Politics as Total War

A few years ago, a Department of Defense official called for a boycott of tony law firms that represented — on a pro bono basis — Guantanamo detainees. He was roundly — and I think justly — criticized.

But his view of politics as total war — something to be imported into nonpolitical walks of life — seems to be gaining currency. Earlier this year, One Wisconsin Now organized a phone campaign in which it urged its supporters to call and complain to a large local law firm about the pro bono work of one of its young associates. This young woman was apparently donating her time in support of Wisconsin’s marriage amendment. The objective was to use a law firm’s natural desire to avoid controversy and her economic vulnerability to shut her up and deny a party the legal representation of its choice.

Paul Soglin’s WMC Watch and full-court press for disclosure of donors to political conduits is concerned, at least in part, with a desire to place pressure on businesses that don’t behave politically in much the way that Epic Systems forced a contractor off WMC’s board.

Is there something wrong with this? Shouldn’t we all vote with our pocketbooks? Isn’t the personal political? 

Continue ReadingPolitics as Total War

Epistemological Privilege and the Law

As the Sotomayor hearings proceed, I thought I would turn again to the issues raised by the judge’s oft-cited “wise Latina” speech and similar remarks suggesting that there may be a connection between judicial decision-making and a judge’s ethnicity and background.

One common approach is to wonder whether this is “racist.” Shortly after the nomination was announced, I did a segment with Joy Cardin on Wisconsin Republican Radio. She seemed perplexed that I refused to assume the “racism” position, playing a clip of Tom Tancredo making that charge as if it to tell me that I wasn’t a team player.

But I think it is unfair to say that she was making a claim for some form of racial superiority.

Another common approach is to say that she was simply suggesting that judges need to be aware of the biases that arise from their backgrounds so that they can check them, and that a panel consisting of persons with different backgrounds will be more likely to, collectively, identify and deal with these biases.

I think that Judge Sotomayor almost certainly believes this, and I agree that there is a great deal of truth in it, although I may be less likely to believe that gender or ethnicity implies common histories and assumptions.

The reason that the debate has not — and should not — end with the second approach is that it is — literally — not what she said, both in the La Raza article and on other occasions. 

Continue ReadingEpistemological Privilege and the Law

Random Criminal Punishment?

diceTalk about thinking outside the box.  Since at least the time of Cesare Beccaria, generations of criminal-justice reformers have dedicated themselves to rationalizing our systems of policing and punishment: weeding out archaic laws, professionalizing the police function, bringing ever more sophisticated science to bear in the detection of crime, humanizing the administration of punishment, and so forth.  But now University of Chicago Law Professor Bernard Harcourt tells us we have been traveling down a dead-end road for the past two hundred years: what criminal justice needs is not rationality, but randomization.  Or so Harcourt argues in a provocative new paper on SSRN, “Randomization in Criminal Justice: A Criminal Law Conversation.”

Should police focus their resources on the inner-city or the suburbs?  Flip a coin, Harcourt suggests.  What maximum prison term should the legislature prescribe for a given offense?  Try drawing a number out of a hat.  Did the defendant really intend to cause the victim’s death?  Get out the tarot cards.

Harcourt’s paper appears in the new book Criminal Law Conversations, along with critical commentary written by law professors Alon Harel (Hebrew University), Ken Levy (L.S.U.), Alice Ristroph (Seton Hall), and some guy named Michael O’Hear.  The SSRN version includes the four responses plus Harcourt’s reply.  The abstract appears after the jump. 

Continue ReadingRandom Criminal Punishment?