Sentencing and Prior Convictions: The Past, The Future, and the End of the Prior-Conviction Exception to Apprendi

This article traces the fascinating history of early efforts to identify defendants and their prior convictions as well as the evolving use of prior convictions in aggravating punishment; examines how contemporary repeat offender penalties fall short of punishment goals and contribute to the raciall...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:  
Bibliographische Detailangaben
1. VerfasserIn: King, Nancy J. (Verfasst von)
Medienart: Elektronisch Buch
Sprache:Englisch
Veröffentlicht: 2014
In:Jahr: 2014
Online-Zugang: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verfügbarkeit prüfen: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866119206
003 DE-627
005 20250121054856.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231018s2014 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866119206 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866119206 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a King, Nancy J.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Sentencing and Prior Convictions: The Past, The Future, and the End of the Prior-Conviction Exception to Apprendi 
264 1 |c 2014 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a This article traces the fascinating history of early efforts to identify defendants and their prior convictions as well as the evolving use of prior convictions in aggravating punishment; examines how contemporary repeat offender penalties fall short of punishment goals and contribute to the racially lopsided profile of punishment today; and critiques potential justifications for the prior conviction exception to the rule in Apprendi v. New Jersey, arguing that the exception should be abandoned. The article summarizes empirical research testing the relationship between prior convictions and examining the efficacy of repeat offender sentences in reducing recidivism; collects commentary on the use of risk prediction in sentencing; surveys state-by-state eighteenth century authority that belies the claim that denying element status to prior convictions that raise the range of punishment is a longstanding tradition; evaluates the weaknesses of the case law underlying the Court's decision in Almendarez-Torres; argues that defendants need not be prejudiced when prior convictions are treated as elements; and observes that the original reason that a very small number of states in the nineteenth century stopped requiring prior convictions to be treated as elements – namely, that an offender’s criminal history was often unknown unless or until a warden recognized him – no longer exists. An earlier version of the article was delivered as the Barrock Lecture on Criminal Law at the Marquette University Law School 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/230472931.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4391799960 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866119206 
LOK |0 005 20231018043627 
LOK |0 008 231018||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE68450568 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw