Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Discipline
-
- Courts (4)
- Law and Society (3)
- Anthropology (1)
- Arts and Humanities (1)
- Cognition and Perception (1)
-
- English Language and Literature (1)
- History (1)
- Law and Philosophy (1)
- Law and Psychology (1)
- Law and Race (1)
- Legal (1)
- Legal History (1)
- Legal Profession (1)
- Other Anthropology (1)
- Other Arts and Humanities (1)
- Other English Language and Literature (1)
- Psychology (1)
- Rhetoric (1)
- Rhetoric and Composition (1)
- Social and Behavioral Sciences (1)
- Social and Cultural Anthropology (1)
- Theatre and Performance Studies (1)
- Institution
- Publication
- Publication Type
Articles 1 - 5 of 5
Full-Text Articles in Jurisprudence
Who's Afraid Of Judicial Activism? Reconceptualizing A Traditional Paradigm In The Context Of Specialized Domestic Violence Court Programs, Jennifer L. Thompson
Who's Afraid Of Judicial Activism? Reconceptualizing A Traditional Paradigm In The Context Of Specialized Domestic Violence Court Programs, Jennifer L. Thompson
Maine Law Review
The Specialized Domestic Violence Pilot Project (Pilot Project), implemented in York and Portland in July and August 2002, is the result of the collaborative efforts of the District Court system, law enforcement, prosecutors, members of the defense bar, and various community agencies offering services to victims and perpetrators. District court judges are largely responsible for overseeing the changes in court procedures and implementing the new protocols in domestic violence cases. The Pilot Project, and the changes it is making to the role that courts play in domestic violence cases, represents a significant departure from the procedures followed by traditional court …
Judges, Racism, And The Problem Of Actual Innocence, Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
Judges, Racism, And The Problem Of Actual Innocence, Stephen J. Fortunato Jr.
Maine Law Review
The facts and data are in and the conclusion they compel is bleak: the American criminal justice system and its showpiece, the criminal trial, harbor at their core a systemic racism. For decades, criminologists, law professors, sociologists, government statisticians, and others have been collecting and collating data on crime, punishment, and incarceration in the United States. These intrepid scholars have looked at crime, criminals, and the justice system from all angles—the race of defendants and victims; the relationship of poverty to criminality; severity of crime; severity of punishment; incarceration rates for different racial groups; sentencing and sentence disparities; and so …
The Phenomenology Of Medico-Legal Causation, Nicholas Hooper
The Phenomenology Of Medico-Legal Causation, Nicholas Hooper
Dalhousie Law Journal
The language of counterfactual causation employed from the bench obscures the analytical vacuity of the "butfor" test. This paper takes issue with the consistent recourse to "common sense" as a methodological tool for determining the deeply complex issue of causality. Despite manifestly empty gestures to, e.g., robust pragmatism, the current approach imposes the dominant values of the judiciary in a manner that perpetuates the current distribution of power. Whatever the merits of counterfactual inquiry, its legal iteration requires judges to construct a hypothetical narrative about "how things generally happen." This, in turn, impels a uniquely comprehensive brand ofjudicialcreativity. The results …
Narratives Of Self-Government In Making The Case, Benjamin L. Berger
Narratives Of Self-Government In Making The Case, Benjamin L. Berger
The Journal of Appellate Practice and Process
No abstract provided.
Blackstone, Expositor And Censor Of Law Both Made And Found, Jessie Allen
Blackstone, Expositor And Censor Of Law Both Made And Found, Jessie Allen
Book Chapters
Jeremy Bentham famously insisted on the separation of law as it is and law as it should be, and criticized his contemporary William Blackstone for mixing up the two. According to Bentham, Blackstone costumes judicial invention as discovery, obscuring the way judges make new law while pretending to uncover preexisting legal meaning. Bentham’s critique of judicial phoniness persists to this day in claims that judges are “politicians in robes” who pick the outcome they desire and rationalize it with doctrinal sophistry. Such skeptical attacks are usually met with attempts to defend doctrinal interpretation as a partial or occasional limit on …