Cara H. Drinan, J.D.
Associate Professor of Law
> Web Page
• Criminal Justice
• Juvenile Justice and Sentencing
• Indigent and Public Defense
• Access to Counsel
• Mass Incarceration
School: Columbus School of Law
April 13, 2015
On juvenile justice: "These are not practices befitting the nation that invented the juvenile court a little more than a century ago. If we are to remain the land of the free we can and we must do better by our children."
January 5, 2015
Drinan commented in a story on a 30-year-old case heading to the Supreme Court.
July 25, 2014
Drinan was quoted in a story on the death penalty.
May 5, 2014
Drinan was interviewed about the Church's view of the death penalty.
January 25, 2014
Drinan was interviewed about whether young criminal offenders convicted of murder and other serious crimes should be spared mandatory life sentences.
January 20, 2014
In an article by Erik Eckholm headlined "Juveniles Facing Lifelong Terms Despite Rulings," Drinan criticizes states that have implemented the Supreme Court's decisions restricting life sentences for juvenile offenders in a way that "flouts the spirit of the decisions."
In this Washington University Law Review, Drinan analyzes the response to recent rulings by the Supreme Court striking down a majority of the states’ juvenile sentencing laws, outlawing life without parole for juveniles who commit non-homicide offenses and mandating individualized sentencing for those children who commit even the most serious crimes. She concludes that state actors have failed to comply with the Court’s mandate, and maps out a path for future compliance that relies heavily upon the strength and agility of the executive branch.
In Graham v. Florida, the U.S. Supreme Court held that it is unconstitutional to sentence a non-homicide juvenile offender to life in prison without parole. In this Washington Law Review article, Drinan answers several key questions about the ruling, including: To whom does the Graham decision apply? What is the appropriate remedy for those inmates? What affirmative obligations does the Graham decision impose upon the states?
For years, scholars have documented the national crisis in indigent defense and its many tragic implications, and yet the crisis persists. In this NYU Review of Law and Social Change article, Drinan distills from the recent body of suits a model for indigent defense litigation that emphasizes empirical grounding, extensive alliances of support, and requests for sweeping reform.
Drinan holds a B.A., summa cum laude, from Bowdoin College, an M.A. from Oxford University in Politics, Philosophy and Economics, and a J.D. from Stanford Law School. She was a 1995 recipient of a Truman Scholarship and a 1997 recipient of a Marshall Scholarship.