Constitutionalizing Immigration Law on Its Own Path

Courts should insist on heightened procedural protections in immigration adjudication. They should do so under the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause rather than by importing Sixth Amendment protections from the criminal context. Traditional judicial oversight and the Due Process Clause provide a better basis than the Sixth Amendment to interpose heightened procedural protections in immigration proceedings, especially those involving removal for a serious criminal conviction. The Supreme Court’s immigration jurisprudence in recent years lends support for this approach. The Court has guarded the availability of judicial review of immigration decisions. It has affirmed that courts are the arbiters of constitutional issues (including due process) and criminal statutory interpretation. The Court has accorded agency deference on matters of agency expertise, which does not include interpretation of criminal law and convictions. And the Court has created generally applicable procedural protections in order to minimize court interference with substantive immigration policy. Guided by these core concepts, courts are poised to develop procedural protections for immigrants in removal proceedings that are tailored to the institutional interests at stake and protective of immigrants. By constitutionalizing immigration on its own path, courts may also avoid some of the pitfalls of a Sixth Amendment–based criminal-rights model

A comparison of addressee detection methods for multiparty conversations

Several algorithms have recently been proposed for recognizing addressees in a group conversational setting. These algorithms can rely on a variety of factors including previous conversational roles, gaze and type of dialogue act. Both statistical supervised machine learning algorithms as well as rule based methods have been developed. In this paper, we compare several algorithms developed for several different genres of muliparty dialogue, and propose a new synthesis algorithm that matches the performance of machine learning algorithms while maintaning the transparancy of semantically meaningfull rule-based algorithms

When Does Government Debt Crowd Out Investment?

We investigate the relationship between inequality and education funding in a model of probabilistic voting over public education spending where the private option is available. A change in inequality can have opposite effects at different income levels: higher inequality decreases public spending per student and increases enrollment in public schools in poor economies, while the opposite holds in the rich ones. A change in the tax base can also have non-monotonic effects. We also study the implications of different voting participation across income groups. The predictions of the model are supported by U.S. school district-level data.

Time-Varying Oil Price Volatility and Macroeconomic Aggregates

We illustrate the theoretical relation among output, consumption, investment, and oil price volatility in a real business cycle model. The model incorporates demand for oil by a firm, as an intermediate input, and by a household, used in conjunction with a durable good. We estimate a stochastic volatility process for the real price of oil over the period 1986-2011 and utilize the estimated process in a non-linear approximation of the model. For realistic calibrations, an increase in oil price volatility produces a temporary decrease in durable spending, while precautionary savings motives lead in- vestment and real GDP to rise. Irreversible capital and durable investment decisions do not overturn this result.

Fairly Pricing Guilty Pleas

Building on Professor Andrew Taslitz’s work, this article explores how Fair Price Theory can help us analyze the fairness of guilty pleas. In Judging Jena’s D.A., Professor Taslitz used Fair Price Theory to explore how prosecutors could strive to achieve fairness and reduce the perception of racial stigma. He used Fair Price Theory to propose a system of prosecutorial ethics that takes into account racial stigma. This article considers how Fair Price Theory challenges courts to analyze guilty pleas differently, by focusing on price without relying on the agency of prosecutors. Under current doctrine, a court examines whether the defendant’s decision to plead guilty is voluntary, informed, and factually supported. Courts do not assess whether the defendant is getting a fair deal or fair price. Fair Price Theory could help define and assess what makes a deal (or price) fair. And that analysis, with its related questions, challenges the status quo by making price and fairness a central inquiry

Confrontation after Ohio v. Clark

The Supreme Court’s decision in Ohio v. Clark, provides an occasion to take stock of the Sixth Amendment Right to Confrontation since the court’s landmark 2004 decision in Crawford v. Washington. Crawford strengthened a defendant’s right to confront his accusers face-to-face, underscoring that cross-examination is the constitutionally preferred method for testing the reliability of accusatory statements. Clark could eliminate that right in a wide range of cases where, although the reliability of a declarant’s out-of-court statements is critically important, a defendant has no right to confrontation

Reflections of Parents and Teachers on the Process of Daily Transitions Into Infant-Toddler Child Care

This qualitative study considered seven parents’ and three teachers’ values, beliefs, perspectives and meanings of within the context of daily home-to-child care transitions in one infant-toddler center in a Southeastern land-grant university early childhood laboratory school. Sociocultural and attachment theories anchored the study and the developmental niche conceptual framework informed the methodology. Primary methodologies included naturalistic observations, video tapes of transitions and parent and teacher interviews using the video stimulated recall interview (VSRI) method. Data were analyzed using the constant comparative method, creating vignettes, and ensuring trustworthiness through the creation of thick descriptions, triangulation of data, and reflective journaling. Findings include: (a) teachers partnered with parents to create and implement individualized strategies in order to support children and parents during the process of daily transitions, (b) parents and teachers had different perspectives and often assigned diverse meanings to the same event during transitions, (c) parents and teachers periodically felt uncertain, apprehensive and/or tense during daily transitions. This study contributes new knowledge to the field of early childhood education, and is the first study in the U.S. to uncover particular aspects of the psychology of teachers and parents, by revealing some of the ways parents and teachers experience daily transitions differently through juxtaposing and weaving together their thoughts and feelings. Data was collected through VSRIs in a novel way with teachers and parents, a method typically used with teachers only. Vignettes were a unique aspect of this study; not only providing a compelling form of presentation, but also a valuable approach to data analysis that illuminated the nuances of transitions. As such, an attempt to delve more deeply into parent’ and teachers’ values, beliefs, perspectives and meanings assigned to transitions took place. Finally, the notion to broadly define the process of home-to-child care daily transitions and include time throughout when teachers, parents and children reflect on, plan and prepare for transitions was proposed.. Implications include the need for longitudinal studies in diverse settings and the use of methodologies that make visible social-emotional and pedagogical aspects during these brief, intimate, yet public times and professional development that includes these understandings

Using Outcomes to Reframe Guilty Plea Adjudication

The Supreme Court’s 2012 decisions in Lafler v. Cooper and Missouri v. Frye lay the groundwork for a new approach to judicial oversight of guilty pleas that considers outcomes. These cases confirm that courts possess robust authority to protect defendants’ Sixth Amendment right to the effective assistance of counsel and that plea outcomes are particularly relevant to identifying and remedying prejudicial ineffective assistance in plea-bargaining. The Court’s reliance on outcome-based prejudice analysis and suggestions for trial court-level reforms to prevent Sixth Amendment violations set the stage for trial courts to take a more active, substantive role in regulating guilty pleas. This Article traces these significant doctrinal shifts and argues that they supply both impetus and authority for trial courts to regulate guilty pleas by monitoring plea outcomes. This proposal builds on marketbased concepts while strengthening the judicial role in safeguarding constitutional values. By monitoring outcomes, courts can detect and correct factors in the plea-bargaining market, such as prosecutorial overreaching and ineffective defense counsel, which can distort the parties’ ability to negotiate fair results. Outcomes monitoring is justified for practical reasons because it builds on courts’ expertise and unique place in the plea markets, it can be implemented at the trial court level, it reinforces courts’ traditional sentencing authority, and it can prevent litigation of prejudicial ineffective assistance in post-conviction proceedings