CrimProf Blog

Editor: Kevin Cole
Univ. of San Diego School of Law

Saturday, May 7, 2011

Faure on the Economics of Criminal Liability for Oil Pollution

Michael G. Faure (University of Maastricht - Faculty of Law, Metro) has posted Criminal Liability for Oil Pollution Damage: An Economic Analysis (MARITIME POLLUTION LIABILITY AND POLICY - CHINA, EUROPE AND THE US, Chapter 10, pp. 161-192, Michael G. Faure, Han Lixin & Shan Hongjun, eds., Kluwer Law International, Alphen a/d Rijn, 2010) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper constitutes a chapter in a book on maritime pollution liability and policy in China, Europe and the U.S. and deals with criminal liability for oil pollution damage from an economic perspective. After an introduction first the economic theory of criminalisation is applied to oil pollution damage, discussing why criminal law may be needed for oil pollution damage. Next optimal sanctions for marine pollution are discussed, also paying attention to alternative sanctions such as restoration, forfeiture of illegal gains and confiscation. The question is also addressed whether there should be corporate criminal liability for oil pollution and criminal liability for oil pollution is also discussed from a practical perspective. Recent evolutions concerning ship source pollution in the EU are discussed as well as the well-known Erika case. Attention is also paid to the empirical evidence concerning the effectiveness of criminal law in preventing oil pollution damage.

May 7, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Nadler & McDonnell on Moral Character, Motive, and Blame

Nadler janice Janice Nadler (pictured)(Northwestern University School of Law) and Mary-Hunter McDonnell have posted Moral Character, Motive, and the Psychology of Blame (Cornell Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Blameworthiness, in the criminal law context, is conceived as the carefully calculated end product of discrete judgments about a transgressor’s intentionality, causal proximity to harm, and the harm’s foreseeability. Research in social psychology, on the other hand, suggests that blaming is often intuitive and automatic, driven by a natural impulsive desire to express and defend social values and expectations. The motivational processes that underlie psychological blame suggest that judgments of legal blame are influenced by factors the law does not always explicitly recognize or encourage. In this Article we focus on two highly related motivational processes – the desire to blame bad people and the desire to blame people whose motive for acting was bad. We report three original experiments that suggest that an actor’s bad motive and bad moral character can increase not only perceived blame and responsibility, but also perceived causal influence and intentionality. We show that people are motivated to think of an action as blameworthy, causal, and intentional when they are confronted with a person who they think has a bad character, even when the character information is totally unrelated to the action under scrutiny. We discuss implications for doctrines of mens rea definitions, felony murder, inchoate crimes, rules of evidence, and proximate cause.

May 7, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, May 6, 2011

Pennsylvania's Chief Justice attacks Federal Defender's role in state collateral proceedings in capital cases

Chief Justice Castille's concurring opinion in Commonwealth v. Spotz is here. In part:

[T]he cumulative effect of the Defender's strategy has taken a substantial and unwarranted toll on state courts. . . . The pleadings do not disclose or focus upon the primary cause of the delays, which very often is the prolix and abusive pleadings filed by the Defender in their many cases, as well as the Defender's ethically dubious strategies and activities in other Pennsylvania capital cases.

May 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Slobogin on Dripps on the Substance-Procedure Relationship

Slobogin christopher Christopher Slobogin (Vanderbilt Law School) has this thoughtful post at Jotwell on Don Dripps' chapter entitled The Substance-Procedure Relationship in Criminal Law, in Philosophical Foundations of Criminal Law (Anthony Duff & Stuart Green eds., Oxford University Press, 2011).

May 6, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Findley on Defining Innocence

Findley keith Keith A. Findley (University of Wisconsin Law School) has posted Defining Innocence (Albany Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The DNA exonerations of the past 20 years have heightened awareness of the problem of wrongful convictions. As the number of exonerations expands, and increasingly includes exonerations in cases with no DNA evidence, just what counts as an "exoneration," and who can legitimately claim to be "innocent," becomes increasingly important and controversial. The definitions are important for research and policy reasons, for they define the pool of cases that can be studied to learn about the causes of error and to generate reform proposals. They are also important at the individual case level, both for defining who is entitled to relief from a conviction, and the extent to which such individuals are entitled to reclaim their good names in full.

Continue reading

May 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Laudan on Doubts about Reasonable Doubt

Larry Laudan (Instituto de Investigaciones Filosoficas, UNAM) has posted Is it Finally Time to Put 'Proof Beyond a Reasonable Doubt' Out to Pasture? on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This paper diagnoses several of the liabilities of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, including its subjectivity, its ambiguity, and its presumed universal applicability across all crimes and all defendants. It argues further that the Supreme Court's repeated claims that this standard follows logically from an acknowledgement that false convictions are worse than false acquittals is an unsound inference. Finally, it proposes that future discussions of the standard of proof should take place in an environment in which detailed empirical information about the error rates at trial should be the engine driving the re-formulation of the standard of proof.

May 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bradley on Confrontation and Bryant

Bradley craig Craig Bradley (Indiana University Maurer School of Law) has posted Further Confusion Over Confrontation (Trial Magazine, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This article analyzes the recent Supreme Court decision in Michigan v. Bryant. It concludes that the dissent is correct in concluding that the victim’s statement in this case was primarily for the purpose of developing a case against the defendant, not to defuse an emergency, and consequently was “testimonial” and shouldn’t have been admitted into evidence. More importantly, it argues that the Supreme Court’s “testimonial/non-testimonial” misses the point of the Sixth Amendment and should be abandoned, in favor of an approach that focuses on the defendant’s need to cross-examine.

May 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Clopton on Extraterritorial Application of Criminal Law

Zachary D. Clopton (United States Attorney's Office – Northern District of Illinois) has posted Bowman Lives: The Extraterritorial Application of U.S. Criminal Law after Morrison v. National Australia Bank (NYU Annual Survey of American Law, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The presumption against extraterritoriality declares that, unless a contrary intent appears, courts should presume that statutes apply only within the territory of the United States. Repeatedly during the 20th Century, the Supreme Court applied the presumption to civil statutes. Over the last two decades, the Supreme Court has revisited the presumption in civil cases and issued decisions that appear to strengthen the presumption’s bite. The presumption against extraterritoriality supposedly applies in criminal cases as well, although the Supreme Court has not spoken to this issue in over a century. In 1922, the Court decided United States v. Bowman, professing an allegiance to the presumption for criminal cases, although it held that the criminal prohibition on defrauding government-owned entities should apply extraterritorially. Courts of appeals routinely cite favorably to Bowman in purportedly extraterritorial criminal cases. Yet these decisions tend to apply laws extraterritorially in a manner that goes beyond Bowman’s express holding. Moreover, while these courts of appeals frequently cite the civil-law precedents in their criminal decisions, the outcomes of these cases suggest that criminal law is treated differently – these courts have tended to expand the extraterritorial application of U.S. criminal law, in contrast to the trend of Supreme Court decisions in civil cases.

Continue reading

May 4, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, May 3, 2011

Leo wins Guggenheim Fellowship

Leo richard Richard Leo (University of San Francisco School of Law) has won a Guggenheim Fellowship for a book he is writing (with Tom Wells) on the history of the problem of wrongful conviction in America and the rise of the innocence movement, which is tentatively entitled, The Innocence Revolution.

May 3, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (1)

Moriarty on Plea Bargaining and Competent Representation

Moriarty jane campbell Jane Campbell Moriarty (University of Akron School of Law) has posted 'Waiving' Goodbye to Rights: Plea Bargaining and the Defense Dilemma of Competent Representation (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 4, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The proposed amendments to the ABA Criminal Justice Standards for Prosecutors and Defense Lawyers ("Proposed Standards") address a number of problematic issues related to the roles of both prosecutors and defense attorneys. This Symposium Article considers waiver of rights in the context of the Standards, focusing on guilty pleas and the so-called "preconditions" that prosecutors generally require before even entertaining the defendant’s proffer, colloquially termed "Queen for a Day" agreements It reviews the development in the law since 1993, the changes in the practice since that time, and the proposed changes to the Standards. The article focuses on the complex obligations of criminal defense attorneys to investigate their cases and give competent advice to their clients in the shadow of proffers and pleas. It concludes that attorneys in this role face an almost insoluble dilemma and hopes that the Proposed Standards provide an important first step to resolving it.

May 3, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, May 2, 2011

Melcher on Comstock and the Adam Walsh Act

Ryan K. Melcher has posted There Ain’t No End for the ‘Wicked’: Implications of and Recommendations for § 4248 of the Adam Walsh Act after United States v. Comstock (Iowa Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The civil commitment of “sexually dangerous persons” is not a new concept. States first began doing so in the mid-20th century, based then on “sexual psychopathy.” Since that time, concepts of “sexually dangerous predators” have evolved and the laws have evolved with them. It was not until 2006, however, that Congress created federal laws to mirror those of the States. The Adam Walsh Act, named after the son of television host John Walsh, was created to “protect children” and “make communities safer.” The Supreme Court in United States v. Comstock held the Act constitutional under the Necessary and Proper Clause. While Congress had good intentions behind the Act, Comstock’s ruling created a veritable “blank check” for Congress and paved the way for exorbitant costs to the States, in a time when fiscal pressures make simply implementing the law nearly impossible. This Note explores the rationale behind Comstock and the Adam Walsh Act, highlights the damaging implications behind the decision and the good intentions of Congress, and makes recommendations for the future of both the case and the Act itself.

May 2, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Huigens on Provocation

Huigens kyron Kyron Huigens (Cardozo Law School) has posted Provocation at Face Value (Marquette Law Review, Vol. 95, 2011) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

To take provocation at face value – that is, to plead and prove it as a manslaughter offense, as it is defined in most criminal codes – seems to be both unnecessary and impossible. The defendant has the best access to evidence of provocation and will benefit from the proof of this partial defense, so why should he not be required to prove it? The prosecution has no incentive to prove provocation manslaughter, because the definition of this offense includes a murder. Why would the prosecution, having proved a murder, then set out to prove a lesser crime than the crime for which it already has a conviction? However, this article will demonstrate that we are obligated to treat provocation manslaughter as an offense as a normative-theoretical matter, and that it is possible to do this as a practical matter.

Continue reading

May 2, 2011 | Permalink | Comments (0)