The Standard of Proof of Intellectual Disability in Georgia

2016 ◽  
Vol 27 (3) ◽  
pp. 158-167
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Ricciardelli ◽  
Kevin M. Ayres
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Capital Punishment ◽  
Adaptive Functioning ◽  
The United States ◽  
Convincing Evidence ◽  
The State ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
The U.S

Despite being the first state to abolish the capital punishment of defendants with intellectual disability (ID), Georgia is currently the only state to uphold what is considered to be the most stringent standard of proof of ID in the United States: beyond a reasonable doubt. Other states have implemented less stringent standards of proof (i.e., a preponderance of the evidence and clear and convincing evidence). Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the execution of persons with ID unconstitutional in the 2002 Atkins decision, states are at this juncture considered to have a great deal of discretion in defining what constitutes ID. In addition to raising concerns about the Eighth Amendment’s protection against cruel and unusual punishment, variation between state-determined definitions of ID raises important questions of equal protection of the law. On January 27, 2015, Mr. Warren Lee Hill was executed by method of lethal injection in the state of Georgia after the U.S. Supreme Court denied Mr. Hill’s claim to have met the state’s legal definition of ID beyond a reasonable doubt. This article provides a historical and legislative background for the case of Warren Lee Hill, while examining the definitions of ID (including adaptive functioning) in the legal and clinical arenas. Last, this article will take a critical stance with regard to the current diagnostic criteria being used in the state of Georgia.

scholarly journals A Value-Critical Policy Analysis of Georgia’s Beyond a Reasonable Doubt Standard of Proof of Intellectual Disability

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 56-64
Author(s):  
Lauren A. Ricciardelli ◽  
Kristina Jaskyte
Keyword(s):  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Adaptive Functioning ◽  
Professional Associations ◽  
Reasonable Doubt ◽  
Critical Policy Analysis ◽  
The Public ◽  
Standard Of Proof ◽  
A Value ◽  
Increased Risk ◽  
Critical Policy

The U.S. Supreme Court’s Atkins v. Virginia decision barred the execution of persons with intellectual disability, but provided minimal specification regarding adjudication. One exception to the lack of instruction was the recommendation that states generally conform to accepted clinical practice and norms, positioning professional associations to take an important role in this discourse. This study uses Chambers and Wedel’s value-critical method of analysis to examine the policy element, standard of proof of intellectual disability, within Georgia’s 1988 statute prohibiting the execution of persons with intellectual disability. Owing to the public outcry that followed Georgia’s controversial execution of Jerome Bowden, who evidenced significant impairments in intellectual and adaptive functioning, the 1988 statute was the first in the nation to bar such executions, and predated the Atkins decision by 14 years. However, due to a drafting error, Georgia was also the only state to invoke the highest standard of proof, beyond a reasonable doubt. When states use a standard of proof of intellectual disability that is higher than the lowest standard, a preponderance of the evidence, capital defendants with intellectual disability are at an increased risk for unlawful execution. We present findings and recommendations across the identified analytical contexts.

scholarly journals THE CONCEPT AND THE CONTENT OF THE INTERROGATION OF THE SUSPECT IN CUSTODY IN CRIMINAL PROCEDURE IN THE UNITED STATES

2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (40) ◽  
Author(s):  
Miodrag N. Simović ◽  
Vladimir M. Simović
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Criminal Procedure ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal Courts ◽  
The State ◽  
Constitutional Rights ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Right ◽  
The U.S

The paper analyses some relevant issues related to the treatment oflaw enforcement officers in the United States after a person has been taken intocustody or otherwise deprived of liberty, which requires informing that personof his/her constitutional rights. In the landmark decision Miranda v. Arizona(1966), the Supreme Court of the United States set standards for law enforcementofficers to follow when interrogating suspects held in custody.Suspects who are subject to custodial interrogation must be warned of theirright to remain silent; that any statements they make may be used as evidenceagainst them; that they have a right to an attorney; and if they cannot afford anattorney, the State will assign them one prior to any questioning, if they so wish.According to Miranda, unless those rights are not read, any evidence obtainedduring the interrogation may not be used against the defendant.Ever since Miranda was decided, state and federal courts have struggled witha number of issues with regard to its application, including the suspect’s beingin custody, which entitles the suspect to being readMiranda rights, the suspect’swaiving the right to have an attorney present during questioning. Some decisionsby the U.S. Supreme Court have attempted to answer these difficult questions.

Questions

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Gibson ◽  
Michael J. Nelson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
African Americans ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Public Support ◽  
The United States ◽  
Future Research ◽  
White Americans ◽  
Two Factors ◽  
The U.S

We have investigated the differences in support for the U.S. Supreme Court among black, Hispanic, and white Americans, catalogued the variation in African Americans’ group attachments and experiences with legal authorities, and examined how those latter two factors shape individuals’ support for the U.S. Supreme Court, that Court’s decisions, and for their local legal system. We take this opportunity to weave our findings together, taking stock of what we have learned from our analyses and what seem like fruitful paths for future research. In the process, we revisit Positivity Theory. We present a modified version of the theory that we hope will guide future inquiry on public support for courts, both in the United States and abroad.

scholarly journals Immunizing the Flock: How the Pandemic Court Rewrote Religious Freedom

Laws ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 12
Author(s):  
Paul Baumgardner
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Legal System ◽  
Religious Freedom ◽  
The United States ◽  
Religious Practices ◽  
The Past ◽  
The U.S

When coronavirus began to descend upon the United States, religious freedom advocates across the country sounded the alarm that citizens’ religious practices and institutions were under threat. Although some of the most extreme arguments championed by these advocates were not validated by our legal system, many were. This article explores the underappreciated gains made by religious freedom advocates before the U.S. Supreme Court over the past year. As a result of the “Pandemic Court”, religious freedom in the United States has been rewritten. This promises to radically change the educational, employment, and health prospects of millions of Americans for the rest of the pandemic and long afterwards.

scholarly journals Patterson v. McLean: A Confirmation of the New Right at the U.S. Supreme Court

2005 ◽  
Vol 30 (4) ◽  
pp. 987-1009
Author(s):  
George M. Sullivan
Keyword(s):  
Civil Rights ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
Reagan Administration ◽  
Ronald Reagan ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Elections ◽  
Presidential Appointments ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The U.S

In two consecutive national elections a conservative, Ronald Reagan, was elected President of the United States. When Justice Lewis Powell announced his retirement during the late months of the Reagan administration, it was apparent that the President's last appointment could shift the ideology of the Court to conservatism for the first time since the presidency of Dwight Eisenhower. President Reagan's prior appointments, Sandra Day O'Connor and Antonin Scalia, had joined William Rehnquist, an appointee of President Nixon and Bryon White, an appointee of President Kennedy to comprise a vociferous minority of four in many instances, especially cases involving civil rights. The unexpected opportunity for the appointment of a conservative jurist caused great anxiety in the media and in the U.S. Senate, the later having confirmation power over presidential appointments to the Supreme Court. This article examines the consequences of the Senate's confirmation of Justice Anthony Kennedy to the Supreme Court. The impact, which was immediate and dramatic, indicates that conservative ideology will predominate on major civil rights issues for the remainder of this century.

美國生物科技新專利適格性原則之研究

2020 ◽  
Vol 21 (21) ◽  
pp. 97-160
Author(s):  
李順典 李順典
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Laws Of Nature ◽  
United States Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
Natural Phenomena ◽  
Legal Standards ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
Patent Applications ◽  
Global Strategies ◽  
The U.S

鑑於美國最高法院重新激活了專利適格性標的要件，其認為涉及發明的自然法則、自然現象或抽象概念，除非它們也包含「發明的概念」，否則不具專利適格性，因而引發了巨大爭議。因為新專利適格性原則不當削弱了美國在創新中的領導地位，而且它們已經給美國專利制度注入了巨大的法律不確定性，所以美國應重新思考生物技術產業創新的激勵措施生物技術公司的專利適格性在不同的國家面臨不斷的改變，故必須發展保護生物技術創新的全球策略，可行的發展策略應是根據國家的法律標準申請專利。In view of the United States Supreme Court has reinvigorated the patent-eligible subject matter requirement, holding that inventions directed to laws of nature, natural phenomena, or abstract ideas are not eligible for patenting unless they also contain an ''inventive concept.'' As a result, the Supreme Court has sparked tremendous controversy. Since the new patent eligibility doctrine is undermining U.S. leadership in innovation, so the U.S. shall reconsider the incentives for innovation in the biotechnologyindustry. Biotech companies facing constant changes in patent eligibility in different countries have to develop global strategies for protecting biotechnology innovations, and a recommended strategy is to file patent applications tailored to the legal standards of the countries of interest.

Education and the University of North Carolina Pre-Flight School

Home Front ◽  
2017 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
North Carolina ◽  
Military Training ◽  
The United States ◽  
Colleges And Universities ◽  
The State ◽  
Chapel Hill ◽  
Trained Teachers ◽  
The University ◽  
The U.S

Primary and secondary schools were hard hit by the war, with a dearth of supplies and trained teachers. Many colleges and universities, vacated by men off to war, would have had to close were it not for the U.S. military training units at the schools. Each institution in the state had some sort of government activity on their campuses, but the preeminent center was the Navy Pre-Fight School at UNC-Chapel Hill, where two future presidents of the United States, George H. W. Bush and Gerald Ford trained.

The Reckoning

2021 ◽  
pp. 483-520
Author(s):  
Eric Van Young
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
Mexico City ◽  
The State ◽  
The Other ◽  
Grand Jury ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
The Government ◽  
The U.S

Alamán’s internal self-exile in Mexico City, when he hid for nearly two years only to emerge in 1834, is discussed in as much detail as is possible for a largely undocumented episode. Having left the government along with the other ministers during 1832, he was being pursued by agents of the state and political enemies to stand trial before a congressional grand jury for his involvement in the judicial murder of Vicente Guerrero. The chapter also discusses his cordial relationship with the U.S. envoy who replaced the recalled Joel Poinsett, Anthony Butler. The fall of the Anastasio Bustamante government to an uprising led by Santa Anna is narrated, along with Alamán’s eventual trial, his spirited defense of himself, the intervention of Carlos María de Bustamante (not the president) on his behalf before the Supreme Court, and the ex-minister’s exoneration at the hands of President Santa Anna.

Legislative Department

2020 ◽  
pp. 73-104
Author(s):  
Danny M. Adkison ◽  
Lisa McNair Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Supreme Court ◽  
House Of Representatives ◽  
The State ◽  
Legislative Authority ◽  
The People ◽  
Definition Of ◽  
The Right ◽  
Supreme Court Rulings ◽  
The U.S

This chapter assesses Article V of the Oklahoma constitution, which concerns the legislative department. Section 1 states that “the Legislative authority of the State shall be vested in a Legislature, consisting of a Senate and a House of Representatives.” However, “the people reserve to themselves the power to propose laws and amendments to the Constitution and to enact or reject the same at the polls independent of the Legislature, and also reserve power at their own option to approve or reject at the polls any act of the Legislature.” Section 2 provides for the designation and definition of reserved powers. Initiative means the power of the people to propose bills, and to enact or reject them at the polls. Referendum is the right of the people to have bills passed by the legislature submitted to the voters for their approval. Meanwhile, in May 1964, the Oklahoma constitution was amended to conform to the U.S. Supreme Court rulings. The amendment passed and Sections 9 through 16 were replaced with Sections 9A through 11E. The chapter then details the provisions for the Senate and the House of Representatives.

scholarly journals U.S. Supreme Court Denies Certiorari in Habeas Case Brought by Guantánamo Bay Detainee Challenging His Continuing Detention

2019 ◽  
Vol 113 (4) ◽  
pp. 849-855
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Supreme Court ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Habeas Corpus ◽  
Past Time ◽  
Guantanamo Bay ◽  
The Supreme Court ◽  
September 11 Attacks ◽  
The U.S

On June 10, 2019, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in a case in which the D.C. Circuit held that the United States could continue to detain an individual at Guantánamo Bay until the cessation of the hostilities that justified his initial detention, notwithstanding the extraordinary length of the hostilities to date. The case, Al-Alwi v. Trump, arises from petitioner Moath Hamza Ahmed Al-Alwi's petition for a writ of habeas corpus challenging the legality of his continued detention at the United States Naval Base at Guantánamo Bay. The Supreme Court's denial of certiorari was accompanied by a statement by Justice Breyer observing that “it is past time to confront the difficult question” of how long a detention grounded in the U.S. response to the September 11 attacks can be justified.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document