The following is a transcript of a panel at “State Constitutions and the Limits of Criminal Punishments,” which took place at Rutgers Law School in Camden, New Jersey, on October 24, 2024. The transcript is edited for clarity.
The panelists — all state supreme court justices — discussed the vital role of state constitutional law in addressing excessive sentencing, especially as federal precedent narrows. They urged attorneys to raise state constitutional claims early and build strong factual records, including scientific and historical evidence. The justices also highlighted the value of comparative analysis, drawing from other states and even other countries. Their core message: state courts have the authority—and duty—to interpret their own constitutions independently, but they rely on advocates to make the case.
Speakers:
- Hon. Goodwin Liu, Associate Justice, Supreme Court of California
- Hon. Scott L. Kafker, Associate Justice, Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court
- Hon. Rowan D. Wilson, Chief Judge, New York Court of Appeals
Moderator:
- Alicia Bannon, Director, Judiciary Program and Editor in Chief, State Court Report, Brennan Center for Justice
Transcript is forthcoming.
Related Commentary
Behind the Movement Toward Humane Punishment
A recent Pennsylvania decision barring mandatory life without parole for felony murder is part of an accelerating trend toward broad state constitutional protections for people in the criminal justice system.
Pennsylvania “Cruel Punishments” Decision Nods Toward International Human Rights Law
In striking down mandatory life-without-parole sentences for felony murder, the Pennsylvania justices differed on the appropriateness of looking to international law.
The Problem Punishment Poses for Democratic Orders: Ruination and Rights
Transcript of panel from Symposium: State Constitutions and the Limits of Criminal Punishments
Barriers to Rights Protections and Collateral Consequences
Transcript of panel from Symposium: State Constitutions and the Limits of Criminal Punishments