About This Blog

Judging Crimes is a blog about criminal law, violent crime and the judiciary, dedicated to making the liberal case for greater democratic control of the criminal justice system.  It's a "view from the trenches" because it's written by a practitioner, not an academic or journalist.  It examines the changing role of the judiciary in American society by looking at what judges actually do, rather than what they say.  I know what they do because I deal with the consequences every day. 

Opinions issued by judges, from Supreme Court justices on down, are justifications for the exercise of governmental power.  But it is the exercise of power itself that should command our attention, not the justifications.  Judging Crimes is concerned with the reality of judicial power rather than the verbal formulas used to defend it. 

American law professors have long liked to say they teach their students "to think like a lawyer."  Learning to think that way is a matter of internalizing certain assumptions.  The practice of judging is likewise based on a foundation of shared assumptions, among them that the United States Constitution -- a document of 8,335 words, the length of a book chapter -- provides an answer to every question.  Rather like a Ouija board.

These assumptions are so ingrained -- and their internalization is so necessary to the successful practice of law -- that most people who subscribe to them aren't even aware of having done so.  Judging Crimes will try to engage not just with the expressions of judicial power, but with the assumptions on which those expressions  rest.  

Judging Crimes won't be filled with daily entries commenting on the day's events or provide a best-of-the-web welter of links.  Many other blogs already do that, far better than I could hope to do.  (Check out these.)  Instead, Judging Crimes will contain pieces of a length that might seem long for a blog but would be short in a serious magazine.  I hope to post new pieces several times a week.

Powered by Squarespace
What's not to like?

Hit the "like" button on Facebook to be notified of mini-blog entries and new posts and columns.

In Our Name
Test Drive the Book!
« 10. Thinking by Metaphor | Main | 8. When Is a Court Not a Court? »
Monday
Dec052005

9. Poor Old Camden

Morgan Quitno recently announced their annual rankings of the "safest" and "most dangerous" American cities.  Poor old Camden, New Jersey, won the title of most dangerous, while Newton, Massachusetts (namesake of the Fig Newton) was deemed the safest.    As Reuters pointed out, the average income in Newton is three times that of Camden, while the average house value in Newton is ten times greater.

Poverty doesn't cause people to become violent criminals.  But it does cause them to become victims. 

Fear of violent crime is the organizing principle of many people's lives.  It's a form of social control in America.  The best recent book about the American criminal justice system seems at first glance to be concerned with an entirely unrelated subject.  I mean Eric Klinenberg's Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in Chicago.  Over 700 Chicagoans died in the 1995 heat wave.  Klinenberg shows that the deaths were heavily concentrated in certain neighborhoods, specifically poor neighborhoods with dangerous streets.  Isolated elderly people stayed locked up in their apartments because they perceived a greater danger in venturing outside.  No other book has shown so vividly, even heartbreakingly, the isolating effect of violence. 

Four years after the heat wave, Chicago's own Justice John Paul Stevens wrote an opinion striking down Chicago's anti-gang-loitering law as an infringement of gang members' constitutional right to congregate on public property.   By ruling that the city, responding to the wishes of its citizens, could not exercise control over the sidewalks, Stevens effectively ruled that the gangs could. 

Rulings such as the Chicago gang ordinance case prohibit people living in places like Camden, or the rough neighborhoods of Chicago, from joining together in a democratic polity to rescue themselves from the arbitrary government of violence.  By ordering the withdrawal of the democratic state, the Court invites into society the competing micro-governments of bandit chieftains. 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.