February 21, 2011
Baradaran on Due Process, Predictive Justice and the Presumption of Innocence
Shima Baradaran (Brigham Young University - J. Reuben Clark Law School) has posted Due Process, Predictive Justice & the Presumption of Innocence on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
The most commonly repeated adage in U.S. criminal justice is the presumption of innocence: defendants are deemed innocent until proven guilty. Historically, this presumption carried important meaning both before and during trial. However, in light of state and federal changes in pretrial practice, as well as Supreme Court precedent restricting the presumption’s application to trial, the presumption of innocence no longer protects defendants before trial. These limitations on the presumption are fundamentally inconsistent with its constitutional roots. The results of the presumption’s diminution are also troubling as the number of defendants held pretrial has steadily increased such that the majority of people in our nation’s jails have not been convicted of any crime. Few contemporary legal scholars have focused on the dwindling pretrial presumption, let alone its constitutional implications. This article fills the void by examining how the Due Process Clause provides the constitutional basis for the presumption of innocence and how that presumption secures at least one pretrial right: the right to release on bail, absent serious flight risk. For the first time, this article introduces three rules to ensure that the pretrial presumption of innocence remains true to its constitutional roots. Returning the presumption to its constitutional foundation and ensuring its application in ways that are consistent with that foundation will result in less confusion by courts and a more consistent manner to make pretrial decisions.
February 21, 2011 | Permalink
just read your paper Due Process, Predictive Justice and the Presumption of Innocence. good stuff. it displays your passion for constitutionality. but, quite frankly, the arguments fell short of reversing the bra 1984. i also feel passionate about a persons right to bail, and the despise bra 1984 detention scheme. i can assure you of two things - bra 1984 is indeed 100% unconstitutional, and, there is a way to get it tossed. on a lighter note, i see you are chair of aba bail reform committee. the first question that i (if i may) would like to ask you is this - if bail is a constitutional right, how does one actually "reform" a constitutional right?
Posted by: unconstitutional | Feb 22, 2011 2:52:41 PM