunded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Indiana Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Indiana Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Indiana death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2007. 398p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/IndianaDPRept0207.pdf Year: 2007 Country: United States URL: http://www.eurunion.org/legislat/DeathPenalty/IndianaDPRept0207.pdf Shelf Number: 104794 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Indiana)Court ProcedureDeath Penalty (Indiana)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Florida Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Florida's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As the United States Supreme Court has recognized, these goals are particularly important in cases in which the death penalty is sought. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy in the administration of the death penalty. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine several U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Florida assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama, Arizona, and Georgia. In the future, it plans to release reports in, at a minimum, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. All of these assessments of state law and practice use as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ 2001 publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration: defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus proceedings, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project added five new areas to be reviewed as part of the assessments: preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team. The teams are comprised of or have access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors, current or former defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) law enforcement tools and techniques; (3) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (4) prosecutors; (5) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction and clemency proceedings; (6) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (7) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (8) clemency; (9) jury instructions; (10) judicial independence; (11) racial and ethnic minorities; and (12) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings of each team provide information on how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. This executive summary consists of a summary of the findings and proposals of the Florida Death Penalty Assessment Team. The body of this report sets out these findings and proposals in more detail. The Project and the Florida Death Penalty Assessment Team have attempted to describe as accurately as possible information relevant to the Florida death penalty. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in any future reprints. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 426p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/florida/report.authcheckdam.pdf Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/migrated/moratorium/assessmentproject/florida/report.authcheckdam.pdf Shelf Number: 103440 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Florida)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Florida)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Evaluating Fairness and Accuracy in State Death Penalty Systems: The Arizona Death Penalty Assessment Report - An Analysis of Arizona's Death Penalty Laws, Procedures, and Practices Summary: Fairness and accuracy together form the foundation of the American criminal justice system. As our capital punishment system now stands, however, we fall short in protecting these bedrock principles in all cases. Our system cannot claim to provide due process or protect the innocent unless it provides a fair and accurate system for every person who faces the death penalty. Over the course of the past thirty years, the American Bar Association (ABA) has become increasingly concerned that there is a crisis in our country’s death penalty system and that capital jurisdictions too often provide neither fairness nor accuracy. In response to this concern, on February 3, 1997, the ABA called for a nationwide moratorium on executions until serious flaws in the system are identified and eliminated. The ABA urges capital jurisdictions to (1) ensure that death penalty cases are administered fairly and impartially, in accordance with due process, and (2) minimize the risk that innocent persons may be executed. In the autumn of 2001, the ABA, through the Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities, created the Death Penalty Moratorium Implementation Project (the Project). The Project collects and monitors data on domestic and international death penalty developments; conducts analyses of governmental and judicial responses to death penalty administration issues; publishes periodic reports; encourages lawyers and bar associations to press for moratoriums and reforms in their jurisdictions; convenes conferences to discuss issues relevant to the death penalty; and encourages state government leaders to establish moratoriums, undertake detailed examinations of capital punishment laws and processes, and implement reforms. To assist the majority of capital jurisdictions that have not yet conducted comprehensive examinations of their death penalty systems, the Project decided in February 2003 to examine a number of U.S. jurisdictions’ death penalty systems and preliminarily determine the extent to which they achieve fairness and provide due process. In addition to the Arizona assessment, the Project has released state assessments of Alabama and Georgia and is conducting state assessments and releasing reports in, at a minimum, Florida, Indiana, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, and Virginia. The assessments are not designed to replace the comprehensive state-funded studies necessary in capital jurisdictions, but instead are intended to highlight individual state systems’ successes and inadequacies. These assessments examine the above-mentioned jurisdictions’ death penalty systems, using as a benchmark the protocols set out in the ABA Section of Individual Rights and Responsibilities’ publication, Death without Justice: A Guide for Examining the Administration of the Death Penalty in the United States (the Protocols). While the Protocols are not intended to cover exhaustively all aspects of the death penalty, they do cover seven key aspects of death penalty administration, including defense services, procedural restrictions and limitations on state post-conviction and federal habeas corpus, clemency proceedings, jury instructions, an independent judiciary, the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, and mental retardation and mental illness. Additionally, the Project includes for review five new areas associated with the administration of the death penalty, including the preservation and testing of DNA evidence, identification and interrogation procedures, crime laboratories and medical examiners, prosecutors, and the direct appeal process. Each state’s assessment has been or is being conducted by a state-based assessment team, which is comprised of or has access to current or former judges, state legislators, current or former prosecutors and defense attorneys, active state bar association leaders, law school professors, and anyone else whom the Project felt was necessary. Team members are not required to support or oppose the death penalty or a moratorium on executions. The state assessment teams are responsible for collecting and analyzing various laws, rules, procedures, standards, and guidelines relating to the administration of the death penalty. In an effort to guide the teams’ research, the Project created an Assessment Guide that detailed the data to be collected. The Assessment Guide includes sections on the following: (1) death-row demographics, DNA testing, and the location, testing, and preservation of biological evidence; (2) evolution of the state death penalty statute; (3) law enforcement tools and techniques; (4) crime laboratories and medical examiners; (5) prosecutors; (6) defense services during trial, appeal, and state post-conviction proceedings; (7) direct appeal and the unitary appeal process; (8) state post-conviction relief proceedings; (9) clemency; (10) jury instructions; (11) judicial independence; (12) the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities; and (13) mental retardation and mental illness. The assessment findings provide information about how state death penalty systems are functioning in design and practice and are intended to serve as the bases from which states can launch comprehensive self-examinations. Because capital punishment is the law of the land in each of the assessment states and because the ABA takes no position on the death penalty per se, the assessment teams focused exclusively on capital punishment laws and processes and did not consider whether states, as a matter of morality, philosophy, or penological theory, should have the death penalty. Moreover, the Project and the Assessment Team have attempted to note as accurately as possible information relevant to the death penalty in Arizona. The Project would appreciate notification of any errors or omissions in this report so that they may be corrected in future reprints. Despite the diversity of backgrounds and perspectives among the members of the Arizona Death Penalty Assessment Team, and although some members disagree with particular recommendations contained in the assessment report, the team believes that the body of recommendations as a whole would, if implemented, significantly improve Arizona’s capital punishment system. Details: Washington, DC: American Bar Association, 2006. 354p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed March 3, 2012 at Year: 2006 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 103267 Keywords: Capital Punishment (Arizona)Court ProceduresDeath Penalty (Arizona)Due ProcessEvaluative Studies |
Author: Donnelly, Neil Title: Evaluation of the Local Court Process Reforms (LCPR) Summary: Aim: To assess whether the Local Court Process Reforms (LCPR) are associated with: (i) shorter police time preparing Briefs of Evidence; (ii) longer hearing times for defended cases, (iii) more court adjournments and; (iv) longer court delay/ finalisation times. Method: A quasi-experiment where Manly Local Court returned to the non-LCPR arrangements in relation to Briefs of Evidence (BOE). These offenders were compared with a baseline group of offenders from Manly Local Court under the LCPR arrangements. Mt Druitt Local Court was used as the control group whereby they remained under the LCPR system. Results: Changing to the non-LCPR system in Manly Court did not result in an increase in the percentage of Table 1 (T1) offenders who had briefs prepared. Table 2 (T2) and non-specified summary offenders had a lower mean number of police statements in their briefs during the LCPR period compared with the non-LCPR period. There was no change in the mean hearing time for defended cases in Manly Court during the non-LCPR period, nor in the mean number of adjournments. In Manly Local Court the average finalisation time for all offenders was shorter during the LCPR period compared with the non-LCPR period. In the control Mt Druitt Local Court, there was no change in finalisation times for the baseline and intervention LCPR groups of offenders. Conclusion: The LCPR arrangements resulted in shorter briefs for T2 and non-specified summary offenders with fewer police statements. However, the non-LCPR requirement of briefs for all T1 offenders in Manly Local Court did not occur. Rather than resulting in longer finalisation times, the LCPR system had shorter finalisation times in Manly Local Court. The LCPR system did not have more local court adjournments compared with the non-LCPR system, nor longer defended hearings. Details: Sydney: NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, 2012. 20p. Source: Crime and Justice Bulletin, Contemporary Issues in Crime and Justice No. 156: Internet Resource: Accessed March 9, 2012 at http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB156.pdf/$file/CJB156.pdf Year: 2012 Country: Australia URL: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB156.pdf/$file/CJB156.pdf Shelf Number: 124400 Keywords: Court Delays (Australia)Court Procedures (Australia)Courts (Australia)Due ProcessEvaluative StudiesJudicial Reforms |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: Investigation of the Shelby County Juvenile Court Summary: More than 40 years ago, the Supreme Court established the parameters of due process for children facing delinquency proceedings and thereby subject to the “awesome prospect of incarceration.” In re Gault, 387 U.S. 1, 36 (1967). The Court held that children must be afforded the right to counsel, the right to notice of the charges, the right to be free from self-incrimination, and the right to confront witnesses. Gault, 387 U.S. 1. The year before Gault, the Supreme Court held that a child facing the possibility of a transfer to adult criminal court must be accorded the protections of due process, including a hearing, the right to representation by counsel, access to the evidence considered in determining the waiver, and, where the court waives its jurisdiction, a statement of the reasons for transfer on the record. Kent v. United States, 383 U.S. 541, 561-62 (1966). In Shelby County, it is JCMSC’s obligation to ensure that due process principles are met. JCMSC must also administer justice in a non-discriminatory manner that comports with equal protection and does not result in discriminatory impacts that violate Title VI. We find that JCMSC fails to provide constitutionally required due process to children of all races. In addition, we find that JCMSC’s administration of justice discriminates against Black1 We have reasonable cause to believe that JCMSC fails to ensure due process for all children appearing for delinquency proceedings. children. Further, we find that JCMSC violates the substantive due process rights of detained youth by not providing them with reasonably safe conditions of confinement. • JCMSC fails to provide timely and adequate notice of charges to children appearing on delinquency matters by not providing petitions of their charges prior to their detention hearings or even, in many cases, before the adjudicatory hearing (the juvenile equivalent of a trial). This violates the requirement that notice be provided “sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings so that reasonable opportunity to prepare will be afforded.” Gault, 387 U.S. at 33. • JCMSC fails to protect children from self-incrimination during probation conferences by (1) failing to advise juveniles of their Miranda rights prior to questioning them about the facts underlying their charges; (2) not obtaining informed waivers of those rights before asking the children to divulge potentially incriminating statements about their charges; and (3) eliciting self-incriminating statements in the absence of Miranda warnings and informed waivers. This is contrary to Gault’s holding that “the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination is applicable in the case of juveniles as it is with respect to adults.” Id. at 55. • JCMSC fails to hold timely probable cause hearings for children arrested without a warrant by failing to hold detention hearings on weekends and holidays. When a person has been arrested without a warrant, the Fourth Amendment requires that a judicial officer must determine that probable cause exists to believe the person has committed a crime in order for the state to continue the person’s detention. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103 (1974). In County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 57 (1991), the Court held that probable cause determinations must be made within 48 hours of a warrantless arrest. Children at JCMSC experience extended detentions because the court has no procedure in place to hold detention hearings on weekends, extended holiday weekends, and holidays. For example, JCMSC detained 815 children over a five-year period for three days or more before their probable cause hearings. • JCMSC fails to provide adequate due process protections for children before transferring them to the adult criminal court. We observed hearings and reviewed transcripts in which Magistrates made transfer decisions after making cursory inquiries (and in some cases no inquiries) into the child’s background, after failing to hold a waiver hearing, or after asking the child to self-incriminate. This violates the minimal requirement that transfer proceedings “must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.” Kent, 383 U.S. at 562. We also have reason to believe that JCMSC engages in conduct that violates the constitutional guarantee of Equal Protection and federal laws prohibiting racial discrimination, including Title VI. We retained a leading, nationally recognized, expert on measuring disparities in the juvenile justice system through statistical analysis. Statisticians in the Department of Justice’s (“DOJ”) Office of Justice Program’s Bureau of Justice Statistics and National Institute of Justice peer reviewed the expert’s work. The expert used two methodologies to make this determination. First, he reviewed JCMSC’s Relative Rate Index (“RRI”), the reporting mechanism required by DOJ’s Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (“OJJDP”).2 2 Our consultant was one of the developers of the RRI mechanism. The RRI compares Disproportionate Minority Contact in Shelby County with other counties throughout the nation. Our consultant also examined JCMSC’s case data – more than 66,000 files – over a five-year period to assess the outcomes throughout the different phases of a case, using odds ratio and logistic regression techniques. These techniques track the odds that a child’s case will be handled in a specific way at different decision points in the juvenile court process. The cases range from misdemeanor offenses, such as trespassing, to serious felony offenses, such as murder. Both methods show that Black children are disproportionately represented in almost every phase of the Shelby County juvenile justice system, including pre-trial detention and transfers to criminal court. Moreover, the data shows that in certain phases of the County’s juvenile justice system, race is – in and of itself – a significant contributing factor, even after factoring in legal variables (such as the nature of the charge and prior record of delinquency) and social variables (such as age, gender, and school attendance). • The statistical analysis shows that Black children in Shelby County are less likely to receive the benefits of more lenient judicial and non-judicial options. While we found that the impact of some legal and social factors reduced the impact of race, race was still a statistically significant factor in determining whether a child would receive lenient treatment (such as a warning) as opposed to more serious sanctions. Specifically, Black children were one third less likely to receive a warning than White children, even after accounting for other factors such as prior contacts with the court, the severity of the charges, gender, and education. • We also found a disparity in the initial detention of Black children as compared to White children. The case data showed that a Black child was more than twice as likely to be detained as a White child. This number remained unchanged after accounting for other legal and social factors. • We also found a substantial disparity in the rates of transfers to adult court. The RRI shows that JCMSC transfers Black children to adult criminal court more than two times as often than White children. Analysis of the case files shows that Black children in JCMSC have a greater odds ratio (2.07) of being considered for transfer to the criminal court and have a substantially higher chance of having their case actually transferred to the criminal court. Even after accounting for other variables including the types of offenses, prior offenses, age, and gender, the odds ratio associated with race was only slightly reduced to 2.02. This disproportionate impact cannot be explained by factors other than race. Our investigation also included a review of JCMSC’s detention facility. There we found several violations to the children’s substantive due process rights to reasonably safe conditions of confinement and freedom from undue bodily restraints. Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, 315-16 (1982). In particular, JCMSC subjects children at the detention center to unnecessary and excessive restraint, including use of restraint chairs and pressure point control tactics. These restraints endanger the safety of the children detained in the facility. JCMSC has recently informed us that it is taking steps to resolve these excessive restraint issues. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2012. 68p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed April 27, 2012 at: http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial_Images/13516.pdf Year: 2012 Country: United States URL: http://www.memphisdailynews.com/Editorial_Images/13516.pdf Shelf Number: 125079 Keywords: Disparities in Juvenile Justice ProcessingDue ProcessJuvenile Court TransfersJuvenile Courts (Tennessee)Juvenile Offenders |
Author: Cole, Jared P. Title: Terrorist Databases and the No Fly List: Procedural Due Process and Hurdles to Litigation Summary: In order to protect national security, the government maintains various terrorist watchlists, including the "No Fly" list, which contains the names of individuals to be denied boarding on commercial airline flights. Travelers on the No Fly list are not permitted to board an American airline or any flight on a foreign air carrier that lands or departs from U.S. territory or flies over U.S. airspace. Some persons have claimed that their alleged placement on the list was the result of an erroneous determination by the government that they posed a national security threat. In some cases, it has been reported that persons have been prevented from boarding an aircraft because they were mistakenly believed to be on the No Fly list, sometimes on account of having a name similar to another person who was actually on the list. As a result, various legal challenges to placement on the list have been brought in court. The Due Process Clause provides that no person shall be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Accordingly, when a person has been deprived of a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the government must follow certain procedures. Several courts have found that placement on the No Fly list may impair constitutionally protected interests, including the right to travel internationally, and the government's redress procedures must therefore satisfy due process. Typically, due process requires that the government provide a person with notice of the deprivation and an opportunity to be heard before a neutral party. However, the requirements of due process are not fixed, and can vary according to relevant factors. When determining the proper procedural protections in a given situation, courts employ the balancing test articulated by the Supreme Court in Matthews v. Eldridge, which weighs the private interests affected against the government's interest. Courts applying this balancing test might consider several factors, including the severity of the deprivation involved in placement on the No Fly list. In addition, courts may examine the risk of an erroneous deprivation under the current procedural framework and the potential value of imposing additional procedures on the process. Finally, courts may inquire into the government's interest in preserving the status quo, including the danger of permitting plaintiffs to access sensitive national security information. Resolution of the issue is currently pending as at least two federal courts have ruled that the government's redress procedures for travelers challenging placement on the No Fly list violate due process. The government is currently revising this process, although the precise details of what the new program will entail are unclear. Litigation is further complicated by several legal hurdles, such as the state secrets privilege, that can bar plaintiffs from accessing certain information during litigation. Details: Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 2015. 25p. Source: Internet Resource: R43730: Accessed April 15, 2015 at: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43730.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/homesec/R43730.pdf Shelf Number: 135235 Keywords: Due ProcessHomeland SecurityNational SecurityTerrorismTerrorists (U.S.) |
Author: U.S. Department of Justice. Civil Rights Division Title: Investigation of the St. Louis County Family Court, St. Louis, Missouri Summary: Following a comprehensive investigation, the Justice Department today announced its findings regarding the Family Court of the Twenty-First Judicial Circuit of the state of Missouri, commonly known as the St. Louis County Family Court. The Justice Department found that the family court fails to provide constitutionally required due process to children appearing for delinquency proceedings, and that the court's administration of juvenile justice discriminates against Black children. The investigation was conducted under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, which gives the department the authority to seek a remedy for a pattern or practice of conduct that violates the constitutional or federal statutory rights of youths in the administration of juvenile justice. "The findings we issue today are serious and compelling," said Principal Deputy Assistant Attorney General Vanita Gupta, head of the Civil Rights Division. "Missouri was at the forefront of juvenile corrections reform when it closed its large juvenile institutions and moved to a smaller, treatment-focused system and we are hopeful that Missouri will rise to this challenge to, once again, be a leader in juvenile justice reform. This investigation is another step toward our goal of ensuring that children in the juvenile justice system receive their constitutionally guaranteed rights to due process and equal protection under the law." Since opening this investigation in November 2013, the Civil Rights Division has analyzed data relating to nearly 33,000 juvenile cases, including all delinquency and status offenses resolved in St. Louis County Family Court between 2010 and 2013; and has reviewed over 14,000 pages of documents, including family court records, transcripts, policies, procedures and external reports. In June 2014, Justice Department attorneys and its consultants-a law school clinical professor and experienced juvenile defense attorney and a nationally-recognized expert on measuring juvenile justice disparities through statistical analysis-visited the family court and interviewed a number of court personnel, including all of the judges and commissioners as well as the heads of many of family court programs and services. They also collected information from both the state and local public defender's offices, private attorneys with experience in the family court and the parents of youth who had been involved in delinquency proceedings with the family court. The Justice Department found a number of constitutional violations, including: -Failure to ensure youth facing delinquency proceedings have adequate legal representation; -Failure to make adequate determinations that there is probable cause that a child committed the alleged offense; -Failure to provide adequate due process to children facing certification for criminal prosecution in adult criminal court; -Failure to ensure that children's guilty pleas are entered knowingly and voluntarily; -An organizational structure that is rife with conflicts of interest, is contrary to separation of powers principles and deprives children of adequate due process; and -Disparate treatment of Black children at four key decision points within the juvenile justice system. The department has opened four cases examining whether juvenile justice systems comply with children's rights since 2009. In 2012, the department settled its first investigation of this kind, reaching an agreement with the Juvenile Court of Shelby County, Memphis, Tennessee that calls for comprehensive due process, equal protection and facility reforms. On June 19, 2015, the Justice Department announced a partial settlement of its lawsuit alleging violations of children's due process rights in Lauderdale County, Mississippi. In March 2015, the department announced its investigation of due process and disability discrimination issues in the Dallas County Truancy Court and Juvenile District Courts. Details: Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, 2015. 60p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 16, 2015 at: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/07/31/stlouis_findings_7-31-15.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/crt/legacy/2015/07/31/stlouis_findings_7-31-15.pdf Shelf Number: 136300 Keywords: Child ProtectionDue ProcessFamily CourtsJuvenile Justice SystemsJuvenile OffendersProblem-Solving CourtsRacial BiasRacial Disparities |
Author: Cohen, Derek Title: Without Due Process of Law: The Conservative Case for Civil Asset Forfeiture Reform Summary: There is little dispute among the conservative movement that criminals who would threaten the safety of our communities deserve to be divested of the fruits of their illicit enterprise. Drug dealers should lose possession of vehicles used to facilitate offenses in addition to the criminal sanction they face. However, civil asset forfeiture-the practice of taking ownership of real or personal property allegedly connected to criminal activity but not requiring the criminal activity to be alleged, much less proven-has recently garnered significant outrage in the states. Tales of long-term abuses (such as those in Tenaha, Texas) and unconscionable takings (such as the entirety of Michigan grocer Terry Dehko's bank account containing over $35,000) have taken root in the public conscience as emblematic of what the state, given unchecked authority, is capable of (Cohen). This affront to central conservative ideals of property rights, due process, and rule of law has prompted several "red" states to enact comprehensive reforms, ranging from removing the incentives to engage in the practice to wholesale abolition. New Mexico, for example, has recently enacted a spate of reforms that essentially abolish civil asset forfeiture and equitable sharing, while remanding the proceeds of criminal forfeiture to a communal fund. Montana now requires a criminal conviction before assets can be forfeited and, in tandem, raised the threshold that the state must meet to perfect the forfeiture post-conviction. Even when states do pass individual protections such as raising the burden of proof or providing counsel in forfeiture proceedings, "equitable sharing" offers an easy mechanism to skirt these protections. While the majority of forfeitures are conducted under state law, local or state agencies may partner with the federal law enforcement agencies in enforcement efforts and select the least restrictive jurisdiction through which to process the forfeiture. North Carolina has long prohibited the practice, but unfortunately has been subject to above-average equitable sharing use. While commonsense conservative solutions to reform the practice have been attempted in nearly all states, efforts are stymied by special interests that directly benefit from forfeiture disbursements. These agencies have grown addicted to this unappropriated source of funding, with nearly 40 percent indicating that the money constitutes a necessary income source (Cohen). This paper highlights the two most comprehensive efforts to catalogue the relative ranking of the protections (or lack thereof) states provide their citizens, discusses commonly used fallacies by proponents of the status quo, and enumerates several reforms that states may implement to ensure criminals are held to account for their misdeeds while sparing the property rights of innocent property owners. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2015. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed April 14, 2015 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Without-Due-Process-of-Law-The-Conservative-Case-for-Civil-Asset-Forfeiture-Reform.pdf Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/PP-Without-Due-Process-of-Law-The-Conservative-Case-for-Civil-Asset-Forfeiture-Reform.pdf Shelf Number: 138665 Keywords: Asset ForfeitureDue ProcessProceeds of Crime |
Author: Dripps, Donald A. Title: Guilt, Innocence, and Due Process of Plea Bargaining Summary: Threatened decades of imprisonment can exert more behavioral pressure than coercive police interrogation. Normative distinctions between confessions and guilty pleas offered in the Supreme Court's jurisprudence, and the academic literature, are unsound. Ergo catastrophic trial penalties should be subject to the narrowest version of the due process doctrine barring involuntary confessions: When the gap between the trial and guilty plea sentences might induce an innocent person to plead guilty, the plea is unreliable and a violation of due process. The appropriate remedy is for the defense to enter the plea subject to a trial offer, i.e., a request to the court to set the case for trial on lesser charges than those in the prosecution's trial threat; or subject to special procedures to reduce the risk of erroneous conviction at trial, such as barring proof of the defendant's prior convictions. The Supreme Court's plea bargaining cases are not inconsistent with such a procedure, while current practice is inconsistent with the Supreme Court's coerced confessions jurisprudence. Details: San Diego: University of San Diego School of Law, 2015. 35p. Source: Internet Resource: San Diego Legal Studies Paper No. 16-202 : Accessed July 25, 2016 at: Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: Shelf Number: 139854 Keywords: Due ProcessGuilty Pleas Plea Bargaining |
Author: Zambia. Human Rights Commission Title: A Survey Report on the Application of Bond and Bail Legislation in Zambia Summary: This survey was conducted to collect information on factors affecting access and conditions regarding bail among people found to be in conflict with the law in Zambia. The survey was conducted for a period of six months in all ten provinces of the country. The findings of this study are meant to provide a basis for the review of current bail legislation relating to bail conditions in Zambia by promoting easy access for suspects or inmates to bail regardless of their social and economic conditions. The target respondents for the surveys were inmates in prisons, police officers in charge of a police station, magistrates and public prosecutors. The survey also examined the current committal process of matters to the High Court and the transfer process of matters to other courts so as to determine causes of delays in the two processes. A total of 2,168 respondents were interviewed in this survey. The findings reveal that on average suspects in Zambia are kept in police custody for fourteen days before they are made to appear before the court. The survey has shown that in Lusaka suspects were kept in police custody for about 22 days. Eastern province had the least detention days of 6 days. Another key finding is that about 30% of the remandees indicated that they have been awaiting judgment for a period of over one year. Two- thirds said they have been awaiting judgment for a period of less than one month. Nearly 6% have been waiting for judgment for at least 9 months. The survey also revealed several reasons explaining why few suspects attempted applying for bail. The reasons brought forward included suspects lack of knowledge that they can apply for police bond or bail and; suspects having no working sureties to sign police bond for them. The survey revealed that bail conditions in Zambia are stringent, requiring suspects to provide two working sureties as a condition for granting of bail. Findings also showed that time taken for cases to be committed to the High Court can be inordinately long as can be the rendering of judgments. The survey thus revealed that there were challenges at every stage of the criminal justice process that hindered accused persons' enjoyment of their due process rights. In this regard, the Commission found that the criminal justice system has more often than not failed in its function of ensuring that the rights of the accused are protected with the country falling short of the principles enunciated in the international standards to which it is a party. There is therefore need for a thorough review of the existing law regarding the bail and police bond conditions in Zambia as well as the law and processes that regulate the committal of cases to the High Court. In addition to this is the need for sensitisation of the citizenry on the rights to bond and bail in Zambia. Chapter 1 focuses on the problem statement and situational analysis. It further speaks to the survey objectives and methodology used. Chapter 2 focuses on the law relating to bail and committal in Zambia. It demonstrates the relationship between human rights and criminal justice; the law relating to bail and committal; preliminary inquires; survey procedures and committal sentencing. In Chapter 3 of the report, the findings of the survey are discussed. These relate to the demographic characteristics of the respondents, arbitrary and over detention of suspects, the issue of legal representation and judgement. The findings reveal the bail and bond conditions, bail during trial, reasons for the court not granting bail and the process of transfer of cases from the lower court for committal to the high court. Finally Chapter 4 concludes with recommendations from the Human Rights Commission regarding the need for reform in the legal and justice system and specifically regarding bail and police bond and the committal process. Details: Lusaka: Human Rights Commission, 2014. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed September 22, 2016 at: http://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/survey_report_hrc_zambia_2014.pdf Year: 2014 Country: Zambia URL: http://www.osisa.org/sites/default/files/survey_report_hrc_zambia_2014.pdf Shelf Number: 145587 Keywords: Bail BondsCriminal CourtCriminal Justice SystemCriminal ProcedureDue ProcessHuman RightsPretrial Release |
Author: American Bar Association Title: Severe Mental Illness and the Death Penalty Summary: In recent years, our society's improved understanding of mental illness has led to a growing recognition that, to ensure fairness, the American justice system should treat those with mental disorders and disabilities differently. Advocates, professional organizations, and many others are troubled by the over-representation of people with mental illness in the criminal justice system, and agree that these conditions need to be better taken into account by prosecutors and courts because of their relevance to culpability, sentencing, and meaningful participation in the legal process. This consideration is particularly critical in capital cases, when the stakes are the highest. For these reasons, among many others that will be discussed in this Paper, individuals with severe mental illness should not be subject to the death penalty. It has now been 10 years since the American Bar Association (ABA), in conjunction with the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association and National Alliance on Mental Illness (NAMI) adopted a policy opposing the death penalty for individuals with severe mental disorders or disabilities present at the time a crime is committed; and five years since Mental Health America adopted a similar position. As we reflect on these anniversaries, it is significant to note that, since 2006, none of the jurisdictions that use capital punishment have passed statutes to categorically prevent the execution of individuals with severe mental illness. Despite broader efforts to reform the criminal justice system's approach to mental illness, individuals with these types of conditions can still be sentenced to death and executed. It is, therefore, now time to convert the ABA's policy into a meaningful tool to help states pass laws that will establish clear standards and processes to prevent the execution of those with severe mental illness. Details: Chicago: ABA, 2016. 44p. Source: Internet Resource: Death Penalty Due Process Review Project: Accessed January 30, 2017 at: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/crsj/DPDPRP/SevereMentalIllnessandtheDeathPenalty_WhitePaper.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/images/crsj/DPDPRP/SevereMentalIllnessandtheDeathPenalty_WhitePaper.pdf Shelf Number: 146035 Keywords: Capital PunishmentDeath PenaltyDue ProcessMentally Ill Offenders |
Author: Jackson, Brian A. Title: Future-Proofing Justice: Building a Research Agenda to Address the Effects of Technological Change on the Protection of Constitutional Rights Summary: New technologies have changed the types of data that are routinely collected about citizens on a daily basis. For example, smart devices collect location and communication data, and fitness trackers and medical devices capture physiological and other data. As technology changes, new portable and connected devices have the potential to gather even more information. Such data have great potential utility in criminal justice proceedings, and they are already being used in case preparations, plea negotiations, and trials. But the broad expansion of technological capability also has the potential to stress approaches for ensuring that individuals' constitutional rights are protected through legal processes. In an effort to consider those implications, we convened a panel of criminal justice practitioners, legal scholars, and individuals from the civil liberties community to identify research and other needs to prepare the U.S. legal system both for technologies we are seeing today and for technologies we are likely to see in the future. Through structured brainstorming, the panel explored a wide range of potential issues regarding these technologies, from evidentiary and procedural concerns to questions about the technologies' accuracy and efficient use. Via a Delphi-based prioritization of the results, the panel crafted a research agenda — including best practice and training development, evaluation, and fundamental research efforts — to provide the criminal justice community with the knowledge and capabilities needed to address these important and complex technological questions going forward. Key Findings Members of the Technology and Due Process Panel Identified Needs That Fell into Five Key Themes Are You Really Sure? Issues of Data and Analytic Quality for Just Decisions My Technology, Myself: A Blurring Line Between Technology and the Person? Data, Data Everywhere: Mobile Access to Information, Modern Data (Over)Sharing, and the Third-Party Doctrine Smart (Enough) Justice: Building Justice System Expertise for Complex Technical Concerns Virtual Reality, Only Virtually Just? Understanding Whether Virtual Presence, Simulation, and Immersive Presentation Advance or Hinder Justice Emerging Technologies Pose a Wide Range of Issues for Individuals' Constitutional Rights, Especially to Due Process, in the Criminal Justice System The emerging technologies considered by the panel included courtroom technologies, body-integrated technologies, carried devices, personal computing devices, home-integrated and household technologies, vehicle-integrated technologies, and the societal technology ecosystem. The panel's research agenda prioritized needs that fell into three categories: best practice and training development, addressing such issues as criminal justice data quality and its implications for individuals' rights; evaluation work to better understand how analytic tools (such as risk assessment instruments) perform; and fundamental research on such topics as how the exploding volume of electronic data could affect the protection of rights. Among the issues raised by the panel, the need to educate participants in the criminal justice system was most prominent. Many needs focused on developing best practices for assessments of criminal justice data quality, data retention, disclosure of collected data, public examination and correction of criminal justice data, use of telepresence, and model laws and policies for addressing social media use by criminal justice participants. Recommendations This effort sought to lay out not just near-term needs for addressing technologies available today but also longer-term, more-fundamental research topics to provide the justice system better ways to address the challenges posed by the likely rapid shifts in information, sensing, and other technologies that will continue to occur in the future. Issues related to the panel's identified needs — many of which touch on extremely forward-looking technology concerns — are perceived as being very risky, but that might be a rationale to pursue research on these issues rather than a justification to shy away from doing so. Beyond simply answering the specific issues raised in each need individually, such research could contribute to the judicial system making better decisions regarding these technologies and their use. Details: Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 2017. 44p., app. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 4, 2017 at: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1748.html Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: http://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR1748.html Shelf Number: 140811 Keywords: Civil Rights Criminal Justice Due ProcessTechnology and Crime |
Author: Smith, Alisa Title: Rush to Judgment: How South Carolina's Summary Courts Fail to Protect Constitutional Rights Summary: In response to disturbing stories of constitutional violations uncovered by NACDL and ACLU attorneys documented in 2016's Summary Injustice report (below), NACDL undertook additional investigation of South Carolina's summary courts. Law students and legal professionals gathered information about court proceedings in five South Carolina counties over three months in the winter and spring of 2016, the results of which are published in this follow-up report. Each day, the team observed court hearings in various venues, observing individuals charged with everything from shoplifting to driving offenses to unlawful possession of tobacco and alcohol. In every court studied for this report, the team found egregious, repeated constitutional violations happening daily and in hundreds of cases. In the months of court watching and data collection, researchers documented numerous findings, all of which are set forth in the Rush to Judgment report. Findings from this study and Summary Injustice lead NACDL to suggest the following five recommendations for reform to ensure that South Carolina's courts operate in accordance with constitutional mandates and guarantee procedural justice for those whose lives will forever be altered as a result of a criminal adjudication: Staff South Carolina’s summary courts with prosecutors and public defenders and ensure that courts are presided over by judges who are licensed attorneys. Reduce the caseload of magistrate and municipal courts by decriminalizing traffic offenses. Reduce fines and fees, and consider alternative sanctions for those who cannot afford to pay. Increase uniform reporting of criminal and traffic cases in summary courts to include data regarding whether defendants had counsel and whether and how defendants were informed of their rights. Enact uniform procedures for magistrate and municipal courts regarding advisement of rights and plea colloquies. Ensure that all defendants understand their rights and the direct and collateral consequences of a guilty plea or verdict. Details: Washington, DC: National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, 2017. 52p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 8, 2017 at: https://www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice/ Year: 2017 Country: United States URL: https://www.nacdl.org/summaryinjustice/ Shelf Number: 145011 Keywords: Constitutional RightsCourt ReformCriminal CourtsCriminal DefenseDue ProcessMagistrate CourtsMunicipal CourtsSummary Courts |
Author: Glod, Greg Title: Balancing the Scales of Due Process: The Conservative Case for Grand Jury Reform in Texas Summary: This paper discusses the history of the American grand jury system, Texas' grand jury system, areas within the status quo where procedural safeguards do not properly protect the liberties of Texans, and what other states have done to bolster their grand jury systems. Details: Austin, TX: Texas Public Policy Foundation, 2016. 8p. Source: Internet Resource: Policy Perspective: Accessed February 22, 2017 at: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-10-PP22-GrandJuryReform-CLG-GregGlod-1-.pdf Year: 2016 Country: United States URL: http://www.texaspolicy.com/library/doclib/2016-10-PP22-GrandJuryReform-CLG-GregGlod-1-.pdf Shelf Number: 144847 Keywords: Court ReformDue ProcessGrand Jury System |
Author: Resnik, Judith Title: Who Pays? Fines, Fees, Bail, and the Cost of Courts Summary: In the last decades, growing numbers of people have sought to use courts, government budgets have declined, new technologies have emerged, arrest and detention rates have risen, and arguments have been leveled that private resolutions are preferable to public adjudication. Lawsuits challenge the legality of fee structures, money bail, and the imposition of fines. States have chartered task forces to propose changes, and new research has identified the effects of the current system on low-income communities and on people of color. The costs imposed through fees, surcharges, fines, and bail affect the ability of plaintiffs and defendants to seek justice and to be treated justly. This volume, prepared for the 21st Annual Arthur Liman Center Colloquium, explores the mechanisms for financing court systems and the economic challenges faced by judiciaries and by litigants. We address how constitutional democracies can meet their obligations to make justice accessible to disputants and to make fair treatment visible to the public. Our goals are to understand the dimensions of the problems, the inter-relationships among civil, criminal, and administrative processes, and the opportunities for generating the political will to bring about reform. Details: New Haven, CT: Yale University, Law School, 2018. 222p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed May 8, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165674 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3165674 Shelf Number: 150105 Keywords: BailCourt FeesCriminal Justice DebtDue ProcessFeesFinancial SanctionsFines |
Author: Colgan, Beth Title: Wealth-Based Penal Disenfranchisement Summary: This Article offers the first comprehensive examination of the way in which the inability to pay economic sanctions-fines, fees, surcharges, and restitutionmay prevent people of limited means from voting. The Supreme Court has upheld the constitutionality of penal disenfranchisement upon conviction, and all but two states revoke the right to vote for at least some offenses. The remaining jurisdictions allow for re-enfranchisement for most or all offenses under certain conditions. One often overlooked condition is payment of economic sanctions regardless of whether the would-be voter has the ability to pay before an election registration deadline. The scope of wealth-based penal disenfranchisement is grossly underestimated, with commentators typically stating that nine states sanction such practices. Through an in-depth examination of a tangle of statutes, administrative rules, and policies related to elections, clemency, parole, and probation, as well as responses from public disclosure requests and discussions with elections and corrections officials and other relevant actors, this Article reveals that wealth-based penal disenfranchisement is authorized in forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. After describing the mechanisms for wealth-based penal disenfranchisement, this Article offers a doctrinal intervention for dismantling them. There has been limited, and to date unsuccessful, litigation challenging these practices as violative of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection and due process clauses. Because voting eligibility is stripped of its fundamental nature for those convicted of a crime, wealth-based penal disenfranchisement has been subject to the lowest level of scrutiny, rational basis review, leading lower courts to uphold the practice. This Article posits that these courts have approached the validity of wealth-based penal disenfranchisement through the wrong frame - the right to vote - when the proper frame is through the lens of punishment. This Article examines a line of cases in which the Court restricted governmental action that would result in disparate treatment between rich and poor in criminal justice practices, juxtaposing the cases against the Court's treatment of wealth-based discrimination in the Fourteenth Amendment doctrine and the constitutional relevance of indigency in the criminal justice system broadly. Doing so supports the conclusion that the Court has departed from the traditional tiers of scrutiny. The resulting test operates as a flat prohibition against the use of the government's prosecutorial power in ways that effectively punish one's financial circumstances unless no other alternative response could satisfy the government's interest in punishing the disenfranchising offense. Because such alternatives are available, wealth-based penal disenfranchisement would violate the Fourteenth Amendment under this approach. Details: Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law, 2019. 75p. Source: Internet Resource: UCLA School of Law, Public Law Research Paper No. 19-10: 72 Vand. L. Rev. 55 (2019): Accessed July 2, 2019 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3312439 Year: 2019 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3312439 Shelf Number: 156823 Keywords: DisenfranchisementDue ProcessEconomic SanctionsEqual ProtectionFines and FeesFourteenth AmendmentPovertySentencingVoting Rights |