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?

Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program Kickoff

With a terrific training session last week for our new volunteer attorney-mediators, I am pleased to report that the Milwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program is moving forward.  You can link here for the website giving the background details (including generous funding by the city and state — see the announcement by the Dean here) and our training materials.  After the training, I have a better idea of how we reached this crisis (with 7500 homes in Milwaukee in foreclosure) and what options might exist for working this out. 

I don’t expect that all of these cases will magically work out (and some are absolutely ripe for litigation).  At the same time, I am optimistic that this program can help people save their homes.  We will start mediating cases soon and will be tracking not only our immediate settlement rate, but whether people are in their homes six months, twelve months, and twenty-four months down the road.

Continue ReadingMilwaukee Foreclosure Mediation Program Kickoff