Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
- Keyword
-
- Appointed counsel (1)
- Bentham (1)
- Blackstone (1)
- Caseloads (1)
- Convictions (1)
-
- Courts (1)
- Criminal justice (1)
- Defendents (1)
- Discrimination (1)
- Fairness (1)
- Funding (1)
- Independence (1)
- Innocence (1)
- Judges (1)
- Judicial behavior (1)
- Law and humanities (1)
- Law and literature (1)
- Law reform (1)
- Lawyers (1)
- Legal decisionmaking (1)
- Legal history (1)
- Legal reasoning (1)
- Legitimacy (1)
- Minorities (1)
- Oversight (1)
- Performance (1)
- Poverty (1)
- Prisons (1)
- Public defenders (1)
- Right to effective counsel (1)
Articles 1 - 2 of 2
Full-Text Articles in Law
Defense Counsel And Public Defence, Eve Brensike Primus
Defense Counsel And Public Defence, Eve Brensike Primus
Book Chapters
Public-defense delivery systems nationwide are grossly inadequate. Public defenders are forced to handle caseloads that no one could effectively manage. They often have no funding for investigation or expert assistance. They aren’t adequately trained, and there is little to no oversight of their work. In many jurisdictions, the public-defense function is not sufficiently independent of the judiciary or the elected branches to allow for zealous representation. The result is an assembly line into prison, mostly for poor people of color, with little check on the reliability or fairness of the process. Innocent people are convicted, precious resources are wasted, and …
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 …