For decades, the mantra for Republicans and Democrats alike had been “tough on crime.” If the sentence for a given drug offense was five years, and yet the problem of drug distribution and use persisted, the response was to increase the penalty to ten years, then fifteen, even life. It was never: Should we imprison at all? Is there any efficacy to imprisonment beyond a few years to deter crime? Is there a category of offenders for which imprisonment and more imprisonment should not be the only response?
This Article considers a critically important but unresolved question presented in cases where a party requests and receives preliminary injunctive relief against governmental defendants. The question is this: if a party secures preliminary relief that bars the government from enforcing a given law while the parties litigate, and the challengers of the law do not ultimately prevail on the merits, what consequence, if any, does that preliminary relief have on liability for penalties triggered by noncompliance with the preliminary injunction while it was in effect?
Historically in the United States, the police have been organized as a publicly accountable, rule of law institution. In theory, this has meant that police engage in partnership with the public to set crime prevention and public safety goals. Since the decline of industrialization in America’s urban centers, however, the police—particularly in racially isolated, structurally disadvantaged communities—have increasingly moved from a model of “liberal consent” or “democratic” policing to one that emphasizes authoritarianism and the imposition of crime control tactics. This increasingly coercive brand of policing has, in many communities, resulted in a loss of legitimacy and cooperation and caused the police to be viewed as something akin to an environmental hazard—i.e., something to be avoided.
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) sets the terms around which student privacy issues have been debated for decades. Accordingly, many of the proposed reforms work within the statute’s existing regulatory framework. This Article takes a broader perspective and contributes to the debate by demonstrating how FERPA and Fair Information Practice Principle (FIPPs)-based standards cannot provide the control, meaningful oversight, or sufficiently concrete standards sought by stakeholders.
With incarceration rates at an all-time high and over-criminalization rampant, there is a growing need for programs aimed at rehabilitating ex-offenders following release from prison. These programs are critical to combating the collateral consequences associated with imprisonment.