Theory of Anti-recidivism Effects on National Economy and Investment: Criminal Justice Administration of West Africa
In: Indiana Law Review, Forthcoming
4182914 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Indiana Law Review, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: (2019) Vol. 10, Babcock University Socio-Legal Journal
SSRN
In: Indian journal of public administration, Band 23, Heft 3, S. 723-734
ISSN: 2457-0222
In: Social service review: SSR, Band 39, Heft 1, S. 88-88
ISSN: 1537-5404
In: Indian journal of public administration, Band 45, Heft 3, S. 501-507
ISSN: 2457-0222
In: Public choice, Band 133, Heft 3-4, S. 417-437
ISSN: 1573-7101
In: Public choice, Band 133, Heft 3, S. 417-438
ISSN: 0048-5829
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 543 (Janua, S. 154
ISSN: 0002-7162
In: Punishment & society, Band 5, Heft 1, S. 131-134
ISSN: 1741-3095
In: The Indian journal of public administration: quarterly journal of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, Band 45, Heft 3, S. 501-507
ISSN: 0019-5561
In: The annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Band 543, Heft 1, S. 154-166
ISSN: 1552-3349
Federal courts supervise state criminal justice administration through decisions under two federal statutes, the Habeas Corpus Act and section 1983, a Civil Rights Act provision. These statutes provide overlapping review of constitutional errors. Habeas law has become too technical, limited by procedural barriers that often result in prisoners' losing their constitutional claims; moreover, the overlap between the two statutes adds further confusion. The theoretical basis for this complicated system of duplicative litigation no longer exists. Because the most important law of criminal procedure is now completely federal, state courts have no institutional reason to resist its application in favor of their own. Habeas law should be reformed and simplified to protect the goals of criminal procedure: innocence and deterrence of unreasonable state-court constitutional interpretations. Section 1983 litigation revisiting issues that the plaintiff had a meaningful opportunity to raise in state court or on habeas should be curtailed, unless the plaintiff demonstrates that one of those courts has ruled in his favor.
In: The Indian journal of public administration: quarterly journal of the Indian Institute of Public Administration, Band 29, Heft 3, S. 612
ISSN: 0019-5561
In: Aleksandar V. Gajić, Standards of Appellate Review in the International Administration of Criminal Justice, Serbian Political Though, 1/16, 93-137, 2016
SSRN
In: Indian journal of public administration, Band 29, Heft 3, S. 612-622
ISSN: 2457-0222
In: Indian journal of public administration, Band 26, Heft 3, S. 618-630
ISSN: 2457-0222