By Debra Parkes

The nearly three decades in which Beverley McLachlin was a member of the Supreme Court, including 18 as Chief Justice, witnessed a number of shifts in Canadian penal policy and in the reach and impact of criminal law. During the Harper decade (2006 to 2015) in which the federal Conservatives enjoyed a majority government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper, criminal justice policy took a turn toward the punitive. The federal government tore a page out of the American legislative handbook and sought to “govern through crime”,1 albeit in a more restrained Canadian style.2 Criminologists Anthony Doob and Cheryl Webster have posited that pre-Harper, Canadian criminal justice policy was grounded in four pillars that enjoyed support across party lines. These pillars were that social conditions matter; that harsh punishments do not reduce crime; that the development of criminal justice policies should be informed by expert knowledge; and that changes in the criminal law should address real problems.3 These principles were cast aside, Doob and Webster argue, beginning at least in 2006 with the passage of numerous crime bills that, to name just a few, created new crimes with enhanced penalties;4 proliferated mandatory

Allard School of Law, Allard Research Commons Allard Research Commons, Faculty Publications Allard Faculty Publications, 2019, 19p.

By Kay L. Levine and Volkan Topalli

In The Process is the Punishment, Malcolm Feeley exposed the lower criminal court as a powerful institution in American life, an important counterpart to both the more glamorous federal courts and the more highly charged superior courts that preside over serious crimes within a jurisdiction. Although it typically handles only low-level criminal charges, the lower criminal court’s reach is both broad and deep; in its functioning and process it has the capacity to change the lives of many who come before it – sometimes for the better, sometimes for the worse – irrespective of guilt or innocence, conviction or dismissal.

Cambridge University Press, on 22 Oct 2020, 17p.

By Christopher L. Ringwalt, 1 Dorothy C. Browne, 1 Lee B. Rosenbioomfl Gloria Ann Evans, 3 and Jonathan B. Kotch 1

This study explores the relationship between mothers" approval of corporal punishment and the degree to which they themselves were subjected to vio- lence as children. Considered as additional contributing factors are: (1) whether the mothers as children were punished by their own parents, (2) whether they perceived such punishment as unfair, and (3) the degree of parental nurture they experienced as children. The sample consisted of 330 new mothers whose mother and father both lived in the home when they were 14 years of age. Respondents were interviewed at home one to two months following their infants" discharge from the hospital. After control- ling for race and income, no relationship was found between approval of cor- poral punishment and the violence to which mothers were subjected as children. However, significant associations were found between such approval and: (1) whether mothers were punished by their parents, and (2) maternal (but not paternal) nurture. Perceptions that parental punishment was unfair failed to contribute to such approval. Altogether, parental factors in mothers" childhoods, excluding race and income, accounted for 8.9~o of the variance in approval of corporal punishment.

Journal of Family Violence, VoL 4, No. 4, 1989, 13p.

By K. Drybread

A six- year- old girl came home from a neighbor’s house with blood in her underpants. Her mother, frantic, demanded to know how it had gotten there. “Who did this to you?” she asked. The girl responded, “I don’t know.” Her mother screamed the question again and again; the girl’s answer remained the same. The mother tried a new question, “What did he look like?” Her daughter’s reply was still, “I don’t know.” After posing the new q

UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO BOULDER user on 27 January 2020, 21p.

By Özlem ÖZMEN

Martin McDonagh’s Hangmen (2015) is a contextual play as the work derives its material from an actual histori- cal event, the abolition of capital punishment in the 1960s, and presents this topic in 2015 soon after the debates of reintroducing death penalty in Britain. The play refers to two distinct socio-historical backgrounds, 1960s Britain as the context of the plot, and the twenty-first century as the context of the audience/reader. Hangmen takes place on a very specific date in history, the year in which hanging was suspended in Britain. The comical portrayal of what seems to be the last hanging case in the country makes it possible to problematise the integrity of the judicial system at the time. Presentation of the rivalry between two famous executioners in the country, Harry Allen and Albert Pierrepoint, also underlines the play’s socio-political relation to a certain context. What is equally noteworthy about Hangmen is McDonagh’s choice of this topic at a time in which the issue of capital punishment is raised again in Britain. Concerning recent arguments about the reintroduction of death penalty, it is observed that McDonagh also initiates a discussion about the legitimation of state violence through a depiction of the history of hanging. In light of this observation, the aim of this article is to discuss McDonagh’s topical dark comedy as a political intervention in the debate over death penalty in Britain by mentioning t

Özmen, Ö. (2019). Political Contextuality of Martin McDonagh’s Hangmen: An Intervention in the Debate over Capital Punishment in Britain, Gaziantep University Journal of Social Sciences, 18 IDEA Special Issue, 92-101

By Eva Maghfiroh Institut Agama islam Syarifuddin Lumajang

Aggressive behavior is a form of behavior that can hurt other people. This behaviour comes from cognitive processes that are disrupted. Students, in Islamic boarding school, who experience aggressive behavior, can become aggressive too. This article discusses how teachers deal with students with aggressive behavior in Islamic boarding school. One of the ways, is to provide reward and punishment for them, who have aggrescive behavior

Dakwatuna : Jurnal Dakwadan Komunikasi Islam, 19p.

By Cindy Miller-Perrin* and Robin Perrin

Physical punishment remains a common practice in the USA despite significant empirical evidence of its potential harm and ineffectiveness, arguments that its use violates children’s human rights, and professional recommendations against its use. The purpose of the current paper is to offer explanations as to why, in the face of a worldwide movement to protect children from violence, the USA continues to support physical punishment of children. The paper also summarizes the various debates engaged in by experts that stem from these explanations for physical punishment and argue that the time has come to move beyond these debates and eliminate the physical punishment of children. We offer suggestions for changing attitudes and practices related to physical punishment of children in order to promote their health and well-being. We conclude by suggesting that the burden of proof in debates about physical punishment, which has typically fallen upon those who argue children should never be physica

Miller-Perrin and Perrin Psicologia: Reflexão e Crítica (2018) 31:16, 7p.

By Ryan Casey, Fergus McNeill ,Betsy Barkas, Neil Cornish, Caitlin Gormley, and Marguerite Schinkel

In this paper, we draw on data from a recent study of how Covid-19 and related restrictions impacted on vulnerable and/or marginalised populations in Scotland (Armstrong and Pickering, 2020), including justice-affected people (i.e. people in prison and under supervision, their families and those that work with them; see Gormley et al., 2020). Focusing here mainly on interviews with people released from prison and others under community-based criminal justice supervision, we explore how the pandemic impacted on their experiences. Re ecting upon and re n- ing previous analyses of how supervision is experienced as pervasive punishment (McNeill, 2019), we suggest that both the pandemic and public health measures associated with its suppression have changed the pains and gains of supervision (Hayes, 2015), in particular, by exacerbating the suspension associated with it. We conclude by discussing the implications of our ndings for the pursuit of justice in the recovery from Covid-19.

Probation Journal, 1 17, 2021, 17p.

By James T. Graves, Alessandro Acquisti, Ross Anderson

The U.S. Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)1 is not a popular law.2 Enacted in 1986 to deal with the nascent computer crimes of that era, it has aged badly. It has been widely criticized as vague, poorly structured, and having an overly broad definition of loss that invites prosecutorial abuse.

Perception Versus Punishment in Cybercrime

By Patrick G Bass Morningside College

Civil War prison historiography has enjoyed a kind of renaissance over the past two decades, using new sources, new research methodologies, and new theoretical frameworks. Both of these works from Kent State University Press are among the efforts in these new directions. Angela Zombek’s monograph Penitentiaries, Punishment, and Mili- tary Prisons is the more ambitious of the two works under review. Zombek approaches her subjects in a complicated manner. The struc- ture proceeds from background and general overview through specific investigations to a Reconstruction postscript. The introduction sum- marizes the entire work. The first chapter provides a deep background analysis of theories of penology before and during the American Civil War, which reaches from the European Enlightenment to the Lieber Code of the early 1860s. The second chapter centers on the overall con- tinuities of practices of penology throughout the first two-thirds of the nineteenth century. The last full chapter (not the conclusion) looks at postwar legacies in terms of the triumph of continuity. The conclusion ably restates her findings.

The Annals of Iowa Volume 78 Number 2 (Spring 2019) pps. 211-213

By Carl Toersbijns, Retired Corrections Administrator

This lecture is written by a layperson who seeks to simplify the process of punishment inside prisons while explaining its impact, intentionally or intentionally. It is also written to propose a theory that punishment should be temporary and not permanently imposed in perpetuity with time to allow society’s forgiveness and understanding of the long-term effects of penal state and its impact on criminalized people. To begin with, we must first acknowledge the fact that incarceration is massive in nature and tone and spoken of frequently and rapidly after a crime has been committed and adjudicated to the courts for sentencing and term of punishment.

January 7, 2023, 6p.

By Paolla Magioni Santini and Lucia C. A. Williams

Studies have shown that corporal punishment against children is a common family practice, causing damage to child development. Considering that parents are the main perpetrators of this type of aggression, parenting programs are needed to raise children without violence. This study aimed at performing a systematic review of parenting programs evaluations to reduce corporal punishment. Intervention procedures, as well as design, results and limitations were identified for each study. The PRISMA protocol (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses) was used for reporting the results. A literature survey was conducted in Brazilian databases, as well as English ones from 1994-2014. One Brazilian study and eight international studies were selected as relevant, and only four used randomized controlled trials (RCT). All studies reported satisfactory results in decreasing aggression by parents against their children. Further research in the area with solid methodology is recommended.

Systematic Literature Review, 2016, 9p.

By Lucy Sorensen, Charmaine N. Willis, Victor Asal, and Melissa L. Breger

International attention to the issue of children’s rights and dignity has grown in recent years, both culminating in—and then drawing momentum from— the landmark United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) in 1989. The CRC represents a changing international consensus on the rights of children, emphasizing that children, as human beings, should have a certain level of autonomy and codified legal protections (Hammarberg 1990; Melton 2005; Reynaert et al. 2009). It is formidable in its range of provisions and its specificity: it states that children have the right to have their basic needs fulfilled (addressing issues of hunger, health care, edu- cation, and play); the right to participate in decisions affecting their own well-being; and the right to be free from harm (Hammarberg 1990; Melton 2005).

2024, 23p.

By MARÍA CASADO

La presente obra es un trabajo colectivo que analiza cada uno de los artículos y principios de la «Declaración Universal sobre Bioética y Derechos Humanos» adoptada por la UNESCO en 2005 para completar –en lo que se refiere al impac- to de la biotecnología y la biomedicina en los seres humanos y el entorno– la «Declaración Universal de Derechos Humanos» de 1948. La Declaración explici- ta como objetivo «Proporcionar un marco universal de principios y procedimien- tos que sirvan de guía a los Estados en la formulación de legislaciones, políticas u otros instrumentos en el ámbito de la bioética» y hace un especial énfasis en el análisis del concepto de dignidad humana en relación con la Bioética. Su rele- vancia para quienes nos ocupamos de la nueva disciplina Bioética es inmensa pero también es esencial para todos los ciudadanos, puesto que la supervivencia de la vidabuenaen el planeta exige tomar en serio lo en ella establecido.

Thomson Reuters, 2009, 600p.

By Clifton P. Flynn

Corporal punishment enjoys strong normative support in American society, even in the face of growing evidence suggesting that it may be potentially harmful. This arti- cle examines Americans' attitudes toward the physical punishment of children. Support for spanking varies along such social categories as race, education, religion, and region. The article concludes by discussing the implications of corporal punishment attitudes for scholars, professionals, and families.

University of South Carolina at Spartanburg, Aggression and Violent Behavior, Vol. I, No. 1, pp. 47-55, 1996, 9p.

By Ian Ayres and  Fredrick E. Vars

In a substantial majority of states, invitees may bring concealed weapons onto private property unless the owner expressly tells them that firearms are not allowed. Five states after the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision flipped the presumption, enacting statutes that prohibit bringing firearms onto other people’s property without the owner’s express consent. These statutes have been attacked as violating the Second Amendment. While the Ninth Circuit upheld the constitutionality of the “no guns” default, the Second Circuit and other lower courts have enjoined application of the law with regard to private property open to the public. This Article, after analyzing the reasoning of the courts, proposes a legislative fix. States can enact “affirmative choice” rules which require commercial establishments, as a condition of doing business, to state whether or not they want their customers to be allowed to bring concealed firearms into their stores. An affirmative-choice requirement avoids constitutional concerns that some courts have had with a “no guns” presumption because the ability to bear arms on private property would only be restricted when the landowner so chooses. Without state action restricting gun rights, the statutes would not meet the Bruen threshold requirement. The Article explains why affirmative-choice laws are likely to better effectuate the preferences of landowners and why such laws would not pose compelled speech concerns.

Yale Law School, Public Law Research Paper,

By William R. Slomanson

As a result of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre of 20 first graders and 6 staff members, a number of states responded with a various programs seeking to avoid reoccurrences. They have not yet succeeded in completely restraining the ensuing gun violence. But states like California have robustly responded with generically designated “Extreme Risk Protection Orders” (ERPO). One version of the ERPO is the comparatively new GVRO (California 2014).

The validity of any gun law begins with the threshold issue applicable to all jurisdictions: the individual’s Second Amendment right to bear arms. The U.S. Supreme Court’s blockbuster 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) conjured a new test for gun litigation. Bruen thus held that “the government must demonstrate that the [challenged] regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.”

The Court’s ensuing 2024 building block connected both domestic and gun violence retraining orders. United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ____, 144 S.Ct. 1889 (2024). There was no gun violence restraining order (GVRO) against Mr. Rahimi. But he did violate an analogous domestic violence restraining order (DVRO). Rahimi thus furnished the yardstick for measuring constitutional attacks on GVROs.

One may obtain various restraining orders in California, as listed in this essay. It focuses on Cal. Pen. Code § 18125 sets forth and analyses the statute’s three-option core. This essay also presents the associated GVRO Judicial Council forms. The next subsection provides selected case law regarding the GVRO regime’s key applications. Subjects covered include the Confrontation Clause; judicial assessments of the substantial evidence needed for a GVRO; hearsay evidence options; expert witnesses; oral v. written GVRO applications; notification requirements; and sanctions for misuse.Thomas Jefferson School of Law Research Paper 4930668, 38 California Litigation Reporter (forthcoming Nov. 2024)

By Maria M. Orsini, Peter Leasure, & Jana Hrdinova

After Ohio voted to legalize recreational marijuana in November 2023, and before recreational marijuana became available for sale in Ohio in August 2024, the Drug Enforcement and Policy Center surveyed Ohio’s K-12 school principals to inquire about how they anticipated marijuana legalization would impact their schools and their students. In spring 2025, the center again surveyed Ohio’s principals to explore their perceptions of how marijuana legalization has impacted their schools and students now that recreational marijuana sales have commenced. This second survey, which used a nearly identical online survey instrument, was distributed to principals to allow for a comparison of anticipated impacts prior to the beginning of marijuana sales and actual experiences after marijuana sales started. Overall, results from the 2025 survey aligned fairly closely with principals’ anticipated concerns in 2024, with a few areas seeing a lower level of experienced impact such as on dropout rates, students’ behavior at school, and overall school safety. While these results suggest that principals overall anticipated a worse impact of marijuana legalization prior to the beginning of recreational sales than what they experienced after sales commenced, this conclusion has two important caveats. First, while the perceived impacts on students are lower in a few areas than the anticipated impacts from 2024, this result does not mitigate the fact that at the high school and middle school levels, principals in 2025 reported concerning observations with respect to the increased use of marijuana among their students, students’ academic performance, health, and impact on school safety, among other things. Second, our survey recorded responses from a relatively small number of Ohio’s principals and only asked about their perceptions, which does not allow us to draw any definitive conclusions about the actual effects of marijuana legalization. If state legislators and voters want to explore the concrete impact of marijuana legalization on students, it is crucial to collect and study actual student data on metrics related to academic performance, behavioral issues, mental and physical health, marijuana and other drug use, and school completion. 

Ohio State Legal Studies Research Paper No. 928,

By Mark S. Brodin

Reflecting back a decade later, what is the legacy of Trayvon Martin’s case, a teenage life violently cut short, and a legal system that accepted his death without consequence? Among other things, there is “The Trayvon Generation,” poet Elizabeth Alexander’s ruminations on the young African Americans who have grown up in the haunting shadow of this killing, and the anguished mothers who cannot protect their children from such a fate. “[T]o African Americans and other racialized minorities, Martin’s death became emblematic of the extreme outcomes of racial profiling enmeshed in a history of criminal laws arbitrarily targeting Black men.”

I begin with a close look at the Zimmerman trial, expanding on my earlier Howard Law Journal article with new access to an official audio-visual transcript. Then I put the case in its historical context by surveying the American tradition of vigilantism and its incarnation in the “neighborhood crime watches” (like Zimmerman’s) that have become so pervasive. Next, I contrast the response of the legal system to black as compared to white self-defense in notable cases. I conclude with an appraisal of our self-defense law -- doctrine and practice -- and the compelling need to reform it in light of what we have learned about implicit bias, unconscious stereotyping, and their role split-second panicked decision-making.

106 Marquette Law Review 593 (2022)

Brandon L. Garrett,  Sandra Guerra Thompson,  Dottie Carmichael,  David Shil & Songman Kang

The highest volume of cases in the U.S. criminal system are misdemeanors, and every day, hundreds of thousands of people are detained pretrial in such low-level cases. In policy and in politics, pretrial rules have swung between a focus on protecting constitutional rights and the public safety dangers posed by releasing arrestees. The Supreme Court’s ruling in United States v. Salerno sought to promote a balance between protecting individual due process rights and public safety interests. A central constitutional and pressing policy question is what trade-off exists between pretrial liberty and reoffending. The highest profile jurisdiction to examine that question is Harris County, Texas, the third largest county in the United States, which has implemented the largest-scale and farthest reaching constitutional remedies in a misdemeanor bail system. In 2019, after years of federal litigation and a preliminary injunction finding pervasive constitutional violations, Harris County entered a Consent Decree requiring comprehensive reform. This Article describes the constitutional remedies this novel Consent Decree set out and the implementation of those remedies. This Article also addresses the central question of bail: whether pretrial release comes at a cost to public safety.

We find that the constitutional rights protections of the Consent Decree appear largely successful in that people are now promptly freed in misdemeanor cases without the requirement that they pay cash bail. More surprising, perhaps, we find that public safety has also powerfully benefited. We describe a steady decline in the numbers of both misdemeanor arrests and rearrests. Few could have predicted with any certainty what the results of this large-scale bail reform would be. The result suggests there is no necessary trade-off between constitutional rights and public safety. These findings have powerful implications for rethinking the structure and application of the Salerno balancing test and for jurisdictions considering wholesale bail reform.