Alex R Piquero, Jeffrey Fagan, Edward P Mulvey, Laurence Steinberg, Candice Odgers
{"title":"DEVELOPMENTAL TRAJECTORIES OF LEGAL SOCIALIZATION AMONG SERIOUS ADOLESCENT OFFENDERS.","authors":"Alex R Piquero, Jeffrey Fagan, Edward P Mulvey, Laurence Steinberg, Candice Odgers","doi":"","DOIUrl":"","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2005-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2776646/pdf/nihms-154435.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"28510239","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Criminal defense attorneys are often motivated by an intricate set of moral and ideological principles that belie their reputations as amoral (if not immoral) "hired guns" who, for the right price, would do anything to get their guilty clients off. Using empirical data from interviews with forty criminal defense attorneys I consider the motivations that inform their decisions to enter the field of criminal defense and the values that influence the manner in which they do their jobs. I conclude that many criminal defense attorneys are in fact cause lawyers who are committed to individual clients but also the "cause" of legal reform in criminal law. These dual commitment - essentially to individual clients versus the collective group of criminal defendants - occasionally raise ethical conflicts that have largely gone under-examined and that the rules of ethics and professionalism are not well equipped to resolve. Although examined here through the lens of criminal defending, the ethical dilemma of cause lawyering is a noteworthy problem generally for activist lawyers because they continue to play an important role in socio-legal movements in this country.
{"title":"The Ethics of Cause Lawyering: An Empirical Examination of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Cause Lawyers","authors":"Margareth Etienne","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.690721","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.690721","url":null,"abstract":"Criminal defense attorneys are often motivated by an intricate set of moral and ideological principles that belie their reputations as amoral (if not immoral) \"hired guns\" who, for the right price, would do anything to get their guilty clients off. Using empirical data from interviews with forty criminal defense attorneys I consider the motivations that inform their decisions to enter the field of criminal defense and the values that influence the manner in which they do their jobs. I conclude that many criminal defense attorneys are in fact cause lawyers who are committed to individual clients but also the \"cause\" of legal reform in criminal law. These dual commitment - essentially to individual clients versus the collective group of criminal defendants - occasionally raise ethical conflicts that have largely gone under-examined and that the rules of ethics and professionalism are not well equipped to resolve. Although examined here through the lens of criminal defending, the ethical dilemma of cause lawyering is a noteworthy problem generally for activist lawyers because they continue to play an important role in socio-legal movements in this country.","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2005-03-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2139/SSRN.690721","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67802379","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}
Community policing is the most important innovation in American policing today. It receives broad political support and is endorsed by a diverse cross-section of the legal academy. Among community policing's underappreciated virtues is that it provides a better way to regulate police conduct than does the traditional model of judicial enforcement of the Fourth Amendment. But although there is much to be said for community policing, it has not reached its potential. The most important group from a public safety standpoint - inner-city youth and young adults - has largely been left out of the new policing model. This group is still policed under the discredited warrior approach to policing, which views the young exclusively as threats to public order. But despite the powerful image of urban youth as threats, most inner-city young people are law-abiders. They are also the principal victims of the law-breaking minority. They therefore have a profound stake in both ensuring public safety and in reducing police abuse and harassment. Building on lessons from policing experiments in Boston and Chicago, this Article will advocate a model of community policing that allows young people to join other citizens in regular group deliberations with neighbors and local officers to set policing priorities.
{"title":"Community Policing and Youth as Assets","authors":"J. J. Forman","doi":"10.2139/SSRN.598342","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2139/SSRN.598342","url":null,"abstract":"Community policing is the most important innovation in American policing today. It receives broad political support and is endorsed by a diverse cross-section of the legal academy. Among community policing's underappreciated virtues is that it provides a better way to regulate police conduct than does the traditional model of judicial enforcement of the Fourth Amendment. But although there is much to be said for community policing, it has not reached its potential. The most important group from a public safety standpoint - inner-city youth and young adults - has largely been left out of the new policing model. This group is still policed under the discredited warrior approach to policing, which views the young exclusively as threats to public order. But despite the powerful image of urban youth as threats, most inner-city young people are law-abiders. They are also the principal victims of the law-breaking minority. They therefore have a profound stake in both ensuring public safety and in reducing police abuse and harassment. Building on lessons from policing experiments in Boston and Chicago, this Article will advocate a model of community policing that allows young people to join other citizens in regular group deliberations with neighbors and local officers to set policing priorities.","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"67771638","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}
The federal sentencing guidelines for environmental crimes reflect an ad hoc, largely incoherent approach to guidelines development. In some cases of minimal culpability, the guidelines recommend sentences far in excess of what seems theoretically justifiable. This article develops a new culpability-based approach to environmental sentencing and proposes specific reforms to the federal guidelines based on the theoretical model.
{"title":"Sentencing the Green-Collar Offender: Punishment, Culpability, and Environmental Crime","authors":"Michael M. O’Hear","doi":"10.2307/3491383","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3491383","url":null,"abstract":"The federal sentencing guidelines for environmental crimes reflect an ad hoc, largely incoherent approach to guidelines development. In some cases of minimal culpability, the guidelines recommend sentences far in excess of what seems theoretically justifiable. This article develops a new culpability-based approach to environmental sentencing and proposes specific reforms to the federal guidelines based on the theoretical model.","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3491383","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69209836","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}
On October 26, 2001, one month after the most deadly terrorist attack to ever be carried out on U.S. soil,' the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 20012 became law. Prior to the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, the United States had minimal legislation specifically targeted at terrorist activity.3 However, two years after the
{"title":"Learning Lessons from India: The Recent History of Antiterrorist Legislation on the Subcontinent","authors":"Manas K. Mohapatra","doi":"10.2307/3491385","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3491385","url":null,"abstract":"On October 26, 2001, one month after the most deadly terrorist attack to ever be carried out on U.S. soil,' the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA PATRIOT) Act of 20012 became law. Prior to the enactment of the PATRIOT Act, the United States had minimal legislation specifically targeted at terrorist activity.3 However, two years after the","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3491385","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69210005","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}
{"title":"No Means No? Withdrawal of Consent during Intercourse and the Continuing Evolution of the Definition of Rape","authors":"M. Lyon","doi":"10.2307/3491384","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3491384","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-09-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3491384","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69209896","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}
Richard Epstein once said that "[i]t is difficult to conceive of ... a defense of freedom of speech so pure as to countenance securities fraud ... ."' The regulation of false or misleading statements of material fact under the securities laws,2 like other regulations of false or misleading commercial speech, has been upheld under First Amendment analysis, despite the fact that such regulations necessarily curtail speech.3 This rubric is problematic, however, when applied to certain types of corporate speech that have become prevalent in today's climate of overlapping legal, political, social, economic, and popular culture.
{"title":"From Nike V. Kasky to Martha Stewart: First Amendment Protection for Corporate Speakers' Denials of Public Criminal Allegations","authors":"Cynthia A. Caillavet","doi":"10.2307/3491415","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3491415","url":null,"abstract":"Richard Epstein once said that \"[i]t is difficult to conceive of ... a defense of freedom of speech so pure as to countenance securities fraud ... .\"' The regulation of false or misleading statements of material fact under the securities laws,2 like other regulations of false or misleading commercial speech, has been upheld under First Amendment analysis, despite the fact that such regulations necessarily curtail speech.3 This rubric is problematic, however, when applied to certain types of corporate speech that have become prevalent in today's climate of overlapping legal, political, social, economic, and popular culture.","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3491415","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69209929","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}
{"title":"I Know Economic Activity When I See Economic Activity: An Operational Overhaul of the Measure by Which Federal Criminal Conduct Is Deemed Economic","authors":"Paul H. Tzur","doi":"10.2307/3491417","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3491417","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3491417","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69210030","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}
I was in court the other day, waiting for my client's case to be called, when a middle-aged man was brought out from the lock-up to face the judge. I took notice because of the fact that he was older than the usual pretrial detainee in the Cook County Jail. His lawyer began to argue for a reduction in bail. During the course of the hearing before the judge, it was revealed that this man allegedly committed three armed robberies in 1990. After being released on bail in 1990, he failed to return to court, probably because he was facing a minimum six years in the penitentiary for his crimes (and probably longer because judges in Cook County do not always impose minimum sentences for crimes of violence). Instead, he lived in his
{"title":"Prisons and after Prison","authors":"Thomas F. Geraghty","doi":"10.2307/3491418","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3491418","url":null,"abstract":"I was in court the other day, waiting for my client's case to be called, when a middle-aged man was brought out from the lock-up to face the judge. I took notice because of the fact that he was older than the usual pretrial detainee in the Cook County Jail. His lawyer began to argue for a reduction in bail. During the course of the hearing before the judge, it was revealed that this man allegedly committed three armed robberies in 1990. After being released on bail in 1990, he failed to return to court, probably because he was facing a minimum six years in the penitentiary for his crimes (and probably longer because judges in Cook County do not always impose minimum sentences for crimes of violence). Instead, he lived in his","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3491418","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69210597","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}
For more than two decades, Congress has been on a mission to obtain uniformity in the federal sentencing system. What began with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 ("SRA"), and was soon followed by the Sentencing Guidelines, has been continually criticized by both the judiciary and the legislature.' In the spring of 2003, in what caught many interested parties off guard, Congress abruptly responded to the perceived inadequacies of the federal sentencing system by enacting the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act ("The Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003"), signed into law by President Bush on April 30, 2003.2 The Act implemented sweeping reforms focused on eliminating trial judges' discretion to deviate from congressionally mandated sentences.3
{"title":"Sentencing Reform Lessons: From the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 to the Feeney Amendment","authors":"R. Howell","doi":"10.2307/3491416","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.2307/3491416","url":null,"abstract":"For more than two decades, Congress has been on a mission to obtain uniformity in the federal sentencing system. What began with the Sentencing Reform Act of 1984 (\"SRA\"), and was soon followed by the Sentencing Guidelines, has been continually criticized by both the judiciary and the legislature.' In the spring of 2003, in what caught many interested parties off guard, Congress abruptly responded to the perceived inadequacies of the federal sentencing system by enacting the Feeney Amendment to the PROTECT Act (\"The Prosecutorial Remedies and Tools Against the Exploitation of Children Today Act of 2003\"), signed into law by President Bush on April 30, 2003.2 The Act implemented sweeping reforms focused on eliminating trial judges' discretion to deviate from congressionally mandated sentences.3","PeriodicalId":47821,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2004-06-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.2307/3491416","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"69209962","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}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：