Loyola University Chicago, School of Law: LAW eCommons
Not a member yet
4877 research outputs found
Sort by
How States and Localities are in a Better Position than the FDA to Address Youth Use of E-Cigarettes
Full text link
Judging Judges Fifty Years After—Was Judge Julius Hoffman’s Conduct So Different?
No full textIn Chicago, Illinois—and in courtrooms across the United States—judicial misconduct has affected trial outcomes as long as there have been trials. While Judge Julius Hoffman’s conduct in the “Chicago Eight” trial is an egregious example of judicial behavior toward criminal defendants, this piece’s examination of at least ten different categories of misconduct in dozens of cases makes the argument that misbehavior by judges is less of an exception to the rule of impartiality than the thinking public might know. In considering these brazen examples, practitioners and academics alike can evaluate how to best confront the extent to which conduct like Judge Hoffman’s permeates our justice system
Judge Damon Keith: The Judicial Antidote to Judge Julius Hoffman Challenging Claims of Unilateral Executive Authority
No full textFrom some of the highly-publicized trials of the 1960s—namely the trials of the Chicago Eight, Panther Twenty-One, and Weathermen—we can draw indispensable lessons about the role of the judges in upholding and promoting a fair justice system. The contrast to Judge Julius Hoffman’s notorious injudicious conduct in the Chicago Eight case is the courageous, thoughtful Judge Damon Keith, in the less publicized White Panther case in Detroit in the early 1970s. Judge Keith’s overriding sense of fairness exemplified the best of judicial independence in considering President Nixon’s claims of unilateral executive authority in United States v. Ayers and United States v. U.S. District Court. Judge Keith’s exemplary judicial conduct is an embrace of judicial independence that provides inspiration in current times
The Value of Deviance: Understanding Contextual Privacy
No full textThe value of deviance lies in highlighting the infirmity in our present concept of privacy. Deviance helps explain privacy in two ways. First, deviance helps define what might be protected by “privacy concerns.” Second, a sociological definition of deviance provides a helpful model to rebut the popular “Nothing to Hide” argument and to understand a non-binary concept of contextual privacy. This article uses a sociological definition of deviance to explain a contextual idea of privacy, where the critical inquiry is not a dualistic response to whether sensitive information deserves protection as private or not, but rather a contextual analysis of the disclosure of information that includes the type of information, to whom disclosure was made, by whom, for what purpose, and to what potential detriment. A deeper understanding of deviance brings us to the realization that we shape our identities through a contextual disclosure of our differences, and that personal control over those disclosures is a value worthy of protection
In Spite of the Odds: Achieving Educational Stability for Maryland\u27s African American Foster Youth
Full text link
