Click on the following links. Please note these will open in a new window.

Journal Article Link 14.1: Sherman, P. (1968). "... Nor Cruel and Unusual Punishments Inflicted": The Eighth Amendment and the Juvenile Court. Crime & Delinquency, 14(1), 73-84.

This paper endeavors to understand and assess the last clause of the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, which holds that "cruel and unusual punishments [shall not be] inflicted." This entails a review and analysis of the major case development and some of the problem areas—both solved and unsolved. Inasmuch as neither the purpose nor the typical proceeding of the juvenile court is penal, the "cruel and unusual punishment" prohibition is inapplicable to it. However, treatment of a juvenile within the jurisdiction of the court may involve punishment. When it does, he is protected, as an adult is, against the infliction of cruel and unusual punishment.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 14.2: Mays, G. (1981). Supreme Court Disengagement from the Exclusionary Rule: The Impact of Stone v. Powell. Criminal Justice Review, 6(2), 43-46.

This study focuses on the United States Supreme Court case of Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465 (1976), and the impact this case has had on the procedures of state supreme courts. Also of concern are changes in federal-state court relations resulting from this decision.

The research centers around a survey sent to the 312 judges sitting on courts of last resort hearing criminal appeals in all 50 states. The results indicate that although Stone v. Powell can be viewed along two dimensions a substantive dimension applying the case as a Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule decision and a broader, policy dimension of judicial federalism most state Supreme Court judges see the decision in terms of the narrower, substantive context. The implication is that state supreme courts have not moved into criminal procedure areas vacated by the United States Supreme Court.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?

Journal Article Link 14.3: Urbaniak, E. (1962). Rights of Prisoners in Confinement. Crime & Delinquency, 8(2), 121-126.

New Jersey, together with other states, has recently been receiving numerous applications for writs of habeas corpus in which prisoners allege denial of their constitutional right to religious freedom, denial of due process, illegal confinement, and other grievances. Supreme Court decisions on several typical cases are presented and compared, with a view toward airing the question of whether decisions favoring the defendant have, in actuality, been defeating the ends of justice.

1. Summarize the author’s main point(s) in just a few sentences.
2. What potential problems does the author not address with his/her own work?
3. How would you address potential problems and/or future research recommendations that are addressed by the author?
4. Do you see any evidence of bias in the authors work or writing? If so, what is it and why do you think it is there?
5. How has this article expanded your knowledge on the subject and/or challenged your preconceptions of the subject?