Showing papers on "Supreme Court Decisions published in 1985"

Quality and Cost Comparisons of Private Bar Indigent Defense Systems: Contract vs. Ordered Assigned Counsel

Abstract: The Supreme Court decisions of Powell v. Alabama,' Gideon v. Wainwright2 and Argersinger v. Hamlin3 have had tremendous impact on the operation of the state criminal courts. These decisions have forced jurisdictions to broaden the right to counsel during adjudication and to establish some systematic organization for providing representation for indigent defendants. Other Supreme Court rulings have extended the right to counsel for indigents in arraignment4 and sentencing hearings.5 A number of studies have explored the quality of defense provided by various types of indigent defense systems. The majority of this research has compared the consequences of defense by a public defender with those of defense provided by privately retained counsel. Often research has concluded that private counsel obtain superior outcomes for the defendant.6 Joyce Sterling notes, however,

Prison Overcrowding and the Law

Abstract: This article traces and analyzes the history of prison- and jail-crowding litigation in the federal courts since the 1960s. While prisoners and pretrial detainees have won many victories, the doctrinal basis for a constitutional right to uncrowded incarceration facilities remains unclear and is still evolving. Despite several recent Supreme Court decisions unfavorable to inmates, there has been no rejection of the principles (1) that the totality of conditions in prison—including crowding—must not amount to cruel and unusual punishment and (2) that jail crowding cannot be permitted to impose genuine privations over an extended period of time. In order to enforce the decrees outlawing overcrowding, judges have had to search for creative enforcement techniques. Many of these techniques are controversial and their effectiveness is disputed. The courts have forced the other branches of government to face up to crowded prisons and jails, and they have helped to ameliorate the suffering and deprivations that th...

Killing with kindness: why the FDA need not certify drugs used for execution safe and effective.

Abstract: In 1977, Texas and Oklahoma became the first states to legalize administration of the death penalty by lethal injection; by late 1985, 14 other states had followed suit. Opponents of the death penalty petitioned the Food and Drug Administration in 1980 to declare drugs specified for use in executions as \"not approved,\" and to prevent their use for that purpose. When the FDA denied their request, the petitioners took legal action against the agency, eventually arguing their case before the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled against them in Heckler v. Chaney (1985). Annas discusses the Court's action, which dealt only with the judicial reviewability under federal statute of the FDA's decision not to exercise its authority over the use of drugs in interstate commerce. He notes that, by dealing only with procedural issues, the Court avoided ruling on the death penalty itself.

Children's legal rights as research subjects.

Abstract: The legal and ethical issues surrounding the participation of children as research subjects, and as patients in other clinical circumstances, are examined. Particular attention is given to the issue of informed consent and to Supreme Court decisions relevant to the question of when a minor child may make decisions affecting his or her physical integrity. A proposal is developed concerning the participation of the minor child in the informed consent decision based on the regulatory background and these Supreme Court decisions. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry , 24, 5:653–662, 1985.

Suits Against Federal Employees for Constitutional Violations: A Search for Reasonableness

Abstract: The United States Supreme Court decided in 1971 that individual federal officials may be sued for alleged violations of citizens' constitutional rights. Before that, federal employees could not personally be sued for actions taken within the scope of their jobs. Now concern is growing that such litigation may be having significant unintended consequences. In addition, questions are being raised about the effectiveness of litigation which targets individual federal employees as the primary method of vindicating citizens' civil rights. Thousands of federal employees are involved in such litigation, and their personal financial resources are at risk, raising several issues of appropriateness of this avenue of redress. Policy makers in the executive branch and Congress, and increasingly, the courts themselves, are voicing perceptions of significant damage to the public service and to the ability and willingness of civil servants to incur the inevitable risks involved in the execution of public policy. To address these issues, several recent court decisions attempt to place boundaries on the exposure to litigation faced by individual employees. However, other decisions may serve to expand federal employee liability. The present situation is a marked transformation from the days of sovereign immunity, when government and its agents could do no wrong, and no remedy at law existed for damages suffered by individual citizens. Yet, if public employees are to be held formally accountable for the protection of citizens' constitutional rights, any system instituted to accomplish such purpose should also respect the rights of public employees. After all, in performing their duties, federal employees do not act as private parties but are responsible for fulfilling public purposes. The thesis of this paper is that this judicially created method for protecting citizens' rights has not resulted in the consequences intended, and that recent Supreme Court decisions are attempts to ameliorate the primary results of this approach, which were largely unintended by the court. The argument here is that an alternative framework is needed to guide both citizens and federal employees. One problem experienced in addressing these questions is that neither the courts nor Congress have had broad-based data to examine actual federal experience

The supreme court, family policy, and alternative family lifestyles: The clash of interests

Abstract: This article reviews the basis for the judicial system's involvement in the development of national family policy. Major Supreme Court decisions in establishing the rights of the nuclear family, the extended family, foster families, communal families, homosexual couples, and unwed fathers are discussed. The Supreme Court is seen as having established the parameters of a nationally definedfamily, and the implications of the court's actions for the development of national family policy are considered.

An historical view of right to treatment.

Abstract: The patient's right to treatment is a clear mandate from the Supreme Court that the providers of mental health care must provide treatment. Important Supreme Court decisions have influenced the way in which professional nurses determine what constitutes adequate treatment on an individualized basis. Individualized treatment planning is rooted in meeting legal, regulatory, and funding requirements. The professional nurse is in a unique position to assess the patient's needs and to plan with others how those needs can best be met. Paraprofessional staff may implement those parts of the plan that do not require the direct intervention of the professional nurse. The technicians provide the daily care under the supervision and direction of the professional nurse. However, it is the professional psychiatric nurse who plays a critical role in providing active psychiatric treatment, who determines the nursing component of the treatment plan on an individualized basis, and who monitors the patient's environment, thus safe-guarding the legal rights of the mentally ill.

EXECUTING YOUTHFUL OFFENDERS: THE UNANSWERED QUESTION IN EDDINGS v. OKLAHOMA

Abstract: The juvenile justice system was created to “treat” and to ”rehabilitate” the juvenile offender. But transfers to the adult criminal system allows for juvenile offenders to receive the death penalty for capital crimes. This Note examines the theories of punishment underlying the death penalty, briefly discusses the creation of the juvenile court system and the mechanism of juvenile transfer. This Note then discusses the development of the death penalty by examining Supreme Court cases which have considered state laws challenged under the eighth amendment as forms of cruel and unusual punishment. Supreme Court decisions which have extended constitutional guarantees to minors in the areas of criminal prosecutions and privacy rights also are examined. The decision of the Court in Eddings v. Oklahoma is then analyzed as with the conflicting state and federal decisions and capital punishment statutes. Finally, this Note proposes a model amendment to existing death penalty statutes which prohibits capital punishment of juveniles.

Heckler v. Chaney: judicial and administrative regulation of capital punishment by lethal injection.

Abstract: Capital punishment by lethal injection, which was expected to be the most safe and effective of available methods, can produce unusually cruel and inhuman death. In Heckler v. Chaney, inmates sentenced to death by lethal injection, as well as members of both the medical and legal communities, challenged the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) refusal to regulate certain drugs used for capital punishment by lethal injection. By declining to review the FDA's nonenforcement decision, the Supreme Court also declined an opportunity to reevaluate its standard for determining cruel and unusual punishment, which upholds any method of execution that is no more unusually cruel than existing methods. This Comment examines the propriety of judicial and administrative regulation of capital punishment by lethal injection.

The Use of Public Funds for Private Education.

Abstract: use of public funds to assist pupils attending religious schools has generated legal controversies for over three decades. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of Supreme Court action pertaining to governmental aid to sectarian schools and/or students, with particular emphasis on the implications of the most recent Supreme Court decisions in this arena. The central constitutional question involved in public aid to private education is whether such assistance violates the establishment clause of the First Amendment which bars governmental action "respecting an establishment of religion." Some of the most significant Supreme Court decisions interpreting the establishment clause have pertained to the use of public funds for private primarily sectarian education. Indeed, since 1970 there regularly has been at least one case involving state aid to nonpublic schools on the Supreme Court's docket.