Clark v. Arizona

Clark v. Arizona is a Supreme Court case that dealt with whether Arizona’s law requiring individuals to demonstrate that they lacked violent or dangerous tendencies to qualify for reduced sentences was constitutional. The Court ruled that this law did not violate federal constitutional rights, emphasizing that states have some discretion in setting their own criminal procedures, as long as they do not infringe on federal protections. Essentially, the case centered on balancing state authority to define criminal justice procedures with individuals’ constitutional rights, and the Court upheld Arizona’s approach.