Law Commons^™

Some Challenges For Legal Pragmatism: A Closer Look At Pragmatic Legal Reasoning, Andrew J. Morris

Andrew J Morris

Some Challenges For Legal Pragmatism: A Closer Look At Pragmatic Legal Reasoning

Although scholars have discussed legal pragmatism for several decades, the literature does not contain a systematic analysis of the characteristic elements of pragmatic decisionmaking. This article tries to add that analytical perspective. It attempts to make sense of the extensive literature by identifying specific characteristics of pragmatic reasoning, then conducting a methodical comparison of distinctively pragmatic reasoning to more principled reasoning. I identify principled reasoning with legal form: as reasoning that gives some normative force to formal legal reasons. The criteria on which I compare the two modes …

"Drug Treatment Courts In The 21st Century: Improving The Criminal Justice System's Response To Drug Offenses", Peggy Fulton Hora, Theodore Stalcup

Peggy Hora

The article demonstrates that the traditional criminal justice system’s response to drug offenses – arrest, trial and incarceration and re-arrest, re-trial and re-incarceration of 70% of offenders within three years – wastes vast economic and human resources. Drug treatment courts, on the other hand, have proven to be strong alternatives to incarceration as well as effective mechanisms for dealing with America’s drug problem. The article addresses criticism of drug treatment courts, including resistance to the disease model of addiction, disputes over efficacy of treatment, legal issues related to purported coercion of treatment, concern over unbridled judicial discretion and ethical issues …

Reinterpreting The Role Of Special Trial Judges Through Standards Of Review, Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz

Christopher M. Pietruszkiewicz

Standards of review define the scope of power between judicial actors by dictating the level of discretion given to an original trier of fact. In the articulation of a standard of review, language is an insufficient source for defining a standard because of the inability of specific terminology to produce objective certainty. It is because words are not susceptible to objective certainty that the language used in defining a standard of review could be considered irrelevant and indistinguishable.

While the words may be indistinguishable, it is the uniformity of terms that promotes consistency in application. It may be impossible to …