86.5

Print
Comment
86.5
Categorically Redeeming Graham v Florida and Miller v Alabama: Why the Eighth Amendment Guarantees All Juvenile Defendants a Constitutional Right to a Parole Hearing
Parag Dharmavarapu
BA 2016, Northwestern University; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School.

I wish to thank The University of Chicago Law Revieweditors and Professor Emily Buss for improving this Comment at every stage of the process. I also wish to thank the Sentencing Project for providing me with the data this Comment uses in its empirical analysis and my friends Vivek Magati and Joshua Courtney for assisting me with developing this Comment’s methodology.

After his parents kicked him out at the age of sixteen and forced him to live in a shack, Brian Bassett committed a heinous crime: he murdered his mother, father, and brother.
Print
Comment
86.5
Passive Embezzlement Schemes as Continuing Offenses
William Admussen
BA 2017, The University of Kansas; JD Candidate 2020, The University of Chicago Law School.

David Brunell was indicted on October 26, 2017 on one count of embezzlement of government funds under the federal embezzlement statute, 18 USC § 641. Brunell’s father, prior to his death in 1993, received monthly retirement benefits from the Social Security Administration (SSA).

Print
Article
86.5
Remedies for Robots
Mark A. Lemley
William H. Neukom Professor of Law, Stanford Law School; partner, Durie Tangri LLP.

Thanks to Ryan Abbott, Ryan Calo, Rebecca Crootof, James Grimmelmann, Rose Hagan, Dan Ho, Bob Rabin, Omri Rachum-Twaig, Andrew Selbst, and participants in workshops at Stanford Law School and the We Robot 2018 Conference for comments and discussions.

Bryan Casey
Lecturer in Law, Stanford Law School; Legal Fellow, Center for Automotive Research at Stanford (CARS).

Engineers training an artificially intelligent self-flying drone were perplexed.

Print
Article
86.5
Criminal Law in a Civil Guise: The Evolution of Family Courts and Support Laws
Elizabeth D. Katz
Associate Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis.

Support from the Stanford Center for Law and History and especially faculty director Amalia Kessler was invaluable as I completed this Article. For helpful comments and conversations, I thank Gregory Ablavsky, Kerry Abrams, Monique Abrishami, Susan Appleton, Ralph Richard Banks, Tomiko Brown-Nagin, Katie Cole, Beth Colgan, Nancy F. Cott, Samuel Ennis, George Fisher, Barbara Fried, Lawrence Friedman, Robert W. Gordon, Howard Kaufman, Zachary D. Kaufman, Adriaan Lanni, Jessica Lowe, Kenneth W. Mack, Bernadette Meyler, Melissa Murray, Kelly Phipps, Eli Russell, Christopher Schmidt, Sarah Seo, David Sklansky, Ji Seon Song, Norman Spaulding, Emily Stolzenberg, Mark Storslee, Charles Tyler, Lael Weinberger, Robert Weisberg, John Wertheimer, and participants in the Stanford Law School Fellows Workshop, the Stanford Legal Studies Workshop, and the Family Law Scholars and Teachers Conference. Librarians at Harvard University and Stanford Law School and archivists at the Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library provided excellent assistance. Research for this Article was generously supported by the American Historical Association’s Albert J. Beveridge Grant; the American Society for Legal History’s William Nelson Cromwell Foundation Fellowship; Harvard’s Center for American Political Studies Dissertation Fellowship and Seed Grant; and Harvard Kennedy School of Government’s History and Public Policy Initiative in the Ash Center for Democratic Governance.

In the 2011 case of Turner v Rogers, the United States Supreme Court held that a father jailed for a year by a family court judge for nonpayment of child support was not entitled to a public defender.

Volumes