Lecture+5-5 - Lecture for 5/5/10 Judicial Reasoning A....

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Lecture for 5/5/10 Judicial Reasoning A. Facts B. Issues For each issue: (1) Law (Constitution) (2) Precedent: rule, principle or balance of reasons (3) Conceptual analysis (done against the backdrop of law and precedent) (4) Judicial philosophy Originalist: (Textualist or Intentionalist) Pragmatist: A non-originalist who thinks that decisions should, all things considered, promotes the public good. Natural Law Theorist: A person who believes that moral principles either play a necessary role in judicial decisions (Ronald Dworkin) or should trump other considerations, whether or not they are needed to decide hard cases. (5) Logical consistency (6) Judicial Rationales (See Travis’ examples of rationales for parole.) Philosophical Reasoning? How can philosophers make an impact? Or: Why should legislators or judges care about what philosophers have to say? Samson (2006) Thomas, arguing for majority Argument: (1)The “totality of the circumstances” must be examined to determine whether a search is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment . United States v. Knights, 534 U. S. 112 (2001). Reasonableness “is determined by assessing, on the one hand, the degree to which [the search] intrudes upon an individual’s privacy and, on the other, the degree to which it is needed for the promotion of legitimate governmental interests.” (2) probation is on a continuum of possible punishments and that probationers “do not enjoy ‘the absolute liberty’ ” of other citizens ( Knights ) (3) Parolees, who are on the “continuum” of state-imposed punishments, have fewer expectations of privacy than probationers, because parole is more akin to imprisonment than probation is. (4) Examining the totality of the circumstances, petitioner did not have an expectation of privacy that society would recognize as legitimate. (5) A State has an “overwhelming interest” in supervising parolees because they “are more likely to commit future criminal offenses.” Pennsylvania Bd. of Probation and Parole v. Scott, 524 U. S. 357 (1997) . Similarly, a State’s interests in reducing recidivism, thereby promoting reintegration and positive citizenship among probationers
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
and parolees, warrant privacy intrusions that would not otherwise be tolerated under the Fourth Amendment (6) California’s 60-to70-percent recidivism rate demonstrates that most parolees are ill prepared to handle the pressures of reintegration and require intense supervision. The State Legislature has concluded that, given the State’s number of parolees and its high recidivism rate, an individualized suspicion requirement would undermine the State’s ability to effectively supervise parolees and protect the public from criminal acts by reoffenders. (7) California’s 60-to70-percent recidivism rate demonstrates that most parolees are ill
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

Page1 / 6

Lecture+5-5 - Lecture for 5/5/10 Judicial Reasoning A....

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online