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.

Navigation
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!
« 50. Courtroom reality | Main | 48. A piece of the action »
Monday
Jan162006

49. Putting faces on murder

The Boston Globe has a special report on Boston's homicide victims in 2005, a year when the city's homicide rate reached a 10-year high, according to the report.  Just glancing over the photographs reprinted in the story makes a devastating point about violence in America.  As Jervey Tervalon wrote:  "The worst scourge of inner-city life isn't drugs, gangs or poverty. It's the fact that if you're a young man, the odds are good that you will get shot."

AuthorJoel Jacobsen | Comment2 Comments | | |
DateMonday, January 16, 2006 at 11:49PM in

Reader Comments (2)

The Albuquerque Tribune does something similar each year but without the pictures. It does make you realize how many young men die needlessly, usually at the end of a gun.
January 17, 2006 | Unregistered Commentercrimegal
Really, in a world awash in guns getting shot is pretty damn easy. Americans are no more violent than the English or the Dutch or the Japanese. We just shoot each other a lot more than they do. Every drug transaction becomes a potential homocide because everybody has a gun and bullets are cheap.
January 19, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterJervey Tervalon

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.

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.