As you may already be discovering, once one starts to focus on current-event stories with a "who sentences" lens, the context and complications of sentencing decision-making can take on a new view. With that reality in mind, consider these recent posts from my other blogs concerning some notable recent events:
-
Will Prez Obama mention sentencing reform in the State of the Union address?
-
Texas jury suggests it's much better for NFL players to kill pals than sell them pot and coke
-
"Sex offender fights registry by registering his registerers"
-
Shouldn't sensible reform advocates be pleased when localities just say no to marijuana?
Sentencing Class @ OSU Moritz College of Law 
4 responses to “A weekend full of interesting who news”
2327.11 Animals running at large.
Columbus MuniCode
(A) No owner of any animal shall permit such animal to run large on any property not his own.
(B) …
(C) Whoever violates this section is guilty of permitting animals running at large, a minor misdemeanor. If the animal is a dog, a violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the third degree. If the animal causes physical harm to any person, or if the offender is, or has been, the owner of a dog which was declared a dangerous or vicious animal, a violation of this section is a misdemeanor of the first degree.
(D) This section does not apply to homing pigeons bearing official bands.
(E) Strict liability is intended to be imposed for a violation of this section.
LikeLike
Thanks DI, though I live in Dublin…
LikeLike
An article about another “who” that wants a say in sentencing, the victim’s family. The fact that the family is using religion to support their opinion adds another interesting dynamic to where the ‘who’ gets their power/legitimacy in sentencing.
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2014/01/citing_catholic_faith_family_o.html
LikeLike
Tangentially related to my previous comment (perhaps more directly related to our upcoming discussion on capital punishment), my former professor, Austin Sarat, offers an interesting take on why Ohio’s execution of McGuire was problematic. He argues that McGuire’s botched execution should not be taken as an isolated incident, but as another case or factor that shows “It is unacceptable for 3 percent of America’s executions to impose “something more than the mere extinguishment of life.” We should learn from our own history that there is no technological guarantee that we can kill humanely.”
LikeLike