Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology最新文献_第7页

It's Not Always about the Money: Why the State Identity Theft Laws Fail to Adequately Address Criminal Record Identity Theft 这并不总是关于钱:为什么国家身份盗窃法不能充分解决犯罪记录身份盗窃

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-09-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491307

M. Perl

引用次数: 35

Trying to Understand America's Death Penalty System and Why We Still Have It 试图了解美国的死刑制度以及为什么我们仍然有它

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-09-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491308

Thomas F. Geraghty

引用次数: 1

Drug Courts and the De Facto Legalization of Drug Use for Participants in Residential Treatment Facilities 毒品法庭与住院治疗机构参与者吸毒的事实合法化

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-09-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491306

A. Armstrong

引用次数: 8

Respect and the Fourth Amendment 尊重和第四修正案

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-09-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491304

Andrew E. Taslitz

引用次数: 11

Apprendi in the States: The Virtues of Federalism as a Structural Limit on Errors 美国的学徒:作为错误结构限制的联邦制的优点

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-08-14 DOI: 10.2139/SSRN.410562

Stephanos Bibas

{"title":"Apprendi in the States: The Virtues of Federalism as a Structural Limit on Errors","authors":"Stephanos Bibas","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.410562","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.410562","url":null,"abstract":"In Apprendi v. New Jersey, the Supreme Court of the U.S. required, at a minimum, that juries find beyond a reasonable doubt any fact that increases a defendant's statutory maximum sentence. This watershed decision broke sharply with two centuries of judicial discretion to find facts at sentencing under lower standards of proof. Apprendi left open large questions about its scope: would it change indictment and plea procedure? Would it be retroactive? Would Apprendi errors be harmless? Would Apprendi invalidate judicial mandatory minimum sentences or sentencing guidelines? Over the last three years, state courts have struggled to answer these questions. And they have by and large reached an unusual consensus: Apprendi should extend no further than its narrow holding requires, limiting only facts that raise statutory maximum sentences. This piece canvasses this development and asks why it developed this way. State courts have limited Apprendi not simply because they follow the Supreme Court in lock step or because they are mindless bastions of conservatism. The underlying lesson is that the state courts saw Apprendi's errors and reacted to limit them. They remained faithful to Apprendi's core holding, but they brought their practical experience to bear in damage control by extending it no further. A consensus developed that Apprendi was wrongly decided and should go no further than it must. This brings out a new point about federalism. States are often praised as laboratories of experimentation, going beyond federal minima. But here the process worked well in reverse: the Supreme Court went too far, and the states broke the expansion of what they rightly saw as a disruptive mistake. The moral of the story is that state courts are valuable participants in our cooperative federalism of criminal procedure as much for what they refrain from doing as for what they do.","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2003-08-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"68695705","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 6

Hope v. Pelzer: Increasing the Accountability of State Actors in Prison Systems - A Necessary Enterprise in Guaranteeing the Eight Amendment Rights of Prison Inmates Hope v. Pelzer:增加监狱系统中国家行为者的问责制——保障监狱囚犯八项修正案权利的必要事业

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-06-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491314

A. Chin

引用次数: 1

Harris v. United States: The Supreme Court's Latest Avoidance of Providing Constitutional Protection to Sentencing Factors 哈里斯诉美国:最高法院对量刑因素提供宪法保护的最新回避

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-06-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491315

J. L. Hendrix

引用次数: 0

For Mice or Men or Children? Will the Expansion of the Eighth Amendment in Atkins V. Virginia Force the Supreme Court to Re-Examine the Minimum Age for the Death Penalty? 老鼠、男人还是孩子?在阿特金斯诉弗吉尼亚案中，第八修正案的扩大是否会迫使最高法院重新审查适用死刑的最低年龄?

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-06-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491316

J. Hughes

引用次数: 1

Unequal justice: The Supreme Court's failure to curtail selective prosecution for the death penalty 不平等的司法:最高法院未能限制选择性起诉死刑

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-06-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491317

J. Larson

引用次数: 1

United States v. Arvizu: Investigatory Stops and the Fourth Amendment 美国诉阿维祖案:停止调查和第四修正案

IF 1.8 2区社会学

Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology Pub Date : 2003-06-22 DOI: 10.2307/3491318

Jennifer Pelic

引用次数: 5