CrimProf Blog

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

Friday, April 12, 2024

Ross on Problems with Jury Science

Lewis Ross (London School of Economics & Political Science (LSE) - London School of Economics) has posted Mock Juries, Real Trials: How to Solve (some) Problems with Jury Science (Journal of Law and Society (forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
Jury science is fraught with difficulty. Since legal and institutional hurdles render it all but impossible to study live criminal jury deliberation, researchers make use of various indirect methods to evaluate jury performance. But each of these methods are open to methodological criticism and, strikingly, some of the highest-profile jury research programmes in recent years have reached opposing conclusions. Uncertainty about jury performance is an obstacle for legal reform—ongoing debates about the ‘justice gap’ for complainants of sexual offences has rendered these problems stark. This paper proposes a way to advance the debate.

April 12, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Shafer on Threats, Stalking, and Counterman v. Colorado

Tory J. Shafer has posted Does a Stalker Need to Threaten Their Victim? In Counterman v. Colorado, the Supreme Court Shrugs (Criminal Law Bulletin, Vol. 60, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

True threat jurisprudence has been convoluted since its inception in 1969. The Supreme Court has consistently refused to set a clear constitutional standard for true threats, leading lower courts to individually decide the issue. In June 2023, the Supreme Court resolved the decades-long issue by requiring subjective intent and setting recklessness as the minimum subjective intent required for true threats. Going forward, in every true threat case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant consciously disregarded the risk that the recipient would be put in fear.

However, Counterman was convicted for stalking, not threats. The prosecution did not prove that he made a threat because it did not need to under Colorado’s statute. Regardless, the Supreme Court ruled on true threats without clearly disclaiming the stalking issue. Counterman blurred the line between true threats and stalking. This article surveys the history of true threat jurisprudence, outlines the constitutional debate of anti-stalking statutes, and analyzes Counterman v. Colorado. Ultimately, this article proposes a framework for judges to distinguish between stalking cases and true threat cases.

April 12, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Scott-Hayward et al. on Empirical Scholarship in Fourth Amendment Privacy Jurisprudence

Christine S. Scott-HaywardHenry F. Fradella, and Gerald Eastwood (California State University, Long Beach - School of Criminology, Criminal Justice, and Emergency Management, Arizona State University - School of Criminology and Criminal Justice and Arizona State University) have posted The Role of Empirical Scholarship in Fourth Amendment Privacy Jurisprudence (Florida State University Law Review, Vol. 52) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
In Katz v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the Fourth Amendment protects against unreasonable searches and seizures that violate a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy. Courts routinely assess rights in this context by applying Justice Harlan’s concurring opinion in Katz, which involves “a twofold requirement, first that a person has exhibited an actual (subjective) expectation of privacy and, second, that the expectation be one that society is prepared to recognize as [objectively] ‘reasonable.’” When applying the second part of Harlan’s test, courts traditionally use normative legal principles even though it poses what many scholars consider to be an empirical question. Using the methods of social science, a small but growing body of research sheds light on the circumstances in which society expects privacy. This scholarship could help attorneys support Fourth Amendment arguments and, correspondingly, assist judges in resolving such claims. This Article presents the results of a systematic content analysis examining how lawyers use empirical research in briefs submitted to courts in which they make Fourth Amendment privacy arguments and, correspondingly, how courts then engage with the research findings brought to their attention. The results suggest that few courts have embraced the use of empirical research to support their opinions even though doing so could improve the quality of their legal reasoning and increase the legitimacy of case outcomes and courts as institutions.

April 12, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 11, 2024

Lopez on Participatory Law Scholarship

Rachel López (Drexel University Thomas R. Kline School of Law) has posted Participatory Law Scholarship (Forthcoming in the Columbia Law Review, Vol. 123, 2023) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
Drawing from the experience of co-authoring scholarship with two activists who were sentenced to life without parole over three decades ago, this article outlines the theory and practice of “participatory law scholarship” (PLS). PLS is legal scholarship written in collaboration with authors who have no formal training in the law, but rather expertise in its function and disfunction through lived experience. By foregrounding lived experience in law’s injustice, PLS seeks to unearth and disrupt the prevailing narratives undergirding the law. Through amplifying counter-narratives to the law’s dominant discourse, this methodology creates more space for social and legal change. By design, PLS also reminds us of the humanity behind the law, acting as a moral check and balance to the law. Building from the tradition of Critical Race Studies and an emerging body of movement law scholarship, PLS thus aims to press the boundaries of what legal scholarship traditionally looks like by evoking lived experience as evidence and developing legal meaning alongside social movements. Its methodology raises critical questions about how knowledge is produced and by whom, as well as what role legal academics should play in facilitating social change in the material world. The article also responds to skeptics who believe this approach abdicates a scholar’s “moral obligation” to truth, explaining why PLS is not just legitimate, but urgently needed to address the fissures and fault lines law has created.

April 11, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

"After Trump Broadside, Surveillance Bill Collapses in the House"

From The New York Times:

Right-wing House Republicans on Wednesday blocked legislation to extend an expiring warrantless surveillance law that national security officials call crucial to gathering intelligence and fighting terrorism, dealing Speaker Mike Johnson a stinging defeat after former President Donald J. Trump urged lawmakers to kill the bill.

In an upset on the House floor, the measure, which would extend a section of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act known as Section 702, failed what is normally a routine procedural test. On a vote of 228 to 193, 19 House Republicans, most aligned with the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus, joined Democrats in opposing its consideration.

April 11, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Preis on Officer Intent and Excessive Force

John F. Preis (University of Richmond School of Law, University of Richmond - School of Law) has posted Officer Intent and Excessive Force on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
Police violence is not a “bad apple” problem. That is, it is not the result of the few officers in each department who are bent on abusing others. Instead, it is a systemic problem, one that spans multiple institutions and their many component parts. Systemic problems require system solutions and, for that reason, reformers are generally unconcerned with whether any particular officer intended to harm a person in a given circumstance. This is sensible, but systemic reform does not help those who have already been harmed or will inevitably be harmed in the future. For these people, whether an officer is a “bad apple” can matter very much.

The reason is that excessive law requires victims to prove that an officer acted intentionally in certain ways.

Continue reading

April 11, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wednesday, April 10, 2024

Ouziel on What Federal Corruption Prosecutions Are for

Lauren M. Ouziel (Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law) has posted What are Federal Corruption Prosecutions for? (Yale Law Journal Forum, Vol. 133, 2024) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
What explains the Supreme Court’s repeated rejection of public-corruption prosecutions over the last two decades? This Essay turns the lens on prosecutors, examining how their tendency to rely on broad theories of liability has paradoxically narrowed federal criminal law’s reach over public corruption. It investigates the dynamics of public-corruption prosecutions that push prosecutors towards breadth and away from the alternatives (a narrower theory or no prosecution at all). It considers how, relative to those alternatives, reversals at the Supreme Court have harmed the broader anticorruption project. And it proposes an alternative approach to the exercise of charging discretion in public-corruption prosecutions, one rooted in a wholesale reassessment of what those prosecutions should be for. The ultimate goal is not to find a theory through which corrupt acts are prosecutable federal crimes; the ultimate goal is to reduce corruption. This guiding principle should steer federal prosecution to where it does the greatest good: bringing to light those corrupt acts that would otherwise remain invisible to the public and thus immune from political or other consequences.

April 10, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Bublick & Bambauer on Tort Liability for Physical Harm to Police During Protests

Ellen Bublick and Jane R. Bambauer (University of Arizona - James E. Rogers College of Law and University of Florida Levin College of Law) have posted Tort Liability for Physical Harm to Police Arising From Protest: Common-Law Principles for a Politicized World (DePaul Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
When police officers bring tort suits for physical harms suffered during protest, courts must navigate two critically important sets of values—on the one hand, protesters’ rights to free speech and assembly, and on the other, the value of officers’ lives, health, and rights of redress. This year courts, including the United States Supreme Court, must decide who, if anyone, can be held accountable for severe physical harms suffered by police called upon to respond to protest. Two highly visible cases well illustrate the trend. In one, United States Capitol Police officers were injured on January 6, 2021, during organized attempts to overturn the results of the U.S. presidential election. In the other, a Baton Rouge police officer suffered traumatic brain injury when he was hit by an object thrown by an unidentified protester during a Black Lives Matter protest that sought to block a highway in front of police headquarters.

In this article, Professors Bublick and Bambauer argue that courts analyzing common-law liability claims for physical injuries suffered by police in the highly political circumstances of protest, would be well-advised to work through a list of content-neutral questions. Such a list could help courts maximize states’ legitimate interests in officer safety, while minimizing impacts on protestors’ legitimate First Amendment activity. We juxtapose these political contexts to create an analytical framework that recognizes the threats involved, to both speech and safety, without as great a risk of ideological distortion. Courts in both the January 6th case and the Black Lives Matter case have failed to accommodate both physical safety interests and First Amendment issues.

April 10, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Tuesday, April 9, 2024

"Prosecutors Defend Case Against Alec Baldwin in ‘Rust’ Shooting"

From The New York Times:

In the court filing on Friday, prosecutors laid out some of their arguments for going ahead with the criminal case against Mr. Baldwin. They accused him of behaving on the film set with “absolutely no concern for how his conduct affects those around him,” and they defended their presentation to the grand jury, writing that they had read aloud the full letter that Mr. Baldwin’s lawyer had presented to them.

. . . 

The new filing sought to paint Mr. Baldwin in an unfavorable light, accusing him of “shamelessly” lying about the shooting. It describes a call he placed on the day of the shooting in an interview room at the sheriff’s department that was videotaped by investigators. In it, he urges his family not to cancel their planned trip to New Mexico despite the tragedy. “I won’t work and we’ll go and enjoy ourselves,” it quotes him as saying.

The court filing also provided an account of the events leading up to the prosecution’s decision to revive the criminal case against Mr. Baldwin, several months after it withdrew the initial involuntary manslaughter charge against him.

April 9, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Teachout on Demoralizing Elite Fraud

Zephyr Teachout (Fordham University School of Law) has posted Demoralizing Elite Fraud (Yale Law Journal Forum) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
The Supreme Court keeps striking down wire fraud convictions. Why?

As I show in this piece, from the 1970s to this year, the Court has repeatedly attempted to shift the framework of fraud cases from moral language to morally neutral language. As a result, the Court ends up making a hash of statutory interpretation, because it then has to interpret statutes that it has effectively rewritten. For instance, much of the current fraud jurisprudence revolves around defining what property means. The Mail Fraud statute does not have the language of property in it, and the legislative history does not involve a discussion of property, but in a prior effort to narrow the scope the Court added deprivation of a "traditional property interest" to its fraud definition. The hunt for the meaning of property--among the most contested topics in law--in a bid-rigging case works out about as well as you'd expect.

Continue reading

April 9, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Polito & Berryessa on Adultification of Adolescents

Isabella Polito and Colleen M. Berryessa (Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - School of Criminal Justice and Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey - School of Criminal Justice) have posted The Neurobiological and Psychological Nature of ‘Adultification:’ Implications for Legal Decision-Making in Cases Involving Adolescents on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
Neurobiological and psychological research on the differences between adolescents and adults in criminology and psychology has provided insight into how distinctive developmental processes may contribute to juvenile involvement in crime and the legal system. Literature investigating these differences, particularly regarding deficits in psychological and brain development and their resulting implications for adolescent decision-making, has revealed that youth may require support as they navigate the legal system and that their innate vulnerabilities should potentially necessitate additional safeguards in such environments. However, biases such as adultification–which defines how certain youth, sometimes due to sociodemographic qualities, can be misunderstood as more competent and mature than is indicated by their adolescence–may risk these protections and lead some juveniles to be perceived as less vulnerable and more culpable for their actions before and during the legal process. This chapter discusses the reasons for and ramifications of the adultification of children by legal decision-makers, including how their misperceptions related to adultification can threaten protections for adolescents within various legal processes. Particularly, this chapter describes how judgments regarding juvenile competency, transfer, and sentencing can be misguided by erroneous views of the psychosocial maturity of juveniles who have made contact with the system.

April 9, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Monday, April 8, 2024

Ferguson on Video Analytics and the Fourth Amendment

Andrew Guthrie Ferguson (American University Washington College of Law) has posted Video Analytics and Fourth Amendment Vision (Texas Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
What does the Fourth Amendment have to say about video analytics running on city-wide camera systems?

Video analytics (also known as computer vision) involves hardware and software in cameras that turns video surveillance streams into useful data, identifying, categorizing, matching, and alerting police about objects, people, and incidents. Video analytics can identify any object (e.g., hat, backpack, person, car) and track that person or thing back in time and through the streets. For police officers conducting virtual patrols or retrospective investigations, video analytics lets police scan thousands of linked cameras for suspicious behavior or a particular suspect, thus drastically enhancing police surveillance power.

Continue reading

April 8, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Wylie et al. on Interviewing Children

Breanne E. WylieHayden M. HendersonGeorgia Lundon, and Thomas D. Lyon (University of Southern California, USC Gould School of Law, University of Southern California Gould School of Law and University of Southern California Gould School of Law) have posted Forensic Interviewers’ Difficulty with the Birthday Narrative (Child Abuse and Neglect (in press)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
Narrative practice increases children’s productivity in forensic interviews, and one recommended topic is the child’s last birthday, though interviewers have raised concerns about its productivity. Study 1 surveyed forensic interviewers use of and attitudes about the birthday narrative. Participants included 170 forensic interviewers who subscribed to a webinar promoting use of the birthday narrative (Mage = 43 years, SD = 10.2, 94% female). Over half (55%) of interviewers reported that they rarely/never asked about children’s birthdays, and non-users were especially likely to view the birthday narrative as never/rarely productive. Although interviewers viewed memory difficulties as more likely to occur with the birthday narrative than other practice topics (the child’s likes, the child’s day), non-users did not view memory difficulties, reluctance, generic reports, or religious objections as especially problematic. Open-ended responses identified negative experiences with the birthday as an additional concern, and interviewers’ recommended wording of the prompts suggested suboptimal questioning strategies. Study 2 assessed the use of the birthday narrative in forensic interviews. The sample included 350 forensic interviews with 4- to 12-year-old children (Mage = 8.85, SD = 2.59). Only 4% of children failed to recall substantive information if interviewers persisted, though another 11% failed when interviewers stopped persisting. Invitations were more effective than other question types, especially among older children. 21% of children mentioned a negative detail during their narrative. Interviewers’ skepticism about the birthday narrative may be due to suboptimal questioning and sensitivity to occasional failures and negative information.

April 8, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Levine & Wright on Second-Look Sentence Review

Kay L. Levine and Ronald F. Wright (Emory University School of Law and Wake Forest University - School of Law) have posted Between Cooperation and Conflict in Second Look Sentence Review (Cardozo Journal of Conflict Resolution (volume 25)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
In this article, we offer the first scholarly assessment of a new practice emerging in many state criminal courts: prosecutor-initiated second look sentencing, also called resentencing. Attorneys working on resentencing matters consider the continuing integrity of a sentence imposed on a defendant years (or even decades) earlier, with an eye toward revising its terms. They assess numerous factors, such as whether the defendant still presents a public safety risk, whether the defendant has taken advantage of prison programming, and whether the original sentence now appears disproportionate due to a shift in community values. Second look sentencing thus offers great promise as a means to correct for the punishment excesses of the past.

But as we recount from our original interviews, there are some cracks beneath the surface. The defense and prosecutor roles in resentencing start from a structural power asymmetry that could weaken the spirit of cooperation that characterizes the early days of the practice. There are gaps (both real and perceived) between the lofty aspirations of prosecutorial rhetoric at the time of adoption and the more limited reality that emerges when prosecutors start making case-level decisions, subject to resource and political limits. Faced with this frustrating disconnect, some defenders return to their traditional adversarial role and refuse to enable or endorse what they see as programmatic failure. Left unchecked, these implementation roadblocks, combined with resource limits and political constraints, could delay the spread and blunt the effects of this innovative device.

April 8, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Sunday, April 7, 2024

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Law eJournal

Ssrnare here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank Paper Downloads
1.

Redistributing Justice

Washington University in St. Louis - School of Law and Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
352
2.

Brain Science for Lawyers, Judges, and Policymakers

Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences, York University, University of Minnesota Law School, Second Judicial District Court Judge, State of Colorado and Stanford University - Department of Psychology
243
3.

Capital Trifurcation

University of Mississippi School of Law
208
4.

Sacred Secrets Enabling Child Sex Abuse

University of Utah - S.J. Quinney College of Law, University of Utah, S.J. Quinney College of Law, Students and Honors College, University of Utah
191
5.

The Cultural Gagging of Women Through the Lens of Johnny Depp V. Amber Heard: How Prominent Male Abusers Use Defamation Claims as a Retaliatory Mechanism to Silence Their Victims

Indiana University, Robert H. McKinney School of Law
185
6.

Building Rapport in Interviews with Adolescent Trafficking Victims

University of California, Irvine, University of California, Irvine - Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine - Department of Psychological Science, University of Southern California Gould School of Law and University of California, Irvine - Department of Criminology, Law and Society
181
7.

Safe-T for Whom? How Legislative Overreach Transformed Criminals into Victims

Southern Illinois University - Southern Illinois University School of Law
170
8.

Criminal Law Minimalisms

Washington University in St. Louis - School of Law
154
9.

Prosecutors in Robes

The Pennsylvania State University (University Park) – Penn State Law
153
10.

Police Vigilantism

Florida State University College of Law
147

April 7, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Saturday, April 6, 2024

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Procedure eJournal

Ssrnare here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank Paper Downloads
1.

Artificial Intelligence and Privacy

George Washington University Law School
6,278
2.

Redistributing Justice

Washington University in St. Louis - School of Law and Yeshiva University - Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law
352
3.

Brain Science for Lawyers, Judges, and Policymakers

Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences, York University, University of Minnesota Law School, Second Judicial District Court Judge, State of Colorado and Stanford University - Department of Psychology
243
4.

Habeas Corpus and Void Judgments

Independent
206
5.

Building Rapport in Interviews with Adolescent Trafficking Victims

University of California, Irvine, University of California, Irvine - Department of Psychological Science, University of California, Irvine - Department of Psychological Science, University of Southern California Gould School of Law and University of California, Irvine - Department of Criminology, Law and Society
181
6.

Accidental Brady Violations

William & Mary Law School
174
7.

Safe-T for Whom? How Legislative Overreach Transformed Criminals into Victims

Southern Illinois University - Southern Illinois University School of Law
170
8.

The Genocide in Gaza and the Contempt of International Law: Some Reflections

SOAS
156
9.

Criminal Law Minimalisms

Washington University in St. Louis - School of Law
154
10.

Prosecutors in Robes

The Pennsylvania State University (University Park) – Penn State Law
153

April 6, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday, April 5, 2024

Engel & Zamir on Transparency, Accountability, and Extortion

Christoph Engel and Eyal Zamir (Max Planck Institute for Research on Collective Goods and Hebrew University of Jerusalem - Faculty of Law) has posted Is Transparency a Blessing or a Curse? An Experimental Horse Race Between Accountability and Extortionary Corruption (International Review of Law and Economics, Vol. 78, no. 106189, 2024) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
If it is disclosed to a citizen which public official handles her case, this creates accountability. If the official abuses her authority, the citizen can report this misconduct to higher authority, which can intervene. But transparency also makes it possible for a citizen to pressure an official to decide in her favor. We model this interaction as a sequential game, and define which behavioral effects are required for either effect to dominate. We test the game experimentally. Within the parameters of our experiment, transparency clearly trumps anonymity. If the abuse of sovereign authority risks going unchecked, the occasional retaliation against dutiful officials is, on balance, the smaller social cost.

April 5, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Johnson on Novus Actus Interveniens

Eric Alan Johnson (University of Illinois College of Law) has posted Trust and the Limits of Trust: Rethinking the Doctrine of Novus Actus Interveniens (University of Illinois Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
Should individuals who recklessly or negligently supply guns that later are used by others to perpetrate mass shootings face direct criminal liability for homicide? The primary obstacle to liability in these and other, similar cases is the traditional doctrine of novus actus interveniens, which says that an actor’s conduct won’t count as a legal cause of a result if the causal relationship between the conduct and the result was mediated by a “novus actus” – by another person’s “free, deliberate, and informed” act. Scholars have long argued that this categorical rule is justified by concerns about autonomy and liberty. This Article challenges the traditional understanding. It argues that the intuitions underlying novus actus aren’t really about liberty or autonomy. Rather, they’re about society’s interest in cultivating interpersonal trust. The Article argues that this interest in cultivating interpersonal trust justifies treating results mediated by third-party wrongdoing differently than results mediated by, say, the working of natural causes. The Article argues, however, that neither this nor any other societal interest justifies a categorical rule foreclosing liability for results mediated by third-party wrongdoing. Liability ought to depend, rather, on whether the defendant was justified under the circumstances in trusting the third-party causal intervenor.

April 5, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Grunwald et al. on Private Security and Public Police

Ben GrunwaldJohn Rappaport, and Michael Berg (Duke University School of Law, University of Chicago - Law School and University of Chicago - Law School) have posted Private Security and Public Police (Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
Private security officers outnumber police by a wide margin, and the gap may be growing. As cities have claimed to defund the police, many have quietly expanded their use of private security, reallocating spending from the public to the private sector. It is difficult to know what to make of these trends, largely because we know so little about what private security looks like on the ground. On one prevalent view of the facts, a shift from public to private security would mean little more than a change of uniform, as the two labor markets are deeply intertwined. Indeed, academics, the media, popular culture, and the police themselves all tell us that private security is some amalgam of a police retirement community and a dumping ground for disgraced former cops. But if, instead, private officers differ systematically from the public police—and crossover between the sectors is limited—then substitution from policing to private security could drastically change who is providing security services.

Continue reading

April 5, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)

Thursday, April 4, 2024

Levin on Criminal Law Minimalisms

Benjamin Levin (Washington University in St. Louis - School of Law) has posted Criminal Law Minimalisms (Washington University Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:
 
What is criminal law minimalism? At first blush, it appears to be the sober and sensible cousin of abolition. Where the language of abolition is radical and absolute, the language of minimalism speaks to moderation, pragmatism, and nuance. While I appreciate calls for nuance, I’m not sure that minimalism offers the clarity it promises or answers the hard questions about how to address the ills of the U.S. criminal system.

As a theory or label, minimalism raises two major questions: (1) a question of scope; and (2) a question of scale. On the question of scope, what exactly should be minimized? The number of criminal laws? The severity of criminal punishment? The extent of policing? The presence of criminal and quasi-criminal institutions of social control? The prevalence of punitive cultural impulses? Something else? On the question of scale, what does minimalism mean? Arguing that society should use criminal law and punishment as little as possible raises the important question of how we know what the minimally acceptable amount of criminal law is. Without a shared understanding of what criminal law is supposed to do, how do we know what properly functioning minimalism looks like? Depending on one’s normative vision for criminal law, minimalism could involve a radical project of decarceration, decriminalization, and de-policing. Or, it could involve a slight recalibration of the status quo.

Continue reading

April 4, 2024 | Permalink | Comments (0)