Sidebar Publishes Response to Heinous, Atrocious and Cruel: Apprendi, Indeterminate Sentencing, and the Meaning of Punishment
posted by Columbia Law Review
Columbia Law Review’s Sidebar is pleased to announce the publication of a response to W. David Ball’s article Heinous, Atrocious, and Cruel: Apprendi, Indeterminate Sentencing, and the Meaning of Punishment by Professor Berman of Ohio State University’s Moritz College of Law.
In his article Ball explores the ramifications of Apprendi for indeterminate sentencing systems where parole boards may deny parole based on their findings of fact about the original crime, even when these findings contradict the jury’s. Ball argues that while parole boards may be competent to make factual determinations about a prisoner’s rehabilitation, juries, as the moral representatives of the community, must find facts related to retribution.
In his response, Professor Berman challenges the idea that modern juries can act as the conscience of the community. He points out that the vast majority of criminal cases never reach a jury and that restrictions on juries prevent them from being able to effectively express moral condemnation through their findings. Professor Berman argues instead that in order to develop sound procedural rules for sentencing we must pay greater attention to rights other than the jury right.
July 2, 2009 at 9:39 am
Posted in: Law Rev (Columbia), Law Rev Forum
Print This Post
Leave a Reply