{"title":"The New Dread, Part I: The Judicial Overthrow of the Reasonableness Standard in Police Shooting Cases","authors":"Kindaka J. Sanders","doi":"10.5070/cj86157742","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj86157742","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49459202","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 Bandage on A Broken System: Moving Beyond Peremptory Challenges To Increase Indigenous Juror Representation In Canada","authors":"Kona Keast-O'Donovan","doi":"10.5070/cj86157755","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj86157755","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45851016","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":"Selected Essays from the Emancipation Initiative","authors":"Emancipation Initiative","doi":"10.5070/cj86157747","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj86157747","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46199406","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":"Course Correction: A Proposal To Limit The Admissibility And Use of \"Course Of Investigation\" Testimony In Criminal Trials","authors":"Hugh M. Mundy","doi":"10.5070/cj86157745","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj86157745","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43901227","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":"We're Tired: The Exhaustion Requirement of the Prison Litigation Reform Act","authors":"Katrina M. Smith","doi":"10.5070/cj86157741","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj86157741","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45201516","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 Unwarranted Disparity Statement: A New Tool to Reduce Disparities In Postarrest Outcomes","authors":"Aaron Gottlieb","doi":"10.5070/cj86157744","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj86157744","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42944197","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}
Author(s): Hill, Justin J. | Abstract: The United States Constitution guarantees all citizens the same basic rights and privileges; however, citizens with criminal convictions are subject to a number of regulatory restrictions on fundamental rights (such as disenfranchisement, ineligibility for public housing and benefits, employment discrimination, etc.) regardless of the seriousness of the offense. These restrictions are called collateral consequences, and they effectively relegate citizens with criminal convictions to a state of second-class citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court has published several opinions construing Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, also known as the Enabling Clause, as not only abolishing slavery but also empowering Congress to eradicate all badges and incidents of slavery. However,nthe U.S. Supreme Court has provided little guidance on what constitutes the badges and incidents of slavery, and Congress has scarcely used its authority under the Enabling Clause. The countless collateral consequences that follow criminal convictions are many of the same “badges and incidents of slavery” imposed on slaves during the institution of slavery, and Congress has the authority to eradicate them via the Enabling Clause.This Comment urges Congress to eliminate all collateral consequences that follow criminal convictions and puts forth a three-part analysis to aid courts in identifying modern badges and incidents of slavery.
{"title":"The Badges and Incidents of Criminality","authors":"Justin Hill","doi":"10.5070/cj85154811","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj85154811","url":null,"abstract":"Author(s): Hill, Justin J. | Abstract: The United States Constitution guarantees all citizens the same basic rights and privileges; however, citizens with criminal convictions are subject to a number of regulatory restrictions on fundamental rights (such as disenfranchisement, ineligibility for public housing and benefits, employment discrimination, etc.) regardless of the seriousness of the offense. These restrictions are called collateral consequences, and they effectively relegate citizens with criminal convictions to a state of second-class citizenship. The U.S. Supreme Court has published several opinions construing Section 2 of the Thirteenth Amendment, also known as the Enabling Clause, as not only abolishing slavery but also empowering Congress to eradicate all badges and incidents of slavery. However,nthe U.S. Supreme Court has provided little guidance on what constitutes the badges and incidents of slavery, and Congress has scarcely used its authority under the Enabling Clause. The countless collateral consequences that follow criminal convictions are many of the same “badges and incidents of slavery” imposed on slaves during the institution of slavery, and Congress has the authority to eradicate them via the Enabling Clause.This Comment urges Congress to eliminate all collateral consequences that follow criminal convictions and puts forth a three-part analysis to aid courts in identifying modern badges and incidents of slavery.","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48956914","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}
This essay calls for an expansive view of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection against the discriminatory empanelment of juries grounded upon a culture of systemic racism. For an individual juror fundamental elements of survival during a pandemic are access to health care, safe transportation, and connective technology. Yet, structural and systemic racism precludes many potential jurors of color from securing these necessary supports, thus denying them the ability to be recognized on juror source list or accommodated for jury service. Jury service is a direct and impactful act of citizen agency over the justice system, and the systemic exclusion of individuals from jury service based on race and economic status is a denial of that agency and a constitutional violation. Supreme Court rulings like Duren v. Missouri are inadequate to provide relief in the face of such violations and only provide outdated and ineffectual remedies to this mass denial of equity.
{"title":"Pandemic, Protest, and Agency: Jury Service and Equal Protection in a Future Defined by COVID-19","authors":"Patrick C. Brayer","doi":"10.5070/cj85154804","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj85154804","url":null,"abstract":"This essay calls for an expansive view of Fourteenth Amendment equal protection against the discriminatory empanelment of juries grounded upon a culture of systemic racism. For an individual juror fundamental elements of survival during a pandemic are access to health care, safe transportation, and connective technology. Yet, structural and systemic racism precludes many potential jurors of color from securing these necessary supports, thus denying them the ability to be recognized on juror source list or accommodated for jury service. Jury service is a direct and impactful act of citizen agency over the justice system, and the systemic exclusion of individuals from jury service based on race and economic status is a denial of that agency and a constitutional violation. Supreme Court rulings like Duren v. Missouri are inadequate to provide relief in the face of such violations and only provide outdated and ineffectual remedies to this mass denial of equity.","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42199559","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}
How do police select suspects for witnesses to identify? There is currently no standard for the quantity of evidence required before investigators can order an identification procedure. Because eyewitness misidentification continues to be the leading cause of wrongful convictions, law and policy should guide police discretion at this investigatory stage by requiring detectives to show an evidentiary basis for placing suspects in lineups, showups, or photo arrays. The American Law Institute has proposed an addition to the Model Penal Code requiring Graduate where she teaches doctoral sem-inars on criminal justice policy, criminology and the law, police, and sentenc- ing. She publishes widely in law and criminal justice journals, most recently on reforming sentencing laws for burglary (in Journal of Legislation, with Phil- ip Kopp, 2020). From 2016–2018, McCoy served as Director of Policy Analysis for the Inspector General for the New York City Police Department. She has served on several policy advisory boards, most recently on the Plea Bargaining Review Task Force of the New York City Bar Association. McCoy holds a B.A. from Hiram College (Political Science and Spanish), a J.D. from the University of Cincinnati, and a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy from the University of California, Berkeley. She is a member of the Ohio bar. † Jacqueline Katzman is a doctoral student at the City University of New York, Graduate Center and John Jay College, where she is dual specializing in the Psy- chology and Law and Basic and Applied Social Psychology Programs. She re-searches the way in which social psychological principles—such as attributions, impression formation, attitudes, and heuristics—affect eyewitness identification and juror decisionmaking. She has presented at conferences nationwide and received the American Psychology-Law Society’s Outstanding Student Presenta- tion Award in Spring 2020. Katzman’s work has been published by traditional outlets such as Oxford University Press as well as digital media outlets
警方如何挑选嫌疑人供证人指认?在调查人员可以下令进行鉴定程序之前，目前没有关于所需证据数量的标准。由于目击证人的错误辨认仍然是错误定罪的主要原因，法律和政策应该指导警察在这个调查阶段的自由裁量权，要求侦探出示证据基础，将嫌疑人排成一排，展示，或照片阵列。美国法律协会提议在《模范刑法典》中增加一项要求研究生的内容，在那里她教授关于刑事司法政策、犯罪学和法律、警察和量刑的博士研讨班。她在法律和刑事司法期刊上发表了大量文章，最近发表了关于改革入室盗窃量刑法的文章(在《立法杂志》上，与Phil- ip Kopp合作，2020年)。2016年至2018年，McCoy担任纽约市警察局监察长政策分析主任。她曾在多个政策咨询委员会任职，最近在纽约市律师协会的辩诉交易审查工作组任职。McCoy持有Hiram College(政治学和西班牙语)的学士学位，辛辛那提大学的法学博士学位，以及加州大学伯克利分校的法学和社会政策博士学位。她是俄亥俄州律师协会的会员。†杰奎琳·卡兹曼是纽约城市大学研究生中心和约翰·杰伊学院的博士生，她在那里主修心理学和法学以及基础和应用社会心理学课程。她研究了社会心理学原理——如归因、印象形成、态度和启发式——如何影响目击者的识别和陪审员的决策。她曾在全国会议上发表演讲，并在2020年春季获得了美国心理法律协会的优秀学生演讲奖。卡兹曼的作品已在牛津大学出版社等传统媒体和数字媒体上出版
{"title":"Raising the Standard of Evidence for Initiating an Identification Procedure","authors":"C. McCoy, Jacqueline Katzman","doi":"10.5070/cj85154810","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj85154810","url":null,"abstract":"How do police select suspects for witnesses to identify? There is currently no standard for the quantity of evidence required before investigators can order an identification procedure. Because eyewitness misidentification continues to be the leading cause of wrongful convictions, law and policy should guide police discretion at this investigatory stage by requiring detectives to show an evidentiary basis for placing suspects in lineups, showups, or photo arrays. The American Law Institute has proposed an addition to the Model Penal Code requiring Graduate where she teaches doctoral sem-inars on criminal justice policy, criminology and the law, police, and sentenc- ing. She publishes widely in law and criminal justice journals, most recently on reforming sentencing laws for burglary (in Journal of Legislation, with Phil- ip Kopp, 2020). From 2016–2018, McCoy served as Director of Policy Analysis for the Inspector General for the New York City Police Department. She has served on several policy advisory boards, most recently on the Plea Bargaining Review Task Force of the New York City Bar Association. McCoy holds a B.A. from Hiram College (Political Science and Spanish), a J.D. from the University of Cincinnati, and a Ph.D. in Jurisprudence and Social Policy from the University of California, Berkeley. She is a member of the Ohio bar. † Jacqueline Katzman is a doctoral student at the City University of New York, Graduate Center and John Jay College, where she is dual specializing in the Psy- chology and Law and Basic and Applied Social Psychology Programs. She re-searches the way in which social psychological principles—such as attributions, impression formation, attitudes, and heuristics—affect eyewitness identification and juror decisionmaking. She has presented at conferences nationwide and received the American Psychology-Law Society’s Outstanding Student Presenta- tion Award in Spring 2020. Katzman’s work has been published by traditional outlets such as Oxford University Press as well as digital media outlets","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47390962","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}
Author(s): Hamilton, Melissa | Abstract: Risk assessment algorithms lie at the heart of criminal justice reform to tackle mass incarceration. The newest application of risk tools centers on the pretrial stage as a means to reduce both reliance upon wealth-based bail systems and rates of pretrial detention. Yet the ability of risk assessment to achieve the reform movement’s goals will be challengedif the risk tools do not perform equitably for minorities. To date, little is known about the racial fairness of these algorithms as they are used in the field. This Article offers an original empirical study of a popular risk assessment tool to evaluate its race-based performance. The case study is novel in employing a two-sample design with large datasets from diverse jurisdictions, one with a supermajority white population and the other a supermajority Black population.Statistical analyses examine whether, in these jurisdictions, the algorithmic risk tool results in disparate impact, exhibits test bias, or displays differential validity in terms of unequal performance metrics for white versus Black defendants. Implications of the study results are informative to the broader knowledge base about risk assessment practices in the field. Results contribute to the debate about the topic of algorithmic fairness in an important setting where one’s liberty interests may be infringed despite not being adjudicated guilty of any crime.
{"title":"Investigating Algorithmic Risk and Race","authors":"Melissa Hamilton","doi":"10.5070/cj85154807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.5070/cj85154807","url":null,"abstract":"Author(s): Hamilton, Melissa | Abstract: Risk assessment algorithms lie at the heart of criminal justice reform to tackle mass incarceration. The newest application of risk tools centers on the pretrial stage as a means to reduce both reliance upon wealth-based bail systems and rates of pretrial detention. Yet the ability of risk assessment to achieve the reform movement’s goals will be challengedif the risk tools do not perform equitably for minorities. To date, little is known about the racial fairness of these algorithms as they are used in the field. This Article offers an original empirical study of a popular risk assessment tool to evaluate its race-based performance. The case study is novel in employing a two-sample design with large datasets from diverse jurisdictions, one with a supermajority white population and the other a supermajority Black population.Statistical analyses examine whether, in these jurisdictions, the algorithmic risk tool results in disparate impact, exhibits test bias, or displays differential validity in terms of unequal performance metrics for white versus Black defendants. Implications of the study results are informative to the broader knowledge base about risk assessment practices in the field. Results contribute to the debate about the topic of algorithmic fairness in an important setting where one’s liberty interests may be infringed despite not being adjudicated guilty of any crime.","PeriodicalId":91042,"journal":{"name":"UCLA criminal justice law review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43260632","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}
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：