Monday, August 19, 2013
Kevin Costello (UCD) has posted Imprisonment for Debt in Early Nineteenth Century Ireland, 1810-1848 on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
About one third of the prison population in early nineteenth century Ireland was made up of persons imprisoned by their creditors for debt. These prisoners had been arrested for defaulting on debts owing to shopkeepers. The growing size of the prison debtor population was, by the second decade of the century, threatening to cause a humanitarian crisis. The Government responded to this by, first (1821), establishing a specialist Insolvent Debtors Relief Court, second (1848), by abolishing the creditor’s power of imprisonment for debts under ten pounds, and, finally (1872), by abolishing the power to imprison genuinely insolvent debtors Each of these reforms was opposed by small business interests. This interest group -- particularly small retailers -- viewed abolition as threatening an essential and effective means of debt recovery. Abolitionists, and the Government, on the other hand, argued that the process of arrest did not work. This paper offers an account (i) of the process of imprisonment for debt in nineteenth century Ireland, (ii) of conditions in Irish marshalseas, and (iii) of the profile of those creditors who used imprisonment. It concludes with an assessment of the abolitionist claim that the remedy was ineffective.
Lawyers for theater shooting suspect James Holmes launched another legal assault on Colorado's death penalty laws Friday, arguing they don't set clear standards and that they make it too hard for jurors to weigh mitigating factors.
. . .
In addition to questioning the standards of the laws, the defense said the statutes allow fewer options for defendants to appeal the death penalty if they choose trial by jury than if they choose trial before a judge, without a jury.
. . .
[Judge] Samour rejected the defense's previous attack on the death penalty law in May. Before Holmes entered his insanity plea, his lawyers argued the death penalty law could unfairly cripple their ability to mount an insanity defense.
Sunday, August 18, 2013
Brian Owsley (Texas Tech University School of Law) has posted The Supreme Court Goes to the Dogs: Reconciling Florida v. Harris and Florida v. Jardines (Albany Law Review, Vol. 77, 2013) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
In the most recent Term, the United States Supreme Court has issued rulings affecting criminal investigations and Fourth Amendment rights in two cases involving the use of drug-detection dogs: Florida v. Harris and Florida v. Jardines. These otherwise unrelated appeals from the Supreme Court of Florida both address overlapping issues concerning the use of such dogs by police officers. Although the United States Supreme Court has previously addressed a criminal defendant’s rights in cases involving drug-detection dogs, these two decisions will significantly influence such jurisprudence going forward.
|1||869||Privacy Protests: Surveillance Evasion and Fourth Amendment Suspicion
Elizabeth E. Joh,
U.C. Davis School of Law,
Date posted to database: June 26, 2013
|2||489||Safeguarding the Commander's Authority to Review the Findings of a Court-Martial
Andrew S. Williams,
Brigham Young University,
Date posted to database: June 9, 2013
|3||322||Administrative Segregation, Degrees of Isolation, and Incarceration: A National Overview of State and Federal Correctional Policies
Judith Resnik, Jamelia Morgan, Alyssa Roxanne Work, Julia Spiegel, Hope Metcalf, Haran Tae, Samuel Oliker-Friedland, Brian Holbrook,
Yale Law School, Independent, Independent, Yale University - Law School, Independent, Yale Law School, Independent, Independent,
Date posted to database: July 1, 2013
|4||272||Should Law Improve Morality?
University of Oxford - Faculty of Law,
Date posted to database: July 18, 2013 [5th last week]
|5||243||A Daubert Analysis of Abusive Head Trauma/Shaken Baby Syndrome — Part II: An Examination of the Differential Diagnosis
Sandeep K. Narang, John David Melville, Christopher S. Greeley,Shannon L. Carpenter, Betty Spivack,James D. Anderst,
University of Texas at San Antonio - Health Science Center, UTHSCSA, UTHSC-Houston, Children's Mercy Hospital, Children's Mercy Hospital, Unaffiliated Authors - Independent,
Date posted to database: July 4, 2013 [4th last week]
|6||205||Seven Ways Neuroscience Aids Law
Owen D. Jones,
Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences,
Date posted to database: June 19, 2013
|7||159||The Implications of Excluding State Crimes from 47 U.S.C. §230’s Immunity
Santa Clara University - School of Law,
Date posted to database: July 1, 2013 [9th last week]
|8||158||Libertarian Paternalism, Path Dependence, and Temporary Law
Richard H. McAdams, Tom Ginsburg,Jonathan S. Masur,
University of Chicago Law School, University of Chicago - Law School, University of Chicago Law School,
Date posted to database: June 19, 2013 [10th last week]
|9||123||Disputed Interrogation Techniques in America: True and False Confessions and the Estimation and Valuation of Type I and II Errors
Deborah Davis, Richard A. Leo,Michael J Williams,
University of Nevada, Reno, University of San Francisco - School of Law, University of Nevada, Reno,
Date posted to database: July 2, 2013 [new to top ten]
|10||122||Assessing the Control-Theory
Jens David Ohlin, Elies van Sliedregt,Thomas Weigend,
Cornell University - School of Law, VU University Amsterdam - Faculty of Law, University of Cologne,
Date posted to database: June 10, 2013 [new to top ten]