Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorAllen, Daniel A.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2013-02-15T18:44:11Z
dc.date.available2013-02-15T18:44:11Z
dc.date.issued1997en_US
dc.identifier.citation30 Creighton L. Rev. 235 (1996-1997)en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10504/40175
dc.description.abstractINTRODUCTION|The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution states, "[Nlor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." In United States v. Halper, the United States Supreme Court developed a test to determine the Double Jeopardy Clause's scope of protection.|[I]t follows that a civil sanction that cannot fairly be said solely to serve a remedial purpose, but rather can only be explained as also serving either retributive or deterrent purposes, is punishment, as we have come to understand the term.... We therefore hold that under the Double Jeopardy Clause a defendant who already has been punished in a criminal prosecution may not be subjected to an additional civil sanction to the extent that the second sanction may not fairly be characterized as remedial, but only as a deterrent or retribution...en_US
dc.publisherCreighton University School of Lawen_US
dc.titleTo Punish or to Remedy - That is the Constitutional Question: Double Jeopardy Confusion in State v. Hansenen_US
dc.typeJournal Articleen_US
dc.rights.holderCreighton Universityen_US
dc.description.volume30en_US
dc.publisher.locationOmaha, Nebraskaen_US
dc.title.workCreighton Law Reviewen_US
dc.description.note1996-1997en_US
dc.description.pages235en_US


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record