Finding Justice

In this essay memoralizing remarks presented on Constitution Day, Professor Laurie Levenson reflects on her transition from federal prosecutor to defense attorney as founder of Loyola Law School’s Project for the Innocent. She recounts the stories of two clients freed by the work of the Project. She then discusses how this work revealed blind faith in the Constitution is not enough to ensure that only the guilty are convicted. We need to do better. Levenson argues that we need to realize that constitutional rights only protect individuals if both prosecutors and defense lawyers want those rights to work. A prosecutor who sees constitutional rights as a technicality blasphemes the Constitution. A defense lawyer who lazily disregards his or her duty to zealously defend a defendant does the same. The Constitution is an empty promise without the commitment of lawyers and judges charged with upholding defendants’ right

Alaska Felony Sentencing Patterns: Selected Findings

This article describes selected findings from the Alaska Judicial Council's recently released report Alaska Felony Sentencing Patterns: 2012–2013. The report examines factors associated with felony sentences under new presumptive ranges set by the Alaska Legislature in 2005 and 2006. The study has been used by the Alaska Criminal Justice Commission (ACJC), established by the legislature in 2014 to make recommendations about criminal justice reform and sentencing.Classification of Felony Offenses / Background / Selected Finding

Fearless Friday: Chelsea Broe

Consistently speaking up for social justice issues around campus, finding innovative ways to promote peer understanding, and making our campus a more welcoming, accepting, and open place, Chelsea Broe ’14 is a fearless leader who advocates for others

Self interest and justice principle

We introduce non-enforceable property rights over bargaining surplus in a dictator game with production, in which the effort of the agents is differentially rewarded. Using experimental data we elicit individual preferences over the egalitarian, the accountability and the libertarian principle and provide evidence to support the inability of these justice principles to account for the observed behavior. Although this finding is consistent with the idea of individuals interpreting justice principles differently, we show that dictators behave self-interested concerning redistribution and choose which justice principle best maximizes their own payoff. We interpret this result as the justice norm imposing a constraint on otherwise self-maximizing agents.dictator game, justice principles, self-interest, self-serving bias.

Justice Kennedy\u27s Libertarian Revolution: Lawrence v. Texas

This brief article explains why Lawrence v. Texas could be a revolutionary case if the Supreme Court follows Justice Kennedy\u27s reasoning in the future. As in Planned Parenthood v. Casey, Justice Kennedy finds a statute to be unconstitutional, not because it infringes a right to privacy (which is mentioned but once), but because it infringes liberty (a word he uses at least twenty-five times). In addition, Justice Kennedy\u27s opinion protects liberty without any finding that the liberty being restricted is a fundamental right. Instead, having identified the conduct prohibited as liberty, he turns to the purported justification for the statute and finds it inadequate. This represents a marked rejection of the fundamental rights jurisprudence as it has developed since Griswold v. Connecticut, and the adoption—sub silentio—of a presumption of liberty

Do CEOs Ever Lose? Fairness Perspective on the Allocation of Residuals Between CEOs and Shareholders

In this study we introduce a justice perspective to examining the result of bargaining between CEOs and boards over the allocation of firm residuals that ultimately determines CEO compensation. Framing CEO pay as the result of bargaining between CEOs and boards focuses attention on the power of CEOs to increase their share of firm residuals in the form of increased compensation, and the diligence of boards of directors to constrain CEO opportunism. Framing this negotiation through a theory of justice offers an alternative perspective to the search for pay-performance sensitivity. We predict and find that as board diligence in controlling opportunism declines and CEO power increases, CEOs are increasingly able to capture a larger portion of firm residuals relative to shareholders. This finding supports critics who charge that CEO pay violates norms of distributive and procedural justice

A Weighty Issue: Finding the Balance Between Justice and Mercy in the Classroom

Considering the conundrum educators face with administering ethical decisions concerning their students, the author discusses the options of Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill, which utilize rationalism to adjudicate decisions requiring issues of equity in their classrooms. However, the author addresses the conflicts inherent among Christian educators whose spiritual perspectives transcend rational presuppositions as the only methods to make decisions that contribute balance and fairness to those deciding between justice and mercy

Law and Justice are not Always the Same : Creating Community-Based Justice Forums for People Subjected to Intimate Partner Abuse

What constitutes justice in cases involving intimate partner abuse has historically been determined not by the person subjected to abuse, but rather an actor within the legal system—a police officer, a prosecutor, an advocate, or a judge—and those individuals most often define justice in terms of what the legal system has to offer. People subjected to abuse may conceive of justice quite differently, however, in ways that the legal system is not well suited to address. For people subjected to abuse who are interested in punishment, whose goals are congruent with the legal system’s goals of safety and accountability (as defined by the state), and who are willing to use state based systems, society offers a response: the criminal justice system. Imperfect though that response might be, in theory it meets the justice needs of some people subjected to abuse. For people who are more interested in healing and are willing to work through state systems, society also offers a response, albeit a more limited one: restorative justice. But for those who are not interested in a state-based response, little by way of justice exists for people subjected to abuse. This article seeks to fill that void by suggesting the development of community based forums to deliver justice. In her 2003 article, Battering, Forgiveness and Redemption, law professor Brenda Smith suggested a number of alternative models that might be used to address intimate partner abuse. Building on her work, and recognizing that there are parallels between the experiences of people seeking justice for violations of human rights and people subjected to intimate partner abuse, this article borrows from the structures used to find justice after atrocity, including truth commissions and community-based courts, to flesh out what community-based justice forums to address intimate partner abuse might look like. The article imagines how international human rights processes might productively inform efforts to create new alternatives for finding individualized justice, voice, validation and vindication outside of the criminal justice system and considers the crucial questions that such a radical reimagining of justice provision raises--about the role of the state, the problems of gendered justice, the existence of community, and the provision of resources

Investigation and Prosecution of Sexual Assault, Domestic Violence, and Stalking

This project examined sexual assault, domestic violence, and stalking cases reported to the Alaska State Troopers. More specifically, we examined all sexual assault and sexual abuse of minor incidents reported to Alaska State Troopers in 2003 and 2004, all assaults in domestic violence incidents reported to Alaska State Troopers in 2004, and all stalking incidents reported to Alaska State Troopers from 1994 to 2005. In addition, we examined whether cases were referred to the Alaska Department of Law for prosecution, were accepted for prosecution, and resulted in a conviction. This report provides a thorough overview of key characteristics on reports, suspects, victims, incidents, witnesses, and legal resolutions. This report also examines the predictors of legal resolutions. Finally, this report examines whether rural cases are less likely to have successful legal resolutions. Results clearly show that what Alaska State Troopers do when investigating reported offenses can increase rates of referral, acceptance, and conviction. In addition, we found no evidence of under-enforcement in rural areas. Contrary to allegations that the provision of criminal justice services is diminished in rural areas, we found that geographic isolation does not hinder case processing. These results are important for other rural jurisdictions. Most importantly, we found that cases first reported to local first responders had better legal resolutions. This finding suggests that the resources provided by these first responders (i.e., reduced response time and enhanced investigation) increase the rates of prosecutions and convictions. This finding is important not just in Alaska, but in other jurisdictions where official responders are not immediately available.National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Grant No. 2005-WG-BX-0011I. Index of Tables and Figures / II. Acknowledgments / III. Executive Summary / IV. Goals and Background for this Study / V. State of Alaska / VI. Sexual Assault / VII. Domestic Violence / VIII. Stalking / IX. References / X. Appendice