抓取时间:2014年11月13日 19:20:15
网址:http://www.arizonalawreview.org/
标题:Arizona Law Review | The University of Arizona
关键字:
描述:Two of the most high-profile decisions in the Supreme Court’s October 2010 term were clear victories for freedom of speech. In Snyder v. Phelps, the Court ...
主体:

Arizona Law ReviewSkip to contentHomeAboutSubmissionsAlumniMembersWrite-On CompetitionContactNewsletterSupportSyllabusVolume 56, Issue 3Family-Driven JusticeNeelum Arya | 56 Ariz. L. Rev. 623 (2014)This Article reports the results of a qualitative research study identifying best practices for family engagement in the juvenile justice system. The typical system operates from the faulty premise that families cause their children’s problems. As a result, decisions about treatments or sanctions for youth routinely fail to incorporate family members’ views about how best to address a youth’s needs. Instead, system professionals make decisions that expose youth to treatments and environments that increase recidivism and place youth at a high risk of being abused. Victims, youth, families, and system professionals all lose under the current model. The goal of this study was to develop a shared understanding of how to reform justice systems to meet the needs of youth and families without sacrificing the public safety concerns of justice system professionals and victims.Synthesizing efforts from jurisdictions across the country, this Article proposes a radical transformation of the justice system and introduces a concept called Family-Driven Justice. The foundational values of this transformation are: all families care about their children and can be trusted to make good decisions on their behalf; all families have strengths to build upon; all families want their children to grow up safe and free from justice-system involvement; and all families have dreams for their children and want them to succeed in adult life.Article| View PDF“I Messed Up Bad”: Lessons on the Confrontation Clause from the Annie Dookhan ScandalSean K. Driscoll | 56 Ariz. L. Rev. 707 (2014)In September 2012, scandal broke at the Massachusetts state crime laboratory: Annie Dookhan, a chemist at the lab, was arrested for falsifying thousands of drug test results. Amazingly, her misconduct had gone undiscovered for nine years, despite the fact that she testified–and was cross-examined–in at least 150 trials. Tens of thousands of prosecutions were jeopardized, and scores of appeals filed. But beyond the immediate fallout, Dookhan’s misconduct raises a bigger question: Is cross-examination of laboratory analysts–a right conferred by the Supreme Court’s 2009 decision in Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts–effective at discovering misconduct in forensic testing, or merely a hollow right for defendants that imposes substantial costs on prosecutors? This Article examines the Dookhan scandal, arguing that it showcases the shortcomings of Melendez-Diaz, and proposes a new rule favoring the retesting of forensic evidence over needless cross-examination.Article| View PDFAnti-WasteMichael Pappas | 56 Ariz. L. Rev. 741 (2014)It may be a bad idea to waste resources, but is it illegal? Legally speaking, what does “waste” even mean? Though the concept may appear completely