Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2474497411> ?p ?o ?g. }
Showing items 1 to 72 of
72
with 100 items per page.
- W2474497411 endingPage "141" @default.
- W2474497411 startingPage "135" @default.
- W2474497411 abstract "The background to Clark v. Arizona is fully described in Professor Peter Westen’s companion article in this issue, of which I assume the reader is aware. As Professor Westen correctly points out, and I will pursue no further, the Court could have said, but did not, something of significance concerning the constitutional stature of the various ways in which the states and the federal government regulate defensive claims of mental illness and the related concepts of diminished responsibility and capacity. Professor Westen is also correct in pointing out that the Court could have said, but did not, something interestingBand as I discuss below enormously disrupting (by encouraging federal court review of state court inferential practices)Babout constitutional limits on state evidentiary rules. Unlike Professor Westen, though, I think the Court actually did what it purported to do, which is to hold that the exclusion of evidence in this case on certain issues was not sufficiently unreasonable or ill justified to amount to a due process violation. The case, in short, is directly about lousy evidence, and indirectly about the level of constitutional scrutiny to be given to such exclusion. However, what should have been a direct and easy to write opinion upholding the exclusion of lousy evidence is instead tortured and peculiar, much ado about nothing very much really. Interestingly, many of the Court=s opinions dealing with constitutional aspects of substantive criminal law generally and discrete evidentiary problems within that set are tortured and peculiar, which poses the question why this might be so. I have a hypothesis. Both the substantive criminal law and the inferential process are sprawling and complex, and thus defy regulation by simple constitutional rules of the type the Court perceives itself as being in existence to provide. This is especially true of the inferential process. The drawing of inferences can be as complex as the experiential base of the person drawing the inference. No a priori set of rules will predict or guide such a process very well. Every case is unique, and what might be a reasonable inference in one case may not be in an only slightly different case. This sets up an enormous dilemma. Plainly, drawing correct inferences (getting to the" @default.
- W2474497411 created "2016-07-22" @default.
- W2474497411 creator A5032441405 @default.
- W2474497411 date "2006-01-01" @default.
- W2474497411 modified "2023-09-25" @default.
- W2474497411 title "Clark v. Arizona: Much (Confused) Ado About Nothing" @default.
- W2474497411 hasPublicationYear "2006" @default.
- W2474497411 type Work @default.
- W2474497411 sameAs 2474497411 @default.
- W2474497411 citedByCount "0" @default.
- W2474497411 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
- W2474497411 hasAuthorship W2474497411A5032441405 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C111472728 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C11413529 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C136815107 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C138885662 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C144024400 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C18650270 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C190253527 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C2778137410 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C41895202 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConcept C48103436 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C111472728 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C11413529 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C136815107 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C138885662 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C144024400 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C17744445 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C18650270 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C190253527 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C199539241 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C2776050585 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C2778137410 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C2778272461 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C41008148 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C41895202 @default.
- W2474497411 hasConceptScore W2474497411C48103436 @default.
- W2474497411 hasLocation W24744974111 @default.
- W2474497411 hasOpenAccess W2474497411 @default.
- W2474497411 hasPrimaryLocation W24744974111 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W1573234990 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W167709108 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W1969180512 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W1994303788 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2001987112 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2081685826 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2227265678 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2296402741 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2317787259 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2529970400 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2611845919 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W2922621338 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W3121137168 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W3121813871 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W3122401348 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W3123061679 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W3123270508 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W321381592 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W208385589 @default.
- W2474497411 hasRelatedWork W3124297055 @default.
- W2474497411 hasVolume "4" @default.
- W2474497411 isParatext "false" @default.
- W2474497411 isRetracted "false" @default.
- W2474497411 magId "2474497411" @default.
- W2474497411 workType "article" @default.