<?xml version="1.0"?>
<rss version="2.0">
<channel>
<title>Ira P Robbins</title>
<copyright>Copyright (c) 2008  All rights reserved.</copyright>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/ira_robbins</link>
<description>Recent documents in Ira P Robbins</description>
<language>en-us</language>
<lastBuildDate>Thu, 03 Jan 2008 03:04:12 PST</lastBuildDate>
<ttl>3600</ttl>





<item>
<title>Lessons from Hurricane Katrina:  Prison Emergency Preparedness as a Constitutional Imperative</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/ira_robbins/2</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/ira_robbins/2</guid>
<pubDate>Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:04:59 PDT</pubDate>
<description>Hurricane Katrina was one of the worst natural disasters ever to strike the United States, in terms of causalities, suffering, and financial cost. Often overlooked among Katrina's victims are the 8,000 inmates incarcerated at Orleans Parish Prison (OPP) when Katrina struck. Despite a mandatory evacuation of New Orleans, these men and women--some of whom had been held on charges as insignificant as public intoxication--remained in the jail as the hurricane struck, and endured days of rising, toxic waters, a lack of food and drinking water, and a complete breakdown of order within OPP. When the inmates were finally evacuated from OPP, they suffered further harm, waiting for days on a highway overpass before being placed in other correctional institutions, where prisoners withstood exposure to the late-summer Louisiana heat and beatings at the hands of guards and other inmates. Finally, even as the prison situation settled down, prisoners from the New Orleans criminal justice system were left waiting in correctional institutions throughout the state, as the judicial system in New Orleans ceased to function.The resulting effects were both tragic and unconstitutional, as the suffering at OPP could have been prevented. This article asserts that prison administrators have a constitutional duty to plan for emergencies, and argues that the failures of New Orleans officials to do so violated prisoners' Sixth and Eighth Amendment rights, as well as other internationally recognized human rights standards. With the wealth of training and planning materials available to prisons, and the knowledge of possible emergencies, it is unconscionable for prisons to have non-existent or inadequate plans. Assessing change through litigation and legislation, this article advocates a mixed approach, using judicial and legislative remedies for the abhorrent violations of well-established prisoners' rights. The article recommends that states develop mechanisms, such as emergency courts, to enable the administration of justice to resume promptly following serious natural or man-made disasters. Prisons and courts should internalize the lessons of Hurricane Katrina, which demonstrated the consequences of inadequate preparation and planning for prisoners' safety during and after an emergency.</description>

<author>Ira P. Robbins</author>


<category>Civil Rights</category>

<category>Constitutional Law</category>

<category>Courts</category>

<category>Criminal Law and Procedure</category>

<category>Human Rights Law</category>

<category>Law and Society</category>

</item>


<item>
<title>Digitus Impudicus:  The Middle Finger and the Law</title>
<link>http://works.bepress.com/ira_robbins/1</link>
<guid isPermaLink="true">http://works.bepress.com/ira_robbins/1</guid>
<pubDate>Tue, 24 Apr 2007 12:39:43 PDT</pubDate>
<description>The middle finger is one of the most commonly used insulting gestures in the United States.  The finger, which is used to convey a wide range of emotions, is visible on streets and highways, in schools, shopping malls, and sporting events, in courts and execution chambers, in advertisements and on magazine covers, and even on the hallowed floor of the United States Senate.  Despite its ubiquity, however, as a number of recent cases demonstrate, those who use the middle finger in public run the risk of being stopped, arrested, prosecuted, fined, and even incarcerated under disorderly conduct or breach of peace statutes and ordinances.This Article argues that, although most convictions are ultimately overturned on appeal, the pursuit of criminal sanctions for use of the middle finger infringes on First Amendment rights, violates fundamental principles of criminal justice, wastes valuable judicial resources, and defies good sense.  Indeed, the Supreme Court has consistently held that speech may not be prohibited simply because some may find it offensive.  Criminal law generally aims to protect persons, property, or the state from serious harm, but use of the middle finger simply does not raise these concerns.</description>

<author>Ira P. Robbins</author>


<category>Civil Rights</category>

<category>Comparative Law</category>

<category>Constitutional Law</category>

<category>Courts</category>

<category>Criminal Law and Procedure</category>

<category>Human Rights Law</category>

<category>Judges</category>

<category>Law and Society</category>

</item>



</channel>
</rss>
