Search results

"A study that challenges our notions about citizenship and judgment by considering the place of the "child" in both historical and contemporary legal discourse in landmark cases involving the child's rights to free speech and due process"--

Introduction : the child as a representative anecdote for the citizen -- Virtuous character : nineteenth-century controversies -- Natural liberty : Turner, Meyer, and Pierce -- Patriotism and politics : Gobitis and Barnette -- Procedure, care, and liberty : in re Gault -- Strategic performance : Tinker v. Des Moines Independent School District -- Tradition against the individual : Ingraham v. Wright -- Tradition against democratic majorities : Parham v. J. R. -- Tradition against Free Speech : Bethel School District v. Fraser -- Limited state obligations : Hazelwood et al. v. Kuhlmeier -- The impoverished social contract : DeShaney v. Winnebago County DSS -- The National interest : Morse v. Frederick -- Conclusion : citizenship and judgment in uncertain times.

This contribution considers the Constitutional Court of South Africa's judgments regarding aspects of sentencing. It starts with an overview of relevant judgments, before attending in more detail to judgments on the minimum sentences legislation and on sentencing when it affects children. On this foundation, the article then discusses the human rights that are affected by the imposition of sentences on offenders, before attempting to identify what the next instalment of Constitutional Court judgments might bring to the sentencing table. This article offers a collection and collation of judgments that share one common element, namely that they have something to say about an aspect of sentencing. The value of such an approach is that it provides the first step to answering the following question: The Constitutional Court has been active for 20 years; what do we learn about sentencing from its judgments during this time?

This contribution considers the Constitutional Court's judgments about aspects of sentencing over the last 20 years, since its establishment. The article starts with an overview of relevant judgments, before attending in more detail to judgments on the minimum sentences legislation and on sentencing when it affects children. On this foundation the article then discusses the human rights that are affected by the imposition of sentences on offenders, notable the right not to be punished in a cruel, inhuman or degrading way, and the right to dignity. It points out various aspects of the law that need further clarification. The article ends with a consideration of a possible next chapter in sentencing law and submits that this is most likely in connection with minimum sentences.

The purpose of this research is to study about Benchmark Determination of the Administrative Court Decision Execution Forced In. Research methods used in this thesis is a research type normative and descriptive analytical research specifications, and approaches used, namely, the approach Law and approach cases. From the research we concluded that since when the claimant may apply for money of enforced at the time of the initial filing a lawsuit to the Administrative Court, for their money forced / Dwangsom in a decision of the State Administrative Court, it is motivated by a petition of Plaintiff in the lawsuit to beg loading money forced / Dwangsom Defendant if lost and wayward implement administrative court ruling, benchmark application is the amount of money forced the ruling stating Plaintiff granted, judgment and decision condemnatoir who has obtained permanent legal force. Because implementing administrative court ruling is always Agency / Administrative Officers are still active, more effective and efficient if the imposition of forced currency / dwangsom taken / deducted from salaries / allowances officials concerned each month. So it is not charged to the State finances forced money order imposing sanctions / dwangsom and administratively feasible, must be followed by concrete implementing regulations relating to money forced / dwangsom to sync with the Administrative Court Act and the Law on Government Administration.

The Eleventh Circuit vacated its panel opinion in Patterson v. Secretary and reheard the case en banc. The court's new opinion revisits the prohibition against "second or successive" habeas corpus petitions in 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b) and embraces the dissenting view in the prior opinion, rejecting the reasoning of the majority. A new state court judgment resets the habeas clock, allowing a prisoner to file an additional federal habeas petition without running afoul of section 2244(b). Previously, the court offered an expansive view of such judgments, looking to whether the state court has substantively changed the prisoner's sentence. The court now offers a narrow view, looking only to whether the state court has authorized the prisoner's custody. This Article describes the majority and dissenting opinions in both iterations of Patterson v. Secretary. The Article then identifies both textual and subtextual disputes among the judges, arguing that the opinions are proxies for a deep division in criminal law between finality and justice.

On 1 July 1997 Hong Kong entered a new era when it was transformed from a British colony into a Special Administrative Region (SAR) of the People's Republic of China (PRC). The impact of the handover of Hong Kong cannot be overstated but, for the time being perhaps, may lie more in the sphere of ideology than in institutions.