Digital Commons @ UDC Law (University of the District of Columbia Law Library)
Not a member yet
840 research outputs found
Sort by
Fallen Woman Further (Re)Framed: Jewels and Travels, Tragedies and Secrets, Judge Hortense Norris
No full textArticle III Adultification of Kids: History, Mystery, and Troubling Implications of Federal Youth Transfers
No full textThere is no federal juvenile court system in the United States. Rather, teens can face charges in Article III courts and can be transferred to be tried and sentenced as adults in these venues. This Article is the first of two articles in the Washington and Lee Journal of Civil Rights and Social Justice seeking to shed light on the largely invisible processes and populations involved in federal youth prosecution. This Article focuses on the federal transfer and prosecution of American youth as adults. It considers constitutional and statutory law relating to these federal transfers and then considers why current practices are incompatible with Kent v. United States and evolving standards of decency doctrine. It also warns of other dangers relating to prosecuting youth as adults in our federal criminal justice system
Advanced Legal Analysis and Strategies for Bar Preparation
No full textThe goal of Advanced Legal Analysis and Strategies for Bar Preparation is to present a comprehensive and holistic approach to bar exam study and test taking. This unique approach will provide instructors and students with one source that simultaneously provides the two necessary aspects of bar exam preparation: (1) an exploration and discussion of the skills associated with bar study strategies and techniques; and (2) actual bar exam practice questions to use in applying these study strategies and techniques. This textbook may be used as a guide or resource for law school academic support and bar preparation professionals whether their schools’ curriculum includes a bar prep course or not. The book may also be used or adapted for repeat bar exam takers.https://digitalcommons.law.udc.edu/fac_books/1005/thumbnail.jp
Constitutionally Incapable: Parole Boards as Sentencing Courts
No full textCourtroom sentencing, as part of the judicial process, is a long-standing norm in the justice system of the United States. But this basic criminal law precept is currently under quiet attack. This is because some states are now allowing parole boards to step in to decide criminal penalties without first affording defendants lawful judicial branch sentencing proceedings and sentences. These outside-of-court punishment decisions are occurring in the cases of youthful offenders entitled to sentencing relief under Miller v. Alabama, which outlawed automatic life-without-parole sentences for children. Thus, some Miller-impacted defendants are being sentenced by paroleboards as executive branch agents, rather than by the judicial branch of government. Parole board punishments serve as a somewhat shocking turn of events, particularly since the right to be sentenced in a courtroom, rather than some other government-run venue, seems so unquestionable. But quite surprisingly, that right is not contained in the text of the U.S. Constitution. Nor has the matter been squarely addressed by legal scholars or the Supreme Court. Instead, both the Court and respected commentators have been writing around the issue for years. Nevertheless, allowing executive branch bodies to become sole deciders of penalty terms— up to and including life without parole—is more than highly unusual. It is deeply problematic as a matter of law, policy, and precedent. Failing to take action to rein in this emerging practice could result in serious consequences, not just in Miller matters, but beyond. As executive branch agencies, the parole boards have not been called upon to entirely displace the judicial branch to serve both as front-end penalty adjudicators responsible for proportionality, narrowing, and mitigation assessments, as well as early-release gatekeepers evaluating reform and risk for reoffending. In fact, parole-grant determinations are seen as highly informal proceedings, made behind closed doors, without court-level due process protections or even involvement of defense counsel. And the interests, roles, and experiences of parole agency officials are far different from the legally trained judiciary who oversee court-based penalty processes. For all these reasons, permitting parole board displacement of sentencing courts in Miller matters, or otherwise, is not just inadvisable, but highly injudicious. This article, therefore, calls for recommitment to the right of court-centered sentencing practices for Miller cases and beyond. It is the first scholarly account of why this is the constitutionally required path in cases involving the punishment of imprisonment as well as the preferred policy given contemporary parole board practices and culture
Toward a Just System For Juveniles
No full textEach year as a nation we prosecute over 800,000 children-nearly three percent of the juvenile population2 and detain over 200,000 of them.3 That is, we saddle almost three percent of our youth with the experience of being a defendant in court, with the label of delinquency. And we separate over a quarter of those youth from family and community for some period of time. The overwhelming majority of these children have experienced life-altering trauma in their young lives, and these experiences with the juvenile justice system can exacerbate that trauma.4 Yet,while we are affecting our young people on this massive scale, by and large we are not taking a hard look at whether we are making society safer or making those young people better off. The District of Columbia\u27s ( the District ) juvenile justice system purports to serve the children, victims, and communities involved sensitively and effectively as it reduces juvenile delinquency. Juvenile prosecutors all over the country, as in the District, are tasked with helping to maintain a system that both rehabilitates children and keeps communities safe.5 But we must be honest - most of what we are doing is not working
Public Utilities and Environmental Justice: Electric Restructuring and Deregulation and Low-Income Communities
No full textThirty years ago, Potomac Electric Power Company ( PEPCO ) sold electric power generated by coal-burning power plants located in the Washington region. Today, PEPCO can sell electric power generated by coal-burning and nuclear power plants located in West Virginia, Pennsylvania,and Illinois. By importing electric power from those states, PEPCO can, in effect, export to those states the environmental impact of coal-burning and nuclear power plants that generate power for affluent PEPCO consumers in the District of Columbia and Maryland.This outsourcing of electric power generation was made possible by seismic changes in the structure of the electric utility industry wrought by Congress and by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ( FERC ) in the last three decades. The purpose of those changes was to replace regulation with competition in wholesale markets for electric power
