Transaction Search Form: please type in any of the fields below.
Date: April 30, 2024 Tue
Time: 2:43 am
Time: 2:43 am
Results for supreme court
3 results foundAuthor: Berry, William W., III Title: Eighth Amendment Presumptions: A Constitutional Framework for Curbing Mass Incarceration Summary: The Supreme Court's conceptualization of the Eighth Amendment over the past decade has focused on narrow exceptions to the ability of the states to punish criminal offenders, excising particular punishments based on characteristics of the offender or crime. What is missing, however, is a set of broader guiding principles delineating the line between acceptable and impermissible punishments. The Court itself, in Kennedy v. Louisiana, acknowledged as much, describing the case law as "still in search of a unifying principle." In light of this vacuum, this article proposes a new approach to the application of the Eighth Amendment. The absence of regulation of excessive and disproportionate punishments by state legislatures over the past two decades has resulted in the largest prison population in the history of the human race. Instead of merely being a tool that merely removes a few types of offenses and offenders from the purview of state legislatures, the Eighth Amendment should also serve as a more robust guide to shape state penal practices. To that end, this Article argues for the development of a series of Eighth Amendment presumptions - guiding principles that would govern the punishment practices of legislatures without excluding them from the conversation. Currently, the Eighth Amendment serves to identify the constitutional "exceptions" to the "rules" promulgated by the legislatures. This Article's approach would reverse that status quo, with the Court articulating general rules and the legislatures then developing (and justifying through careful study) the exceptions to the rules. Indeed, an examination of the Court's Eighth Amendment cases suggests this "presumptive" sentiment is already implicit in much of the thinking of the Court. Part I of the Article briefly explains the shortcomings of the current evolving standards of decency doctrine and its devastating consequences. Part II of the Article explores the concept of presumptions, exploring how presumptions operate and demonstrating their virtues. The Article then argues in Part III for the reimagining of the Eighth Amendment as an Amendment of constitutional presumptions combining elements from the Court's past cases with the needs arising from three decades of neglecting the decisions of legislatures. Finally, Part IV demonstrates how this conceptual framework would work in practice. Details: University, MS: University of Mississippi School of Law, 2015. 36p. Source: Internet Resource: Accessed February 26, 2015 at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567962 Year: 2015 Country: United States URL: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567962 Shelf Number: 134680 Keywords: Death Penalty (U.S.)Mandatory SentencingParolePunishmentSentencingSupreme Court |
Author: Jaros, David Title: Criminal Doctrines of Faith Summary: Decisions like Miranda v. Arizona helped popularize a conception of the courts as a protector of criminal defendants and a bulwark against overly aggressive law enforcement. But from arrest through trial, the Court has fashioned criminal constitutional procedure with a deep and abiding faith in the motivations of criminal justice system actors. Even decisions that vindicate individual constitutional rights at the expense of police and prosecutorial power are shaped by the Court's fundamental trust in those same actors. They establish, in essence, "Criminal Doctrines of Faith." Criminal Doctrines of Faith pervade each stage of the criminal process - from cases that govern the pursuit of suspects and searches of homes to the disclosure of exculpatory evidence and the defendant's capacity to waive a jury trial. This faith in law enforcement takes several forms. Some decisions reflect a simple faith in police and prosecutors' character, while others, a faith in the institutions in which they work or in the courts' ability to identify and deter misconduct. Recent high-profile prosecutions of police officers have highlighted and raised new questions about how much criminal procedure should rest on faith. In such cases, trusted government actors, both police and prosecutors, have attacked the integrity of a criminal process ostensibly designed to control their own behavior. Using the trials of the Baltimore police officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray as a lens, this Article highlights how the Supreme Court's faith in police and prosecutors raises profound questions about the strength of these doctrines, the importance of more skeptical and diverse viewpoints on courts, and the viability of court-led regulation of law enforcement actors. Details: Baltimore: University of Baltimore School of Law, 2018. 48p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Baltimore School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper: Accessed April 4, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3126451 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3126451 Shelf Number: 149689 Keywords: Criminal Defendants Criminal Procedure Decision-Making Police Misconduct Prosecutorial Misconduct Prosecutors Supreme Court |
Author: Kritzer, Herbert M. Title: Polarized Justice? Changing Patterns of Decision-Making in the Federal Courts Summary: This article examines the question of whether there has been a pattern of increasing partisan polarization in decisions by federal judges. After an initial section briefly discussing the general issue of partisan polarization in American politics, the analysis draws on several extant data sources to present evidence of concerning polarization for each of the three levels of the federal courts. That analysis shows increasing, and quite significant, polarization in the behavior of the justices of the Supreme Court, although that is not true for decisions dealing with economics issues and regulation. Much of the change reflects who presidents have been appointing to the Court. For the Court of Appeals and the federal district courts, there is also evidence of increasing differentiation between appointees of the two parties’ presidents. Given the more routine nature of cases below the Supreme Court, the gaps and the change at the lower levels are much less. Again, the nature of the changes varies with the types of cases and those changes significantly reflect who is being appointed to the courts. Details: Minneapolis, MNL University of Minnesota Law School, 2018. 73p. Source: Internet Resource: University of Minnesota Law School, Working Papers, May 5, 2018 Accessed June 18, 2018 at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3187627 Year: 2018 Country: United States URL: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3187627 Shelf Number: 150568 Keywords: Federal Courts Judges Judicial Decision-Making Supreme Court |