Date of Publication:
Rebecca C. Morgan, What the Future of Aging Means to All of Us: An Era of Possibilities, 48 Ind. L. Rev. 125 (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ellen S. Podgor, Introduction: White Collar Crime, Federal Criminal Law, and Business Crimes Pedagogy, 11 Ohio St. J. Crim. L. 751 (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Elizabeth Berenguer, A Call for Change: A Contextual-Configurative Analysis of Florida’s Stand Your Ground Laws, 68 U. Miami L. Rev. 1051 (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Florida’s Stand Your Ground has stood center stage since the tragic killing of Trayvon Martin. On the one hand, certain sectors of society are calling for its repeal, and on the other, proponents vigorously defended its value and efficacy. Despite the public outcry for reform, every attempt to repeal or change the law has been defeated. This Article examines whether Florida’s Stand Your Ground law is inconsistent with commonly-held societal values, and if so, what might prompt a change in the law.
To that end, this Article relies on the jurisprudential framework established by Myres S. McDougal and Harold D. Laswell which identifies the law as an expression of community interests and a source of authority rooted in community values. The common interests, or values, identified by McDougal and Laswell are power, enlightenment, wealth, well-being, skill, affection, respect, and rectitude. This Article examines these values in the context of Florida’s Stand Your Ground laws and analyzing them from competing perspectives to conclude the law is inconsistent with commonly-held community values.
This Article concludes by exposing the legislature’s reticence to repeal the statute as a reflection of its entrenched mode of thinking. It calls for opposition voices to collaborate in advancing reform messages aimed at deconstructing the entrenched categories and restructuring them to prompt an amendment to or repeal of Florida’s Stand Your Ground statutory scheme.
Date of Publication:
Elizabeth Berenguer, Foreward: A Place at the Table, 1 Savannah L. Rev. vii (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Andrew D. Appleby et al., Heads They Win, Tails You Lose: New York Decombination and Discretionary Adjustments, Tax Analysts: State Tax Notes (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Anne E. Mullins, Subtly Selling the System: Where Psychological Influence Tactics Lurk in Judicial Writing, 48 U. Rich. L. Rev. 1111 (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, The Light Hiding Under McCutcheon’s Bushel: Transparency (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, Supreme Goldfish (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
Date of Publication:
Will Bunting, The Regulation of Sentencing Decisions: Why Information Disclosure Is Not Sufficient, and What to Do About It, 70 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 41 (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.
This Article identifies a number of problems, both in practice and in theory, in what is denoted here as the “information disclosure model of sentencing regulation.” While the disclosure model places a lack of information at the heart of the problem of inefficient sentencing policy, the present article explains how the problem is better understood, not as informational, but incentives-based. A statutory appropriation requirement is described that seeks to correct an explained incentive to engage in myopic legislative decision-making; specifically, a one-year appropriation is required from a general budget fund into a statutorily-created special reserve fund for any proposed change in sentencing policy projected to increase the correctional population. A survey of existing statutory appropriation requirements is provided and certain best practices are identified; in addition, a novel statutory provision is proposed: monies should be appropriated from the special reserve fund to the general fund if a bill is projected to decrease the correctional population. Such withdrawals from the special reserve fund made in the current fiscal period serve as concrete, immediate evidence of the fiscal benefits of less punitive criminal sentences, where such benefits are often realized only in the long-run, and supply a novel incentive for legislators to engage in forward-looking, fiscally-responsible sentencing policy. The present article further contends that proposed changes in sentencing policy should not be subjected to cost-benefit analysis (as opposed to fiscal impact analysis as required under the statutory appropriation requirement), because the retributive value of a criminal sentence is extremely difficult to measure given the current state of estimation technology.
Date of Publication:
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, How Far Can the IRS Go in Regulating Political Ads by Nonprofits? (2014)Clicking on the button will copy the full recommended citation.