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!
« 37. Call your important witnesses before lunch | Main | 35. History as Practiced by Lawyers (part 2) »
Tuesday
Jan032006

36.  Royalty

A year-end round-up of the year's significant local stories by the Pine Bluff Commercial ("First in Southeastern Arkansas") reminds us of Circuit Judge Fred D. Davis III, forced to resign following his conviction for tax evasion.  According to the final order of the Arkansas Judicial Discipline and Disability Commission, Davis bought a new Chevy Avalanche -- a hulking quasi-Hummer --for $35,029.21, and for the next 20 months drove it around either with no license plates or an expired dealer's tag.  By opting not to register the vehicle, he avoided paying gross receipts tax of $1,795.28.

Davis got himself stopped for DWI with an open beer in his truck, and one thing led to another.  At his tax-evasion trial he told the jury: "I had no intention to willfully avoid paying the tax. "  He just, uh, didn't pay it for 20 months.  Against his will.

The question that naturally arises about cases like Davis's is: how could they possibly think they could get away with it?  And the answer is: Well, he did.  He got away with driving a huge, conspicuous vehicle without tags while working in a building guarded by law enforcement officers and visited on a daily basis by more.  What smaller things did he get away with before that?  What confirmed him in his apparent belief than he was invulnerable?

 Even in the largest cities, weak-minded judges fall prey to the temptation to believe they deserve the exaggerated respect they are paid.  The temptation must be even greater in small cities like Pine Bluff, where the judge is also a local celebrity.  Being treated like royalty can hardly be good for one's mental health, as Britain's royal family and a parade of Hollywood stars seem determined to prove.  A drinking problem no doubt exacerbates the tendency to float a few inches above reality.

Besides, how does a judge on a $77,000 salary pay for a $35,000 vehicle? (Not to mention the cost of keeping its gas tank filled.)  "Out of touch with reality" might be the kindest explanation for Davis's driving habits.

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.