《寻找新世界:边境囚犯的权利

D. M. Shapiro
{"title":"《寻找新世界:边境囚犯的权利","authors":"D. M. Shapiro","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.2707744","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Three Supreme Court decisions from this year could cause a massive shakeup in the law of prisoners’ rights. Kingsley v. Hendrickson not only alters the standard for use of force claims brought by pretrial detainees but suggests that the lower courts have gotten nearly every standard for claims by pretrial detainees dead wrong. Holt v. Hobbs jettisoned prior precedent on the standard for prisoners’ religious exercise claims — a ruling that throws hundreds of lower court decisions out the door. And a concurrence by Justice Kennedy in Davis v. Ayala signals that the Court may be poised to decide whether solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment. Why all of this now? Perhaps because the high court has not escaped a revolution in the politics and perception of mass incarceration.","PeriodicalId":362456,"journal":{"name":"Michigan Law Review, First Impressions","volume":"117 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2015-12-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"To Seek a Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights at the Frontier\",\"authors\":\"D. M. Shapiro\",\"doi\":\"10.2139/SSRN.2707744\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Three Supreme Court decisions from this year could cause a massive shakeup in the law of prisoners’ rights. Kingsley v. Hendrickson not only alters the standard for use of force claims brought by pretrial detainees but suggests that the lower courts have gotten nearly every standard for claims by pretrial detainees dead wrong. Holt v. Hobbs jettisoned prior precedent on the standard for prisoners’ religious exercise claims — a ruling that throws hundreds of lower court decisions out the door. And a concurrence by Justice Kennedy in Davis v. Ayala signals that the Court may be poised to decide whether solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment. Why all of this now? Perhaps because the high court has not escaped a revolution in the politics and perception of mass incarceration.\",\"PeriodicalId\":362456,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Michigan Law Review, First Impressions\",\"volume\":\"117 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2015-12-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Michigan Law Review, First Impressions\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2707744\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Michigan Law Review, First Impressions","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.2707744","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

今年最高法院的三个判决可能会导致囚犯权利法的大规模改革。金斯利诉亨德里克森案不仅改变了审前在押人员提出的使用武力主张的标准,而且表明下级法院几乎对审前在押人员提出的所有主张的标准都是完全错误的。霍尔特诉霍布斯案抛弃了先前关于囚犯宗教活动主张标准的先例——这一裁决将数百个下级法院的裁决抛在了门外。肯尼迪大法官在戴维斯诉阿亚拉案中的一致意见表明,最高法院可能会决定单独监禁是否违反了第八修正案。为什么是现在?也许是因为高等法院未能逃脱政治和大规模监禁观念的革命。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
To Seek a Newer World: Prisoners’ Rights at the Frontier
Three Supreme Court decisions from this year could cause a massive shakeup in the law of prisoners’ rights. Kingsley v. Hendrickson not only alters the standard for use of force claims brought by pretrial detainees but suggests that the lower courts have gotten nearly every standard for claims by pretrial detainees dead wrong. Holt v. Hobbs jettisoned prior precedent on the standard for prisoners’ religious exercise claims — a ruling that throws hundreds of lower court decisions out the door. And a concurrence by Justice Kennedy in Davis v. Ayala signals that the Court may be poised to decide whether solitary confinement violates the Eighth Amendment. Why all of this now? Perhaps because the high court has not escaped a revolution in the politics and perception of mass incarceration.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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