Please Join Us for the 2015 ABA CJS Work-in-Progress Roundtables
Once again, the ABA
Criminal Justice Section Academics Committee will host work-in-progress
roundtables at the annual Criminal Justice Section Fall Institute in
Washington, DC. The roundtables will be held on Thursday, October 22, 2015 from
12:30-3:00pm at the Loews Madison Hotel, and the ABA will provide
sandwiches and drinks for lunch. The rest of the CJS Fall
Institute programs will take place later in the day on Thursday, October 22 and
on Friday, October 23 at the same hotel. The entire ABA CJS Fall Institute
Program is available here.
We
hope you will consider workshopping your criminal justice works-in-progress at
these roundtables. Participants will present their work in a roundtable
format, and abstracts or drafts will be shared among presenters and discussants
in advance of the workshop. If you’re interested in participating, please email
an abstract of your paper of no more than 500 words to Lucian Dervan at ldervan@law.siu.edu by Sept. 15, 2015.
Space is limited, and presenters will be chosen by members of the
organizing committee.
This
is an excellent opportunity for academics at any stage of their careers, and
for those who would like to transition to academia, to workshop pieces at an
early stage of development or obtain feedback on more developed pieces.
Workshop presenters will be responsible for their own travel and hotel costs,
but there is no registration fee for participating in the roundtables.
If you decide to participate in the remainder of the ABA CJS Fall Institute,
you will need to register for that event separately – see here
for registration information.
We are also
excited to note that this year’s workshop will begin with a brief opening
address by Professor Stephen A. Saltzburg of the George Washington University
Law School. Professor Saltzburg will discuss how to create and execute a
productive and impactful research agenda. Professor Saltzburg is one of
the nation’s leading scholars and has authored over twenty books and over 100
articles. Professor Saltzburg’s talk is not to be missed.
The
Criminal Justice Section has secured a special room rate of $269 single/double
per night at the Lowes Madison Hotel. This rate can be reserved by
calling 855-255-6397 and referring to the “ABA Criminal Justice Section Fall
Institute.” You can also book using this code online at https://www.loewshotels.com/madison/CJS-Fall-Institute-Meeting-2015?corpcode=CJSO21.
Reservations must be made by Thursday, October 1, 2015 at 5:00pm EST to secure
this rate.
Please
spread the word to those who might be interested, including those not yet in
academia. We have included below some information regarding last year’s
workshop. We hope to see everyone in D.C. at the end of October.
All
the best,
Lucian
E.
Dervan (SIU Law) and Meghan J. Ryan (SMU Law)
Co-Chairs, ABA CJS Academics Committee
Information
Regarding Last Year’s Roundtable
On
October 23, 2014, the ABA Criminal Justice Section Academics Committee hosted
academic roundtables at the ABA Criminal Justice Section Seventh Annual Fall
Institute. At these roundtables, scholars from across the country discussed
papers on topics ranging from big data’s effect on jury selection to whether
second-look sentencing is consistent with the asserted purposes of the Model
Penal Code. Participants in the academic roundtables included Joanmarie Davoli
(Florida Coastal, now Fed. Soc.), Cara Drinan (Catholic), Andrew Ferguson (Univ. of D.C.), Lea Johnston (Florida),
Kevin
Lapp (Loyola LA), Ion
Meyn (Wisconsin), Steve
Morrison (North Dakota), Anthony
O’Rourke (Buffalo), and Meghan Ryan
(SMU).
Here
is a sampling of the great work they presented:
The Miller Revolution, by Cara
Drinan (forthcoming in the Iowa L. Rev.)
In a series of cases culminating in Miller v. Alabama,
the United States Supreme Court has limited the extent to which juveniles may
be exposed to the harshest criminal sentences. In this Article, I argue
that the Miller trilogy has revolutionized juvenile justice. While we
have begun to see only the most inchoate signs of this revolution in practice,
this Article endeavors to describe what this revolution may look like both in
the immediate term and in years to come. Part I demonstrates how the United States
went from being the leader in progressive juvenile justice to being an
international outlier in the severity of its juvenile sentencing. Part II
examines the Miller decision, as well as its immediate predecessor cases, and
explains why Miller demands a capacious reading. Part III explores the
post-Miller revolution in juvenile justice that is afoot. Specifically, Part
III makes the case for two immediate corollaries that flow from Miller, each of
which is groundbreaking in its own right: 1) the creation of procedural
safeguards for juveniles facing life without parole (“LWOP”) comparable to
those recommended for adults facing the death penalty; and 2) the elimination
of mandatory minimums for juveniles altogether. Finally, Part III identifies
ways in which juvenile justice advocates can leverage the moral leadership of
the Miller Court to seek future reform in three key areas: juvenile transfer
laws; presumptive sentencing guidelines as they apply to children; and juvenile
conditions of confinement.
Strictissimi
Juris,
by Steve Morrison (67 Ala. L. Rev.
__ (forthcoming 2015), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2535115)
Guilt
by association is universally rejected, but its criticisms are always based on
the substantive due process right to individual, not imputed, liability.
The rule of strictissimi juris promises to be the procedural counterpart to the
substantive right. Its promise, however, has gone unfulfilled because it
is little understood or developed. This article provides a descriptive,
prescriptive, and contextual dissertation on strictissimi juris.
Descriptively, it provides the jurisprudential foundation and definition of
strictissimi juris. Prescriptively, it sets forth the purposes for which
lawyers and courts have invoked strictissimi juris, thus providing a guide for
how future lawyers might invoke strictissimi juris, and courts apply it.
Contextually, it analogizes strictissimi juris to substantive canons that play
important roles in the separation of powers.
Comments