Explore the vast range of titles available.

Based on ethnographic observations and interviews with prisoners, correctional officers, and civilian staff conducted in solitary confinement units, Way Down in the Hole explores the myriad ways in which daily, intimate interactions between those locked up twenty-four hours a day and the correctional officers charged with their care, custody, and control produce and reproduce hegemonic racial ideologies. Smith and Hattery explore the outcome of building prisons in rural, economically depressed communities, staffing them with white people who live in and around these communities, filling them with Black and brown bodies from urban areas and then designing the structure of solitary confinement units such that the most private, intimate daily bodily functions take place in very public ways. Under these conditions, it shouldn’t be surprising, but is rarely considered, that such daily interactions produce and reproduce white racial resentment among many correctional officers and fuel the racialized tensions that prisoners often describe as the worst forms of dehumanization. Way Down in the Hole concludes with recommendations for reducing the use of solitary confinement, reforming its use in a limited context, and most importantly, creating an environment in which prisoners and staff co-exist in ways that recognize their individual humanity and reduce rather than reproduce racial antagonisms and racial resentment. Way Down the Hole Video 1 (https://youtu.be/UuAB63fhge0) Way Down the Hole Video 2 (https://youtu.be/TwEuw1cTrcQ) Way Down the Hole Video 3 (https://youtu.be/bOcBv_UnHIs​) Way Down the Hole Video 4 (https://youtu.be/cx_l1S8D77c)

In misdemeanor cases, pretrial detention poses a particular problem because it may induce innocent defendants to plead guilty in order to exit jail, potentially creating widespread error in case adjudication. While practitioners have long recognized this possibility, empirical evidence on the downstream impacts of pretrial detention on misdemeanor defendants and their cases remains limited. This Article uses detailed data on hundreds of thousands of misdemeanor cases resolved in Harris County, Texas—the third-largest county in the United States—to measure the effects of pretrial detention on case outcomes and future crime. We find that detained defendants are 25% more likely than similarly situated releasees to plead guilty, are 43% more likely to be sentenced to jail, and receive jail sentences that are more than twice as long on average. Furthermore, those detained pretrial are more likely to commit future crimes, which suggests that detention may have a criminogenic effect. These differences persist even after fully controlling for the initial bail amount, offense, demographic information, and criminal history characteristics. Use of more limited sets of controls, as in prior research, overstates the adverse impacts of detention. A quasi-experimental analysis based on case timing confirms that these differences likely reflect the causal effect of detention. These results raise important constitutional questions and suggest that Harris County could save millions of dollars per year, increase public safety, and reduce wrongful convictions with better pretrial release policy.

This Comment challenges as unconstitutional Washington's exemption of incarcerated individuals from the state Minimum Wage Act. Incarcerated people in Washington, unprotected by minimum wage guarantees, earn low wages in state-run inmate work programs. This statutory carveout is contrary to the rehabilitative purpose of Washington's prisons because it impedes incarcerated people's ability to afford necessities, participate in rehabilitative programs, and reintegrate into society. This exemption is unconstitutional under the state's cruel punishment clause, because it is disproportionately cruel punishment and an excessive fine that incarcerated workers cannot afford. The exemption is also unconstitutional under the state's privileges and immunities clause, because it unconstitutionally grants workers outside prison the privilege of earning a minimum wage that is not equally available to workers inside prison.

Debates involving free speech on America's college campuses have recently ignited a firestorm of disputation, dominating newspaper headlines in a fashion not witnessed in several decades. The First Amendment's import as appearing in the nation's elementary and secondary schools has, however, received comparatively little public scrutiny. This relative paucity of attention is lamentable, as our public school system is the foremost government entity that shapes Americans' everyday lives.

This Note explores the intricate relationship between emerging adulthood, defined as the transitional phase between youth and adulthood (ages 18-25), and the legal implications of capital punishment. Contrary to a fixed age determining adulthood, research highlights the prolonged nature of the maturation process, especially for individuals impacted by Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs). The Note challenges the current legal framework that deems individuals aged 18 to 25 who experienced ACEs as eligible for capital punishment, highlighting the cognitive impact of ACEs on developmental trajectories. Examining cases like Dzhokhar Tsarnaev and Billy Joe Wardlow, this Note argues that courts often bypass mitigating evidence related to ACEs, thereby perpetuating judicial errors. The mismatched burdens of proof for aggravating and mitigating factors further compound the problem, contributing to a flawed system that disproportionately affects emerging adults. In response to these issues, some states are reevaluating their approach to emerging adult justice, considering initiatives such as \"raise the age\" campaigns and specialized courts. The Note promotes an approach that aligns with cognitive age appropriateness, tailoring interventions to encompass restorative justice, rehabilitative measures, and a comprehensive legal framework to address the distinct needs of the emerging adult population. Recognizing the potential for cognitive development and rehabilitation during this transitional phase, this Note contends that alternative methods can provide opportunities for ACE-impacted individuals to age out of criminal behaviors, potentially altering life trajectories and mitigating the imposition of capital punishment.

The military capital punishment scheme for murder in peacetime is unconstitutional. It does not meet the Eighth Amendment's requirement of heightened reliability for capital cases because it fails to include a trial by jury. The Supreme Court identified concerns about court-martial panels compared to juries in Reid v. Covert and United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles. These concerns are exacerbated by the research from the Capital Jury Project regarding how the race and gender of jurors can affect capital sentencing determinations. Specifically, as the number of white males increases on a jury, the likelihood of a death sentence increases. This is particularly concerning for the military because the demographics of its jury pool are predominantly white male. The purported need for deviations from the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury and deference to the military system in order to preserve discipline is undercut by the history of jurisdiction for murder in peacetime. The military has not historically had jurisdiction over murder in peacetime for the majority of this country's history. These concerns of non-representative courts-martial, coupled with the need for heightened reliability in capital cases, warrant a change to Article 118 (the crime of murder) to only allow capital courts-martial for murder if there is a nexus to war or armed conflict.

Scholars have written much about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's legacy in many areas of law, but her criminal justice legacy has yet to be fully articulated, likely because she penned few important opinions in this field. This article argues that Justice Ginsburg had an enormous impact across a large area of criminal justice cases decided by the slimmest majority. We explore these close cases and, in so doing, we show her to have played a crucial role in a remarkable number of landmark cases that extended important constitutional protections to criminal defendants. Specifically, she joined the majorities in important decisions extending the rights to a jury trial, to an impartial tribunal, and to counsel. She also voted to shield juveniles and people with mental impairments from excessive punishments and to extend protections to property owners who faced civil penalties due to criminal wrongdoing. As our review aptly shows, Justice Ginsburg's work in criminal justice lived up to the ideals of the Torah passage that she displayed behind her office chair as a Justice, which read \"Justice, justice shalt thou pursue...\" Rabbinic scholars interpret the passage as a command for judges to provide meaningful hearings for those who seek justice, that judges should act with impartiality toward all who come before them, and should temper strict justice with mercy. She likely pursued these principles in other areas of law as wellthe commands for meaningful and impartial justice do not apply exclusively to criminal judges. Nonetheless, the principles arguably apply more poignantly in the criminal justice area which, unlike other areas of law, strives to provide heightened constitutional safeguards while also permitting severe punishments.

This Article describes the rift between a due-process-focused jurisprudence on legal–financial obligations—the centerpiece of the current fight against criminalization of poverty—and the substantive and structural problems of poverty criminalization. It argues that judges can help address this disconnect while still operating within the scope of their authority by engaging in a demosprudence of poverty—“a democracy-enhancing jurisprudence” that actively seeks to learn from poor people themselves and movements for economic justice. This Article builds from demosprudential theory to offer guidance for judges in their reason-giving, rulemaking, and courtroom management practices.