{"title":"The Problem of Post-Cunningham Judicial Review: The Impact of Gall, Kimbrough and Senate Bill 40 on California Sentencing","authors":"Casey McTigue","doi":"10.15779/Z38V62R","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38V62R","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"46 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125815981","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Calling Strikes before He Stepped to the Plate: Why Juvenile Adjudications Should Not Be Used to Enhance Subsequent Adult Sentences","authors":"Joseph I. Goldstein-Breyer","doi":"10.15779/Z38S61N","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38S61N","url":null,"abstract":"In 1967, the United States Supreme Court held that minors in juvenile court have the right to notice of the charges upon which they stand accused, the right to cross-examination, the privilege against self-incrimination, and the right to counsel.' However, four years later, in McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, the Court determined that juveniles were not entitled to a jury trial due to what it considered fundamental differences between the purposes and characteristics of the juvenile and criminal justice system. 2 According to the McKeiver Court, these differences included the juvenile court's superior diagnostic and rehabilitative services, the lower level of culpability indicated through a juvenile adjudication than a criminal conviction, and the intimate, informal, and protective approach of the juvenile system that sought to rehabilitate rather than punish.3 Therefore, the Court concluded, the right to a jury trial would lead to the \"traditional delay, the formality, and the clamor of the adversary system.\" 4 In light of the rationale for different treatment of juvenile adjudications, the California Supreme Court's decision in People v. Nguyen, which held that non-jury juvenile adjudications may be used to enhance subsequent sentences beyond the statutory maximum,5 is inconsistent with the long-standing purposes of the juvenile system. Use of prior juvenile adjudications to enhance later adult sentences is contrary to the deliberately drawn boundaries between the juvenile and adult systems. Thus, the California Supreme Court's decision raises serious issues relating to the underlying differences between the juvenile","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133252098","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Is the Constitution in Harm's Way?Substantive Due Process and Criminal Law","authors":"E. Tennen","doi":"10.15779/Z38JK7W","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38JK7W","url":null,"abstract":"¶1. For quite some time, scholars have debated whether or not there are any constitutional limits to substantive criminal law.[1] Although the Court has cautiously resisted the chance to constitutionalize criminal law overtly, it has been delving into substantive criminal law since the turn of the twentieth century.[2] To be sure, the Court often disguises these forays as cases about substantive due process generally, and privacy, specifically.","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"12 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122203964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"The Potential and Limits of Death Penalty Commissions as Tools for Reform: Applying Lessons from Illinois and New Jersey to Understand the California Experience","authors":"Sarah Rose Weinman","doi":"10.15779/Z38F03R","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38F03R","url":null,"abstract":"In 2004, the California legislature established the California Commission on the Fair Administration of Justice, an independent commission charged with reviewing the administration of the state death penalty system, identifying systemic failings, and recommending legislative and administrative measures to address those failings. In its June 2008 final report, the Commission emphatically declared the California death penalty system “dysfunctional.” Although the Commission found flaws of constitutional magnitude endemic to the system, it failed to recommend alternatives – such as replacing the death sentence with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole, or narrowing the list of special circumstance factors that render a criminal defendant eligible for the death sentence – that would strike at the root of the problems. Instead, the Commission recommended maintaining the current system and implementing a number of costly legislative, executive, and administrative reforms. California was not the first state to establish an independent commission to review the death penalty. More than fifteen states have created commissions tasked with reviewing and recommending fixes to state death penalty systems.","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"1 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115597215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Confessions and Harmless Error: A New Argument for the Old Approach","authors":"Alan Hirsch","doi":"10.15779/Z38X329","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38X329","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"265 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"116417733","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Consistency and Fairness in Sentencing","authors":"M. Bagaric","doi":"10.15779/Z38N900","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38N900","url":null,"abstract":"Sentencing law is so indeterminate that it has been labeled the `high point in antijurisprudence'.1 The vast discretion left to judges when sentencing has resulted in widespread inconsistency in sentencing. The most obvious manner to attenuate judicial discretion is to introduce a comprehensive fixed penalty regime. Fixed penalties however, are almost universally condemned. They are regarded as unjust because they are universally too harsh and they fail to account for differences between individual defendants. This paper argues that both of these criticisms can be circumvented by adopting a primary rationale for sentencing, hence paving the way for a fixed penalty system which would constitute a significant improvement to the present sentencing system.","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"64 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"122595780","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"A Death Penalty Wake-up Call: Reducing the Risk of Racial Discrimination in Capital Punishment","authors":"Maxine D. Goodman","doi":"10.15779/Z38SD0H","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38SD0H","url":null,"abstract":"In Ernest Gaines's novel A Lesson Before Dying, Gaines tells the story of Jefferson, a young African-American man convicted of murdering a white grocery store owner in a small Louisiana town in the late 1940s. 1 The public defender, trying to arouse sympathy for the defendant, refers to Jefferson as a dumb animal-a \"hog.\" 2 The lawyer implores the jurors to \"look at the shape of this skull, this face as flat as the palm of my hand.\"3 Surely this \"thing,\" his argument continues, could not plan a murder.4 In Gaines's story, the all-white jury convicts Jefferson of murder, and the judge, seeing no reason Jefferson should not \"pay for the part he played in this horrible crime,\" sentences him to death by electrocution.5 The story's poignancy comes from the questions it provokes concerning whether we have progressed beyond the 1940s capital punishment system it describes. Today, presumably, neither side's counsel would refer to an African-American defendant as a \"hog.\" However, as demonstrated herein, racial discrimination continues to permeate death penalty decisions. In Green v. Texas, of the four people responsible for a murder, the petitioner, an African-American, was the only one charged with capital murder. Two African-American accomplices plea-bargained for prison sentences on aggravated robbery charges, and the fourth accomplice, a Caucasian, was not","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130704873","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"All for One: A Review of Victim-Centric Justifications for Criminal Punishment","authors":"A. MacLeod","doi":"10.15779/Z38RD05","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RD05","url":null,"abstract":"Disparate understandings of the primary justification for criminal punishment have in recent years divided along new lines. Retributivists and consequentialists have long debated whether a community ought to punish violators of legal norms primarily because the violator has usurped communal standards (the retributivist view), or rather merely as a means toward some end such as rehabilitation or deterrence (the consequentialist view). The competing answers to this question have demarcated for some time the primary boundary in criminal jurisprudential thought. A new fault line appears to have opened between those who maintain the historical view that criminal punishment promotes the common good and those who believe that criminal punishment should primarily or exclusively serve or vindicate the interests of individual victims. For lack of commonly-used labels, this article shall refer to the former as \"Blackstonian retributivists\" and the latter as \"victim-centrists.\" Victim-centrists would allow states and communities to punish those who usurp certain rights of particular victims and would, in some instances, excuse conduct that has historically been understood as criminal on the ground that such conduct best serves a victim's interest. Victim-centric justifications for punishment or forbearance from punishment can naturally be understood from a consequentialist perspective. Consequentialist reasoning provides a link between the harm suffered by a particular victim and the culpability of the perpetrator. For this reason consequentialism and victim-centrism make an obvious fit. However, the divide between the Blackstonians and the victim-centrists is not contiguous with the line between retributivists and consequentialists. Rather, some retributivists, most notably George Fletcher,' have pitched their tents with","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"235 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130455427","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Extradition Law and the International Criminal Court","authors":"S. Gupta","doi":"10.15779/Z388335","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z388335","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"45 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130279303","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"Coleman/Plata: Highlighting the Need to Establish an Independent Corrections Commission in California","authors":"A. Lopez","doi":"10.15779/Z38NG9M","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38NG9M","url":null,"abstract":"On August 4, 2009, a three-judge federal court found that overcrowding in California prisons led to violations of inmates' constitutional rights and ordered the Governor of California and various state officials (\"defendants\" or \"the state\") to develop a plan to reduce the state prison population by 46,000 inmates,' or approximately twenty-five percent of the total prison population.2 However, the Coleman/Plata court order will not provide long-term relief from the overcrowding crisis and its resulting constitutional violations. Instead, it is likely that California will return to the same position a few years from now, given the state's historically tough-on-crime politics and resistance to reforms that would effectively manage sentencing, rehabilitation, and parole issues. The state's best course of action to prevent such an outcome is to (1) create an independent corrections commission, (2) improve and expand communitybased punishments and rehabilitation programs, and (3) reform the parole system. Part I of this paper provides background on California's prison crisis by exploring the California state prison system, the Prison Litigation Reform Act (\"PLRA\"), and the Coleman/Plata case. Part II describes the barriers to achieving a long-term solution to the prison crisis in California. It also recommends that the state establish an independent commission with the necessary authority to promulgate policies to resolve the prison crisis.","PeriodicalId":386851,"journal":{"name":"Berkeley Journal of Criminal Law","volume":"37 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"1900-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"114141010","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}