Crime and Punishment in American History - Lawrence M. Friedman [344]
93 254 N.Y. 249, 172 N.E. 487 (1930).
94 Malcolm M. Feeley, Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail (1983), pp. 118-28; the statutes in question were Laws N.Y. 1973, chap. 278, p. 402; Laws N.Y. 1979, chap. 410, p. 905.
95 Marvin E. Frankel, Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order (1973), pp. 7, 9, 69.
96 Stephen J. Schulhofer and Ilene H. Nagel, “Negotiated Pleas under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: The First Fifteen Months,” American Criminal Law Review 27:231, 238 (1989).
97 Laws Minn. 1978, chap. 723, p. 761.
98 Lynne Goodstein and John Hepburn, Determinate Sentencing and Imprisonment: A Failure of Reform (1985), pp. 76−80.
99 New York Times, April 12, 1992 (national ed.), p. 20.
100 New York Times, April 12, 1992 (national ed.), pp. 1, 20.
101 Laws Colo. 1903, chap. 85, p. 178.
102 Steven L. Schlossman, Love and the American Delinquent: The Theory and Practice of “Progressive” Juvenile Justice, 1825−1920 (1977), p. 56.
103 Anthony M. Platt, The Child Savers: The Invention of Delinquency (1969), p. 77; on the rise of juvenile justice, see also John R. Sutton, Stubbom Children: Controlling Delinquency in the United States, 1640-1981 (1988); Thomas J. Bernard, The Cycles of Juvenile Justice (1992).
104 At the same time they created juvenile courts, states often put a new crime on the statute books: “contributing to the delinquency” of a child; see Laws. Colo. 1903, chap. 94, p. 198, which may be the first of these. Such a law, of course, could be used against parents whose parenting did not meet middle-class standards.
105 Judge Ben B. Lindsey, introduction to Thomas Travis, The Young Malefactor (1908), p. x.
106 Travis, The Young Malefactor, pp. 160−62.
107 Ben B. Lindsey and Wainwright Evans, The Revolt of Modern Youth (1925), pp. 159, 160, 162.
108 For example, Katharine F. Lenroot and Emma O. Lundberg, Juvenile Courts at Work: A Study of the Organization and Methods of Ten Courts (1925).
109 Friedman and Percival, Roots of Justice, pp. 223−24.
110 Criminal Justice in Cleveland (1922), p. 329.
111 Lenroot and Lundberg, Juvenile Courts at Work, p. 40.
112 387 U.S. 1(1967).
113 Edmund F. McGarrell, Juvenile Correctional Reform: Two Decades of Policy and Procedural Change (1988), pp. 110-11. The statute was Laws N.Y. 1978, chap. 481.
114 Lester Orfield, Criminal Appeals in America (1939), pp. 225−27.
115 Ibid.
116 C. G. Vernier and Philip Selig, Jr., “The Reversal of Criminal Cases in the Supreme Court of California,” Southern California Law Review 2:21, 24-25 (1928).
117 J. Hugo Grimm, “Ten Years of Supreme Court Decisions,” in Missouri Crime Survey (1926), p. 221
118 186 S.W. 2d 243 (Tex. Crim. App., 1945).
119 Quoted in A. R. Stout, “Criminal Procedure in Texas Should Be Revised : An Address,” Texas Law Review 25:613, 618 (1947).
120 186 S.W. 2d at 247.
121 So, for example, under the Utah Rules of Criminal Procedure, Utah Court Rules, 1992, p. 411, Rule 26, section 10, a death penalty case will be “automatically reviewed by the Supreme Court,” even if the “defendant has chosen not to pursue this appeal.”
CHAPTER 18. GENDER AND JUSTICE
1 McKinney v. State 3 Wyo. 719 (1892).
2 Deborah Rhode, Justice and Gender (1989), p. 49.
3 Laws Ore. 1921, chap. 273, pp. 513, 514; R. Justin Miller, “The Woman Juror,” Oregon Law Review 2:30 (1922).
4 Commonwealth v. Garletts, 81 Pa. Super Ct. 271 (1923).
5 R. Justin Miller, “The Woman Juror”; at 42.
6 People v. Manuel, 41 Cal. App. 153, 182 P. 306 (1919). The appellate court affirmed Ms. Manuel’s conviction; the all-woman jury was in no way prejudicial, the court thought.
7 State ex rel. Passer v. County Board, 171 Minn. 177, 213 N.W. 545 (1927).
8 Acts. So. Car. 1921, No. 184, pp. 269−70.
9 La. Const. 1921, Art. 7, sec. 41.
10 Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522 [1975].
11 329 U.S. 187 (1946).
12 439 U.S. 357 (1979).
13 Caesar [Cesare] Lombroso and William [Guglielmo] Ferrero, The Female Offender (1958; originally published in 1894), p. 109.
14 Ibid., pp. 150−51;