Navigation
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!
« 176. Highly ethical pigs in a poke | Main | 174. Shovel brigade »
Monday
Oct022006

175. No morality, only penalty flags

Just days after a post talking about the post-modern society in which laws replace morality (see post 173) we get this AP sports page story:

Tennessee defensive tackle Albert Haynesworth was ejected in the third quarter Sunday after he stomped on the head of Dallas center Andre Gurode. ...

Julius Jones had just scored on a 5-yard run ... Gurode's helmet came off, and Haynesworth, standing over him, used his right foot to kick Gurode in the face. ...

A flag was thrown, and Haynesworth protested as he followed an official toward the sideline.

Haynesworth pulled off his helmet and slammed it to the ground, prompting another flag. ...

[Tennessee coach Jeff] Fisher called Haynesworth's actions unacceptable and promised he would be punished by the Titans even if the NFL disciplines him.

"It's ridiculous to get to that point. Two back-to-back penalties like that, there's no place for it," Fisher said.

AuthorJoel Jacobsen | CommentPost a Comment | | |
DateMonday, October 2, 2006 at 10:05PM in

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.

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.