Abstract
Courts and scholars commonly assume that granting convicted defendants more liberal rights to challenge their judgments would harm society’s interests in “finality”. According to conventional wisdom, finality in criminal judgments is necessary to conserve resources, encourage efficient behavior by defense counsel, and deter crime. Thus, under the common analysis, the extent to which convicted defendants should be allowed to challenge their judgments depends on how much society is willing to sacrifice to validate defendants’ rights. This Article argues that expanding defendants’ rights on posttrial review does not always harm these interests. Rather, more liberal review can often conserve state resources, will rarely affect the behavior of defense counsel, and can help reduce crime.
Recommended Citation
Kim, Andrew Chongseh
(2013)
"Beyond Finality: How Making Criminal Judgments Less Final Can Further the “Interests of Finality”,"
Utah Law Review: Vol. 2013:
No.
2, Article 4.
Available at:
https://dc.law.utah.edu/ulr/vol2013/iss2/4