Process, the Constitution, and Substantive Criminal Law

Criminal law scholars have pined for a substantive constitutional criminal law ever since Henry Hart and Herbert Packer first embraced the notion in the late 1950s and early 1960s. To this day, scholars continue to search for a theory fhat giv:es content to, in Hart's words, the unmistakable in...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Bilionis, Louis D. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 1998
En:Año: 1998
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 186634692X
003 DE-627
005 20250126054915.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231019s1998 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)186634692X 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP186634692X 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Bilionis, Louis D.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 0 |a Process, the Constitution, and Substantive Criminal Law 
264 1 |c 1998 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a Criminal law scholars have pined for a substantive constitutional criminal law ever since Henry Hart and Herbert Packer first embraced the notion in the late 1950s and early 1960s. To this day, scholars continue to search for a theory fhat giv:es content to, in Hart's words, the unmistakable indications that the Constitution means something definite and spμiething serious when it speaks of 'crime.' To their dismay, the Supreme Court has - with two exceptions - seemingly resisted the notion. The two exceptions are familiar. First came the 1957 case of Lambert v. California, in which the Court came as close as it ever has to constitutionalizing a mens rea requirement as fundamental to the just imposition of a criminal sanction. Lambert was followed in 1962 by Robinson v. California, in which the Court came as close as it ever has to constitutionalizing criminal law's other Latin half, the element of actus reus. Both cases were certifiable breakthroughs that found previously unrecognized content in the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment, respectively, to limit the power of American legislatures to define criminal laws. Both decisions were tantalizing symbols as well. They held out hope for a vibrant relationship between the Constitution and the criminal law, one that might develop new principles to help bring about a more humane, moral, and altogether more sound substantive penal law 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/232708081.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 4392992659 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 186634692X 
LOK |0 005 20231019043732 
LOK |0 008 231019||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE69336420 
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