Only Yesterday: The Rise and Fall of Twentieth Century Sexual Psychopath Laws

Sexually violent predator laws are not the first wave of American legislation aimed at committing sex offenders to locked mental hospitals; they are the second. Preceding them by half a century were the sexual psychopath laws, which differed in significant detail but provided the same basic framework of indeterminacy and dangerousness. This article looks at the history of the sexual psychopath laws. It begins by critically examining the popular belief that there was a sex crime wave. It then discussed different solutions proffered to solve the sex crime problem. Finally, it provides an overview of the sexual psychopath laws and discusses the reasons for their demise

Campus Sexual Assault Adjudication: Why Universities Should Reject the Dear Colleague Letter

This Article contends that although well intentioned, the mandates of the Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) are not the best way to handle campus sexual assault. Universities should have a number of different options available, from restorative justice processes to a full-blown adjudicatory hearing. When suspension or expulsion may result, the respondent should have the right to an adjudicatory hearing with robust procedural rights. More controversially, this Article argues that despite the DCL, universities are legally entitled to make these changes. This Article begins by situating university disciplinary proceedings legally and historically. It then turns to the DCL. It discusses whether OCR violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) by not going through notice and comment. After determining that the DCL is procedurally invalid, the Article discusses how universities can and should handle these cases while still remaining in compliance with Title IX. The Article concludes by acknowledging that even if schools would be allowed to make these changes they are unlikely to do so because of the considerable social (and indirect economic costs) in challenging the Department of Education

READY, FIRE, AIM: How Universities Are Failing the Constitution in Sexual Assault Cases

This Article looks critically at the procedural protections American universities give students accused of sexual assault. It begins by situating these policies historically, providing background to Title IX and the different guidelines promulgated by the Department of Education. Next, it presents original research on the procedural protections provided by the fifty flagship state universities. In October 2014, university administrators were contacted and asked a series of questions about the rights afforded to students, including the standard of proof right to an adjudicatory hearing, right to confront and cross examine witnesses, right to counsel, right to silence, and right to appeal. This Article describes findings and then compares them with prior studies. After arguing that state university students are entitled to procedural due process, this Article uses the balancing test from Matthews v.Eldridge to evaluate whether universities are adequately protecting the due process rights of the accused. This Article concludes by considering how universities can more fairly and effectively respond to sexual assault

Blame the Victim: How Mistreatment by the State Is Used to Legitimize Police Violence

The surprising thing about George Floyd is not that he was killed by the police. What is remarkable is that the officer who killed him was charged, convicted, and sentenced to more than twenty-two years in prison. This article examines the institutional mechanisms that support police violence against Black people. In the process, it illuminates the insidious ways in which state actors exploit structural social, economic, and health mistreatment to legitimize police violence. After exploring these issues, this article provides suggestions to reform our institutions in a manner that will bring about meaningful and lasting change

A Critical Look at How Top Colleges Are Adjudicating Sexual Assault

This Article examines the procedural protections afforded by the top American colleges and universities. After briefly situating these policies historically, it presents original research on the procedural protections provided by the top twenty universities, top ten liberal arts colleges, and top five historically black colleges as ranked by U.S. News and World Reports. In 2015, university administrators were contacted and asked a series of questions about the rights afforded to students, including the standard of proof, right to an adjudicatory hearing, right to confront and cross-examine witnesses, right to counsel, right to silence, and right to appeal. This Article describes the study’s findings and then compares them with prior studies. It then considers whether the disciplinary proceedings constitute state action, thus making them subject to constitutional scrutiny should they be challenged in court. This Article concludes by briefly considering whether a student could successfully challenge these proceedings under contract law or Title IX