STU Scholarly Works (St. Thomas University)
Not a member yet
1001 research outputs found
Sort by
Voter Turnout: From Cost to Cooperation
No full textPolitical scientists have generally concluded that state efforts to increase voter turnout will continue to flounder so long as those efforts remain focused on lowering the already low cost of voting. Accordingly, this Article argues that future efforts to achieve consistently higher and widespread voter turnout among all demographics must consider other determinants of voter behavior. The primary goal of this Article is to craft a framework based on a thorough understanding of voter motivation and behavior that helps conceptualize and analyze public efforts to increase voter turnout. The framework fills a gap in the literature by drawing from a range of fields-including election law, social psychology, sociology, and political science-that have not been previously synthesized and applied to voter turnout law and policy. This Article identifies and analyzes four core voter motivations: self-interest, social identity, altruistic cooperation, and community norms. A more complete understanding of the motivations that emerge in this Article leads to new insights into the promise and limits of specific efforts to increase voter turnout. Moreover, in a section that introduces a new concept called community vote drives, this Article ties together the analysis of the four motivations and demonstrates how they can inform future state efforts to improve voting rates. The first and second generation reforms to increase voter turnout focused on lowering the cost of voting. The first generation removed discriminatory barriers to voting, successfully erasing turnout differences between African Americans in the South and those living in the rest of the country. The second generation reforms were designed to reduce structural and administrative costs of voting, primarily by reforming voter registration laws and expanding vote-by-mail options. However, these second generation reforms have not led to significant changes in turnout. In the U.S., turnout remains low-by historical standards and in comparison to other countries-and lower voting rates for minority and socio-economically disadvantaged groups persist. Political scientists attribute the lack of success of these more recent reforms to the fact that the cost of voting-the time to register and show up at the polls-is already so low that further reductions in cost will effect little change in voting behavior. Indeed, the consensus among political scientists is now that structural reforms that make voting easier will yield little improvement in turnout rates. Accordingly, future efforts to achieve consistently higher and widespread turnout among all demographics must consider other determinants of voters\u27 behavior. As a point of clarification, when this Article discusses voter behavior and voter motivation, it refers to decisions about whether to vote, not decisions about which political party to vote for. This Article proceeds as follows: Part II states the case for affirmative state action to increase turnout, beyond removing state-imposed barriers to voting; Part III(A) and (B) describe the first and second generations of reforms aimed to increase voter turnout, and conclude with the claim that these reforms focused on lowering the cost of voting, a strategy that will no longer produce higher turnout; Part IV is the central focus of the paper because it devotes a subpart to each of the four core voter motivations that describe the theoretical and empirical support for the existence of the motivation, and then analyzes how schemes to increase turnout based on that motivation have worked or could work in practice; Part V ties the discussion of the four motivations together by introducing and discussing the concept of community vote drives; and Part VI concludes
Potato, Potahto: Whether Ineffective Assistance or Due Process, an Effective Rule is Overdue in Termination of Parental Rights Cases in Florida
No full textPat X., a Florida resident, is a good father who loves, provides for, and takes care of his child. So, he is stunned one day when his child is removed from him and a petition for termination of his parental rights is filed. The petition alleges that Pat, who has never had any problems with the law, was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. It seeks termination on the basis that Pat will be incarcerated for a substantial portion of his child\u27s remaining minority.\u27 Pat\u27s lawyer investigates the matter. The lawyer speaks with the prosecutor who handled the murder case and learns that the Pat X. who was prosecuted was a woman. Not only that, but the criminal defendant was white and Pat is black. The lawyer engages the services of a fingerprint expert, who opines unequivocally that the fingerprints on the criminal judgment do not match Pat\u27s. A few days before trial on the termination petition, Pat\u27s lawyer goes on a drinking binge, loses all memory of the facts learned during the investigation and, consequently, offers no argument at trial as to why Pat\u27s rights should not be terminated. A judgment of termination is entered and Pat loses his child. A notice of appeal is filed and Pat tells his new appellate attorney what happened. Surely, something can be done to right this outrageous wrong. Or can it? It is not clear under Florida law what legal concept governs claims arising from the acts or omissions of counsel in termination proceedings. Whatever that concept may be, it is also unclear whether a procedure even exists to attack a judgment on such a ground. Some courts have said that none does. While it appears that one procedure may be viable, it is one with an extremely limited and, in many situations, unreasonable timeframe. A call from the Supreme Court of Florida for the development of a rule to deal with situations like this one has gone unanswered. The matter needs to be addressed
Untruthful Jurors in the Federal Courts: Have We become Comfortably Numb
No full textEveryone who believes in the jury system agrees that jurors should be impartial. However, voir dire as it is currently practiced in the federal courts has many systematic defects that do not always guarantee jurors\u27 impartiality. For instance, when a juror lies during voir dire--even about a matter in their past that is remarkably similar to the case or issues at bar the current federal standard only focuses on the subjective purposefulness of that juror\u27s dishonesty. The flaw in this approach is that it misses the point of due process: impartial, but not necessarily unintentionally dishonest, decision-makers. This Article deals with this problem by proposing a different standard to gauge the partiality of jurors who have not been wholly honest during voir dire. This Article argues that courts should adopt a new standard for dealing with post-voir dire findings of juror dishonesty: a two-part sliding scale standard to evaluate jurors for bias, rather than merely for dishonesty. This standard would instruct courts to consider: (1) the circumstances surrounding a juror\u27s concealment of information and the subsequent likelihood the juror made an honest mistake; and (2) the materiality of the nondisclosure. This approach would more faithfully execute the dictates of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments by focusing on whether the juror in question was, in fact, impartial, rather than focusing almost exclusively on the question of dishonesty
The Teach the Controversy Controversy
No full textIn 2000, my coauthors and I published an article proposing that public schools would violate no constitutional prohibition (and would improve science education) by permitting biology teachers to teach the controversy concerning biological evolution.1 This proposal generated substantial academic commentary.2 As this article details, members of the United States Congress and education officials in a few states have expressed some support for the idea. However, most academic commentators have accused the authors of substituting a renamed but substantially equivalent form of creationism in an attempt to circumvent existing law. Others have accused the proponents of hijacking perfectly respectable concepts-like academic freedom or viewpoint neutrality-for disreputable purposes, such as advancing religion. This article will recount the reaction to the proposal to teach the controversy and will respond to the primary arguments raised against i
Fair Trial Standards under Human Rights Treaty Law and the ICTY: A Process of Cross-Fertilization?
No full textBook: ICTY: Towards a Fair Trial?
The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) does not merely represent a historical stage in the development of international criminal justice that can now be put aside and left to legal historians. It also has a lasting impact, due to the fact that its Rules of Procedure and Evidence are judge-made law, tested in the fire of court practice and frequently amended to take the latest developments into account. Additionally, with the arrest of Radovan Karadzic, a new chapter has been opened for the Court. This volume provides an account of all the debates revolving around the proper role of international criminal justice, and it contributes to the developing academic discipline of transitional justice. It also opens up a perspective to the International Criminal Court and asks what procedural legacy the ad hoc tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda provide for the future of international criminal procedure.https://scholarship.stu.edu/faculty_book_chapters/1006/thumbnail.jp
Beyond the Duty to Protect: Expanding Accountability and Responsibilities of the State in Combating Human Trafficking
No full textBook: The Diversity of International Law: Essays in Honour of Kalliopi Koufa
This collection of essays pays homage to the multifarious and enduring work of Kalliopi K. Koufa, the first woman to become Professor of International Law in Greece. The volume brings together 37 contributions of renowned international law scholars from all over the world on a wide spectrum of important contemporary theoretical and practical issues. The essays reflect the multiple faces, the expanding scope and diversity of contemporary international law. Areas covered include the use of force, dispute settlement, international criminal law, international environmental law and, most notably, terrorism and human rights, areas on which the work of Professor Koufa in the United Nations and elsewhere has been particularly influential.https://scholarship.stu.edu/faculty_book_chapters/1005/thumbnail.jp
Sanctions and International Law (Keynote Address)
No full textKeynote Address by W. Michael Reisman, Myres S. McDougal Professor of International Law at Yale Law School, for the 2008 Intercultural Human Rights Law Review Annual Symposium
The Cuban Embargo and Human Rights: Appraisal and Recommendations
No full textPresentation by Armando Perez-Roura, Director Radio Mimba, translated into English by Ms. Cristina Maldonaldo
Why the United States Supreme Court Got Some (But Not a Lot) of the Sixth Amendment Right to Counsel Analysis Right
No full textIn the past forty-five years, the United States Supreme Court has firmly established the right to lawyers for poor people in criminal cases. The right, arising under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution, extends beyond trials, and includes assistance in addition to lawyers for indigent defendants. The right to a lawyer is seen as central to our system of criminal justice. At the same time, the Justices\u27 rulings here have been subject to sharp criticism in a host of areas relating to the stages of the proceedings to which the right applies, the failure to define indigency, and the refusal to monitor seriously the competency of lawyers in such cases. In this article, I will applaud the reach of some of the Court\u27s decisions, but also second the critics who have questioned the limits of other decisions. In particular, I will look to the unfortunate determination that indigent criminal defendants are not entitled to the assistance of counsel in all prosecutions. First, though, an overview of how far we have come with the right to counsel in criminal cases, in a relatively short period of time
The ICC and the Case of Sudan’s Omar Al Bashir: Is Plea-Bargaining a Valid Option?
No full textOn July 14, 2008, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the Prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), ignited a firestorm in international law and politics when he applied to the Court’s Pre-Trial Chamber III for the issuance of an arrest warrant against the President of Sudan, Omar Hassan Ahmad al Bashir, based on ten counts of international crimes ranging from genocide, to crimes against humanity, to war crimes. Al Bashir’s case, arising from the UN Security Council’s submission of the “situation” in Darfur to the ICC, has created more than the usual divisions between those who approve and those who disapprove of actions under universal international criminal law. The seemingly simple consideration that the undeterred Prosecutor is merely “doing a judicial case” turns out to be much more complicated. Numerous questions have arisen: Are there any problems with the alleged lack of immunity of the head of a non-member state to the ICC? Will this formal prosecution help or hinder the fragile peace process in Sudan? Will it cause turmoil in the already spiked relations between the West and the African continent? Why are the African Union and the Arab League considering this act a “political” rather than a “legal” one? Will their support of the Sudanese President tarnish the reputation and fatally impair the effectiveness and, ultimately, independence of the Court? Will the Security Council step in and stop the prosecution? Then, the key issue: Will President al Bashir ever stand trial? If so, with what outcome? In the middle of this heated discussion, this paper is approaching the problem from a slightly different angle: it considers calling into play Article 65, Proceedings on an Admission of Guilt, of the Rome Statute, in order to assess whether it could help in the case of al Bashir by potentially reconciling the goals of international criminal law and the needs of the political process, by working on a negotiated justice. Upon presenting the case at issue, this paper will first look into the most common domestic form of negotiated justice, i.e. plea-bargaining, as developed under the U.S. common law, and contrast it with models in civil law systems. This discussion will be followed by an analysis of pertinent past trends in international criminal justice and its hybrid criminal procedure developed mostly, but not exclusively, in the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR). Finally, the article will appraise these developments as they pertain to cases before the ICC and recommend a potential solution