Fitting Punishment

59 Pages Posted: 26 Mar 2009 Last revised: 30 Mar 2010

Juliet P. Stumpf

Lewis & Clark Law School

Date Written: 2009

Abstract

Proportionality is conspicuously absent from the legal framework for immigration sanctions. Immigration law relies on one sanction - deportation - as the ubiquitous penalty for any immigration violation. Neither the gravity of the violation nor the harm that results bears on whether deportation is the consequence for an immigration violation. Immigration law stands alone in the legal landscape in this respect. Criminal law incorporates proportionality when imposing graduated punishment based on the gravity of the offense; contract and tort law provide for damages that are graduated based on the harm to others or to society.

This Article represents the first and fundamental step in a larger project of articulating a proposed remedial scheme that would align immigration law with the broader landscape of legal sanctions. It traces the history of immigration sanctions, offering a historical perspective on the recent arrival of deportation as the central immigration sanction. The Article takes a fresh approach to remedying violations of immigration law, proposing a system of graduated sanctions that would align immigration remedies with the overarching goals of U.S. immigration law.

Keywords: immigration, proportionality, penology, criminal, deportation, penalty, punishment, sanction, remedy, crimmigration

Suggested Citation

Stumpf, Juliet P., Fitting Punishment (2009). Washington and Lee Law Review, Vol. 66, p. 1683, 2009; Lewis & Clark Law School Legal Studies Research Paper No. 2009-9. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=1367983

Juliet P. Stumpf (Contact Author)

Lewis & Clark Law School ( email )

10015 S.W. Terwilliger Blvd.
Portland, OR 97219
United States

Paper statistics

Downloads
211
Rank
115,281
Abstract Views
1,262