Multiple Punishment Research Articles

The Multiple Punishment of Being an Older Adult Coping With Health Problems in Prison.

Studies have examined the vulnerabilities and the extent of health problems experienced by the older adult population in prison. However, reports about the subjective experiences of incarcerated older adults who are coping with health problems are scarce. This is alarming since older adults comprise the fastest-growing demographic in the prison systems of the United States and Europe. The aim of the current study was to bring forth the voices of older adults who are living with diseases in prison and to outline the landscape of struggling with everyday health care management. An interpretive phenomenological analysis was used to analyze the narratives of 23 individuals aged 60-88 who were coping with health problems in prison. The narratives revealed 3 major themes: (1) living day to day with illness in prison: fighting prison bureaucracy and public humiliation; (2) coping with complex medical issues: lack of professional medical care and cumulative problems, and (3) what does the future hold? Fear of living with illness out of prison. Intersectionality was used as a conceptual framework for understanding the participants' narratives. The cumulative effect of belonging to systematically oppressed and marginalized groups is discussed. The research findings point to issues and experiences that are unique to older adults coping with health problems in prison and can serve as a framework for developing tailored interventions for these individuals.

An Examination of the Punitive Blindness of Asael in Light of the Triadic Relationship between Sight, Light, and Knowledge

Abstract The Book of the Watchers (1 Enoch 1–36; = BW) features Asael as the culprit who illicitly distributed forbidden knowledge to the mortals. In retaliation, God rendered multiple punishments, one of which was the targeting of Asael’s sight (10:5). However, the text itself does not explain why God chose to inflict this form of penalty. This article aims to fill in this literary lacuna in light of the triadic association between sight, light, and knowledge – an association that was widely known in antiquity. This undertaking suggests that the particular offense of the Watchers, including Asael, described in 16:3 (i.e., misusing sight and light in knowledge acquisition) is critical to understanding Asael’s optical sentence. Ultimately, BW demonstrates a talionic correspondence between Asael’s sin and sentence.

Late Roman Law and the Quranic Punishments for Adultery

Late Roman Law and the Quranic Punishments for Adultery

Punishment on arrival: New Zealand’s Returning Offenders Act 2015

Australia’s detention-deportation regime is setting the agenda for New Zealand’s domestic criminal justice system, with implications for criminological understandings of ‘crimmigration’ and ‘bordered penality’. In response to recent changes in Australian migration law which have seen an increased number of deportations to Aotearoa New Zealand, the New Zealand government introduced legislation, the Returning Offenders (Management and Information) (“ROMI”) Act 2015, which created a monitoring regime for returning New Zealanders convicted of criminal offending in an overseas jurisdiction. The sentence an individual is subject to in Australia is extended, both geographically and temporally, creating multiple punishments for this particular group of offenders. While ostensibly modelled from domestic parole arrangements, in practice the ROMI regime entails greater restriction while offering less in the way of legal protection. The differential treatment of returning New Zealanders is sustained through their discursive construction as both “criminals” and de facto “aliens”. By treating returnees as threatening outsiders to be contained, rather than vulnerable people to be supported, the New Zealand state also extends the risk logics underpinning the Australian regime. Although the ROMI Act is novel, the regime conforms to the racialised patterns of exclusion and criminalisation which have persisted in Aotearoa New Zealand since colonisation.

How do the estimated motives of punishers affect their reputation? An examination using multiple punishment types

How do the estimated motives of punishers affect their reputation? An examination using multiple punishment types

Liability for environmental crimes in the non bis in idem principle context

In light of the social need for the humanization of criminal policy, annually confirmed by the supreme authorities of the state, the specialized literature has updated the topic related to the prohibition of double jeopardy (it protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after acquittal, against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction and against multiple punishments for the same offense). This issue is analyzed by researchers in the context of the «non bis in idem» principle, which has received regulation both in the norms of national and international law. An analysis of the law enforcement practice of the judiciary in considering criminal cases on the fact of violation of public relations in the field of environmental protection (Chapter 26 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) indicates the permissibility of double, and in some cases triple, intersectoral liability of the perpetrator of crimes. It seems that the legitimacy and the possibility of deprivation and legal restrictions in relation to citizens have been found guilty of committing a crime and who have served the sentence imposed by the court in full does not correspond to the principle of “non bis in idem”, which actualizes the chosen research topic.

Expanding crimmigration: The detention and deportation of New Zealanders from Australia

The significant concept of ‘crimmigration’ has evolved to explain how criminal and immigration laws have begun to merge, expanding state powers to surveil, control and punish. States use crimmigration processes to reinforce cultural, political and moral boundaries. In doing so, states frequently displace principles of punishment or rights in favour of promoting compliance, security or belonging. In relation to the case of New Zealanders detained–deported from Australia, this article illustrates new forms of crimmigration. First, crimmigration is expanding in a context of neoliberal responsibilization. Given the gradual removal of economic supports or political inclusion, ‘non-citizens’ share a deeply precarious space, and more groups are being made ‘at risk’ of crimmigration interventions. Once likely to focus upon certain populations, especially on ‘race’ or nationality grounds, crimmigration now engages all ‘non-citizens’. Second, crimmigration has expanded to include pre-emption – ‘non-citizens’ are targeted not just on account of their criminal behaviours but also their perceived associations, ‘risky’ behaviours or suspicious associations. Finally, and third, crimmigration strategies have expanded across borders, in ways that fundamentally distort established legal principles on the ever-shifting grounds of security. The contagion of crimmigration creates multiple punishments for ‘non-citizens’ that far surpass the nature of their offending or their ‘risk’ to society.

Respect ne bis in idem principle of the trial for similar criminal offenses and misdemeanors

This paper examines influence of attitude about multiple punishment for similar criminal offenses and possible violation of prohibition of double jeopardy (ne bis in idem). The concept of multiple punishment is represented in the criminal legislation of the Republic of Serbia. This concept is contrary to the recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights. Therefore, the author analyzes the Serbian legislation and suggests ways to solve the problem in practice. The author suggests that in the future in law need to be better to separate the descriptions of similar crimes and misdemeanors, especially against public order and peace. The author suggests ways in which can be applied the relevant state authorities (police, other government bodies, courts) in order to avoid violation of procedural ne bis in idem principle.

Losing the Polestar of Legislative Intent in Double Jeopardy Multiple Punishment: Adopting a Modification to Blockburger’s Abstract Elements Test

As the United States Supreme Court continues to apply Blockburger ambiguously in the context of vague statutes to determine whether two offenses are the “same offense” under the Fifth Amendment, a rift in multiple punishment jurisprudence is developing amongst state supreme and federal circuit courts as to whether Blockburger has been modified. The modified Blockburger approach takes the position that Blockburger should not be applied so strictly in the context of vague statutes, and that resort must be had to the prosecution’s legal theory of the case, which includes facts or evidence as alleged, to determine whether one offense requires proof of evidence the other does not. When courts realize that the modification is an exception to Blockburger and not a replacement, it is clear that the modification is not a deviation from federal law, but a solution to it that is implicit in U.S. Supreme Court jurisprudence. More importantly, the modified approach puts the analysis back on its proper track of determining legislative intent, rather than turning on mere accidents of words. The states should follow New Mexico’s adoption of the modification as a shining example of how to interpret the federal jurisprudence, and federal courts should expressly recognize that their jurisprudence does lead to the conclusion that the abstract elements test of Blockburger, without using the legal theory of the prosecution for vague statutes, is not logically or practically sound. This article clarifies the debate surrounding the scope of Blockburger and argues that the modification fits comfortably with Blockburger and the principles of the Fifth Amendment.

Cyber Thieves in Online Casinos: Applying Real-World Laws to Virtual Acts

Theft in online casinos is both prevalent and easy, and there are multiple ways punishment and civil relief might be sought for online theft, but the actors involved are unlikely to sufficiently help. While no solution solves all of the problems, something must be done to protect online gamblers – especially prior to making online gambling legal. Otherwise, even legal online gamblers may often be left without a remedy.

Cooperation Norms in Multiple‐Stage Punishment

AbstractWe analyze the interplay between cooperation norms and people’s punishment behavior in a social‐dilemma game with multiple punishment stages. By combining multiple punishment stages with self‐contained episodes of interaction, we are able to disentangle the effects of retaliation and norm‐related punishment. An additional treatment provides information on the norms bystanders use in judging punishment actions. Partly confirming previous findings, punishment behavior and bystanders’ opinions are guided by an absolute norm. This norm is consistent over decisions and punishment stages and requires full contributions. In the first punishment stage, our results suggest a higher personal involvement of punishers, leading to a nonlinearity defined by the punishers’ contribution. In later punishment stages, the personal‐involvement effect vanishes and retaliation kicks in. Bystanders generally apply the same criteria as punishers in all stages.

Indiana Constitutional Developments: A Quiet Year

The most noteworthy aspect of developments in Indiana constitutional law during the survey period may be the absence of truly noteworthy developments. In the eight years the Indiana Law Review has surveyed this subject, this year had the fewest significant decisions to report. As in recent years, Indiana’s appellate courts have continued to refine unique state constitutional doctrines in areas such as search and seizure and multiple punishments double jeopardy, but no blockbuster cases arose in those areas. Nor were there many significant cases in other areas of state constitutional jurisprudence.

Cooperation Norms in Multiple-Stage Punishment

Carpenter and Matthews (2009) examine the cooperation norms determining people's punishment behavior in a social-dilemma game. Their findings are striking: absolute norms outperform the relative norms commonly regarded as the determinants of punishment. Using multiple punishment stages and self-contained episodes of interaction, we disentangle the effects of retaliation and norm-related punishment. An additional treatment provides data on the norms bystanders use in judging punishment actions. Our results partly confirm the findings of Carpenter and Matthews: only for the punishment-related decisions in the first iteration is the absolute norm outperformed by the self-referential norm set by the punisher's own contribution. For the decisions in all later iterations, as well as for bystanders' support in all iterations, the absolute norm organizes our data best. In contrast to the study by Carpenter and Matthews, we find an absolute norm of 3=4 of players' endowments to be both consistent across decisions and relatively stable over time.

Mass Legal Executions of Blacks in the United States, 17th-20th Centuries

Throughout history, governments have sometimes executed persons in groups for the same offense. The United States has done less of it than most, with or without due process. But although never numerous, a look at an unstudied aspect of both multiple homicide and capital punishment showed the occurrence of posttrial mass executions—four or more persons for the same incident—interesting for what they tell about the social climate of the eras in which they occurred, particularly regarding the place of Blacks in society. Before the end of slavery, more than half of the mass legal executions were of Blacks, generally for slave revolts. After that, Blacks were still disproportionately involved relative to population, accounting for one third of those executed. Counting mass lynchings would probably raise the percentage toward that in the pre-1866 era and to the percentage of Blacks legally executed overall.

Enduring Principles and Current Crises in Constitutional Criminal Procedure

Akhil Amar informs his readers that he will attempt to analyze the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments from the perspectives of text, history, and structure, in order to lay bare their first principles. The first principle is summed up concisely: the Constitution seeks to protect the innocent. My Review Essay will show that Amar's vision of the animating principle behind the Bill of Rights is myopic and his analysis fails to mesh with the empirical world of criminal law practice. My critique breaks down into two general categories. The first concerns his legal and historical analysis. History and wisdom indicate that Amar's animating principle -- the pursuit of truth -- is not the only, or even, perhaps, the most important, principle at work in the Bill of Rights. For example, Amar may be accurate in stating that warrantless searches were not a concern of the framers when the Fourth Amendment was adopted. However, to conclude from this that the Court's current warrant preference is backwards ignores the fact that only a warrant or well delineated exception can effectuate the values underlying the Amendment under current social conditions. This is because the Fourth Amendment was not designed primarily to protect the innocent, but was instead a profoundly anti-government amendment designed to control governmental power. The second category of criticisms I will level concerns whether Amar's suggested reforms will actually take us any closer to his first principle, protecting the innocent, or to others primary principles in the Bill of Rights, such as fairness and equality. I conclude that his suggestions will do neither. For example, elimination of the exclusionary sanction will do little to ensure reliable convictions, as only a small fraction of guilty defendants are released on this basis. However, it will ensure that police officers lack guidance on how to conduct a lawful search, and that minorities and disfavored groups disproportionately suffer from harassment by law enforcement officers. In actuality, the bulk of miscarriages of justice are produced not from any constitutional jurisprudence that Amar will reform, but rather through inaccurate eyewitness testimony, high pressure plea bargaining, defendants' inability to obtain exculpatory evidence from the government, lack of funding for criminal defense attorneys, defendants' inability to adequately investigate the facts, and vague and malleable criminal laws. Yet both Amar and the Court have failed to suggest any clause of our constitution as a remedy for these serious failings. Finally, Amar's proposed first principle fails to address some of the most significant issues in constitutional criminal procedure. These problems, in what I consider to be descending order of importance, concern race relations in law enforcement and the Court's unwillingness to extend either Equal Protection or Fourth Amendment protection to minorities in any useful manner; the ongoing collapse of the criminal/civil divide, rendering the application of the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments uncertain; and the excessive and multiple punishments inflicted upon defendants from the combination of federal and state criminal statutory explosions and the lack of any viable protection under present Fifth Amendment Double Jeopardy and Eighth Amendment Excessive Fines and Cruel & Unusual Punishment jurisprudence.

Continuing Criminal Enterprise, Conspiracy, and the Multiple Punishment Doctrine

Continuing Criminal Enterprise, Conspiracy, and the Multiple Punishment Doctrine

Civil Sanctions and the Double Jeopardy Clause: Applying the Multiple Punishment Doctrine to Parallel Proceedings after United States v. Halper

Civil Sanctions and the Double Jeopardy Clause: Applying the Multiple Punishment Doctrine to Parallel Proceedings after United States v. Halper

Multiple 5-HT systems and multiple punishment processes

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

Resentencing Defendants and the Protection against Multiple Punishment

It has been said that trouble seldom comes singly for the criminal defendant.' At trial she is often faced with a number of separate criminal charges. When such a defendant is convicted and sentenced, an appeal may result in the reversal of some but not all of the counts. The sentences attached to the reversed counts necessarily fall as well. Under these circumstances, the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Sixth, and Seventh Circuits have held that the constitutional guarantee against double jeopardy2 does not preclude vacating the sentences on the remaining counts and remanding the case to the trial court for resentencing-expressly allowing for an increase of the sentences on the affirmed counts.3 Thus, in United States v.

Multiple Punishment and Consecutive Sentences: Reflections on the Neal Doctrine

Multiple Punishment and Consecutive Sentences: Reflections on the Neal Doctrine