Articles Posted in Criminal Law

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton examines the Trump administration’s coverup of former President Trump’s connections to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, and the broader implications for survivors of child sexual abuse seeking justice. Professor Hamilton argues that the effort to obscure the truth has backfired by mobilizing survivors and the public, underscoring the urgent need for legal reform—particularly the elimination of restrictive statutes of limitations—to ensure survivors can seek justice when they are ready.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the importance of competency in death penalty cases, focusing on whether individuals like Ralph Menzies—who suffer from dementia and cannot comprehend their punishment—should be eligible for execution. Professor Sarat argues that executing cognitively impaired individuals violates the core purpose of punishment as a form of moral accountability, and calls for shifting the legal burden onto the state to prove competency in such cases to prevent unjust and inhumane executions.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies examines the recent mass stabbing in Michigan by Bradford James Gille and explores the deeper systemic and personal factors behind seemingly random acts of violence. Professor Margulies argues that before society can decide what justice or punishment looks like in such cases, we must first understand the humanity and complex stories behind individuals like Gille, rejecting questions that strip away their personhood.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the impending execution of Byron Black in Tennessee, highlighting deep flaws in the state’s application of the death penalty, particularly for intellectually disabled and medically vulnerable individuals. Professor Sarat argues that Black’s case exemplifies the cruelty, legal absurdities, and moral failings of the death penalty system, urging an end to a practice that undermines justice and human dignity.

Kathryn Robb, National Director of the Children’s Justice Campaign at Enough Abuse, examines how the media and political frenzy over Jeffrey Epstein’s client list has overshadowed the broader epidemic of institutional child sexual abuse in America, from the Catholic Church to the Boy Scouts to USA Gymnastics. Ms. Robb argues that instead of chasing political spectacle and conspiracy theories, lawmakers must implement concrete reforms—including ending statutes of limitations, banning NDAs in abuse cases, mandating institutional transparency, and funding prevention programs—to address what is a widespread public health emergency affecting one in four girls and one in thirteen boys.

University of Pennsylvania professor Marci A. Hamilton addresses the Trump administration’s attempts to cover up the Jeffrey Epstein sex trafficking files and draws parallels to the Catholic Church’s long-standing concealment of clergy sexual abuse. Professor Hamilton argues that true justice for child sex abuse victims requires transparency, prosecution, and institutional accountability, and warns that failing to fully disclose the Epstein files undermines public trust and perpetuates a culture of impunity for the powerful.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines the case of Vance Boelter, who allegedly murdered Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband and attempted to murder Sen. John Hoffman and his wife in politically motivated attacks targeting elected Democrats. Professor Sarat argues that despite the horrific nature of these crimes, federal prosecutors should not seek the death penalty in Minnesota, which abolished capital punishment over a century ago and whose citizens would likely reject it.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Tennessee’s new policy of imposing a two-week isolation period and a 12-hour communication blackout on death row inmates prior to execution, framing it within broader concerns about the harsh conditions of death row in the U.S. Professor Sarat argues that these practices are unnecessarily cruel, serve no legitimate purpose, and should be ended either by state action or judicial intervention.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat calls for an end to the longstanding ritual of collecting and publicizing the final statements of death row inmates, spotlighting the recent execution of Glen Rogers in Florida and his unusual last words referencing Donald Trump. Professor Sarat argues that these last words are often performative, feed public morbid curiosity, and serve to legitimize the death penalty by giving the illusion of dignity and humanity to an inherently inhumane practice.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies critiques Stephen Miller’s advocacy for reopening Alcatraz as a symbolic place to isolate and permanently segregate violent offenders, using it as a lens to explore broader societal misconceptions about criminality and rehabilitation. Professor Margulies argues that Miller’s perspective is rooted in ignorance and fear, and counters it by emphasizing the real and transformative possibility of redemption among incarcerated individuals—something Miller could only understand by engaging directly with the prison population.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses President Donald Trump’s efforts to reverse President Joe Biden’s mass clemency for federal death row inmates, specifically through an executive order mandating their transfer to the harsh ADX supermax prison. Professor Sarat argues that this move is a politically motivated act of cruelty lacking legal and penological justification, and urges the courts to uphold due process and human rights, even for those convicted of serious crimes.

Criminal defense attorney Jon May critiques Professor Alan Dershowitz’s defense of the Department of Justice’s decision to dismiss criminal charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams and argues that the deal is unlike typical plea bargains in federal criminal cases. Mr. May contends that Adams’s agreement, which involves no criminal penalty, dangerously expands the scope of prosecutorial discretion and could lead to a system where defendants barter extrajudicial favors to avoid prosecution, undermining principles of justice.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses how several state legislatures, particularly Alabama, are passing laws allowing the death penalty for child rape despite a 2008 Supreme Court ruling, Kennedy v. Louisiana, that declared such punishment unconstitutional. Professor Sarat argues that this strategic legislative defiance represents a dangerous trend that threatens constitutional order, as lawmakers are deliberately passing unconstitutional laws hoping the current conservative-majority Supreme Court will overturn precedent, similar to the strategy that led to Roe v. Wade being overturned.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines Montana’s death penalty status, noting that capital punishment is legally permitted but rarely used in the deeply Republican state, with only three executions since 1976 and recent legislative rejection of a proposal to facilitate more executions. Professor Sarat argues that even as a symbolic punishment, maintaining capital punishment on the books causes harm to both the abolitionist cause and the entire country by making extreme prison sentences seem more humane by comparison, contributing to America’s high incarceration rates.

Cornell professor Joseph Margulies discusses his book project about society’s tendency to ostracize wrongdoers and explores the complex role of remorse in how society judges and responds to those who have committed serious transgressions. Professor Margulies grapples with a particular challenge in his research—how to address cases where individuals who have committed wrongful acts feel no remorse for their actions, using examples like January 6 rioters and abortion providers in different states—and invites such individuals to share their perspectives.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses Ohio Governor Mike DeWine’s ongoing de facto moratorium on executions and the broader implications for the future of the death penalty in both Ohio and the United States. Professor Sarat argues that Ohio’s inability to procure lethal injection drugs, combined with public opposition, racial disparities, financial inefficiencies, and declining crime rates, demonstrates that the state—and potentially the nation—can function without capital punishment, signaling a possible shift toward abolition.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat discusses the recent execution of Marion Bowman in South Carolina, focusing on his case and the broader cruelties inherent in the American capital punishment system. Professor Sarat argues that Bowman’s case exemplifies multiple systemic issues in death penalty cases, including the treatment of those claiming innocence, the coercive nature of plea deals, inadequate legal defense, and the psychological torture of death row conditions, particularly during the final months before execution.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat explores the paradoxical status of the death penalty in California, highlighting its high number of death row inmates and new sentences despite a moratorium on executions and a progressive stance. Professor Sarat contrasts this with Texas’s declining death penalty numbers, emphasizing the complex political landscape in California where local prosecutors and public opinion continue to support capital punishment, creating challenges for abolitionists trying to effect change.

Amherst professor Austin Sarat examines recent death penalty statistics and trends in the United States, drawing from the Death Penalty Information Center’s 2024 Annual Report and Death Penalty Census, as well as academic research spanning several decades. Professor Sarat argues that capital punishment should be abolished nationwide, citing the dramatic decline in death sentences since the 1990s, the extremely low rate of sentences actually resulting in executions (15.7%), and the high rate of reversals due to serious errors, all of which suggest the system is ineffective and not worth maintaining.

UNLV Boyd School of Law professor Leslie C. Griffin chronicles the six-decade history of sexual abuse perpetrated by Catholic priest Lawrence Hecker in New Orleans, including his recent guilty plea and death in December 2024. Professor Griffin argues that Hecker’s ability to continue abusing children for so long was enabled by a systematic pattern of protection and cover-ups by church officials and sympathetic judges, who consistently prioritized Hecker’s interests over those of his victims until overwhelming evidence finally forced a conviction just weeks before his death.