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!
« 250. The Supreme Court revealed! | Main | 248. Thinking by metaphor »
Sunday
Mar182007

249. Tear gas and three piece suits

Admittedly, the following news story would get better traction in American media if San Francisco, the site of the American Bar Association's 2007 annual meeting, were substituted for Lahore:

Police stood ready in major cities to act against angry lawyers and succeeded in keeping the protests under control in all cities, except in Lahore, where they baton-charged lawyers breaking through police barricades, causing injuries to 40 and arresting about 25.

Aristotle divided the world of poetry into the comic, the tragic and the epic.  Here in America, lawyers, whenever they gather in large groups, show a strong preference for the comic.  The ABA's House of Delegates, for example, is reliably good for a laugh, although it's the same joke every year: the cosmic disparity between the delegates' self-importance and the utter indifference of everybody else in the world.

In Pakistan, however, it's not yet certain if we're in the midst of a tragedy or an epic.  The Sydney Morning Herald has a striking photo of tear-gassed suited lawyers bathing their eyes in a public fountain, dating from yesterday's second day of rioting.  The Morning Herald also provides some much-needed background for those of us coming late to the story:

The second day of clashes between police and lawyers on Saturday over the suspension of Iftikhar Chaudhary on March 9 prompted the President, Pervez Musharraf, to say conspirators were stirring up trouble.

The attempt to get rid of Justice Chaudhary has united disparate opposition parties against the President.

Justice Chaudhary's suspension fuelled suspicions that General Musharraf feared the independent-minded judge would oppose any move by him to retain his role as army chief, which constitutionally the President should relinquish this year.

Pakistan's English-language paper Dawn is all over the story, with at least six articles in today's edition.  Bloggers have picked it up, with Swaraaj Chauhan at The Moderate Voice providing an overview and a link to an extremely useful, short background article from the South Asia Analysis Group.  It should not be surprising that the story intertwines at least three familiar Pakistani themes: corruption; military dominance of government; and CIA / al Qaeda.  A long list of possible explanations - politics is not simple in Pakistan - is offered at Chowrangi.

Mayank Austen Soofi at Blogcritics tells President Musharraf how he can still save the situation.  (I like the name of Soofi's own blog, Ruined by Reading, and can recommend his compilation of sex tips from Jane Austen.)  (Come to think of it, isn't "Austen" an unusual middle name in New Dehli?)  And speaking of unusual names, Teeth Maestro lays it all out in a single breathless sentence:

There is no doubt in any ones mind that Chief Justice Iftikhar Mohammad Chaudhry was corrupt to some degree, and the all mighty and powerful (read Musharraf) actually believed that taking him out would have been an easy walk in the park, it would not be any more difficult then the coop he served up to roust the Pakistani hero Abdul Qadeer Khan, Musharraf I felt honestly believed if he could get away with Qadeer, Iftikhar was going to be more like easy play dead dogie style rampage.

"So," the Maestro adds, "he took a swipe at the Supreme Court."  My personal feeling is that Musharraf honestly believed it was going to be like easy play dead dogie style rampage, he's getting what he deserved.

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.