Crowell’s Note attempts to identify the problems created by discriminatory housing bars based on criminal convictions, the various reform efforts currently at work, and the potential inadequacies of the reforms based on the needs of those most at risk for recidivism. To that end, the Note begins by discussing the prevalence of housing discrimination in both the private and public housing sectors, before pulling from social science to demonstrate the effects of unstable housing or homelessness on individuals just released from jail or prison. The Note then outlinesthe various reform strategies that advocates are using to challenge these bars and discusses both the positive effects of these reforms and their failure to assist those most in need of relief, before finally attempting to identify potential solutions to bridge the gap between the limits of the ongoing reform efforts and the need to provide housing for individuals who have just been released back into society.
All posts by Hensleigh Crowell
In the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals’ 2004 decision Ex parte Briseno, the court laid out a new set of factors to determine if a capital defendant is intellectually disabled and thus ineligible for execution under the Supreme Court’s decision in Atkins v. Virginia. In this Note, Hensleigh Crowell reviews trial court evidence and prevailing standards for determining intellectual disability and concludes that the Briseno factors create an unacceptablerisk of executing defendants with intellectual disability in direct contradiction with the Supreme Court’s directive in Atkins.