Community Justice in Wisconsin

I am looking forward to the Law School’s 2009 Public Service Conference, which will address “The Future of Community Justice in Wisconsin.”  Organized by our Assistant Dean for Public Service, Dan Idzikowski, the Conference will take place on Friday, February 20.  Dan has supplied the following post to explain the significance of “community justice” and why it is such an important topic today, particularly for anyone interested in the fairness and effectiveness of the criminal justice system:

Community justice councils, or criminal justice coordinating councils, have been established in several communities across Wisconsin. These councils bring together key local decision-makers to address the coordination, cost, and effectiveness of the criminal justice system in their area. Milwaukee County, which has the State’s largest concentration of offenders and criminal justice resources, recently established its own Community Justice Council. Remarkably, this council has brought together leadership across the political spectrum to address crime and corrections in the Milwaukee area. The Marquette Law School Public Service conference is designed to support this collaboration and bring together criminal justice experts to lend their counsel to these efforts. For example, Jeremy Travis, the keynote speaker, is the President of the preeminent John Jay School of Criminal Justice at the City University of New York, the former director of the National Institute of Justice at the U.S. Justice Department, and the author of several books and studies on community corrections and reentry issues.

Why is community justice a critical public issue at this time? The past two decades have seen an explosion in Wisconsin’s prison and jail populations. Since 1990 over a dozen new state-operated correctional facilities were brought on line, and existing institutions were expanded. The cost of providing corrections services in Wisconsin grew from $178.4 million in 1990, to $583.4 million in 2000, to $1.2 billion in the current biennium.

Continue ReadingCommunity Justice in Wisconsin

How Lawyers Write

This week’s faculty workshop presenter was our very own Professor Jessica Slavin, whose talk was entitled “Talking Back to IRAC: Legal Writing Beyond the Paradigm.” The project on which the talk was based has two components. First, Professor Slavin traced the history and questioned the utility of using IRAC and related formulas as vehicles for teaching legal writing. Second, she presented the results of her own empirical study of briefs submitted to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, which suggest that something other than strict adherence to IRAC characterizes the brief writing of at least one set of advocates.

To me, this is interesting and provocative stuff. I find the psychology of writing fascinating (put it together with the process of judging and I could maybe write a whole article about it). Having tried to teach a writing class once, I’ve experienced first hand just how difficult it is to articulate what makes for good writing. For me, at least, this is partly because I go about my own writing in a highly intuitive way. I don’t recall ever consistently thinking about IRAC when writing in a legal context, and I cannot articulate many of the rules of grammar (although I consciously violate some of the more ridiculous “rules,” such as the ones about split infinitives and prepositions at the end of sentences). Given all this, I share Professor Slavin’s sense that there’s something not quite right about a method of teaching writing that suggests that it is somehow a mechanical or rule-driven process. This is not (on my part, at least) to suggest that IRAC-like formulas are not useful, but rather that they are incomplete.

Continue ReadingHow Lawyers Write

My Favorite Opinions, by a Former Justice

Having served on the Wisconsin Supreme Court, I am often asked about which case was my favorite. It is always difficult to answer that question, because I liked many cases for a variety of different reasons. So I thought I would share my experience with three of them. I really enjoyed working on cases that took me into not only interesting research but other cultures. State v. Davids involved a Native American charged with the offense of fishing without a license. The real issue before the court was whether the Stockbridge-Munsee reservation, as its boundaries were defined by the Treaty of 1856, was diminished by federal legislation in 1871 and terminated by federal legislation in 1906, thereby placing the area encompassing Upper Gresham Pond under state jurisdiction and requiring all who fished there to have a valid state fishing license, including Bert Davids, an enrolled member of the Stockbridge-Munsee tribe. That case had me dusting off old treaties and historical writings (actually my law clerk, Kathleen Rinehart, did the dusting off of the books) to better understand the various different types of agreements between the federal government and particular tribes. It became a rewarding history lesson in Indian treaties and the reasons for those agreements. I could not write the opinion without better understanding what was happening in tribal politics at the time. It became a lovely and interesting history lesson in and of itself. The conclusion of the case was that Mr. Davids indeed needed a fishing license for Upper Gresham Pond.

I also liked State v. Miller,

Continue ReadingMy Favorite Opinions, by a Former Justice