State of Arizona v. Guy James Goodman: On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court

Allyson N. Ho, P. Cassell, Bradley Hubbard, C. Squiers, Elizabeth A. Kiernan, Steven J. Twist
{"title":"State of Arizona v. Guy James Goodman: On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the Arizona Supreme Court","authors":"Allyson N. Ho, P. Cassell, Bradley Hubbard, C. Squiers, Elizabeth A. Kiernan, Steven J. Twist","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.3275549","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Arizona’s pending certiorari petition in Arizona v. Goodman provides the Supreme Court with an opportunity to review the important issue of the circumstances under which the Constitution permits an accused sex offender to be denied bail pending trial. In 2002, Arizona voters amended their state constitution, rendering a defendant categorically ineligible for bail if “the proof is evident or the presumption great” that he committed sexual assault. In a narrowly divided opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court found that this measure unconstitutional. And yet the Court’s opinion makes clear that the Constitution does not prohibit denying bail to defendants who present (1) “a continuing danger to the community” or (2) “a risk of flight.” Nor does the Constitution prohibit categorically denying bail based on the nature of the charged offense. Indeed, thirty-four states categorically deny bail to persons charged with capital offenses, murder, specified sex offenses, or offenses punishable by life imprisonment. \nReview of the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision is needed to resolve the conflict between it and the Court’s precedent on an important issue of constitutional law that affects the criminal justice system, crime victims, and community safety in States across the Nation. The Court’s review is especially needed because of the serious implications for victims and their communities if the judgment below is permitted to stand. Given sex offenders’ high recidivism rates, and the life-altering harm suffered by their victims, Arizona’s legislature was entirely reasonable when it opted to categorically deny bail to sexual-assault defendants on the ground that sexual assault is an adequate proxy for future dangerousness - and to build in procedural protections that go above and beyond in ensuring due process. The Constitution does not prohibit States like Arizona and others from taking these steps to ensure sex offenders are brought to justice, victims are protected, and communities are safeguarded.","PeriodicalId":219298,"journal":{"name":"CJRN: Sex Offenses & Offenders (Topic)","volume":"39 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CJRN: Sex Offenses & Offenders (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.3275549","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Arizona’s pending certiorari petition in Arizona v. Goodman provides the Supreme Court with an opportunity to review the important issue of the circumstances under which the Constitution permits an accused sex offender to be denied bail pending trial. In 2002, Arizona voters amended their state constitution, rendering a defendant categorically ineligible for bail if “the proof is evident or the presumption great” that he committed sexual assault. In a narrowly divided opinion, the Arizona Supreme Court found that this measure unconstitutional. And yet the Court’s opinion makes clear that the Constitution does not prohibit denying bail to defendants who present (1) “a continuing danger to the community” or (2) “a risk of flight.” Nor does the Constitution prohibit categorically denying bail based on the nature of the charged offense. Indeed, thirty-four states categorically deny bail to persons charged with capital offenses, murder, specified sex offenses, or offenses punishable by life imprisonment. Review of the Arizona Supreme Court’s decision is needed to resolve the conflict between it and the Court’s precedent on an important issue of constitutional law that affects the criminal justice system, crime victims, and community safety in States across the Nation. The Court’s review is especially needed because of the serious implications for victims and their communities if the judgment below is permitted to stand. Given sex offenders’ high recidivism rates, and the life-altering harm suffered by their victims, Arizona’s legislature was entirely reasonable when it opted to categorically deny bail to sexual-assault defendants on the ground that sexual assault is an adequate proxy for future dangerousness - and to build in procedural protections that go above and beyond in ensuring due process. The Constitution does not prohibit States like Arizona and others from taking these steps to ensure sex offenders are brought to justice, victims are protected, and communities are safeguarded.
亚利桑那州诉盖伊·詹姆斯·古德曼:关于向亚利桑那州最高法院申请调卷令的请愿书
亚利桑那州在亚利桑那州诉古德曼案中提出的调卷申请为最高法院提供了一个机会,以审查宪法允许被指控的性犯罪者在候审期间被拒绝保释的情况。2002年,亚利桑那州选民修改了他们的州宪法,规定如果“证据明显或推定很大”的被告犯下了性侵犯,他绝对没有资格获得保释。在意见分歧很小的情况下,亚利桑那州最高法院裁定这项措施违宪。然而,最高法院的意见清楚地表明,宪法并不禁止拒绝对(1)“对社区构成持续危险”或(2)“有逃跑危险”的被告的保释。宪法也没有禁止根据被控罪行的性质断然拒绝保释。事实上,34个州明确拒绝对被控犯有死罪、谋杀、特定性犯罪或可判处终身监禁的罪行的人进行保释。需要对亚利桑那州最高法院的裁决进行审查,以解决它与法院在宪法法律的一个重要问题上的先例之间的冲突,这个问题影响到全国各州的刑事司法系统、犯罪受害者和社区安全。特别需要法院的审查,因为如果允许以下判决成立,将对受害者及其社区产生严重影响。考虑到性犯罪者的高累犯率,以及受害者所遭受的改变一生的伤害,亚利桑那州的立法机构断然拒绝性侵犯被告的保释是完全合理的,因为性侵犯是未来危险的充分代表,并且建立了超越正当程序的程序保护。宪法并没有禁止像亚利桑那州这样的州和其他州采取这些措施来确保性犯罪者被绳之以法,受害者得到保护,社区得到保障。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信