The Experts below are selected from a list of 306 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Cecelia M. Klingele - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Model Penal Code sentencing workable limits on mass punishment
Crime and Justice, 2019Co-Authors: Kevin R. Reitz, Cecelia M. KlingeleAbstract:AbstractThe Model Penal Code: Sentencing (MPCS) rewrites the 1962 Model Penal Code’s provisions on sentencing and corrections. Since the 1960s, use of all forms of punishment has exploded, includin...
-
Model Penal Code: Sentencing—Workable Limits on Mass Punishment
Crime and Justice, 2019Co-Authors: Kevin R. Reitz, Cecelia M. KlingeleAbstract:AbstractThe Model Penal Code: Sentencing (MPCS) rewrites the 1962 Model Penal Code’s provisions on sentencing and corrections. Since the 1960s, use of all forms of punishment has exploded, includin...
-
first thoughts about second look and other sentence reduction provisions of the Model Penal Code sentencing revision
2011Co-Authors: Margaret Colgate Love, Cecelia M. KlingeleAbstract:The financial cost of mass incarceration has prompted states to pass legislation providing for early release of prisoners. Although early release laws are frequently in tension with principles underlying sentencing systems, most have been passed without any discussion of how they might be justified in theory. This lack of explicit theoretical foundation leaves the new laws vulnerable to criticism. By contrast, the American Law Institute's ongoing revision of the Model Penal Code: Sentencing has resulted in the development of three Model sentence reduction provisions, each providing a means of reducing an already-imposed sentence based upon a distinctive theoretical justification. This Article discusses each provision and argues that by confronting many of the difficult structural and theoretical questions underlying the practice of early release, the Model Penal Code's sentence reduction proposals provide a framework for resolving normative concerns when designing ways to mitigate the severity of already-imposed sentences.
Franklin E. Zimring - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
The Unexamined Death Penalty: Capital Punishment and Reform of the Model Penal Code
Columbia Law Review, 2005Co-Authors: Franklin E. ZimringAbstract:The American Law Institute has launched a revision of its Model Penal Code provisions on sentencing and punishment that will be comprehensive in almost all respects. Conspicuously missing from the new sentencing project, however, is any examination of the Model Penal Code's provisions on capital punishment. This essay argues that a reexamination of capital punishment is both necessary and practical as part of the larger sentencing reform project. Avoiding the death Penalty is unprincipled and would leave the Model Code's single weakest section standing while every other sentencing provision would be subject to scrutiny. Failure to consider capital punishment would also ignore forty years of radical change in both the Penal policy of developed nations and the vocabulary of concern that had redefined the death Penalty as an issue of human rights and limits of government power. Ignoring the death Penalty would launch a reform effort that will ignore the punishment for murder while rethinking everything else. Nothing short of terror at the political cost can explain this retreat from the natural boundaries of sentencing reform. Yet fears of a principled reexamination of Section 210.6 are not well founded. The Institute could both take a principled position on the death Penalty itself and also recommend minimum standards for capital cases where the Penalty remains. To ignore the most visible and troubling aspect of American criminal justice is a much greater threat to the legitimacy of the Model Penal Code revision project than to confront it.
-
the unexamined death Penalty capital punishment and reform of the Model Penal Code
Columbia Law Review, 2005Co-Authors: Franklin E. ZimringAbstract:The American Law Institute has launched a revision of its Model Penal Code provisions on sentencing and punishment that will be comprehensive in almost all respects. Conspicuously missing from the new sentencing project, however, is any examination of the Model Penal Code's provisions on capital punishment. This Essay argues that a reexamination of capital punishment is both necessary and practical as part of the larger sentencing reform project. Avoiding the death Penalty is unprincipled and would leave the Model Code's single weakest section standing while every other sentencing provision would be subject to scrutiny. Failure to consider capital punishment would also ignore forty years of radical change in both the Penal policy of developed nations and the new vocabulary of concern that has redefined the death Penalty as an issue of human rights and limits of government Power. Ignoring the death Penalty would launch a reform effort that ignores the punishment for murder while rethinking everything else. Nothing short of terror at the political cost can explain this retreat from the natural boundaries of sentencing reform. Yet fears of a principled reexamination of section 210.6 are not well founded. The Institute could both take a principled position on the death Penalty itself and also recommend minimum standards for capital cases where the Penalty remains. To ignore the most visible and troubling aspect of American criminal justice is a much greater threat to the legitimacy of the Model Penal Code revision project than to confront it. Language: en
Kevin R. Reitz - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Model Penal Code sentencing workable limits on mass punishment
Crime and Justice, 2019Co-Authors: Kevin R. Reitz, Cecelia M. KlingeleAbstract:AbstractThe Model Penal Code: Sentencing (MPCS) rewrites the 1962 Model Penal Code’s provisions on sentencing and corrections. Since the 1960s, use of all forms of punishment has exploded, includin...
-
Model Penal Code: Sentencing—Workable Limits on Mass Punishment
Crime and Justice, 2019Co-Authors: Kevin R. Reitz, Cecelia M. KlingeleAbstract:AbstractThe Model Penal Code: Sentencing (MPCS) rewrites the 1962 Model Penal Code’s provisions on sentencing and corrections. Since the 1960s, use of all forms of punishment has exploded, includin...
-
Demographic Impact Statements, O'Connor's Warning, and the Mysteries of Prison Release: Topics from a Sentencing Reform Agenda
Florida Law Review, 2009Co-Authors: Kevin R. ReitzAbstract:The Model Penal Code: Sentencing project (MPCS) is nothing like a book, journal article, or dissertation. There is no unifying narrative thread and no manageable number of discrete storylines. Instead, it is a compendium of recommendations concerning important topics that arise in the sentencing Codes of the American states. This is a broad field of coverage, a bit uncertain in definition, embracing many ‘subtopics’ that have consumed whole academic careers. Because of its scope, the project
Paul H. Robinson - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Abnormal Mental State Mitigations of Murder – The U.S. Perspective
Loss of Control and Diminished Responsibility, 2016Co-Authors: Paul H. RobinsonAbstract:This paper examines the U.S. doctrines that allow an offender's abnormal mental state to reduce murder to manslaughter. First, the modern doctrine of "extreme emotional disturbance," as in Model Penal Code Section 210.3(1)(b), mitigates to manslaughter what otherwise would be murder when the killing "is committed under the influence of extreme mental or emotional disturbance for which there is reasonable explanation or excuse." While most American jurisdictions are based upon the Mode Code, this is an area in which many states chose to retain their more narrow common law "provocation" mitigation. Second, the modern doctrine of "mental illness negating an offense element," as in Model Penal Code Section 4.02, allows a killing to be mitigated to manslaughter (or less) upon a showing that a mental disease or defect negated the culpable state of mind required for murder. This Model Code provision too has met with some resistance among the states, many of whom limit the use of mental illness evidence to negate an offense element. The paper discusses the state of the law in the various American jurisdictions, the reasons for the Model Penal Code shift from the common law, the possible reasons for resistance among the states to following that shift, an analysis of the mitigations under alternative distributive principles for punishment, concluding that only a desert principle supports the mitigations, and a discussion of the implications of this desert foundation for the proper formulation of the mitigations.
-
the Model Penal Code s conceptual error on the nature of proximate cause and how to fix it
2015Co-Authors: Paul H. RobinsonAbstract:The Model Penal Code reconceptualized proximate cause to see it as part of the offense culpability requirements rather than as, in the traditional view, a minimum requirement for the strength of the connection between the actor's conduct and the prohibited result. That conceptual error, rare in the well-thought-out Model Code, invites misinterpretation and misapplication of the proximate cause provision, and can produce improper liability results. The failure is all the more unfortunate because the Model Code drafters did have an important improvement to offer in dealing with the challenging issue of proximate cause. Their jettison of fixed detailed rules in favor of a useful general standard – "not too remote or accidental in its occurrence to have a [just] bearing on the actor's liability or on the gravity of his offense" – could have significantly simplified and improved proximate cause analysis, but their conceptual error created needless problems that helped lead most states to reject the Model Code provision.
-
The American Model Penal Code: A Brief Overview
New Criminal Law Review, 2007Co-Authors: Paul H. Robinson, Markus D DubberAbstract:If there can be said to be an "American criminal Code," the Model Penal Code is it. Nonetheless, there remains an enormous diversity among the fifty-two American Penal Codes, including some that have never adopted a modern Code format or structure. Yet, even within the minority of states without a modern Code, the Model Penal Code has great influence, as courts regularly rely upon it to fashion the law that the state's criminal Code fails to provide. In this essay we provide a brief introduction to this historic document, its history and its content.
-
The Accelerating Degradation of American Criminal Codes
Hastings Law Journal, 2005Co-Authors: Paul H. Robinson, Michael T CahillAbstract:In the 1960s and 1970s, states across the country were caught up in a wave of criminal law reform unprecedented in our history. Influenced by the American Law Institute's development of the Model Penal Code, more than two-thirds of the states adopted comprehensive new criminal Codes. Since that time, there has been little momentum for further development or refinement of American criminal Codes. Worse, the changes of the criminal Codes over the past generation have undercut, rather than built on, the useful reforms implemented earlier. The last thirty years have seen a serious and growing degradation of most criminal Codes. Part I of this article documents examples of the degradation trend and describes its harmful effects. Part II discusses the current political processes and incentives driving the derogation of criminal law. Part III discusses the structuring of future criminal Code reform.
-
can a Model Penal Code second save the states from themselves
Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 2004Co-Authors: Paul H. Robinson, Michael T CahillAbstract:This commentary summarizes some of the institutional obstacles to serious reform the authors encountered in their work on two recent criminal-Code redrafting efforts, in Illinois and Kentucky. The authors call for a project to create a Model Penal Code Second, in the hope that such a centralized, high-profile, and less directly politically charged or biased effort would be an effective spur to major reform at the state level.
Gregory Massing - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the Model Penal Code s wrong turn renunciation as a defense to criminal conspiracy
Florida Law Review, 2012Co-Authors: Michael R Cassidy, Gregory MassingAbstract:While the Model Penal Code was certainly one of the most influential developments in criminal law in the past century, the American Law Institute (ALI) took a seriously wrong turn by recognizing “renunciation” as a defense to the crime of conspiracy. Under the Model Penal Code formulation, a member of a conspiracy who later disavows the agreement and thwarts its objective (for example, by notifying authorities of the planned crime in order to prevent its completion) is afforded a complete defense to conspiracy liability. This defense has enormous implications for crimes involving national security and terrorism, which are typically planned covertly and involve extensive coordination among multiple actors. Many states follow the Model Penal Code approach and recognize the renunciation defense, without defining its precise contours or limits. Other states are still struggling with the issue and have yet to accept or reject the renunciation doctrine. After surveying state and federal law across the United States, this Article unpacks proposed policy arguments both for and against the renunciation defense. This Article concludes that none of the ALI’s pragmatic justifications in support of the doctrine survive close scrutiny. Moreover, when considering the presence of social harm caused by an actor’s participation in a conspiracy—in contrast to the absence of harm with other inchoate offenses such as incomplete attempts—renunciation is theoretically inconsistent with the retributive aims of the criminal law. Renunciation should be best understood historically as a special form of legislative grace designed to counteract some of the harsher aspects of conspiracy law. This Article argues that states grappling with this issue should decline to recognize the renunciation defense and instead focus their attention on eliminating some of the more notable inequities of conspiracy liability. ∗ Professor, Boston College Law School. The author is grateful to Mark Sullivan, Legal Information Librarian in the Boston College Law Library, for his invaluable research support and direction, and to students Robert Hatfield, Jeff Christensen, and Kevin Smith for their capable editorial assistance. † Executive Director, Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service, Suffolk University Law School, and Adjunct Faculty, Boston College Law School. 1 Cassidy and Massing: The Model Penal Code’s Wrong Turn: Renunciation as a Defense to C Published by UF Law Scholarship Repository, 2012 354 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 64 INTRODUCTION 354 I. A BRIEF LOOK AT THE COMMON LAW OF CONSPIRACY AND ITS EVOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES 356 II. THE Model Penal Code AND RENUNCIATION 359 III. RENUNCIATION UNDER STATE LAW 366 IV. RENUNCIATION AND WITHDRAWAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW ....... 373 V. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 376 CONCLUSION 385
-
the Model Penal Code s wrong turn renunciation as a defense to criminal conspiracy
2012Co-Authors: Michael R Cassidy, Gregory MassingAbstract:While the Model Penal Code was certainly one the most influential developments in criminal law in the past century, the American Law Institute (ALI) took a seriously wrong turn by recognizing a defense of “renunciation” to the crime of conspiracy. Under the Model Penal Code formulation, a member of a conspiracy who later disavows the agreement and thwarts its objective (for example, by notifying authorities of the planned crime in order to prevent its completion) is afforded a complete defense to conspiracy liability. This defense has enormous implications for crimes involving national security and terrorism, which are typically planned covertly and involve extensive coordination among multiple actors. Many states follow the Model Penal Code approach and recognize the renunciation defense, without defining its precise contours or limits. Other states are still struggling with the issue, and have yet to accept or reject the renunciation doctrine. After surveying state and federal law across the United States, the authors unpack proposed policy arguments for and against the renunciation defense. The authors conclude that none of the pragmatic justifications advanced by the ALI in support of the doctrine survive close scrutiny. Moreover, renunciation is theoretically inconsistent with the social harm caused by an actor’s participation in a conspiracy, in contrast to the absence of harm present with other inchoate offenses such as incomplete attempts. In the authors’ view, renunciation is best understood historically as a special form of legislative grace designed to counteract some of the harsher aspects of conspiracy law. The authors argue that states grappling with this issue should decline to recognize a renunciation defense, and instead focus their attention on eliminating some of the more notable inequities of conspiracy liability.
-
The Model Penal Code’s Wrong Turn: Renunciation as a Defense to Criminal Conspiracy
Florida Law Review, 2012Co-Authors: R. Michael Cassidy, Gregory MassingAbstract:While the Model Penal Code was certainly one of the most influential developments in criminal law in the past century, the American Law Institute (ALI) took a seriously wrong turn by recognizing “renunciation” as a defense to the crime of conspiracy. Under the Model Penal Code formulation, a member of a conspiracy who later disavows the agreement and thwarts its objective (for example, by notifying authorities of the planned crime in order to prevent its completion) is afforded a complete defense to conspiracy liability. This defense has enormous implications for crimes involving national security and terrorism, which are typically planned covertly and involve extensive coordination among multiple actors. Many states follow the Model Penal Code approach and recognize the renunciation defense, without defining its precise contours or limits. Other states are still struggling with the issue and have yet to accept or reject the renunciation doctrine. After surveying state and federal law across the United States, this Article unpacks proposed policy arguments both for and against the renunciation defense. This Article concludes that none of the ALI’s pragmatic justifications in support of the doctrine survive close scrutiny. Moreover, when considering the presence of social harm caused by an actor’s participation in a conspiracy—in contrast to the absence of harm with other inchoate offenses such as incomplete attempts—renunciation is theoretically inconsistent with the retributive aims of the criminal law. Renunciation should be best understood historically as a special form of legislative grace designed to counteract some of the harsher aspects of conspiracy law. This Article argues that states grappling with this issue should decline to recognize the renunciation defense and instead focus their attention on eliminating some of the more notable inequities of conspiracy liability. ∗ Professor, Boston College Law School. The author is grateful to Mark Sullivan, Legal Information Librarian in the Boston College Law Library, for his invaluable research support and direction, and to students Robert Hatfield, Jeff Christensen, and Kevin Smith for their capable editorial assistance. † Executive Director, Rappaport Center for Law and Public Service, Suffolk University Law School, and Adjunct Faculty, Boston College Law School. 1 Cassidy and Massing: The Model Penal Code’s Wrong Turn: Renunciation as a Defense to C Published by UF Law Scholarship Repository, 2012 354 FLORIDA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 64 INTRODUCTION 354 I. A BRIEF LOOK AT THE COMMON LAW OF CONSPIRACY AND ITS EVOLUTION IN THE UNITED STATES 356 II. THE Model Penal Code AND RENUNCIATION 359 III. RENUNCIATION UNDER STATE LAW 366 IV. RENUNCIATION AND WITHDRAWAL UNDER FEDERAL LAW ....... 373 V. POLICY CONSIDERATIONS 376 CONCLUSION 385
-
The Model Penal Code’s Wrong Turn: Renunciation as a Defense to Criminal Conspiracy
Florida Law Review, 2011Co-Authors: R. Michael Cassidy, Gregory MassingAbstract:While the Model Penal Code was certainly one the most influential developments in criminal law in the past century, the American Law Institute (ALI) took a seriously wrong turn by recognizing a defense of “renunciation” to the crime of conspiracy. Under the Model Penal Code formulation, a member of a conspiracy who later disavows the agreement and thwarts its objective (for example, by notifying authorities of the planned crime in order to prevent its completion) is afforded a complete defense to conspiracy liability. This defense has enormous implications for crimes involving national security and terrorism, which are typically planned covertly and involve extensive coordination among multiple actors. Many states follow the Model Penal Code approach and recognize the renunciation defense, without defining its precise contours or limits. Other states are still struggling with the issue, and have yet to accept or reject the renunciation doctrine. After surveying state and federal law across the United States, the authors unpack proposed policy arguments for and against the renunciation defense. The authors conclude that none of the pragmatic justifications advanced by the ALI in support of the doctrine survive close scrutiny. Moreover, renunciation is theoretically inconsistent with the social harm caused by an actor’s participation in a conspiracy, in contrast to the absence of harm present with other inchoate offenses such as incomplete attempts. In the authors’ view, renunciation is best understood historically as a special form of legislative grace designed to counteract some of the harsher aspects of conspiracy law. The authors argue that states grappling with this issue should decline to recognize a renunciation defense, and instead focus their attention on eliminating some of the more notable inequities of conspiracy liability.