Skip to main content

ETHNOS_APP

Home • Search • Journals • List 0

Administrative Blackmail

The Remission of Penalties

Bibliographic Data

ID10875013
AuthorsDalmas H Nelson (University of Utah, corresponding author)
Year1951
Volume4
Issue4
Pages610-622
Publication date1951-12-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Western Political Quarterly (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0043-4078 • E-ISSN: 2325-8675
PublisherSAGE Publications (PUBLISHER • US)
DOI10.1177/106591295100400406
OpenAlexW185024332
LanguageEN

D URING THE PAST HALF-CENTURY, both the volume and the scope of administration have increased enormously. It could not accurately be said that the administrative process has ousted the legislative from its traditional functions. Rather, the administration has supplemented the legislature, supplying detailed regulations in fields into which the legislature had hitherto seldom ventured. However, it is true that administration has taken over some of the most characteristic judicial functions. For a time the Supreme Court stood out against this process, holding that, at a minimum, issues of constitutional power and right must be adjudicated in the courts; but although the Ben Avon' case and Crowell v. Benson2 have not been overruled, it appears that they are being quietly eroded away.3 More recently, despite the Sixth Amendment, administrative determination has been allowed to oust the jury from its function as trier of fact in criminal cases.4 Undoubtedly government has gained in expedition by these changes. What is often overlooked is that a price is paid for every advance in governmental efficiency. It cannot be taken for granted that the gain always outweighs the loss. This is a question which must be weighed anew in each particular case. One of the most striking intrusions of administration into the judicial field is found in the administration of penalties. Sanctions of many types are available to administrative agencies, and these commonly include, in both federal and state government, the power of agencies to assess penalties: monetary fines, penalties, and forfeitures, and the forfeiture of goods, vehicles, or other property.5 In some instances the imposition of the penalty is made to hinge upon a quasi-judicial determination of the fact of guilt, which is conclusive unless the reviewing court finds the administrative decision to be unsupported by substantial evidence.6 Usually, however, an independent, original court proceeding is necessary to enforce collection of the penalty; the administration simply notifies the offender

Administration (probate law) · Economics · Government (linguistics) · Jury · Law and economics · Legislature · Political science · Power (physics) · Sanctions · State (computer science) · Supreme court · Criminal Law and Evidence · Law · Legal and Constitutional Studies · Legal Systems and Judicial Processes

Highly citedNo

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub
Ethnos_APP • Open Source Project • MIT License • Frontend v2.0.0 • Privacy and Cookies • API Documentation: api.ethnos.app/docs • API Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17049435 • Frontend Source Code: GitHub • DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.17050053 • cruz.rio.br • Expectantes Misericordiae