cunylawreview.orgCUNY LAW REVIEW | Scholarship for Social Justice

cunylawreview.org Profile

cunylawreview.org

Title:CUNY LAW REVIEW | Scholarship for Social Justice

Description:CUNY LAW REVIEW | Scholarship for Social Justice CUNY LAW REVIEW Scholarship for Social Justice Main menu Skip to content Home Footnote Forum Submissions News Events Symposium Volumes About Us Donate

Keywords:

Discover cunylawreview.org website stats, rating, details and status online. Read and write reviews or vote to improve it ranking. Check alliedvsaxis duplicates with related css, domain relations, most used words, social networks references. Find out where is server located. Use our online tools to find owner and admin contact info. Go to regular site

cunylawreview.org Information

Website / Domain: cunylawreview.org
Website IP Address: 66.147.242.180
Domain DNS Server: ns1.bluehost.com,ns2.bluehost.com

cunylawreview.org Rank

Alexa Rank: 7216382
OursSite Rank: 2
Google Page Rank: 0/10 (Google Pagerank Has Been Closed)

cunylawreview.org Traffic & Earnings

Purchase/Sale Value: $2,416
Daily Revenue: $6
Monthly Revenue: $198
Yearly Revenue: $2,416
Daily Unique Visitors: 609
Monthly Unique Visitors: 18,270
Yearly Unique Visitors: 222,285

cunylawreview.org WebSite Httpheader

StatusCode 200
Content-Type text/html; charset=UTF-8
Date Sat, 23 Sep 2017 02:16:02 GMT
Server nginx/1.10.1

cunylawreview.org Keywords accounting

Keyword Count Percentage

cunylawreview.org Similar Website

Domain WebSite Title
teamdougdidit.com Ewa Beach Real Estate, Kapolei Homes, Makakilo Investment Property - Team Doug Did It
birminghamprofessionalsingles.com Birmingham Professional Singles | Professional Matchmaking
solucionesgyg.com Solucionesgyg.com
expositionsitinerantes.org Bienvenue sur le site des expositions itinérantes
thedps.co.uk The Deltic Preservation Society Limited
thecurveballchronicles.com The Curve Ball Chronicles |
omerbasic.com.ba Apartmani Omerba?i?
rivercruiseagent.com River Cruising - River Cruise Agent
marcia.com.pl SCHULZ - kapsle do monet, klasery na banknoty, albumy, palety, holdery
invicte.com Livres, papeterie, peinture, bureautique, beaux-arts, loisir créatif, librairie en ligne - invicte....
theshadeoffashion.com The Shade of Fashion | by Iolanda Corio
resumeit.org ResumeIT
therapysolutionsnyc.com Counseling, Life Guidance, Therapy Solutions New York City
anthonyhansen.com Anthony Hansen
rasaiiflowlines.in Rasaii Flow Lines Private Ltd., Chennai - Manufacturer of Teflon Lined Butterfly Valve and Plug Val...
sleepsafealarms.com Home
dnvrepaircenter.com Foreign and Domestic Vehicle Repair - Garnerville, NY - D N V Repair Center
secretslicepizzaandpasta.com.au Secret Slice Pizza and Pasta, West Ryde

cunylawreview.org Traffic Sources Chart

cunylawreview.org Alexa Rank History Chart

cunylawreview.org aleax

cunylawreview.org Html To Plain Text

CUNY LAW REVIEW | Scholarship for Social Justice CUNY LAW REVIEW Scholarship for Social Justice Main menu Skip to content Home Footnote Forum Submissions News Events Symposium Volumes About Us Donate Vision Editors Emeriti Search for: Posted on May 5, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor The Many Meanings of Montgomery v. Louisiana: How the Supreme Court Redefined Retroactivity and Miller v. Alabama The Many Meanings of Montgomery v. Louisiana: How the Supreme Court Redefined Retroactivity and Miller v. Alabama Brandon Buskey ? Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article. Introduction Henry Montgomery has survived the remarkable arc of the Supreme Court’s evolution on juvenile sentencing. In 1970, Louisiana sentenced him to die in prison for the murder of a police officer, a crime he committed when he was seventeen years old.1 The sentence was mandatory, and it was perfectly legal. At that time it was also perfectly legal to execute juveniles. A generation later, the Supreme Court barred the execution of children under age sixteen in 1988,2 but the next year refused to extend the bar to all juveniles.3 Not until 2005 did the Court exempt all juveniles from the death penalty.4 In half a decade, the Court ruled that juveniles could not be imprisoned for life without any possibility of release for non-homicides.5 A mere two years later, yet forty-six years after Mr. Montgomery’s conviction, the Court declared, in Miller v. Alabama,6 that mandatory life sentences like Mr. Montgomery’s were unconstitutional. Miller confirmed the lessons of these prior decisions that children’s youth and immaturity make them categorically different for sentencing purposes, and that life imprisonment without parole is akin to the death penalty for juveniles. Thus, automatically sentencing children to a lifetime of imprisonment “poses too great a risk of disproportionate punishment.”7 The Eighth Amendment’s protection against “cruel and usual punishments” therefore prohibits such sentences. But Mr. Montgomery’s path to a hope for release was not yet complete. In fact, it was cut off by the Louisiana Supreme Court. That court ruled Mr. Montgomery could not benefit from Miller8 because,9 under the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Teague v. Lane,10 Miller did not apply retroactively to cases that were already final at the time of the decision. Mr. Montgomery’s case became final in 1984, thirty years too soon. In Montgomery v. Louisiana,11 the Supreme Court reversed the Louisiana Supreme Court and held that Miller applies retroactively. The Court found that, by categorically prohibiting life sentences for the majority of juveniles whose crimes reflect “transient immaturity” rather than “irreparable corruption,” Miller announced a substantive rule of criminal law that is not subject to Teague’s general bar against retroactivity. Now, unless Louisiana can show that the crimes of those like Montgomery demonstrate “irreparable corruption,” it must grant them meaningful hope of “some years of life outside prison walls.”12 As discussed below, Montgomery affirmed the Court’s supremacy in declaring federal law while bolstering the significant limits that Miller places on states’ ability to condemn any juvenile to die in prison. But the Court left unresolved a critical question: how much hope for release is enough? Whatever the answer, it must account for Miller’s impact on the obligation of states to grant parole to juveniles facing lifelong incarceration. This article asserts that Miller cabins the state’s power to deny parole permanently to reformed juveniles. It does so by creating a modest, but absolute, liberty interest in release before death for rehabilitated youth. The Supreme Court, rather than state parole systems, must be the ultimate protector of this right. Continue reading → Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Footnote Forum | Leave a comment | Posted on May 1, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor CUNY Law Review’s Spring Symposium: “Reimagining Family Defense” CUNY Law Review Spring Symposium: “Reimagining Family Defense” On Friday, April 8th, we hosted our 2016 Symposium, Reimagining Family Defense. More than 100 people attended the half-day event to engage in a discussion of how family defense can become more available throughout the U.S. The plenary panel featured contributions from Professor Kara Finck of the University of Pennsylvania Law School; Diane Redleaf, Founder and Executive Director of the Chicago based Family Defense Center; and Lauren Shapiro, Director of the Brooklyn Family Defense Project. Marty Guggenheim, Director of NYU Law School’s Family Defense Clinic, moderated the plenary session, which focused heavily on the need to increase legal representation for parents in child welfare cases. Professor Guggenheim was presented with the CUNY Law Review Scholarship for Social Justice Award. Making parental voices more prominent in child welfare cases was a focus of the symposium. Members of Rise Magazine, a publication written by and for parents involved in the child welfare system, were invited to share their thoughts on how attorneys and judges can make parents’ family court experiences more empowering. Continue reading → Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Events, Symposium | Leave a comment | Posted on April 19, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor 2016 First Toast! Come join us and toast to all of the hard work the outgoing 2015-2016 CUNY Law Review Board did this year and send well wishes to the incoming 2016-2017 CUNY Law Review Board! Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Events, Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Posted on April 12, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor CUNY Law Review Spring Symposium Reposted from CUNY LAW REVIEW SYMPOSIUM BRINGS FAMILY DEFENSE TO THE FOREFRONT April 11, 2016 Making parental voices in child welfare cases more prominent was the focus of CUNY Law Review’s recent symposium. “We are the professionals, but [parents] are the experts,” Angela Burton, a former CUNY Law professor and now with the New York State Office of Indigent Legal Services, said in her opening remarks. More than 100 people attended the half-day symposium on Friday to engage in discussions of how family defense can become more available throughout the U.S. CUNY Law Review members invited representatives from Rise Magazine, a publication written by and for parents dealing with the child welfare system to ensure that parents’ voices were included. The plenary panel featured contributions from family law professors from NYU and University of Pennsylvania, along with legal defenders from Brooklyn Defender Services and the Family Defense Project (based in Chicago). “All of the presenters today start from one basic premise—families matter. Every family matters,” Burton added. Continue reading → Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Events, News, Symposium | Leave a comment | Posted on April 1, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor I Am a Victim Too: Applying the “Dual Victim-Offender” Framework to Reform New York’s Family Court System I Am a Victim Too: Applying the “Dual Victim-Offender” Framework to Reform New York’s Family Court System Nikki Whetstone? Introduction New York has two separate judicial systems within Family Court: one for children who are considered “victims,” and another for those who are considered “offenders.” Children whose parents are suspected of abuse/neglect are placed in dependency court, under the guise that the state must step in as parens patriae to protect the well-being of the child.[1] On the other hand, children who are accused of committing a crime are placed in delinquency court, with the purpose of protecting society and holding the youth accountable for their actions, while also attempting to rehabilitate them.[2] However, often the same social and familial circumstances lead children to become involved in both systems, simultaneously yet separately becoming both the “victim” and the “offender” in the eyes of the court. Despite recent efforts to reform the family court system, New York fails to address the needs of youth who are involved in both delinquency and dependency court. This paper first examines the separate theoretical and historical foundations of both New York dependency and delinquency court, including their differing rationales and treatment of children. Part II of this paper evaluates the correlation between victimization and offending, and the connection between dependent youth and their subsequent involvement in the delinquency system (“dual-status youth”). Finally, part III explores the “dual victim-offender” framework and offers this as a lens to be used by Family Court to inform their view of children and, in turn, reform the way children are treated in the system. Continue reading → Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Footnote Forum | Leave a comment | Posted on March 22, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor LABOUR STANDARDS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: ALL STATES SHOULD HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PUNISH MISCONDUCTS OF MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES UNDER INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW LABOUR STANDARDS IN INTERNATIONAL LAW: ALL STATES SHOULD HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO PUNISH MISCONDUCTS OF MULTINATIONAL ENTERPRISES UNDER INTERNATIONAL CUSTOMARY LAW By Andrea Scozzaro1 INTRODUCTION This article addresses the issues of unethical employment practices and lack of fair labor standards in developing countries. The discussion on such problems, although ongoing since the 1970s, is still of primary importance both within the scholarly community and the wider public. The fact that big, multinational enterprises of developed countries still engage in violations of workers’ rights is certainly stunning, yet not so surprising given the connections between such violations and the current structure of the global economy. In the wake of a nearly fifty-years-old process of globalization, the worldwide implementation of competition rules in the labor market stimulates “race to the bottom” outcomes, with millions of workers in developing countries suffering from slavery-like working conditions, wages below subsistence level, and inhumane treatments. Despite the progress made in the field of labor protection thanks to private and governmental initiatives in the last several decades, the current legal tools used to avoid massive workers’ rights violations have been proven ineffective. This is due to the apparently unsolvable friction that exists between the huge economic power of enterprises and the desperate need for economic support of developing countries. Given the global nature of these causes, possible solutions may only achieve success if they entail a global approach to the problem. Remedies should be found in order to create a universal rule for labor protection applicable and enforceable in all countries throughout the world. The first part of this article explains which are the most widespread violations of workers’ rights in relation to the current economic structure of the world, and presents the economic dynamics that lie within them. The second part provides a short account of past and present initiatives in favor of the improvement of labor standards. The third part presents the main critical aspects of these initiatives, by focusing on lack of accountability mechanisms and their inherent voluntary nature. Finally, the fourth part suggests the idea that a possible remedy aimed at stopping labor rights violations is to create and implement a universal rule for labor protection through international customary law. Such a remedy would also perform a change in the way the responsibility for compliance to labor law is placed upon states, by shifting the obligation to punish misconduct of multinational enterprises from developing states to developed ones. Continue reading → Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Footnote Forum, Uncategorized | Leave a comment | Posted on March 11, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor A FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO CARRY LUGGAGE: SOUTH KOREA’S RISE IN GLOBAL PROMINENCE AND ITS ENSUING EFFORT TO DETER DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION A FIGHT FOR THE RIGHT TO CARRY LUGGAGE: SOUTH KOREA’S RISE IN GLOBAL PROMINENCE AND ITS ENSUING EFFORT TO DETER DISABILITY DISCRIMINATION Lindsay Lee Cowen* Click here for a recommended citation and to download a paginated PDF version of this article. I. INTRODUCTION These days, the world knows South Korea (“Korea”) as the land of Samsung,[1] kimchi,[2] and k-pop,[3] for which its upsurge in popularity owes “Gangnam Style” much thanks.[4] Below the surface of this most recent hallyu, or “Korean wave”[5] of popular culture ascendency across the globe, lies the darker side of Korea. Numerous articles have scrutinized its colossal plastic surgery industry, questioning the motives behind such procedures and crowning Seoul the new plastic surgery capital of the world.[6] A generation of transnational adoptees has renewed attention in what, during the 1988 Summer Olympics,[7] was labeled the country’s greatest shame: mass exportation of unwanted babies.[8] Media outlets have exposed a “remote island where the enslavement of disabled salt farm workers is an open secret.”[9] Nonetheless, the hallyu surges forward. Tourism rates in 2015 nearly tripled those from only a decade prior.[10] College student study of foreign languages has declined nearly 7% since 2009, yet enrollment in Korean-language classes increased 45% from 2009 to 2013.[11] In 2014, The Huffington Post launched “Huffpost Korea” and published an article proclaiming what the country can teach “the rest of the world about living well,”[12] while ignoring its low happiness index and high suicide rate.[13] Rapid economic growth has rocketed South Korea’s Gross Domestic Product (“GDP”) to the fourteenth highest in the world[14] and secured its position in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (“OECD”).[15] In the 1960s, Somalia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, for example, had higher per capita GDPs than Korea.[16] The Korean War left the small East Asian peninsula one of the poorest nations in the world.[17] Few other countries can boast such drastic transformation of economic circumstances in a half-century period.[18] However, the aforementioned societal realities demonstrate a deep chasm between the country’s economic development and its social progress. Contemporary society in South Korea shuns minority groups from the benefits of Korea’s commercial gains. Due in large part to an entrenched Confucian class hierarchy, which dates back to the Chosun dynasty,[19] conformity is king.[20] Prevailing discriminatory employment practices illustrate Korea’s ambivalence toward its new social obligations as it grapples with antiquated ideologies in a modern marketplace. Part II of this article will discuss disability-focused anti-discrimination law in Korea. Part III will address the actual efficacy of such legislation to date. Continue reading → Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Footnote Forum | Leave a comment | Posted on March 10, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor 2016 Symposium Register here. Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Symposium | Leave a comment | Posted on March 8, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor New Board Members Announced Congratulations to the 2016 – 2017 CUNY Law Review Board! Not pictured: Sahiba Nanda Kitty Austin Navid Khazanei Executive Articles Editors Rosemary Almonte Nora Hirozawa Public Interest Practitioner Section (PIPS) Editors Dorien Ediger-Seto Marie Hahn Notes & Comments Editors Nick Bourland Sahiba Nanda Footnote Forum Editors Katy Joseph Symposium Editor Corinthia Carter Special Events Editor Katherine Groot Community Engagement Editor Annemarie Caruso Katy Naples-Mitchell Managing Articles Editors Greg Tolbert Managing Editor Jorge Gomez Editor-in-Chief Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in News | Leave a comment | Posted on March 7, 2016 by Digital Articles Editor Vol. 19.1 Explore the complete digital version of Volume 19.1. Public Interest Practitioners Section (PIPS) A Sufficieny-of-the-Evidence Exception to the New York Appellate Preservation Rule by Matthew Bova, Staff Attorney at the Center for Appellate Litigation How Women’s Organizations are Changing the Legal Landscape of Reproductive Rights in Latin America by Fabiola Carrión, Advocacy Program Officer at Planned Parenthood Global Articles When Judges Don’t Follow the Law: Research and Recommendations by Michelle Cotton, Assistant Professor in the Division of Legal, Ethical and Historical Studies, University of Baltimore Yale Gordon College of Arts and Sciences Remarks RadTalks: What Could Be Possible if the Law Really Stood for Black Lives? a series of talks delivered at the Law for Black Lives Convening, organized by the Bertha Justice Institute at the Center for Constitutional Rights Notes Expectations of the Exemplar: An Exploration of the Burdens on Public School Teachers in the Absence of Tenure by Jacqueline A. Meese, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law Is it Worthless to be “Worth Less”? Ending the Exemption of People with a Disability from the Federal Minimum Wage Under the Fair Labor Standards Act by Alanna Sakovits, J.D. Candidate ’16, City University of New York (CUNY) School of Law Spread the word: Click to email this to a friend (Opens in new window) Click to print (Opens in new window) Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window) Click to share on Google+ (Opens in new window) Click to share on Tumblr (Opens in new window) Click to share on LinkedIn (Opens in new window) Click to share on Pinterest (Opens in new window) Click to share on Reddit (Opens in new window) Posted in Volumes | Leave a comment | Page 1 of 1012345Next ?Last ? Search for: Mission The City University of New York Law Review is a student-run publication devoted to producing public interest scholarship, engaging with the public interest bar, and fostering student excellence in writing, legal analysis, and research. Contact Us CUNY Law Review 2 Court Square Long Island City, NY 11101 cunylr@mail.law.cuny.edu TwitterMy Tweets Facebook Facebook ? CUNY LAW REVIEW - Powered by Wordpress and Citizen Journal Send to Email Address Your Name Your Email Address Cancel Post was not sent - check your email addresses! Email check failed, please try again Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.

cunylawreview.org Whois

Domain Name: CUNYLAWREVIEW.ORG