Dartmouth College Undergraduate Journal of Law Volume 2, Issue 3: Fall 2004

• Does Innocence Matter? The Obstruction of Habeas Corpus Actual Innocence Review
  By Tony Borich
  
  

  The judicial system considers few issues of greater consequence than death penalty capital murder proceedings. This paper examines the current judicial and statutory climate faced by death row inmates, with particular attention paid to the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, which restricts death row inmates' access to habeas corpus, the appeal of last resort. This paper argues that the statute's effects are particularly troubling when exculpatory evidence is discovered following a death row inmate's sentencing.




• Rape Shield Laws: Naming Names
  By Jedidiah I. Sorokin-Altmann '05
  
  

  The question of whether the media can or should publish the names of rape victims is one that is highly controversial in the realms of both criminal and constitutional law. Proponents of rape shield laws argue that naming alleged rape victims in the press further marginalizes them and discourages victims from coming forward. Opponents argue that not naming alleged rape victims in the press gives their allegations a presumption of truth that is potentially unwarranted and unfair to defendants. Wrapped up in the debates are also First Amendment issues: freedom of the press and freedom from prior restraint. In this paper I urge policymakers to re-think the current scope of rape shield laws.




• Necessary Conditions for Justification: Actor Knowledge and a Causal Link between Belief and Action
  By Scott Glabe '06
  
  

  Though unknowing justification defenses are extremely rare, the topic has received extended treatment because of its conceptual interest. After surveying the extensive commentary in the literature, I side with most theorists in concluding that an actor unaware of justificatory circumstances is not justified. Using the conceptual machinery developed through my refutation of unknowing justification, I determine the minimum sufficient relationship between an actor's mental state and justificatory circumstances, a calculation almost uniformly avoided by the same theorists who doggedly debate unknowing justification. In short, if knowledge of justificatory circumstances is required, how strongly must it affect one's reasons for acting? I conclude that an actor is not justified unless he or she would not have perpetrated harm but for justificatory circumstances.




• A Minority View: The Implications of the Shah Bano Decision on Indian Policy toward the Separation of Church and State
  By Amie Sugarman '07
  
  

  Separation of church and state is not an issue limited to the United States. India has faced significant obstacles in determining whether Muslims may establish their own standard of compensation for civil trials, or whether the religious minority should be treated the same as all other Indian citizens. When her husband divorced her in 1975, Shah Bano was paid three hundred dollars, the minimum dowry required by Islamic Law. As the result of an alimony suit in her name, the Supreme Court of India ruled that Muslim women are entitled to the same rights as all other Indian women. The decision enraged many Muslims, who felt the government was meddling with the Islamic community's ability to implement and enforce its religious doctrine. In an attempt to placate discontented Muslims, the Indian Parliament passed the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Divorce) Bill. The legislation, however, only angered conservative Muslims further. Rather than clarifying the extent to which the government can regulate religion, Muslim Personal Law has only blurred the line between church and state jurisdiction.




• A Case for Banning the Imposition of the Death Penalty on Minors
  By Aaron Levenstadt
  
  

  In 2005, the Supreme Court will entertain the case of Roper v. Simmons. In so doing, it will decide whether executing a 17-year-old murderer violates the "cruel and unusual punishment" clause of the Eighth Amendment. The holding in the recent case of Atkins v. Virginia (2002) should guide the Court in Roper. In Atkins, a six-justice majority decided that the degree of culpability attributed to the mentally retarded mind never merits the death penalty. In this paper, I extrapolate critical Atkins' analyses to the juvenile arena. After investigating evolving standards of decency and addressing adolescent developmental deficiencies I conclude that juveniles, like the mentally retarded, should be granted categorical protection from the death penalty.




• Saving the Eastern Timber Wolf: A Legal Analysis of Sierra Club v. Clark
  By Andrea Lauerman '06
  
  

  The dramatic decline of the populations of Eastern Timber Wolves in the Great Lakes region prompted the states of Michigan and Minnesota to bestow endangered species protections on the Timber Wolf in addition to the already existing Federal protections. However, in 1983, the state of Minnesota attempted to modify these laws to increase the legal takings of the Timber Wolf. The Sierra Club sued the Secretary of the Interior of Minnesota arguing that the state would be in violation of the United States Endangered Species act if the new regulations were implemented. The court determined that the new regulations did, in fact, violate the US Endangered Species Act. Due to the court's careful consideration of the Endangered Species Act and other, related cases, the decision made a progressive step towards resolving the many problematic ambiguities within the Endangered Species Act.

Back to Dartmouth Journal of Law Home Page