FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W81422380> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W81422380 startingPage "167" @default.
• W81422380 abstract "I. INTRODUCTION The Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall be subject for the same offence to be put in of life or limb.' To the layperson twice put in jeopardy means tried. The Supreme Court has firmly established, however, that the Double Jeopardy Clause targets two kinds of multiplicity: multiple prosecutions and multiple punishments.2 The right against multiple punishments less commonly understood than the right against multiple prosecutions. What does it mean to be punished for the same offense? What the evil that the right guards against? The Court appears to have defined the prohibition in two ways. For years, it explained the right as a guarantee that defendants will suffer no greater punishment than that authorized by the legislature.3 The idea underlying this approach that legislatures define the scope of punishments,4 and thus, punishment in excess of this legislative authorization unconstitutionally multiple. Until recently, the Court seemed to have taken the position that legislative deference the only function of the right against multiple punishments. In 1989, however, the Court held in United States v. Halper5 that legislatively authorized civil sanctions cannot be imposed in a separate proceeding after the defendant has been prosecuted and punished.6 The Halper Court thus seemed to define multiple punishments in terms of proceedings rather than legislative maximums. These two approaches to the multiple punishments prohibition coexist uneasily. While the legislative deference model recognizes the legislature's power to prescribe punishments, the separate proceedings model effectively undermines that power by prohibiting punishments within legislatively authorized maximums if they happen to be imposed in separate proceedings.7 Thus, some commentators have argued that the two models of multiple punishments doctrine are fundamentally inconsistent.8 The Court's focus on separate proceedings in Halper has also caused problems by blurring the distinction between multiple punishments and multiple prosecutions cases.9 Thus lower courts applying Halper awkwardly import multiple prosecutions doctrine, creating even more confusion.'o Some point to these problems as evidence that the Double Jeopardy Clause should not be read to protect against multiple punishments at all.ll The most vocal of these critics, Justice Scalia, has described the multiple punishments prohibition as of those areas where the Court's jurisprudence is not only wrong but unworkable as well.'2 This Note suggests that a double prohibition on multiple punishments neither wrong nor unworkable. Rather, the main problem with multiple punishments jurisprudence stems from the Court's failure to identify a single double interest underlying its various applications of the right.13 While the Court sometimes states what the prohibition does, it has not articulated what it means.14 The Court could achieve enhanced clarity by tying its multiple punishments jurisprudence to the interest that the Double Jeopardy Clause was originally designed to serve: the interest in preserving the integrity of final judgments. Under this formulation, courts may impose punishment to the full extent authorized by the legislature in one judgment. Any punishment that exceeds the scope of the first final judgment-by exceeding either legislative limits or the limits set by the sentencing authority'5 in the judgment itself-constitutes a second, or unconstitutionally multiple, punishment.ls This analysis places the focus of the multiple punishments inquiry where it belongs-on judgments of punishment, rather than on proceedings or legislative maximums. If the criminal proceeding the unit that defines multiplicity in the multiple prosecutions context, it only logical that the lawful judgment of punishment the corresponding constitutional unit that defines multiplicity in the multiple punishments context. …" @default.
• W81422380 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W81422380 creator A5001760901 @default.
• W81422380 date "1997-01-01" @default.
• W81422380 modified "2023-09-24" @default.
• W81422380 title "Second Thoughts on Second Punishments: Redefining the Multiple Punishments Prohibition" @default.
• W81422380 hasPublicationYear "1997" @default.
• W81422380 type Work @default.
• W81422380 sameAs 81422380 @default.
• W81422380 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W81422380 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W81422380 hasAuthorship W81422380A5001760901 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C15744967 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C2778272461 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C2779295839 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C2780114137 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C2780230267 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C2780597233 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C77805123 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C83009810 @default.
• W81422380 hasConcept C83645499 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C15744967 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C17744445 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C199539241 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C2778272461 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C2779295839 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C2780114137 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C2780230267 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C2780597233 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C77805123 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C83009810 @default.
• W81422380 hasConceptScore W81422380C83645499 @default.
• W81422380 hasIssue "1" @default.
• W81422380 hasLocation W814223801 @default.
• W81422380 hasOpenAccess W81422380 @default.
• W81422380 hasPrimaryLocation W814223801 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1064629900 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W115081834 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1444449095 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1504486104 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1517537761 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1533067445 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1565984218 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1567104279 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1569194671 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W2005408502 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W2118597049 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W2289363512 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W284660103 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W3121140037 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W3122281400 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W3124984074 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W867478373 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W1967531900 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W3121433881 @default.
• W81422380 hasRelatedWork W3122382400 @default.
• W81422380 hasVolume "50" @default.
• W81422380 isParatext "false" @default.
• W81422380 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W81422380 magId "81422380" @default.
• W81422380 workType "article" @default.