7919 research outputs found
Sort by
A STEP FORWARD OR A STEP BACKWARDS: AN ANALYSIS OF ASSEMBLY BILL 333 AND GANG ENHANCEMENT SENTENCING IN CALIFORNIA
No full textThe prosecution of gang crimes and gang enhancements have historically been a source of racial inequity and disparity within the criminal justice system. In California, this is undoubtedly so, as Hispanic and Black men make up the vast majority of individuals on the CalGang gang database and in California prisons. The state Legislature attempted to address this disparity in gang sentencing by enacting Assembly Bill 333 (AB 333) which redefines what a criminal street gang is under the law. Despite this change, the current language of the bill still falls short of its stated intent and racial disparities continue to plague the system.
Under the framework of AB 333, this Note examines current gang enhancement and sentencing practices by analyzing legislation enacted in response to California\u27s history of gang-related crime, as well as the remedial measures the California Legislature has implemented to address the mass incarceration of people of color. In recognizing the disparate charging of gang crimes, this Note looks at how crimes committed by individuals belonging to white supremacist groups are charged as hate crimes rather than gang crimes, and how this perpetuates inequality in gang sentencing. Finally, this Note proposes that while AB 333 is a start to recognizing the racial disparity in charging gang enhancements, the language of the Bill needs to be amended further in order to fully achieve the California Legislature’s intent to correct the longstanding disparate effect of gang enhancements on communities of color. This proposal would be a step towards greater justice within the criminal system
SOUTH TO JUSTICE: USING INTERNATIONAL LAW TO DEFEND AGAINST U.S. BORDER EXTERNALIZATION POLICIES THROUGH THE EXAMPLE OF FORCIBLY DISAPPEARED MIGRANTS IN MEXICO
No full textThe United States is increasingly employing border externalization controls as a primary means of preventing immigrants and asylum seekers from accessing due process and protection on U.S. soil. From Title 42, to metering, to the Remain in Mexico program, to Texas’s State Bill 4 today, no country has been more instrumental in facilitating or halting this suite of policies than Mexico. In this paper, I address the rise of border externalization policies in the United States, describe key differences between Mexican and U.S. human rights frameworks, and show how U.S. lawyers have mischaracterized enforced disappearances of migrants at the U.S.-Mexico border as kidnappings. I end by offering suggestions for how U.S. and Mexican lawyers can work together to apply international human rights frameworks when conducting abuse documentation and support one another in bringing challenges against U.S. border externalization policies through Mexican courts and international fora
CROSS-BORDER LIMITATIONS AND EXCEPTIONS TO COPYRIGHT: “POWERED BY AI.”
No full textBusinesses and institutions that wish to utilize copyright protected works in multiple countries face a multiplicity of national copyright laws; although national copyright laws have been harmonized in accordance with several international treaties and harmonized even more in the European Union member states by European Union legislation, countries’ copyright laws continue to vary. The multiplicity of national copyright laws raises costs of transnational operations, including for businesses and institutions that rely on limitations and exceptions to copyright (“L&Es”) in multiple countries. For example, AI companies might want to rely on L&Es to train and deploy their AI in multiple countries, as the recently adopted European Union AI Act anticipates, but complying with the conditions of numerous national copyright laws on L&Es can be burdensome and complex. This article discusses several possibilities for ensuring that L&Es operate smoothly across national borders; attempts have been made to this end by the Marrakesh Treaty (for accessible format copies for the visually impaired) and the European Union (for example, in its treatment of orphan works), and there are other examples. This article surveys, categorizes, and critically analyzes the examples, and proposes possible solutions to the problems of the cross-border operation of L&Es, including in the AI context
COLLABORATIVE EFFORTS TO COMBAT RACISM: ACADEMICS AND CRIMINAL DEFENSE LAWYERS IN THE PURSUIT OF RACIAL JUSTICE IN CALIFORNIA
Full text linkLawyers and academics frequently cooperate to shape public policy and outcomes in specific cases, including in the area of racial justice. However, too frequently, lawyers and academics operate in silos—working towards the same goal of racial justice, but in different arenas. Lawyers are bound to their clients, foremost, and to advocacy before the court—often so much so that they might lose sight of broader challenges, achievements, and theories in racial justice. By contrast, academics spend their lives in the abstract, leaving them at risk of losing sight of the on-the-ground impact of their expert theoretical advances. This article aims to show lawyers and academics how they can more seamlessly work together to advance racial justice, including in the exciting new landscape available because of the California Racial Justice Act
EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF RACIAL DISPARITIES IN POLICING
Full text linkRacial disparities within the criminal justice system continue to be a pressing issue, especially after the recent passage of California’s Racial Justice Act, which allows for a broader set of legal challenges based on racially disparate treatment. In this article, we analyze data for almost four million stops by California’s fifteen largest law enforcement agencies in 2019, examining the extent to which people of color experience searches, enforcement, intrusiveness, and use of force differently from white people. Black Californians are more likely to be searched than white Californians, but searches of Black civilians reveal less contraband and evidence. Black people are overrepresented in stops not leading to enforcement as well as in stops leading to an arrest. While differences in location and context for the stop significantly contribute to racial disparities, notable inequities remain after accounting for such factors. These disparities are concentrated in traffic stops. A notable proportion of which lead to no enforcement or discovery—suggesting that gains in efficiency and equity are possible. Through a “veil of darkness” analysis, we find evidence that racial bias may be a contributing factor to disparities in traffic stops for Black and Latino drivers. These findings suggest that traffic stops for non-moving violations deserve consideration for alternative enforcement strategies
