Announcements

The Center for Law, Society, and Culture (http://www.law.indiana.edu/centers/lawsociety/) is sponsored by the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. The Center actively supports and promotes multidisciplinary understanding of law and legal problems through scholarship, teaching, and discussion. The Center is located in the School of Law on the Bloomington campus of Indiana University, but produces, presents and coordinates research conducted by more than 70 scholars from schools and departments across Indiana University. The Center's affiliated scholars hold appointments in African-American studies, business, criminal justice, journalism, history, economics, English, law, and gender studies, among others, and are dedicated to an interdisciplinary approach to the study of the role of law in society and culture. The Center supports research related to the law in a broad sense, including the cultural aspects of law expressed through political theory and scientific aspects of law expressed through technological advances in biotechnology, environmental science and information technology.


Table of Contents

The Conforming Effect: First Amendment Implications of Surveillance, Beyond Chilling Speech

Margot E. Kaminski, Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law, Yale University - Yale Information Society Project, Yale University - Law School
Shane Witnov, Practicing attorney in California, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law

The Release and Recall of Life Sentence Prisoners: Policy, Practice and Politics.

Diarmuid Griffin, School of Law, National University of Ireland, Galway

Graham's Gatekeeper and Beyond: Juvenile Sentencing and Release Reform in the Wake of Graham and Miller

Megan Annitto, Charlotte School of Law

Religion in Prison

SpearIt, Texas Southern University - Thurgood Marshall School of Law

Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court: Beyond Rhetoric and the Hague

Luke Moffett, Queens Univeristy Belfast


LAW & SOCIETY: PUBLIC LAW - CRIME, CRIMINAL LAW, & PUNISHMENT eJOURNAL
Sponsored by: Indiana University Maurer School of Law

"The Conforming Effect: First Amendment Implications of Surveillance, Beyond Chilling Speech" Free Download
University of Richmond Law Review, Vol. 49, 2015

MARGOT E. KAMINSKI, Ohio State University (OSU) - Michael E. Moritz College of Law, Yale University - Yale Information Society Project, Yale University - Law School
Email:
SHANE WITNOV, Practicing attorney in California, University of California, Berkeley - School of Law
Email:

First Amendment jurisprudence is wary not only of direct bans on speech, but of the chilling effect. A growing number of scholars have suggested that chilling arises from more than just a threat of overbroad enforcement — surveillance has a chilling effect on both speech and intellectual inquiries. Surveillance of intellectual habits, these scholars suggest, implicates First Amendment values. However, courts and legislatures have been divided in their understanding of the extent to which surveillance chills speech and thus causes First Amendment harms.

This article brings First Amendment theory into conversation with social psychology to show that not only is there empirical support for the idea that surveillance chills speech, but surveillance has additional consequences that implicate multiple theories of the First Amendment. We call these consequences “the conforming effect.? Surveillance causes individuals to conform their behavior to perceived group norms, even when they are unaware that they are conforming. Under multiple theories of the First Amendment — the marketplace of ideas, democratic self-governance, autonomy theory, and cultural democracy — these studies suggest that surveillance’s effects on speech are broad. Courts and legislatures should keep these effects in mind.

"The Release and Recall of Life Sentence Prisoners: Policy, Practice and Politics." Free Download
Irish Jurist (April 2015 Forthcoming)

DIARMUID GRIFFIN, School of Law, National University of Ireland, Galway
Email:

The process for the release of life sentence prisoners has yet to be subject to the level of reform witnessed in other European countries. Criticisms of the release process and concerns regarding its adherence to fundamental rights provisions have been raised. There is certainly cause for closer scrutiny. A non-statutory, advisory Parole Board, established in 2001, makes recommendations to the Minister for Justice who ultimately decides at what point a life sentence prisoner is released. From 2001 to 2013, the life sentence prison population increased by 130 per cent and life sentence prisoners now represent 7.7 per cent of the prison population, a significant increase from 4.4 per cent in 2001. There has been a considerable increase in time served by life sentence prisoners from 7.5 years in the 1970s and 1980s to a peak of 22 years in 2012. The discretionary process within which parole decision-makers operate has facilitated the transition from leniency to severity in terms of time served by life sentence prisoners but there is a paucity of information on the process and how it has enabled such increases over time. This article examines the various stages of parole decision-making, focusing on the review, release and recall of life sentence prisoners. In addition to examining the publicly available materials on parole, the analysis of the process is informed by qualitative research conducted with Parole Board members, former Ministers for Justice and former members of the Sentence Review Group.

"Graham's Gatekeeper and Beyond: Juvenile Sentencing and Release Reform in the Wake of Graham and Miller" Free Download
Brooklyn Law Review , Vol. 80, No. 1, 2014

MEGAN ANNITTO, Charlotte School of Law
Email:

In Graham v. Florida and Miller v. Alabama, the Supreme Court imposed limits on the use of life sentences for juveniles. The decisions require states and the federal government to craft new procedures when and if courts levy life and lengthy sentences upon juveniles. But the Court’s decisions are not self-actualizing and there is little within them that creates a bright line about the substance or procedures states should follow. This article focuses on three of the questions that states face in the implementation of the Court’s decisions. First, who is the best gatekeeper for the release of these offenders on the back end of sentencing — the judiciary, parole boards, or something new? Second, what procedural and substantive guidance should states provide for these chosen gatekeepers? And, finally, what role will modern risk assessment tools play in this decision making?

The answers to these questions must fairly balance public safety with the possibility of redemption the Court recognized is inherent in childhood. They will also affect the public’s perception of legitimacy in the release process. State and the federal government answers to those questions are even more pressing given the applicability of Graham’s rationale to a larger category of offenders — the American Bar Association and American Law Institute both recommend the creation of some form of sentencing review for all juveniles sentenced under an adult regime.

Despite the importance of these questions, in the early aftermath of the Court’s opinions, legislative and judicial attention has primarily focused on issues related to the length of sentences that should be alternatives to life terms, the time at which review should occur when life sentences are imposed, and retroactivity. But some pioneering states have passed legislation tinkering with broader reform and legislatures are rapidly taking up the issues presented. Some courts have broadened the reach of Graham and Miller, striking down juvenile life without parole altogether. But many legislatures are embattled over decisions about whether to enact only the perceived minimal requirements of Graham and Miller or whether to extend the Court’s reasoning to broader release policies affording back end sentencing review at reasonable time periods. Choices that provide for expanded but careful opportunities for relief can counterweigh some of the harsh results of juvenile transfer laws that have brought, and continue to bring, increasing numbers of juveniles under the rubric of adult sentencing schemes in ways that were not necessarily intentional or desirable. The Article discusses the implications of the chosen gatekeeper for release and discusses the accompanying procedural and substantive considerations that states and the federal government should consider upon implementation.

"Religion in Prison" Free Download
Religion and American Cultures, p. 1154, Gary Laderman & Luis Leon, eds., ABC-CLIO, 2014

SPEARIT, Texas Southern University - Thurgood Marshall School of Law
Email:

This chapter explores religion in American prisons, paying special attention to the practice of Islam.

"Elaborating Justice for Victims at the International Criminal Court: Beyond Rhetoric and the Hague" 
Journal of International Criminal Justice, Forthcoming

LUKE MOFFETT, Queens Univeristy Belfast
Email:

Justice for victims has often been invoked as the raison d’être of international criminal justice, by punishing perpetrators of international crimes. This article attempts to provide a more holistic account of justice for victims by examining victims’ needs, interests, and rights. The International Criminal Court itself includes participation, protection and reparation for victims, indicating they are important stakeholders. This article also suggests that victims are integral to the purpose of the ICC in ending impunity by ensuring transparency of proceedings. However, there are limits to the resources and capacity of the ICC, which can only investigate and prosecute selected crimes. To overcome this justice gap, this article directs the debate towards a victim-orientated agenda to complementarity, where state parties and the Assembly of State Parties should play a greater role in implementing justice for victims domestically. This victim-orientated complementarity approach can be achieved through new ASP guidelines on complementarity, expanding universal jurisdiction, or seeking enforcement and cooperation through regional and international bodies and courts, such as Universal Periodic Review or the African Court’s International Criminal Law Section. In the end, if we are serious about delivering justice for victims we need to move beyond the rhetoric, with realistic expectations of what the ICC can achieve, and concentrate our attention to what states should be doing to end impunity.

^top

About this eJournal

Sponsored by: Indiana University Maurer School of Law.


This eJournal distributes working and accepted paper abstracts of empirical or theoretical scholarship on topics related to crime, criminal law, and criminal punishment (including the death penalty), from any disciplinary perspective. Covered topics include victims' rights, criminal sentencing rules, criminal sentencing procedures, criminal punishment, theories of criminal punishment, alternatives to traditional criminal punishment, criminal law doctrine, and administration of criminal justice.

Submissions

To submit your research to SSRN, sign in to the SSRN User HeadQuarters, click the My Papers link on left menu and then the Start New Submission button at top of page.

Distribution Services

If your organization is interested in increasing readership for its research by starting a Research Paper Series, or sponsoring a Subject Matter eJournal, please email: RPS@SSRN.com

Distributed by

Legal Scholarship Network (LSN), a division of Social Science Electronic Publishing (SSEP) and Social Science Research Network (SSRN)

Directors

LAW & SOCIETY EJOURNALS

BERNARD S. BLACK
Northwestern University - School of Law, Northwestern University - Kellogg School of Management, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: bblack@northwestern.edu

RONALD J. GILSON
Stanford Law School, Columbia Law School, European Corporate Governance Institute (ECGI)
Email: rgilson@leland.stanford.edu

Please contact us at the above addresses with your comments, questions or suggestions for LSN-Sub.

Advisory Board

Law & Society: Public Law - Crime, Criminal Law, & Punishment eJournal

ALFRED C. AMAN
Roscoe C. O'Byrne Professor of Law, Indiana University-Bloomington, Maurer School of Law

JEANNINE BELL
Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

PETER C. CARSTENSEN
George H. Young-Bascom Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School

KENNETH GLENN DAU-SCHMIDT
Willard and Margaret Carr Professor of Labor and Employment Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

LAUREN B. EDELMAN
Director, Center for the Study of Law and Society, Agnes Roddy Robb Professor of Law and Professor of Sociology, University of California, Berkeley - Jurisprudence & Social Policy Program and Center for the Study of Law and Society

SALLY ENGLE MERRY
Marion Butler McLean Professor in the History of Ideas, Wellesley College - Department of Anthropology

HOWARD S. ERLANGER
Voss-Bascom Professor of Law, Professor of Sociology [Emeritus] Review Section Editor - Law & Social Inquiry, University of Wisconsin Law School

LUIS E. FUENTES-ROHWER
Professor of Law, Adjunct Professor of Latino Studies, Adjunct Professor of Political Science, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

MARC S. GALANTER
John & Rylla Bosshard Professor of Law, University of Wisconsin Law School, Madison

MICHAEL GROSSBERG
Co-Director, Center for Law, Society and Culture, Professor of History & Law, Indiana University-Bloomington, Maurer School of Law

WILLIAM D. HENDERSON
Professor of Law, Indiana University Maurer School of Law

ANNA-MARIA MARSHALL
Editorial Advisory Board, Law and Society Review, Assistant Professor, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign - Department of Sociology

LYNN MATHER
Professor of Law and Political Science, SUNY Buffalo Law School

JOYCE S. STERLING
Professor of Law, University of Denver Sturm College of Law