CrimProf Blog

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Law eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Downloads	Paper Title
1	2,457	Why Prison?: An Economic Critique Peter N. Salib United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit Date posted to database: 7 Mar 2017
2	828	Law, Virtual Reality, and Augmented Reality Mark A. Lemley and Eugene Volokh Stanford Law School and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) - School of Law Date posted to database: 17 Mar 2017
3	545	How Should Justice Policy Treat Young Offenders? BJ Casey, Richard J. Bonnie, Andre Davis, David L. Faigman, Morris B. Hoffman, Owen D. Jones, Read Montague, Stephen Morse, Marcus E. Raichle, Jennifer A. Richeson,Elizabeth S. Scott, Laurence Steinberg, Kim A. Taylor-Thompsonand Anthony D. Wagner Yale University - Department of Psychology, University of Virginia - School of Law, US Court of Appeals - Fourth Circuit, University of California Hastings College of the Law, Second Judicial District Court Judge, State of Colorado, Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University - Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Washington University School of Medicine, Yale University - Department of Psychology, Columbia University - Law School, Temple University, New York University School of Law and Stanford University - Psychology Date posted to database: 28 Feb 2017
4	400	Judging Sexual Assault Trials: Systemic Failure in the Case of Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi Elaine Craig Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law Date posted to database: 12 Apr 2017
5	184	Predicting the Knowledge-Recklessness Distinction in the Human Brain Iris Vilares, Michael Wesley, Woo-Young Ahn, Richard J. Bonnie, Morris B. Hoffman, Owen D. Jones, Stephen Morse, Gideon Yaffe, Terry Lohrenzand Read Montague University College London - Wellcome Trust Center for Neuroimaging, University of Kentucky - Behavioral Science, Ohio State University (OSU) - Department of Psychology, University of Virginia - School of Law, Second Judicial District Court Judge, State of Colorado, Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Yale Law School, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University - Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute and Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University - Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute Date posted to database: 16 Mar 2017
6	164	Resurrecting Labor Richard A. Bales Ohio Northern University - Pettit College of Law Date posted to database: 28 Mar 2017
7	138	Criminal Employment Law Benjamin Levin Harvard Law School Date posted to database: 3 Apr 2017
8	108	Judicial Resolution of Nonconsensual Pornography Dissemination Cases Eric Goldman and Angie Jin Santa Clara University - School of Law and Cornell University - Law School Date posted to database: 17 Apr 2017 [new to top ten]
9	106	'Have You Seen Dignity?': The Story of the Development of Therapeutic Jurisprudence Michael L. Perlin New York Law School Date posted to database: 7 Apr 2017 [10th last week]
10	75	Capital Jurors in an Era of Death Penalty Decline Brandon L. Garrett, Daniel A. Kraussand Nicholas Scurich University of Virginia School of Law, Claremont McKenna College - Department of Psychology and University of California, Irvine Date posted to database: 14 Mar 2017 [new to top ten]

Elholm & Colson on EU Criminal Law

Thomas Elholm and Renaud Colson (Independent and Faculté de Droit et des Sciences politiques de l'Université de Nantes) have posted The Symbolic Purpose of EU Criminal Law (Chapter published in R. Colson & S. Field (eds.), EU Criminal Justice and the Challenges of Diversity: Legal Cultures in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 2016, 48-64) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Drawing on Durkheim’s sociology of law and the contribution of other authors who have emphasized the expressive dimension of punishment, this paper argues that the symbolic function of criminal law, which can be observed at the national level in European Member States, also has significance at the level of the European Union. Just as national governments, the Union may have good strategic reasons to enact criminal law with strong elements of symbolic function. But such a policy raises many problems.

Goldman & Jin on Nonconsensual Pornography Dissemination

Eric Goldman and Angie Jin (Santa Clara University - School of Law and Cornell University - Law School) have posted Judicial Resolution of Nonconsensual Pornography Dissemination Cases on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Nonconsensual pornography dissemination has emerged as one of the key social issue of the digital age. In response, legislators are rapidly adding new laws to combat it. However, these laws supplement an extensive body of civil and criminal laws that already address many of the same concerns.

To get a better sense of the regulatory scope of the existing laws, we compiled eighty-seven enforcement actions involving nonconsensual pornography disseminations dating back to the 1980s. This compilation provides a useful baseline to critically evaluate any new laws against nonconsensual pornography dissemination.

Rap on The Juvenile's Voice

Stephanie Rap (Department of Child Law, Leiden Law School) has posted The Voice of the Child in Juvenile Justice Procedures (T. Liefaard & J. Sloth-Nielsen (Eds.), The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Taking Stock after 25 Years and Looking Ahead (pp. 294-315). Leiden: Brill/Nijhoff (2017)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The adoption of the CRC and its subsequent ratification by a significant number of countries can be recognised as a turning point in looking at the rights of children. Children are increasingly seen as rights holders and social actors who are attributed autonomy and agency. Specifically, article 12 CRC – the right to be heard – gives children the opportunity to exercise their rights.

The present study deals with the implementation of the right to be heard in practice, namely in juvenile justice procedures. The implication of article 12 is such that juvenile defendants should be encouraged to give their personal views on the criminal case and that professionals in court should consider these views seriously. Moreover, this right also presupposes that the juvenile defendant understands what is happening during the judicial proceedings, he should be provided with adequate information and that language is used that he understands.

Continue reading

Jacobsen on What Constitutes Search of a Cellphone

Kristen M. Jacobsen (The George Washington University Law School, Students) has posted Let's Get Physical, Physical: Answering What Constitutes a Search of a Cellphone after Riley Through a 'Use-Based' Approach (Criminal Law Bulletin Volume 53, Issue 4, 2017) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Investigating and prosecuting in the twenty-first century requires that the government have clear and workable rules to determine what action constitutes a Fourth Amendment search of a cellphone. The use-based approach provides this guidance. The use-based approach, which will substitute for the physical trespass doctrine, holds that any physical manipulation of the cellphone or any act that requires, or prompts, internal action on the part of the cellphone internally constitutes a Fourth Amendment search. This approach prevents advancements in technology from eradicating Fourth Amendment protections, while the already-established exceptions allow law enforcement the latitude necessary to conduct investigations.

Moore & Davies on Public Defense

Janet Moore and Andrew L. B. Davies (University of Cincinnati College of Law and Government of the State of New York - New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services) have posted Knowing Defense (14 Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 345 (2017)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The field of empirical research on public defense is in an early stage of development. Yet the field is also diverse, as a growing community of researchers applies training in disciplines ranging from law and criminology to economics and social psychology. These facts invite reflection on baseline questions about the field that may inform future work. For example, what factors shape our research agendas? What data, methods, and theories are in play? Do these new research agendas align with the research priorities of public defenders and the communities they serve? Should they do so? To begin exploring such questions, this pilot study asked public defense providers for their views on the top-priority issues that empirical research should investigate in order to improve public defense. The study engaged 71 Mississippi defenders in a modified group-level assessment (GLA), which is a qualitative, participatory method of social science inquiry. Study goals included facilitating defender identification of empirical research priorities, comparing defender perspectives based on role and experience level, and assessing GLA’s utility in this new setting.

Continue reading

Top-Ten Recent SSRN Downloads in Criminal Procedure eJournal

are here.  The usual disclaimers apply.

Rank	Downloads	Paper Title
1	4,662	Encryption Workarounds Orin S. Kerr and Bruce Schneier The George Washington University Law School and Harvard University - Berkman Klein Center for Internet & Society Date posted to database: 22 Mar 2017
2	333	Surveillance Intermediaries Alan Z. Rozenshtein Georgetown University Law Center Date posted to database: 20 Mar 2017
3	265	The Undue Influence of Surveillance Technology Companies on Policing Elizabeth E. Joh University of California, Davis - School of Law Date posted to database: 28 Feb 2017 [4th last week]
4	231	Reassessing Prosecutorial Power Through the Lens of Mass Incarceration Jeffrey Bellin William & Mary Law School Date posted to database: 9 Mar 2017 [5th last week]
5	213	The Silence Penalty Jeffrey Bellin William & Mary Law School Date posted to database: 22 Mar 2017 [6th last week]
6	183	Predicting the Knowledge-Recklessness Distinction in the Human Brain Iris Vilares, Michael Wesley, Woo-Young Ahn, Richard J. Bonnie, Morris B. Hoffman, Owen D. Jones, Stephen Morse, Gideon Yaffe, Terry Lohrenzand Read Montague University College London - Wellcome Trust Center for Neuroimaging, University of Kentucky - Behavioral Science, Ohio State University (OSU) - Department of Psychology, University of Virginia - School of Law, Second Judicial District Court Judge, State of Colorado, Vanderbilt University - Law School & Dept. of Biological Sciences, University of Pennsylvania Law School, Yale Law School, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University - Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute and Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University - Virginia Tech Carilion Research Institute Date posted to database: 16 Mar 2017 [7th last week]
7	167	Life, Liberty, and Trade Secrets: Intellectual Property in the Criminal Justice System Rebecca Wexler Data & Society Research Institute Date posted to database: 21 Feb 2017 [8th last week]
8	157	Performative Privacy Scott Skinner-Thompson New York University School of Law Date posted to database: 9 Mar 2017 [10th last week]
9	136	Reforming Registries Wayne A. Logan Florida State University - College of Law Date posted to database: 27 Mar 2017 [new to top ten]
10	132	Applying The Racial Profiling Correspondence Test David M. Tanovich University of Windsor - Faculty of Law Date posted to database: 22 Mar 2017 [new to top ten]

Morse on Involuntary Competence

Stephen Morse (University of Pennsylvania Law School) has posted Involuntary Competence in United States Criminal Law (in Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives (Ronnie Mackay & Warren Brookbanks eds., Oxford University Press, Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This is a draft of a chapter that has been accepted for publication by Oxford University Press in the forthcoming book Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative Perspectives edited by Ronnie Mackay and Warren Brookbanks due for publication in May 2018. It addresses whether the state may forcibly medicate an unwilling defendant or prisoner to restore competence in the criminal process, including competence to stand trial, competence to plead guilty and to waive trial rights, competence to represent oneself, and competence to be sentenced. It begins with a description of the doctrinal and mental health background information and the right of prisoners generally to refuse psychotropic medication. The succeeding section discusses the general balance of interests that obtains in deciding this issue and then canvases the particular competencies in question with analysis and recommendations for future directions. The general thesis is that the interest of both the state and the individual in finality is so weighty that forcible medication is justified in most cases if it is necessary to permit the criminal process to proceed. A brief conclusion follows.

Stoughton on Public and Private Policing

Seth W. Stoughton (University of South Carolina School of Law) has posted The Blurred Blue Line: Reform in an Era of Public & Private Policing (American Journal of Criminal Law, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In April 2017, the Alabama Senate voted to authorize the formation of a new police department. Like other officers in the state, officers at the new agency would have to be certified by the Alabama Peace Officers Standards and Training Commission. These new officers would be “charged with all of the duties and invested with all of the powers of law enforcement officers.” Unlike most officers in Alabama, though, the officers at the new agency would not be city, county, or state employees. Instead, they would be working for the Briarwood Presbyterian Church, which Senate Bill 193 authorized to “appoint and employ one or more persons to act as police officers to protect the safety and integrity of the church and its ministries.”

The prospect of a private church with its own police department seems like a radical departure from modern practices. The contemporary conception of policing, after all, is that it is a primarily and foundationally governmental activity. That conception is easy to take for granted. After all, “maintaining order and controlling crime are paradigmatic governmental functions.” That is certainly the role that most police agencies see themselves as fulfilling, and, by and large, that is also how the public sees policing.

Continue reading

Podgor on White Collar Shortcuts

Ellen S. Podgor (Stetson University College of Law) has posted White Collar Shortcuts (University of Illinois Law Review, Vol. 2018, No. 3, 2018, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In the aftermath of financial and corporate frauds, aggressive government policy is apparent. But while touting a crackdown to correct past prosecution failures, one sees the government using shortcuts in both agency policy and prosecutorial practices. These shortcuts can be seen in the investigative, charging, and plea areas. There is an increased use of search warrants, wiretaps and failures to adhere to criminal discovery obligations. So too, one sees the government charging shortcut offenses such as perjury, obstruction of justice and false statements as opposed to the underlying conduct that was initially being investigated. Taking advantage of over-federalization and over-criminalization is seen in the stacking of multiple charges, tacking on conspiracy and money-laundering offenses, and in adding new plea waivers to secure finality of all issues and avoid future litigation. While these aggressive policy moves may seem efficient, the use of shortcuts has serious consequences that undermine deterrence and legitimacy in the criminal justice process.

Brown on Discovery Reform

Darryl K. Brown (University of Virginia School of Law) has posted Discovery Reform in State Criminal Justice (Forthcoming in Academy for Justice: A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., 2017)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Rules of pretrial evidence disclosure vary widely in state criminal justice systems. In all states discovery is more restricted than it is in civil litigation. In a substantial minority of states, it remains dramatically restricted. That is in part a relic of the common law tradition when it was assumed most cases would be resolved by trial. But trials are now rare; nearly all convictions are the result of a plea bargain. The pretrial stage is the only place in which adversarial process operates and in which parties can evaluate evidence. Most states have adopted broader discovery rules in light of this reality, because disclosure failures have led to wrongful convictions, and because experience show that risks related to certain disclosures are easily managed. The primary agenda for discovery reform in state criminal justice is to convince those states that still adhere to outdated disclosure policies to join the majority of their peers and require more evidence to be exchanged between prosecutors and defense attorneys prior to plea bargaining.

Park on Border Searches of Digital Devices

Eunice Park (Western State University - College of Law) has posted The Elephant in the Room: What is a 'Nonroutine' Border Search, Anyway? Digital Device Searches Post-Riley (Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 3, Spring 2017, at 277) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Since the Supreme Court handed down Riley v. California in 2014, we have been assured that if we are pulled over for speeding, the officer may not search our cell phone without a warrant. Another potential privacy peril, however, continues to loom: the international border. While the wide latitude circuit courts have given government agents to conduct border searches has had a wrinkle since the 2013 decision United States v. Cotterman, which deemed a forensic probe into the defendant's laptop "essentially a computer strip search," courts and scholars have been struggling with the issue of how Riley might impact border laptop searches or, more importantly, border searches of digital devices generally. This Article proposes an approach that takes the "elephant" of defining routine and nonroutine searches out of the room, and rethinks the applicability in the digital era of notions of entering, versus exiting, the United States, as well as imminent, versus ongoing, crime, in the quest to maintain balance between law enforcement interests and individual privacy rights.

Craig on Judging Sexual Assault Trials

Elaine Craig (Dalhousie University - Schulich School of Law) has posted Judging Sexual Assault Trials: Systemic Failure in the Case of Regina v Bassam Al-Rawi (Canadian Bar Review Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The recent decision to acquit a Halifax taxi driver of sexual assault in a case involving a very intoxicated woman, who was found by police in the accused’s vehicle unconscious and naked from the breasts down, rightly sparked public criticism and consternation. A review of the trial record in Al-Rawi, including the examination and cross-examination of witnesses, the closing submissions of the Crown and defence counsel, and the trial judge’s oral decision suggests a failure of our legal system to respond appropriately to allegations of sexual assault - a failure for which, the author argues, both the trial judge and legal counsel may bear some responsibility. Arguably, in addition to the many legal errors of the trial judge, both the Crown and defence counsel in this case also contributed to the problematic outcome in Al-Rawi. For example, defence counsel introduced evidence that the complainant had flirted and danced inappropriately earlier in the evening on the night of the incident. The theory of the defence appears to have been that the complainant, when she consumes alcohol, becomes the “type of person” who flirts and dances inappropriately with men in bars, and can reasonably be inferred to have entered a taxi, stripped her urine soiled clothes off, thrown them at the unknown driver, perhaps kissed or licked his face, and then propped up her legs in the straddle position minutes or seconds before passing out. The Crown did not object when defence counsel introduced this evidence, which arguably should have been excluded under Canada’s rape shield regime; nor did he, in his closing, urge the trial judge to ensure that it not be relied upon to draw stereotypical inferences about women, alcohol, and sex.

Malgieri & De Hert on Surveillance Oversight

Gianclaudio Malgieri and Paul De Hert (Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB), Faculty of Law and Free University of Brussels (VUB)- LSTS) have posted European Human Rights, Criminal Surveillance, and Intelligence Surveillance: Towards 'Good Enough' Oversight, Preferably But Not Necessarily by Judges (D. Gray and S. Henderson (eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Surveillance Law, 2017, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The two European Courts (the European Court of Human Rights, ECtHR and, to a lesser degree, the European Union Court of Justice, EUCJ) have contributed greatly to the development of a legal framework for surveillance by either law enforcement agencies in the criminal law area or by secret services. Both courts put great emphasis on a system of control ex ante and post hoc by independent supervisory authorities. A complex and controversial issue remains whether the human rights to privacy, respect of communications, and to an effective remedy (enshrined in Article 8 and 13 of European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR)), requires judicial review as a necessary safeguard for secret surveillance or alternatively, at which conditions, parallel systems of non-judicial review can be accepted as adequate safeguards against illegitimate interference in citizens’ private life.

Continue reading

Haugh on "Cadillac Compliance" Breakdown

Todd Haugh (Indiana University - Kelley School of Business) has posted 'Cadillac Compliance' Breakdown (69 Stan. L. Rev. Online 198 (2017)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

This Essay argues that the best corporate compliance programs, what are known as “Cadillac compliance” programs, are becoming increasingly criminalized. In at attempt to avoid application of the criminal law, companies have adopted compliance protocols that are motivated by and mimic that law, using the precepts of criminal legislation, enforcement, and adjudication to advance their compliance goals. This approach to compliance is inherently flawed, however—it can never be fully effective in abating corporate wrongdoing. Criminalized compliance regimes are inherently ineffective because they impose unintended behavioral consequences on corporate employees by fostering rationalizations that allow offenders to square their self-perception as “good people” with the unethical or illegal behavior they are contemplating, thereby allowing wrongdoing to go forward. By importing into the corporation many of the criminal law’s delegitimizing features, criminalized compliance regimes create space for rationalizations, facilitating the necessary precursors to the commission of white collar and corporate crime. This insight, which offers a new way of conceptualizing corporate compliance, explains the ineffectiveness of many compliance programs and also suggests how companies might go about fixing them. The Essay addresses, through real-world examples, how companies might use behavioral compliance strategies to combat rationalizations and help repair their “Cadillac compliance” programs.

Park et al. on Ride-Sharing and Sexual Assault

Jiyong Park, Junetae Kim, Min-Seok Pang and Byungtae Lee (Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST) - College of Business, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Temple University - Department of Management Information Systems and Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST)) has posted Offender or Guardian? An Empirical Analysis of Ride-Sharing and Sexual Assault on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Sexual assault is the most repellant and costliest crime that inflicts irrecoverable harms to victims. This study examines the effect of IT-enabled ride-sharing platforms on sexual assaults. Drawing upon routine activity theory from the criminology literature, we posit that a ride-sharing platform can serve as a capable guardian that deters sexual assaults by reducing a passenger’s risk of being a suitable target. Using comprehensive data from New York City, we investigate the relationship between Uber transactions and rape incidents in 2015. For our identification strategy, we adopt subway service suspension and local air pollution as instruments. Our findings show that the number of Uber pickups is negatively associated with the likelihood of rape occurrences. While this deterrent impact is found to be insignificant in taxi-dense areas (Manhattan), ride-sharing contributes to a more significant reduction in rape in taxi-sparse areas (the outer boroughs). In addition, the deterrent effect of ride-sharing is stronger in neighborhoods with lower incomes and a higher percentage of non-White population. This study sheds new light on the potential of IT-enabled platforms to improve social well-being beyond its economic contributions.

Bowers on Upside-Down Juries

Josh Bowers (University of Virginia School of Law) has posted Upside-Down Juries (Northwestern University Law Review, Forthcoming) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

The practical disappearance of the jury trial ranks among the most widely examined topics in American criminal justice. But, by focusing on trial scarcity, scholars have managed to tell only part of the story. The unexplored first-order question is whether juries even do their work well. And the answer to that question turns on the kinds of work jury members are typically required to do. Once upon a time, trials turned upon practical reasoning and general moral blameworthiness. Modern trials have come to focus upon legal reasoning and technical guilt accuracy. In turn, the jury has evolved from a flexible body to a rule-bound institution. But, of course, even as trials have changed, laypeople’s capacities have stayed largely the same. Laypeople remain more skilled at the art of equitable evaluation than the science of legal analysis.

Continue reading

Chin on Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction

Gabriel "Jack" Chin (University of California, Davis - School of Law) has posted Collateral Consequences of Criminal Conviction (Academy for Justice, A Report on Scholarship and Criminal Justice Reform (Erik Luna ed., 2017, Forthcoming)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

For many people convicted of crime, the greatest effect will not be imprisonment, but being marked as a criminal and subjected to collateral consequences. Consequences can include loss of civil rights, public benefits, and ineligibility for employment, licenses, and permits. Often applicable for life, the United States, the 50 states, and their agencies and subdivisions impose collateral consequences based on convictions from any jurisdiction. Collateral consequences are so numerous and scattered as to be virtually uncountable. In recent years, the American Law Institute, ABA, and Uniform Law Commission all have proposed reforms.

Continue reading

Tanovich on Inductive Reasoning in Sexual Assault Cases

David M. Tanovich (University of Windsor - Faculty of Law) has posted Regulating Inductive Reasoning In Sexual Assault Cases (Berger, Ben; Cunliffe, Emma; and Stribopoulos, James, [TBD (On Justice Marc Rosenberg)] (Toronto: 2017, Carswell)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

Justice Marc Rosenberg will be remembered as one of Canada’s greatest criminal law jurists by those fortunate enough to have worked with him, to have appeared before him, and now, by those who study and rely on his jurisprudence. He was a jurist who cared deeply about the fairness of the criminal justice system and he strived in every decision to arrive at a just result on the law and the facts. Many of Justice Rosenberg’s judgments reflect a concern for the constant struggle of triers of fact to accurately and fairly assess the credibility and reliability of evidence in determining historical events whether it be the testimony of the accused or central Crown witness. This piece explores three decisions from Justice Rosenberg which highlight the different ways in which stereotyping can distort the assessment of credibility and reliability in sexual assault cases: R v. Levert, R v. Rand and, R v. Stark.

An important aspect of ensuring accuracy and fairness for Justice Rosenberg was the need to carefully regulate inductive reasoning: the engine that drives judicial reasoning and, ultimately, fact finding. The tools used for inductive reasoning include the decision maker’s or the law’s application of what it sees as common sense, logic and human experience. As an endeavour that explicitly relies on so-called common sense and generalizations about human experience, which shift with time, inductive reasoning can be highly subjective and can easily become a breeding ground for implicit bias, discriminatory stereotyping and unreliable decision-making.

Robinson et al. on Criminal Law Recodification

Paul H. Robinson, Matthew Kussmaul, Ilya Rudyak and Criminal Law Research Group  (University of Pennsylvania Law School, University of Pennsylvania Law School - Student/Alumni/Adjunct, University of Pennsylvania Law School - Student/Alumni/Adjunct and University of Pennsylvania Law School) have posted Report of the Delaware Criminal Law Recodification Project (Delaware General Assembly’s Criminal Justice Improvement Committee (2017)) on SSRN. Here is the abstract:

In 1973, during the “first wave” of American criminal law recodification efforts following the publication of the Model Penal Code, Delaware adopted a new criminal code. While it represented a dramatic improvement over the law it replaced, its initial clarity and utility were greatly diminished by subsequent piecemeal legislation. Delaware’s current criminal code is lengthy, inconsistent, and replete with duplicative and outdated offenses that impose disproportional punishments. This process of criminal code deterioration is not unique to Delaware and plagues other U.S. jurisdictions. In 2015, however, stakeholders in Delaware’s criminal justice system initiated a code revision process, commissioning the authors to draft a Proposed Code and commentary to address these issues, and resulting in this Report. By utilizing modern code drafting techniques and other innovations, the Proposed Code comprehensively, yet concisely, states the rules governing criminal liability in Delaware in a way that is easy to read and understand, and responds to twenty-first-century challenges and norms. While focusing on Delaware, the Proposed Code also illustrates how modernized criminal codes could be drafted for other jurisdictions, and can serve as a stimulus and a model for a “second wave” of American criminal law recodifications.

Continue reading