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!
« 44. Alito and O'Connor | Main | 42. Alito's consecrated lie »
Tuesday
Jan102006

43. The FBI system

Paul Maccabee's entertaining and enlightening John Dillinger Slept Here: A Crooks' Tour of Crime and Corruption in St. Paul, 1920-1936, goes a lot deeper than its subtitle might suggest.  The "St. Paul System" in effect between the World Wars meant that gangsters were immune from police investigation in St. Paul so long as they committed no crimes there.   St. Paul was base in an interstate game of tag, and the cops were it.  Not surprisingly, this meant that even small towns elsewhere in Minnesota became scenes of bloody bank robberies, but what did the cops in St. Paul care about that? 

The St. Paul system was one of the factors that helped overcome Congress's resistance to a national police force, helping to pave the way for the creation of that ferocious publicity machine, J. Edgar Hoover's FBI.  In Miranda, Chief Justice Warren went on at some length about the FBI's "exemplary record of effective law enforcement" compiled while demonstrating "respect for the  rights of the individual ... consistent with the procedure which we delineate today."  "The practice of the FBI," Warren continued, "can readily be emulated by state and local enforcement agencies."  Here's Maccabee's description of an FBI investigation from 1936:

When [Alvin Karpis] asked to speak with the defense attorney Archibald Cary, the FBI brought the lawyer to the jail and attempted to eavesdrop on the conversation.  Before Cary arrived, "confidential arrangements were made to place a microphone near the place where the conference ... was to take place.  Special agent J.E. Brennan concealed himself in the adjoining cell tier."  But Cary, the lawyer for Minneapolis gangster Isadore Blumenfeld, was no fool: he "began thumping on the table," reported the FBI, "and it was difficult for Agent Brennan to over hear the exact nature of the conversation."

Note that the agent didn't hesitate to put this in his report.  It probably wasn't what the Chief Justice had in mind.

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.