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!
« 52. "Security is a tax on the honest" | Main | 50. Courtroom reality »
Tuesday
Jan172006

51. Philosopher kings

Imagine a committee of philosopher kings designing a new Utopia.  The committee chair asks how their ideal society should ensure that those entrusted with enforcing the law will themselves obey it.  Who will police the police? 

A junior committee member pipes up: "I know!  We'll use the criminal justice system itself to control them.  As long as the police are dealing with innocent people, people who never get hauled into court, we'll let the cops do whatever they want.  They can harass the innocent, racially profile them, demand bribes or sexual favors from them – we won't care.  But if the cops catch a genuine thug doing something dreadful to another person, and we disapprove of the way the cops went about catching him, we'll prevent the jury from hearing proof of the thug's guilt.  That way the cops learn their lesson, the thug goes free, and the rule of law is upheld.  See?"

If you were sitting around that committee table, could you keep yourself from laughing out loud?

AuthorJoel Jacobsen | Comment1 Comment | | |
DateTuesday, January 17, 2006 at 11:48PM in ,

Reader Comments (1)

So what is your alternative to the exclusionary rule??
January 19, 2006 | Unregistered CommenterMF

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.