Editorial Review

Editorial Review

Editorial Review

In a critically acclaimed, well-researched attack on legal regulations and bureaucratic red tape, a corporate lawyer shows how rules interfere with common sense and have taken away citizens' power to make decisions. Reprint. National ad/promo. NYT. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In this brilliant short book, Britain's former senior law lord, and one of the world's most acute legal minds, makes clear that the rule of law is not an arid legal doctrine but is the foundation of a fair and just society, is a guarantee of responsible government, is an important contribution to economic growth and offers the best means yet devised for securing peace and co-operation. He also discusses the strains imposed on the rule of law by the threat and experience of international terrorism. ... Read more

Reviews

A short book that everyone should read - particularly now., March 28, 2010
In this timely and useful book Tom Bingham (Britain's former senior Law Lord) explains in Part 1 the sources of present British law from the Magna Carta onwards, and in Part 2 discusses the key parts of the present day British system also referencing U.S. law.
It's a short and handy book that I keep close by, to check on for example, the legal meaning of, "Equality Before the Law" or "A Fair Trial".
Part 3 is a first rate exposition of the Rule of Law and the Sovereignty of Parliament (parliament takes priority) and Terrorism and the Rule of Law (a "War on Terror" isn't a real war in the WW2 sense). It becomes more than clear that this particular "War" has seriously curtailed basic Human Rights with regard to torture, detention without trial, kidnapping and the right to privacy (phone tapping without judicial order).
I highly recommend this book (BTW Tom Bingham isn't a terrorist).

Fine study of what the rule of law means in practice, November 19, 2010
Tom Bingham, Lord Chief Justice 1996-2008, presents eight parts of the rule of law: The law must be accessible and so far as possible intelligible, clear and predictable. Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion. Laws should apply equally to all, unless objective differences justify differentiation. Ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them in good faith, fairly, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred, without exceeding the limits of such powers and not unreasonably. The law must afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights. Means must be provided for resolving, without prohibitive cost or inordinate delay, bona fide civil disputes which the parties themselves are unable to resolve. Adjudicative procedures provided by the state should be fair. The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law.

The European Convention on Human Rights (1950) was effected here by the Human Rights Act (1998). It says, "No one shall be subjected to torture or to inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment." (The US Bill of Rights bans the infliction of `cruel and unusual punishments'.) It bans slavery and forced labour - -even for benefits. It asserts the rights to life, liberty and security, to a fair trial, and to respect for privacy and family life. It upholds freedom of thought, conscience, religion, expression, assembly and association.

Article 1 of its Protocols protects: "Every natural or legal person is entitled to the peaceful enjoyment of his possessions. No one shall be deprived of his possessions except in the public interest and subject to the conditions provided for by law and by the general principles of international law. ... The preceding provisions shall not, however, in any way impair the right of the State to enforce such laws as it deems necessary to control the use of property in accordance with the general interest or to secure the payment of taxes or other contributions or penalties." Article 2 asserts the right to education.

Bingham argues that "The rule of law requires that the law afford adequate protection of fundamental human rights." A Constitution is not enough, nor is a merely rhetorical commitment to the rule of law.

He looks at terrorism's impact on the rule of law and urges that our responses be lawful, not a mimicry of the terrorists' actions. He warns, "it cannot be said that the UK has shown that implacable opposition to torture and its fruits which might have been expected of the state whose courts led the world in rejecting them both. In a sequel to the Belmarsh case ... the Government argued that evidence obtained by torture abroad without the complicity of the British authorities could be considered by the Special Immigration Appeals Commission, a contention which the House of Lords unanimously and strongly rejected."

Finally, he states, "The invasion of Iraq was `a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law'.

why we are ruled by The Rule of Law, March 29, 2010
Judge Bingham has done a brilliant job of collecting and explaining the sources of The Rule of Law in Britain and America, and how that has led both countries to expect or champion governments of laws, not of men, both at home and abroad.
Judge Dallas Holmes ... Read more

Editorial Review

A distinguished and experienced appellate court judge, Richard A. Posner offers in this new book a unique and, to orthodox legal thinkers, a startling perspective on how judges and justices decide cases. When conventional legal materials enable judges to ascertain the true facts of a case and apply clear pre-existing legal rules to them, Posner argues, they do so straightforwardly; that is the domain of legalist reasoning. However, in non-routine cases, the conventional materials run out and judges are on their own, navigating uncharted seas with equipment consisting of experience, emotions, and often unconscious beliefs. In doing so, they take on a legislative role, though one that is confined by internal and external constraints, such as professional ethics, opinions of respected colleagues, and limitations imposed by other branches of government on freewheeling judicial discretion. Occasional legislators, judges are motivated by political considerations in a broad and sometimes a narrow sense of that term. In that open area, most American judges are legal pragmatists. Legal pragmatism is forward-looking and policy-based. It focuses on the consequences of a decision in both the short and the long term, rather than on its antecedent logic. Legal pragmatism so understood is really just a form of ordinary practical reasoning, rather than some special kind of legal reasoning.

Supreme Court justices are uniquely free from the constraints on ordinary judges and uniquely tempted to engage in legislative forms of adjudication. More than any other court, the Supreme Court is best understood as a political court.

Reviews

Judges Rule: Are American Judges Political or Pragmatic?, April 17, 2008
Richard Posner, one of America's leading Legal Scholars, has breathtaking range: from Aging (Aging and Old Age) and Intelligence (Uncertain Shield: The U.S. Intelligence System in the Throes of Reform (Hoover Studies in Politics, Economics, and Society)) to Sex (Sex and Reason) and Terrorism (Countering Terrorism: Blurred Focus, Halting Steps). In this book Posner returns to one of the main themes of his scholarship - the failure of Formalist judging and the possibility of Pragmatism as an alternative. This is a recurring theme for Posner (see my reviews of "Sex and Reason" and Overcoming Law, and especially Posner's The Problematics of Moral and Legal Theory) and one on which he can speak from experience: He's a Judge of the US Court of Appeal for the 7th Circuit.

Posner's book is a collection of articles published elsewhere; Its main theme is constructed from Law articles, a survey of the Supreme Court's 2004 term, various book reviews, and even, I think, Blog posts. The end product offers fascinating discussions of many topics, but it feels somewhat disjoint, as if Posner was constantly being sidetracked, albeit in interesting directions.

Posner's main argument, one that would find no disagreement from me, is that American Judges are not Formalists. Formalists argue that legal decisions are (or should be) made in an algorithmic fashion - that there is only one right answer, and that it is independent of the Judge's personality and politics.

That judicial decisions are not Formally determinable, at least in the most interesting cases, has been argued for centuries. Posner demolishes some of the tropes of Formalism old ("reasoning by analogy" pp. 181-190) and new-ish ("Originalism" pp. 343-345) and offers statistical evidence that US judges are not Formalist: the opinions of judges appointed by Democratic administrations differ from those of Republican appointed ones.

But if judges are not Formalist, what are they? Are there only two choices - Formalist(unfeasible in many cases) or political (As Justice Scalia suggests in an article titled "Originalism - the Lesser Evil")? In this and other writing, Posner offers an alternative: Pragmatism.

Pragmatism can help constrain Judges and decide cases in ways that would not seem to be political. A Posnerian Pragmatist should judge cases in which the Formalist apparatus breaks down in three ways:

First, in some fields there exists a "limited... field-specific ideological consensus" (p. 373). In contracts and torts, property law and bankruptcy law - the traditional domains of the Common Law - the basic ideological issues are agreed upon. Therefore judges can use instrumental reasoning as to how best achieve agreed upon goals.

Second, in areas upon which there is little consensus, such as Constitutional Law, the Posnerian Judge would be a minimalist. Subjecting oneself to Oliver Wendell Holmes's " "Puke Test" - a statue is unconstitutional only if it makes you want to throw up... a conviction of error is not enough - there must be revulsion" (p. 288). Judges would be mostly deferential to the "political" branches.

The third, most interesting element of Posner's Jurisprudence is the reliance on Social Science. Posner believes that by immersing oneself in the facts of the case, and in relevant scientific knowledge, one can sometimes transcend the personal dimension of the decision. Essentially, the social sciences can help move an issue from the second category - that of contested moral principles - to the first, thus achieving
an "apolitical" or Pragmatic, ruling.

Pragmatism is not a cure all for legal dilemmas; They can have more than one pragmatic answer. Take the Kelo case (Kelo v. City of New London, pp. 314-320). New London used its power of "eminent domain", forcing landowners to sell land to it at market prices, and then gave the land for public contractors to use in an urban development project. This appropriation of private property was understandably unpopular among owners, who probably estimated the land at a higher value than its market value - otherwise, they would have sold it willingly.

The economic justification for thus appropriating land is the `hold out' problem - sometimes, particular lots are necessary for a project. If they are, the owners, facing no competition, can hold out for a very high price. The power of "eminent domain" is thus an anti-monopoly device.

One pragmatic solution to the case would have been asking whether the situation in Kelo was a `hold out' situation. If so, justification existed for the use of the eminent domain. If not, its use was essentially subsidizing private contractors at the expense of the owners.

Instead of thus resolving the case, the Supreme Court refused to intervene in a political issue. That result, Posner reports, was a pragmatic triumph also. By refusing to defend owners against government action, the Court pushed owners to the public sphere, where they can fight the government's power "The responses of Congress and the states will constitute a series of social experiments from which much will be learned about the proper limits on eminent domain" (p. 319).

Is Posner's prognosis, limited as it is, only normative or also positive? Are US Judges really pragmatic? I think that, unfortunately, they are not. First, the Justices in the Kelo case showed little interest in the Social science behind the use of eminent domain. Application of social sciences in other cases is faulty and undisciplined (pp. 297-299). All the current Justices had been Court of Appeal Judges - did they forget their pragmatism when promoted? The Justices are not a representative sample of US judges, but is there any reason to think they are less empirically inclined?

Indeed, despite Posner's assurance that "Judges are curious about [social reality]... they want the lawyers to help them dig below the semantic surface." (p. 228), I wonder why we can't see that in practice. Law is a highly competitive business. If social science would give lawyers an edge in winning cases, one would think competition would teach lawyers how to use it. Factual, "Brandeis", briefs have been around... well, since Brandeis. Why aren't they making more of an effect?

My guess is that Posner is still an anomaly. Most American judges are not Pragmatists. Maybe we will "overcome law" some day, but we aren't there yet.

Brlliant and fun analysis of how judges actually decide cases, June 12, 2008
This man is *cold*. Fortunately for the reader, it is this icy wit that makes reading Posner's books such a joy. Watch how he rips into inconsistencies:

'In discussing a case that invalidated the exclusion of homosexuals from the military, Beatty approvingly remarks that the court "noted the lack of `concrete' and `actual or significant' evidence that allowing gay men to enlist in the armed forces would prejudice its morale, fighting power, or operational effectiveness in any way." He does not require that there be "concrete" and "actual or significant" evidence that homosexuals are harmed by the exclusion. Nor is he bothered by a lack of concreteness when he says that "laws that establish a broadcasting spectrum [must] guarantee that the full spectrum of opinion in the community will be heard." What is "the full spectrum" of opinion, and who is to decide? Must every lunatic have access to a broadcast studio? Beatty contends that government has a constitutional duty to subsidize religious schools but "may make funding conditional on religious schools agreeing to teach the same curriculum that is used in state-run schools." If the curriculum is identical, in what sense are they religious schools?' (internal footnotes omitted)

The point, here as throughout How Judges Think, is to drive a spear into the side of judicial and scholarly hypocrisy. The particular target here, Beatty, is no more or less hypocritical than the rest of us: judges and legal scholars, as much as anyone, pretend that their opinions are more than just opinions. Judges -- especially Supreme Court Justices -- have a fancy term for this, which we as Americans have come to sanctify as The One True Way Of Judging. The fancy term is `textualism' or `originalism' or (as Posner calls it) `legalism.' Legalism is meant to keep the judges out of judging: they're supposed to read the facts of the case, read the relevant precedents, read the text of any relevant statutes, maybe read the legislative history, then decide the case syllogistically. A judge becomes an automaton lacking independent will. This is supposed to keep politics out of the court, and keep us closer to the ideal of "a nation of laws, not men." The law, after all, shouldn't depend on who's enforcing it. This isn't the way actual judges or actual courts work, says Posner; he spends the next 350 pages crisply and efficiently taking down any number of legalist conceptions of judging. He replaces them with his own description of how judging actually works.

Judges also don't spend much time at all deliberating -- at least not in groups. A judge may be internally conflicted over a case, and at times he may actually change his mind on the basis of what others say. But not normally. Normally -- like poor Mr. Beatty, above -- he's either deliberately or subconsciously deploying judicial reasoning, or the appearance of judicial reasoning, in the service of what he already believes to be true. The ultimate source of judicial opinion is emotion: the race you were born into, the economic class you inhabit, whether you worked as a prosecutor or a defense attorney before you reached the Court.

If judges find sophisticated-sounding justifications for conclusions that they reached at the start, what's to stop them from running totally off the rails? Why can't a judge say whatever he wants? Here Posner walks through the range of `judges' -- from paid arbitrators through Federal appellate-court judges, all the way to the Supreme Court. An arbitrator has certain economic motivations: if he's known as thorough and unbiased, he'll get more business; if he tends to land on compromises that make both sides happy, he'll get still more. District court judges are subject to review by the appellate courts. Federal appellate judges have life tenure, insulating them from public opinion -- but they're subject to review by the Supreme Court. Supreme Court Justices themselves have a cushy job with limited caseloads and no possibility of review. So where do Supreme Court justices get *their* constraints? The public: if the Court veers too far into cloud cuckoo land, it can expect that the people will revolt and clamor for overriding legislation. The Supreme Court still has constraints.

Judges are "constrained pragmatists," in Posner's terminology. They must choose among conflicting interpretations of the common-law and statute history; a pragmatist chooses by considering the consequences of each interpretation in the light of the law's *intent*, if not its wording. A pragmatic judge doesn't get overly bogged down in the words of the law, when those words are an imperfect guide to what the law was supposed to achieve. This sounds similar to objectives-based regulation: specify the outcome and the intent, and focus less on the implementation. The realization behind this is that society changes quickly, and laws that fixate on the present moment's circumstances will quickly become obsolete.

This was the weakest part of Posner's argument: legislation, says Posner, moves more slowly than the courts do, so it's natural to place some of the burden of its interpretation on the courts. The process of amending the Constitution is tortuous, but Posner never makes it clear why this is a bad thing, or whether legislators actually desire to make the judicial branch a second branch of execution. Posner's argument isn't absurd. Even pragmatist judges operate under constraints, after all: if they strike down perfectly constitutional legislation, remedies up to impeachment are theoretically available. And the public has been trained to be on the lookout for `activist judges'. But to base a large part of the argument for pragmatism on a bare assertion that "it works out better that way for everyone" is odd.

His analyses of how a pragmatist would resolve any number of cases are fascinating. Take the Kelo case, for instance, which allowed the city of New London, Connecticut to seize land by eminent domain for private development. A pragmatist assesses a claim of eminent domain by looking at the original intent of the law, and the economic consequences of granting or withholding the seizure right. The original intent, says Posner, was to prevent individual people from holding a big public-works project hostage: if I'm building a several-thousand-mile-long road, everyone in its path knows that their cooperation is vital. They have, in other words, something like monopoly power, and they can demand exorbitant sale prices for their land. If there's no danger of "holdouts," as these are called, there's no reason to grant the state eminent domain. Moreover, a pragmatist would examine the consequences of granting eminent domain in these cases, would realize that the market is better able to assign just compensation to land sales than the state itself is, and would in effect hand the case over to the market for resolution.

A pragmatist judge, it seems to me, is expected to exercise remarkable foresight. Not only must he know enough about the common and statute law to genuflect appropriately at the law's majesty, but now he must also be able to guess the long-term consequences of a particular taking. This means he must be rather thoroughly educated in economics and statistics. Posner might reply here that it's six of one, half-dozen of another: a non-pragmatist judge only has to convert his gut feelings into the language of precedent, but the outcome of this simpler process is decidedly worse than what a pragmatist -- with his wider scope -- comes up with. If I have Posner right, there's little evidence for this claim in How Judges Think. Indeed, Posner repeatedly critiques judges for a lack of interest or skill in the exact sciences. So what's to make us think that an unschooled pragmatist judge would come up with better decisions overall? Maybe "unschooled pragmatist" is a contradiction in terms?

This reliance on economics, statistics, and science makes it all the more jarring when Posner throws down bare assertions -- as, for instance, when he asserts (p. 306) that the "total misery of the wrongly convicted was not lessened" when the Court increased the rights of criminal defendants in the '60's. Total misery decreases if the average wrongly convicted defendant spends less time in jail, or if fewer people are wrongly convicted to begin with. Posner asserts (with evidence) that defendants spent more time in jail after the '60's, in part because of a legislative backlash against the courts. (It could also be because violent crime increased. Posner himself doesn't engage in much convincing heavy-duty statistical analysis, though he cites plenty.) For his claim to hold, he has to show that the probability of wrongful conviction didn't fall enough to compensate for increased jail time. This he does not do. In general, the pretensions of economists invite skepticism during their falls from the empiricist wagon.

One final note from Posner that I found especially interesting: academics, he says, have grown increasingly distant from the actual practice of judging. One consequence is that law students learn the very artificial academic view of how judicial decisions are made. Law students, in a word, are trained to be legalists. They come to expect that judges are the automata they read about in class. Students learn that if they want to convince judges of anything, all they need to do is read a long litany of precedent; the judge will be forced, through logic alone, to accept their conclusions. They import this conceit into the courtroom and get nowhere with it. If legal academia were more in line with how judging actually worked, law students would learn to address judges pragmatically. As it is, even a decorated legal scholar like Larry Lessig -- a man who clerked for Scalia and Posner, in fact -- didn't understand quite how to talk to Supremes:

"Here was a case that pitted all the money in the world against *reasoning*. And here was the last na�ve law professor, scouring the pages, looking for reasoning."

Posner the Judge on How Judges Think, June 7, 2008
I found this to be a very significant volume by Judge Posner, since he is writing on several of his strongest areas--legal philosophy, American judges, and theories of judicial decision-making. As the title indicates, this is an enormous topic and even to cover all of Posner's topics in a brief review is impossible. But this is what he is up to:

First, he wants to review existing explanatory theories of judicial behavior: the attitudinal; sociological; economic; organizational; pragmatic; legalistic; and policy choice. Posner here seeks to demonstrate that no one of these theories can wholly explain judicial behavior, and that some other approach he suggests is better suited to do the job.

Posner is quite a creative fellow, extremely well versed in a variety of literatures in addition to the legal. For example, he discusses judges as workers in the judicial system, quite an innovative approach. Next he focuses on judges as "occasional legislators" and what ideology a legislating judge employs. Unconscious preconceptions and intuitions are major topics in this discussion. Posner then shifts to what external and internal constraints limit judicial freedom of decisional action, including precedent, tenure and salary issues, and internal constraints (what we political scientists refer to as "role theory" and small group analysis). Along the way he takes some effective potshots at folks such as LLoyd Weinreib (who argues analogy as the key to legal analysis), the legal process school, "neutral principles" and the Scalia approach to constitutional interpretation. Interestingly enough, law professors are not a major constraint, because they have segregated themselves out of studying and interacting with judges. This is one of the most perceptive chapters in the book.

By chapter 9, Posner is zeroing in on one of his favorite topics--pragmatic adjudication. He argues that pragmatic policy concerns often are the best device for explaining judicial actions because Posner believes these considerations should guide judges. Of course, Judge Posner has written literally reams on this topic, but I found this one of his best discussions. Finally, Posner targets the Supreme Court, "a political court" as he terms it. The limited impact the Court has in policing the Courts of Appeals constitutes an interesting theme here. Posner follows this up with a fine review of Justice Breyer's "Active Libery" and a fascinating discussion of what he terms "judicial cosmopolitanism," or how much foreign legal concepts should play a role in American judicial decision making. This chapter includes highly critical discussions of Beatty's "Ultimate Rule of Law" and Israeli CJ Aharon Barak's "The Judge in a Democracy." Posner can throw critical right jabs with the best of them.

This is a very long book (at around 377 pages). But is it packed with thought stimulating material and arguments, as well as exceptionally useful bibliographic references in the notes (which are actually at the foot of each page). Anyone interested in American judges and what they do, and why they do it, would consider this volume as essential reading.

Nailed It, July 6, 2009
If you have been inside the world Judge Posner writes about, you will know how extraordinarily practical this book is. This is how judges think - not how they think they think. Legal decisions arise in real contexts and judges almost always react in part to that context. If they did not, then our law would be the same as it was in 1242. Posner illuminates the pragmatic truth clearly while providing ample theoretical background for the budding philosopher.
At a time when the merely thoughtless insist that the "law be applied as written" (how, exactly, does one apply the phrase "equal protection" as written and divorced from context?)this refreshing burst of candor and common sense presented by the greatest legal mind of the past 50 years is critically important reading.

Excellent Analysis But Needs Some Editing!, July 10, 2008
I would agree with many of the reviewers that this is Posner at his finest. Although I tend to be skeptical of his articulation of pragmatism (especially via his selective use of economic theory), I found that this book really destroys the false binary that posits a clear split between activist and legalist judges.

Going beyond that, Posner also takes clear aim at the legal academy for mistaking the stated reasoning in legal opinions as the cause of a particular decision, rather than its effect. He makes it abundantly clear that legal scholars have lost connection with the judiciary and potentially the legal profession as a whole.

However, I can only give the four stars because the book desperately needed a good editor. Because the chapter are mostly previously published material, they are quite repetitive and probably make the book fifty pages longer than it needs to be. It would have been much better if Posner could have made the argument flow more coherently into a single argument instead of a dozen stand alone claims.

Posner and Judges, April 11, 2008
Posner and judges
Crispulo Marmolejo --
Universidad Santo Tomas, Chile

Amazon.com placed in my hands the last book by Richard Posner, called "How Judges Think". Richard Posner is one of the most famous public intellectuals of the United States, who is enjoying years of global reputation as a pioneer of the movement Law and Economics, Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit and Professor at the University of Chicago, having published more 30 books and hundreds of articles specialized. It's hard to find an author who combines excellence in the categories of lawyer, economist, academic and Judge Posner as those exhibits.

His latest book is a stark analysis of the judicial function and surely will make famous the 9 theories of judicial conduct that suggests there, which include the prospect sociological, psychological, practical, organizational and phenomenological.

A rational approach to judicial functions assigns judges the role of providers judicial allocators of property rights, sanctions and custodians of various freedoms. Judges up - according to Posner- a labor market specific, highly regulated and classified, sensitive to many externalities in which it operates, at least in legal systems in Latin America- an excessive legalistic environment.

They are subjected to the pressure of time to resolve cases, forcing them to decide on multiple subjects and trial and face criticism from civil society, scholars and politicians, which increases a natural propensity to inefficiency in the assignment of rights, eventually corrected by higher Courts.

The economic theory of judicial conduct, according to this famous jurist, analyzes the judges acting as maximizers their benefits, as their own job stability and projecting climb hierarchy. In his peculiar style, Richard Posner argues that the excessive legalism tends to stifle the judicial function, restricting creativity and novel approaches suffocating, allowing lawyers, legislators and non innovators scholars tend to exercise only old arguments, blocking new realities interpretative and denying a complete understanding of technical realities that globalization imposes today with a very different approach to the rigid legalistic.

According to Posner, the incentive to reduce that legalism, is the pragmatic analysis of court decisions, which often reveals how many false conflicts were brought into the procedural state apparatus, imposing a social cost and institutional benefiting.

Finally, Richard Posner did a really good job again, explaining how is the current relationship between pragmatism and the role of judges

A Must Read for Any Trial Lawyer, May 21, 2008
Posner brings his esteemed credentials as a circuit judge and authorative author to tackle the ultimate question: how do judges really make their decisions. Is it based strictly on the law and the facts of the case, or, as we are taught in law school, does it sometimes depend on what mood the judge is in.

Posner enlightens naive lawyers who might be tempted to believe that judges decide cases in a vacuum based on which side has submitted the best brief. He also uses his humor and exceptionally clear writing to show how judges reach decisions based on different types of cases.

In particular, every trial lawyer must answer the question, how will the judge influence my case, or how will he decide it if there is a bench trial (no jury). On appeal, the trial lawyer must also factor in how appellate judges will review his/her case. Posner gives invaluable insight in a very well-written and entertaining book.

Posner style unleashed!, May 15, 2008
Posner's economics background weighs heavy in his analysis of How Judge's Think. His insight makes for a very interesting read which I found helpful in my approach with the various levels of the judicial branches. The comparison of his various theories of judical thought make for lively discussion. I would recommend this to any practitioner or law student.

How Judges Think, May 28, 2008
My god, what a boring book this was. It was written like a law review article and nothing is more boring than a law review article (unless you are doing research). I was hoping for some down to earth conversation about how judges think, something that was an easy read. This was NOT an easy read was just BORING. I didn't even finish it. It was like a lecture on paper. ... Read more

Editorial Review

The first and BEST-SELLING brief introduction to criminal justice text, Criminal Justice: A Brief Introduction 8e continues to offer instructors and students a trusted, authoritative and impeccably researched introduction to the criminal justice system in America. Now with a CJ careers feature and learning objectives aligned with end-of-chapter questions, the book provides both a streamlined and up-to-date look at this ever-evolving field. Known for its unifying theme, its unmatched timeliness and its coverage of the newest criminal justice trends and technology, this book has become THE standard by which all other brief texts are judged. ... Read more

Reviews

nice introduction to the criminal justice field, September 2, 2000
i just bought this book at my campus the other day. I can't put it down. This book is very interesting and laid out nicely, definitions are made clear. i feel as if i am there when i look at the pictures in this book and when i am reading about a particular incident.another thing i like about this book is it combines traditional learning with the author wanting the reader to use the internet.

Informative, August 25, 1999
A good book to read if you're studying the subject, even if it isn't required. ... Read more

Editorial Review

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. According to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, a judge like this can maneuver through earlier cases to achieve the desired aim--"distinguishing one prior case on his left, straight-arming another one on his right, high-stepping away from another precedent about to tackle him from the rear, until (bravo!) he reaches the goal--good law." But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.

In exploring the neglected art of statutory interpretation, Scalia urges that judges resist the temptation to use legislative intention and legislative history. In his view, it is incompatible with democratic government to allow the meaning of a statute to be determined by what the judges think the lawgivers meant rather than by what the legislature actually promulgated. Eschewing the judicial lawmaking that is the essence of common law, judges should interpret statutes and regulations by focusing on the text itself. Scalia then extends this principle to constitutional law. He proposes that we abandon the notion of an everchanging Constitution and pay attention to the Constitution's original meaning. Although not subscribing to the "strict constructionism" that would prevent applying the Constitution to modern circumstances, Scalia emphatically rejects the idea that judges can properly "smuggle" in new rights or deny old rights by using the Due Process Clause, for instance. In fact, such judicial discretion might lead to the destruction of the Bill of Rights if a majority of the judges ever wished to reach that most undesirable of goals.

This essay is followed by four commentaries by Professors Gordon Wood, Laurence Tribe, Mary Ann Glendon, and Ronald Dworkin, who engage Justice Scalia's ideas about judicial interpretation from varying standpoints. ... Read more

Reviews

Not your father's judicial interpretation., August 17, 2004
I'd like to mention, first of all, what this book it not. It is not for the casual observer of the American judicial system. Justice Scalia gives a probing examination of various methods used in Constitutional and judicial interpretation. If the reader is not consumed with learning law, or delineating the intent of the Constitution, this book will probably be a major disappointment.

On the other hand, if you have a solid foundation of knowledge on the judiciary and the U.S. Constitution, you will enjoy this book and will learn a great deal of what Justice Scalia has to offer. Scalia offers up a 50 page paper on the various methods of judicial interpretation, each methods strengths and weaknesses, and the how and why of whether or not each method is viable.

Scalia's paper is then cross-examined by Ronald Dworkin, Mary Ann Glendon, Amy Gutmann, Lawrence Tribe and Gordon Wood. Scalia then offers up his rebuttal and I believe, strengthens his theories of judicial interpretation. I am not going to go into my own how's and why's, as I am a fan of Scalia's and would rather allow the reader to reach their own conclusions.

Whether you like this book, or hate it, one thing is for certain, you will come away with a much better knowledge of the U.S. judicial system, how it reaches some of its conclusions, and what the consequences of continuing with current methods of judicial interpretation will be on our country.

Monty Rainey
www.juntosociety.com

Recommended, but with reservations., May 15, 1997
I assume you have seen a description of the book already. The book is good enough to be recommended overall, but there were some disappointments. First, the justice does not stay long on his professed topic, the interpretation of statutes, but goes over into constitutional interpretation. Those who make replies follow gladly, and there is really little on the whole about statutory instead of constitutional interpretation. Moreover, the justice did not make it clear enough to me how his textualist philosophy differs from literalism, which he explicitly disavows. Also dissappointing is that I think the justice could have made a much stronger case for what I do glean to be his philosophy by invoking legal principles already understood when the constitution was written, and especially by invoking Justice Story's brilliant decision in Martin v Hunter's Lessee. In that decision rules of constitutional interpretation are stated clearly and authoritatively, and are much along the lines of what Scalia advocates. Lastly, Justice Scalia's essay does not measure up to the keenness of insight and language he shows in his best dissents, though there are some good moments. Despite these drawbacks, it is a very thought- provoking work and its brevity gives one less of an excuse for not reading it. It is largely free of technical vocabulary and there are no arcane discussions.

A model for all apologetics!, March 28, 2005
I loved the format of the book! Scalia presents his judicial interpretative process, and honestly admits hypocrisy when he occasionally votes ideology rather than using his system. Then, rather than providing a half-hearted attack on his ideological opponents, he invites them to respond to his thesis, each with their own chapter!

You may not agree with Scalia, but you can't doubt his moral courage based on his invitation for criticism in his own book.

I also appreciated the chapter on the structure of Germany's Constitution to help us understand why principle, rather than statue, plays such a big role in American judicial interpretative processes.

Everyone that cares about the Supreme Court should read this book. I have yet to find a better book to learn the motivations and processes utilized by each ideological camp. After reading this book, my ability to understand the logic of the court, for both rulings and the opinions, has been greatly enhanced.

While unintended, Scalia also helped cement my personal belief that a blend of original meaning (aka textualism) and abstract principalism, and not Scalia's textualist approach alone, is by far the optimal method for judicial interpretation based on our Constitution.

A fine critique of modern legal philsophy in the US., December 17, 1997
Antonin Scalia is blessed with a powerful intellect and a persuasive manner of expression. It's about time that a member of the US Supreme Court explained in terms intelligible to the average "newspaper reader" just what is going on in federal appeals courts. If not all of Justice Scalia's recommendations are correct, he certainly, at long last, has been able to ask the right questions. Proponents of judicial activism (and Scalia graciously shares space with two of the most famous, Tribe & Dworkin) will be hard-pressed to keep up the pretense that federal courts today are much more than arenas for elite social engineers to rework society in their own image and likeness. A fine study in modern legal philosophy, I recommend this work with few reservations. My complete review of Justice Scalia's book can be found in "National Catholic Register" 26 Oct. - 1 Nov. 1997, p. 6. I have seen the review posted on the Web as well.

A tough read, August 8, 2004
Antonin Scalia might be best described as a conservative American. Conservatism often means not taking the "far-out-there" approach to life.

Although his section of the book is rather short, it is a bit difficult to follow for those of us who are not lawyers. Nevertheless, it is an excellent view into his thinking process. It details the reasons for not siding with contemporary liberal thinking, believing that the U.S. Constitution should be interpreted literally (in most cases).

I read the book a few pages at a time, absorbed what I read, and read more the next day. Frequently, during the responses to his writings by other prominent lawyers, I found myself going back and re-reading parts of his writings again. To complete the book and understand it I probably read the entire book several times - back and forth between the writers.

Whatever your political leanings, it is an insight into why one Supreme Court Justice votes the way he does.

I wish all the Justices would write a similar book so we could understand their viewpoints.

Legal tour de force, December 9, 2001
This book is a real treat for anyone who loves legal (constitutional that is) thought. It would also make a great introduction into what several of the greatest thinkers in the Anglo-American legal profession think. The book is mainly a lecture by Scalia where he lays out his theory of 'textualism,' that is closely grounding constitutional interpretation to the original meaning of the words of the constitutional (or statutory) text. It is a spirited explanation of the theory and includes defenses against some of the more common attacks on the theory. But the book gets better. Four legal experts, Laruence Tribe, Ronald Dworkin, a historian and Glendon all give their comments on textualism. Scalia then replies to these comments at the end. A wonderful look into debate between five incredible minds who often diasgree.

An Insightful Discussion, October 30, 2001
In this tidy book, Justice Scalia puts forward his theory of jurisprudence and takes on the subject of judicial philosophy and what he calls the modern movement of judicial activism. He begins by giving an overview of the history of common law and judicial review, in which he contends that judges historically respected stare decisis - that is, previous rulings. Only in modern times, with the rise of democratic activism, has the desire of judges to "make law" become a problem of significant proportions.

Scalia then gets to the heart of his argument - that the role of the judge is not to ascertain the intent of legislators, but rather to ascertain the meaning of the words contained in a particular document. In this sense, he a textual purist compared to activists who will search out the meaning of particular pieces of legislation by evaluating legislative history, popular press, Congressional record, etc. He concedes that language must be interpreted, but he argues that there is a disciplined approach, and a liberal approach. The disciplined approach he supports would evaluate text within the notion of reasonable interpretation, "placed alongside the remainder of the corpus juris."

"Government by unexpressed intent is simply tyranny," Scalia argues. "That seems to me the essence of the famous American ideal set forth in the Massachusetts Constitution. A government of laws, not of men. Men may intend what they will; but it is only the laws that they enact which bind us."

Scalia argues that the fact that some texts bear multiple interpretations does not sink the enterprise of textualism. The divide on constitutional questions is not between what the framers intended and what they wrote, but rather between original meaning and current meaning. Scalia argues it is precisely the threat of abolishing cherished rights that makes original meaning important - it is a protection against those, (say Nazis) who would seek to impose a new order or new interpretation of acceptable governance. He argues that the notion of a "living constitution" has narrowed the straits of American freedom, not expanded them. The prevailing mood may or may not be just in the eyes of history, but leave that to the legislators and the great debates among thinkers and politicians; don't seek to encode today's moods in tomorrow's constitution through judicial activism. The avenues for changing the constitution and expanding its purview are well known -- otherwise, leave legislating to the legislatures.

Tribe and Dworkin offer the most interesting rebuttals. Dworkin seeks to root constitutional interpretation in broad principles of understanding and rights; Tribe concedes he has no theory of jurisprudence, other than he finds it difficult to accept the certitude of either Dworkin or Scalia that they have the right interpretation. His is a strange argument. Scalia never says the Constitution does not bear multiple interpretations, but he does argue for a more disciplined approach, in which rights are not found willy nilly in the minds of judges and then imposed on the original document by which we are governed. One annoying aspect the book: Tribe responds both to Scalia's original essay and his counter rebuttal within the first rebuttal -- before we have even read Scalia's response. This got a tad confusing and did not add much to the overall discussion.

Scalia believes that in a democratic society change should not come from judicial decrees, but from the people's representatives, January 16, 2009
I read this book for a class on the philosophy of law. In his book "A Matter of Interpretation," Associate Justice Antonin Scalia describes his judicial philosophy as that of being a "textualist." For Scalia, textualism means that a judge is bound by interpreting the law without regard for the intent of the lawmakers. "Men may intend what they will; but it is only the laws that they enact which bind us" (17). Justice Scalia is one of the most vociferous opponents of the use of constitutional comparativism by judges to help influence or guide them to a certain interpretation of the law. Scalia, on the spectrum line of judicial philosophy, is a self-described "textualist." His idea of textualism is that, "A text should not be construed strictly, and it should not be construed leniently; it should be construed reasonably, to contain all that it fairly means" (23). Textualism is a constitutional philosophy of original meaning, instead of original intent, as a "strict constructionist" would interpret the text. In addition, Scalia believes that, "It is the law that governs, not the intent of the lawgiver....A government of laws, not of men" (17).

Scalia believes that in a democratic society, change should not come from judicial decrees, but from the people's elected representatives. Thus, one can instantly see that Scalia's views bring him in direct opposition to Justice Ginsburg's "living constitution" philosophy, which at its core embraces constitutional comparativism, and gives judges virtual carte blanche to pen new laws from the bench.

Scalia has vehemently denounced judges who have resorted to constitutional comparativism in their written opinions when adjudicating cases before them. Scalia argues that the only time a judge should refer to foreign law in interpreting a nation's constitution is when she is settling a case dealing with treaty obligations with foreign nations. In every instance where one of his colleagues resorts to the practice of including opinions from foreign court rulings, Scalia has made it a point to take umbrage against this practice in his own written opinions. Most of the instances where Supreme Court Justices have used constitutional comparativism have occurred when they have ruled on cases involving death penalty issues, cases involving the War on Terrorism, and privacy cases dealing with abortion or homosexuality.

Scalia is skeptical of the methodology used by judges who include foreign law in their adjudication process. Specifically, he wonders if judges dabble with constitutional comparativism on a selective basis, only when it fits with their ideas of how the case should be ultimately adjudicated. As an example, Scalia notices that when the court hears arguments about the death penalty or abortion, he observes that his colleagues do not cite decisions or statistics from courts in socially conservative countries in South America, East Asia, or Islamic countries. Thus, he finds that his colleagues are being a bit disingenuous when they "cherry pick" opinions from foreign nations, especially European, and try to use them as examples of how there is a change in the world's social mores that should be considered when adjudicating cases.
Even Justice Breyer agreed that Scalia's point on his and other Justices not citing cases from non-European nations is a fair criticism of their methodology.

Another argument Scalia uses against judges relying on constitutional comparativism, is that the judge is probably not fully conversant on the surrounding history and jurisprudence involved in a particular foreign ruling. An example Scalia uses is the question of whether it is "cruel and unusual" punishment to have a condemned to death prisoner waiting over twelve years, as many American death row inmates do, before her sentence is carried out. The U.S. Supreme Court has not taken up this question; however, Scalia and Breyer see it looming on the court's horizon. Scalia argues that if one looks at foreign case law in Britain before they abolished the death penalty, it would show that the penalty was carried out within two weeks of its pronouncement in court. Many legal professionals in the U.S. point to this and argue that the prolonged period between sentence and execution should be considered "cruel and unusual" punishment. However, Scalia argues that the reason the length of time is prolonged in the U.S. is because of the system of jurisprudence it labors under to ensure a liberal appeals process for condemned prisoners. The reason why the U.S. allows a death row inmate multiple avenues for appeal is as a safeguard against a wrongly condemned prisoner from being put to death. This type of liberal appeals process was not in place in Britain before its courts abolished the death penalty or in other European countries that did the same. Therefore, Scalia makes an important point when he states that judges who want to use constitutional comparativism often times do not take into account the history and judicial background of a particular ruling from foreign courts when using these court's decisions in helping to form their own opinions of a case before them.

Another argument Scalia makes against constitutional comparativism deals more with his own judicial philosophy. As a textualist and a positivist, he does not think that a judge who has the power of judicial review of her nation's laws should be in the business of making moral rulings for her society from the bench, a practice that effectively circumnavigates her nation's legislative branch. In addition, part of what makes Scalia a positivist, is that he believes in the importance of the rule of law. One of the guiding tenants of a nation that adopts the principle that the rule of law is an important foundational precept in their society, is the idea that citizens must not be subjected to ex post facto laws. Essentially, an ex post facto law means that a government body enacts a new law to make an act illegal, and this law is then applied to an agent who committed the "illegal" act before the new law was enacted. Scalia argues that rulings made by judges who are natural law theorist proponents become ex post facto laws for the people before the court, and if judges do this routinely, it would make life for citizens in such a society intolerable.

Finally, like Montesquieu, who was the first person to advocate in his writings for the separation of the judiciary from both the executive and legislative branches of government, Scalia is also a staunch supporter of the separation of powers system of government. Therefore, Scalia does not think it is the prerogative of judges interpreting their nation's constitution or law code to make perceived necessary changes to keep up with changing social values. Scalia believes that in a democratic society, the people are sovereign and thus a nation's constitution and law code should be changed by the people's elected representatives and not by appointed judges. Scalia is not against citizens changing their Constitution or laws, "... the Constitution should keep up to date--but it should keep up to date with the views of the American people." Thus, Scalia argues that judges in a nation who have judicial review powers are only entitled to review the texts of laws enacted by a nation's governing body to ensure their proper application by governmental agencies and its citizens. When it comes to keeping up with societal changes, Scalia believes it is up to the elected representatives to make the necessary changes. "You can have arguments on one side and on the other, but what you have to ask yourself is what does American society think? And the best way, the only way to determine that is certainly not to ask a very thin segment of American society -- judges, lawyers and law students -- what they think but rather to look at the legislation that exists in states, democratically adopted by the American people.

Keep Reading Books by Sitting Supreme Court Justices, May 2, 2006
I think that it is good to read widely and get divergent perspectives. Thus, Christians and Jews should read the Quran and Muslims should read the Torah and the New Testament. Conservatives should read the Nation or the New Republic and visit the DailyKos website and liberals should read the Weekly Standard or National Review and visit RealClearPolitics. The same perspective applies with Breyer's book. Regardless of your perspective, you should read this brief and easily understandable statement of judicial philosophy from a sitting Supreme Court justice. (And, it would also be good to read the counterpoint from Justice Breyer for the same reasons.)

I find this book to be a more interesting and powerful presentation than the recent book by Justice Breyer. In Breyer's book we read just his perspective and much of it is a response to this book by Scalia. In Scalia's book we are given Scalia's approach to judging and then we are given critical responses to that approach by several different authors, not all judges themselves. It is clear that Scalia likes the clash of argument and finds great benefit in that clash.

This book is brief and extremely well written so that even someone untrained in law can still easily follow the arguments and counterarguments. Anyone interested in our Supreme Court would find this book (and Breyer's) to be extremely useful and enlightening.

For myself, I found that reading both books left me believing that while both Justices approach the world in different ways, we are in good hands. Given the incredibly politicization of the Supreme Court, I found these books to be reassuring of the intelligence, character, and skill of these two Justices.

Scalia's Book Review, March 4, 2009
For upcoming student of political science and the interpretation of the constitution, I LOVE this book. Gives an insight into the most unappreciated methods of interpreting the constitution. I recommend it 100% and I am glad that it is a whole section in our philosophy of law class. ... Read more

Editorial Review

What is law? This question has preoccupied philosophers from Plato to Thomas Hobbes to H. L. A. Hart. Yet many others find it perplexing. How could we possibly know how to answer such an abstract question? And what would be the point of doing so? In Legality, Scott Shapiro argues that the question is not only meaningful but vitally important. In fact, many of the most pressing puzzles that lawyers confront—including who has legal authority over us and how we should interpret constitutions, statutes, and cases—will remain elusive until this grand philosophical question is resolved.

Shapiro draws on recent work in the philosophy of action to develop an original and compelling answer to this age-old question. Breaking with a long tradition in jurisprudence, he argues that the law cannot be understood simply in terms of rules. Legal systems are best understood as highly complex and sophisticated tools for creating and applying plans. Shifting the focus of jurisprudence in this way—from rules to plans—not only resolves many of the most vexing puzzles about the nature of law but has profound implications for legal practice as well.

Written in clear, jargon-free language, and presupposing no legal or philosophical background, Legality is both a groundbreaking new theory of law and an excellent introduction to and defense of classical jurisprudence.

Editorial Review

This is not a comforting book -- it is a book about disturbing issues that are urgently important today and enduringly critical for the future. It rejects both "merit" and historical redress as principles for guiding public policy. It shows how "peace" movements have led to war and to needless casualties in those wars. It argues that "equality" is neither right nor wrong, but meaningless.

The Quest for Cosmic Justice shows how confused conceptions of justice end up promoting injustice, how confused conceptions of equality end up promoting inequality, and how the tyranny of social visions prevents many people from confronting the actual consequences of their own beliefs and policies. Those consequences include the steady and dangerous erosion of the fundamental principles of freedom -- and the quiet repeal of the American revolution. ... Read more

Reviews

OK, October 26, 1999
This book is good, not great. And the people who would get the most out of this book are those who are most unlikely to read it. If you are already familiar with Sowell, or read Forbes or The Wall Street Journal on a regular basis, then you are already familiar with most of the ideas and concepts in this book. Nonetheless, the book makes for an interesting read. Sowell persuasively points out that many of those seeking "justice" (cosmic or otherwise) frequently don't give a darn about the costs and benefits of their current flavor of justice on society. Sowell provides many examples, and gloomy predictions, about what happens when the liberal elite impose their visions on the rest of us. As an attorney who just graduated from NYU Law School, I couldn't agree more with Sowell's comments regarding how the rule of law is systematically undermined by our nation's elite law schools. Once the rule of law is gone, you decide justice given the judge's present whims, which is awful close to monarchy---which the liberal elite unfortunately fail to recognize. I was taught nothing but contempt for precedent and the rule of law at NYU, I'd even go so far as to say that most of my professors seemed to feel you should just examine each case from the perspective of who you feel is "disadvantaged" and rule for them. After three years of that attempted brainwashing, Sowell's book is like climbing out of a dark cave and realizing light still exists.

A good summary of a misguided ideology, September 2, 2000
Thomas Sowell's "The Quest For Cosmic Justice" is a stab in the heart of left-wing politics. Early in his book, the author makes a clear distinction between traditional ideas of justice and what Mr. Sowell describes as "cosmic justice." Traditional justice is process-oriented. Everyone plays by the same rules and is judged by the same standards. It is a system that "flesh and bone" human beings can live under. Cosmic justice, on the other hand, means providing everyone with equal prospects of success. This concept of "fairness," as morally spurious as it is, becomes outright dangerous when it requires third parties to wield arbitrary power to override rules and control outcomes. These third parties - found in government, universities, the media, and the courts - see a nation desperately in need of cosmic justice. The gap between the rich and poor is supposedly growing, threatening our economic future. The so-called "earnings gap" between men and women is supposedly the child of a sexist society. Police brutality is becoming a high-tech version of lynching. And so on. Of course, many of these "problems" disappear when confronted with real-world experience and statistical evidence. Creating government "solutions" to these "problems" only entrusts more and more power in the hands of people further and further removed from the real world. To allow any government authority to determine how much money you receive for your work is not only a distortion of the economic process but is a dehumanizing attempt in reducing everyone to political clients. Government price controls on food, supposed to help the poor, have led to widespread hunger in countries around the world. Undermining law enforcement because of its perceived unfairness to minorities have led to high crime rates which hurt minorities most of all. The passion for equality - which somehow became twisted into racial preferences - has led to a divorce of performance and reward, which is to say a divorce between incentive and behavior - perhaps the most crucial foundation of Western civilization. Yet theories of cosmic justice and the public policy that springs from them are unlikely to be re-examined. Why should they be re-examined when they permit its advocates to feel morally superior to everyone else? Meanwhile, those who believe in systematic processes - the marketplace, traditional values, constitutional law (namely, most Americans) are suspected. Mr. Sowell's book is an excellent indictment of "cosmic justice" and an excellent defense of traditional ideas of process and the rule of law. Unfortunately, those who should read this book most will probably read it least.

And Satan Said: "Ye Will Be As Gods", December 26, 1999
As I read this book, the thoughts of arrogance, condescension, and hubris came to mind - not towards the author - but towards the subjects of his discussion. Certainly one cannot fault the social engineers and institutional "tinkerers" for their intentions. However, intentions are not the measure of success - results are.

The policies of the "anointed" have become gospel, not subject to debate or empirical verification. In essence, anyone who disagrees with them or offers another approach is necessarily opposed to the intentions of those holding the true "gospel" of social harmony, prosperity, and peace.

But this substitute for evidence and effectiveness has failed the most important element - those who are the intended beneficiaries of the "anointed" policies. The efforts to "equalize" and pursue "cosmic justice" not only have few success stories - but rather there is an abundance of proof to show that their policies are counter-productive and even harmful.

But never mind the petty details! We're merely interested in doing the right thing, having the right motives, having our hearts in the right place, etc. Consequences be damned! We know what works best! The conquest for social justice will not be deterred by such things as uncooperative human beings, lack of success, or the Rule of Law.

This book is an excellent follow-up to Sowell's "Vision of the Anointed" as it drives home the point that those who embrace visions of cosmic ideals are embarking upon an endeavor requiring super-human skill. And their pursuit in spite of this fact does good for no one - not the least of which are those who they claim to want to help. In pursuit of their cosmic ideals, the visionaries have become impervious to the reality that frustrates their plans.

It is past time to cease the game of demonizing those that disagree with the ideas and policies of the "anointed." It's time for the "gods of social justice" to admit their humanity and potential for failure - to re-open discussion so that the business of genuinely helping people can take place.

For those interested in an outside observer's perspective (i.e. outside the circle of the "anointed") on the practicality and efficacy of the modern vision of social justice, this book is a must read. Those who are part of the "anointed" or supporters of the same are going to find Sowell's assessment disturbing. Nevertheless, a symbolic gesture from an "anointed" would be his willingness to abandon his self-righteousness by reading this book with an open heart and mind.

Play Fairly versus Win Regardless, December 19, 1999
"You can't change the rules in the middle of the game." "Hey, you just made that rule up." "You're cheating!" Kids on a playground arguing? No, adults in our judicial and political systems. In the first section of The Quest for Cosmic Justice, Thomas Sowell takes us on a tour of the world through time to display examples of childlike behavior in adults. He discusses two types of justice. Traditional justice is process-based: make up the rules before the game, everybody plays by the same rules, and the end result is left open. Cosmic justice is ends-oriented: have rules, but fiddle with them so that the game ends as someone wants it to.

In the second section of the book, Dr. Sowell examines equality, a much bandied-about word, but slippery in the extreme as to what it means. If we have learned anything from science it is that defining terms is crucial to progress - unless one is pursuing cosmic justice, of course. He talks of ". . . politically imposed equality . . . poisonous relations between the races and sexes . . . internal dissensions and demoralization have played a crucial role in the decline and fall of other civilizations, and there is no reason to expect this one to be immune."

Visions, their necessity for humans to operate and the things that can go wrong with them, are treated in the third section. The final section concerns the quiet repeal of the American Revolution. Comparisons of the French Revolution to the American Revolution were very informative, at least to me. I remembered an awful lot of heads got chopped off in France, but hadn't made the connection between that and the philosophy underlying the French Revolution. "At the national level as well, the 'Committee of Public Safety' under Robespierre ruled by decrees that could over-ride any laws."

Now, let's see . . . are Executive Orders when Congress doesn't do what the President wants equivalent to Robespierre's decrees that led to the guillotine?

Common Sense Explained Here, January 9, 2000
Woe to those who willingly ignore and reject this brilliant prose. Anyone concerned with a tiny group of intellectual elites searching for the "better way" must read and heed. Mr. Sowell lays out in simple context how the continuing social experimentation on our country's laws and culture will finally reduce this great nation to one of consumate misery; all in the name of "Cosmic Justice."

Thomas Sowell is a brilliant realist, November 9, 1999
Thomas Sowell is one of our finest thinkers. One of the most important facts he shows, with painstaking detail and with witty insight is that some of the well intentioned efforts at correcting "cosmic injustices" create greater injustices, and cause more suffering than had principles of "traditional justice" been followed. In other words, the interventionist cure is often worse than the disease. I thought it was great when he said that we may be bothered by inequalities that exist, but we can't be God like on Creation Day and say, "Let there be justice!" and expect the universe to conform. I challenge proponents of affirmative action, followers of John Rawls, and other radical egalitarians to successfully counter the arguments in this book, based on facts, rather than wishful thinking.

Give Kirkus the Boot!, October 22, 1999
I have noticed that every single Kirkus Review I have read on Amazon is extremely biased and almost always negative. Why do I picture a bunch of academic liberals lashing out at a world that wants nothing to do with them? Who are these Kirkus people anyway and why does anyone care about their whiney opinions? I think Amazon would do their site a favor by ditching the Kirkus Reviews until they can hire some critics that are a little more objective or can at least do a better job of disguising their political beliefs.

Sowell shows why "liberalism" (socialism) will never work, November 10, 1999
Thomas Sowell has a superb talent for explaining issues in a manner that is logical and to the point. "The Quest for Cosmic Justice" is his latest book that vividly explains why socialism can never work and has been a disaster everytime and everywhere it has been implemented. He shows how our search for cosmic justice, instead of traditional justice, leads to a myriad of disasters. Traditional justice involves the rules under which real people must interact daily whereas cosmic justice encompasses theoretical abstractions. If you enjoyed Sowell's earlier book, "The Vision of the Anointed," you will love this one. If you haven't read it, treat yourself and read them both. See political correctness exposed for what it really is when confronted with the facts.

A Bright Light Shines on a Dark Place, December 26, 1999
Thomas Sowell just gets better and better. His lucid, unpretentious prose makes this profound examination of the central political problem of our time a compelling read. I stayed up all night to finish it.

Justice Triumphs--at last!, December 20, 1999
Now that the complete purge of clear thinking among our academic elite is near complete, it may surprise a few to learn that some American intellectuals haven't lost their courage--nor their willingness to challenge the untested but assumed notions of the academy. Sowell singlehandedly revives my faith in America's intellectuals. All political theorists must now contend with Sowell's book; and doubtless they will be overmatched. ... Read more

Editorial Review

In this remarkable book, a national bestseller in hardcover, Sandra Day O’Connor explores the law, her life as a Supreme Court Justice, and how the Court has evolved and continues to function, grow, and change as an American institution. Tracing some of the origins of American law through history, people, ideas, and landmark cases, O’Connor sheds new light on the basics, exploring through personal observation the evolution of the Court and American democratic traditions. Straight-talking, clear-eyed, inspiring, The Majesty of the Law is more than a reflection on O’Connor’s own experiences as the first female Justice of the Supreme Court; it also reveals some of the things she has learned and believes about American law and life—reflections gleaned over her years as one of the most powerful and inspiring women in American history. ... Read more

Reviews

Okay, but strictly elementary., August 1, 2003
I'm not sure what _The Majesty of the Law_ is really about. It's partly a recap of the writing of the U.S. Constitution and a few important people and decisions in the Supreme Court's history. It's partly a history of the women's movement. It's partly Justice O'Connor's personal recollections about people she's worked with.

What she writes is basically okay, but there is nothing particularly interesting or challenging about it. Most of the ideas presented are civics class platitudes--people should be treated equally regardless of race or gender, and that sort of thing. Nothing much wrong with it, but it is not as intellectually stimulating as some other judges' and justices' books.

Perhaps it is best compared to a junior high social studies book, which happens to be written by someone who has spent a couple of decades on the United States Supreme Court. And that's part of what makes it so frustrating: anyone could have given us this kind of runthrough of the material she covers, even without being a Supreme Court justice. Surely Justice O'Connor has more to offer than this.

It's not quite a bad book. It might be useful to introduce a 12-year-old to the material, and if that is what she was aiming for, she has done well. But well read adults who have heard it all before are likely to be bored.

Called for jury duty? Show up with this book!, July 10, 2003
As other reviewers have noted, this book is not an in-depth analysis of legal issues. Rather it's an attempt to provide an informal, backstage glimpse into life on the Supreme Court from the perspective of the first woman justice.

Some of her points will loom large with women who, like me, were "firsts" on a much smaller scale. For instance, she notes the significance of changing the nameplates from "Mr. Justice..." to simply "Justice..."

As we might expect from a down-home woman who was brought up riding horses in Arizona, O'Connor remains modest and matter-of-fact. She recognizes her role and the respect she deserves. She describes the difficulties of women in the law, frankly and without self-pity, and acknowledges the preference for sharing experiences with other women in law.

And her behind-the-scenes glimpses reflect her perspective as a woman who cares about people as well as principles. She shares wonderful anecdotes about Thurgood Marshall. And she says absolutely nothing about Clarence Thomas, even when discussing the process of confirmation to the Court.

In my favorite chapter, Justice O'Connor raises strong, provocative questions about jury duty. Established 900 years ago, she says, the concept remains sound but the implementation is due for an overhaul. Why shouldn't jurors take notes? Why should they be subjected to long waits in uncomfortable rooms? And jurors surely deserve better compensation, she says.

O'Connor compares US juries with those of other English-speaking countries -- England, Canada, and Australia. She notes that other countries do not send civil cases to juries as frequently, so jurors do not have to sit through days and weeks of complex testimony that leaves them so bewildered they may as well flip a coin. (Actually a coin flip would be fairer than trying to sort through half-remembered facts!) And lawyers spend so much time psyching out jurors they want to challenge that jury selection can take weeks. In Europe, says O'Connor, juries are selected in minutes!

If anything, Justice O'Connor doesn't go far enough. Paying for jury service won't help a self-employed or sales person who could lose an account worth thousands of dollars. And jurors often experience serious emotional symptoms following a difficult case.

However, it is refreshing to hear such honesty from a distinguished member of the legal profession. O'Connor even recalls the New Yorker cartoon where a jury foreman tells the judge, "We find the defendant guilty and sentence him to jury duty." So true! I'm told that some juries begin to identify with criminal defendants -- they're treated in more or less the same way!

If you know someone who's called for jury duty, buy him or her this book -- good reading for the interminable, senseless waiting time.

Interesting and enjoyable, December 18, 2005
Indeed that there are very few books like this one for which you feel that every minute you spend reading is well spent.

She writes in plain and simple English and every sentence has content, logic and weight. She also writes in a tight and balanced structure, so you can always unfailingly find each of her opinion illustrated and evidenced fully and succinctly. Therefore, even just by the writing style, it is an enjoyable book. Much more than that, it is an inspiring book for anyone interested in the impact of institutions, because it points out many interesting aspects about the government institution that worth attention and deliberation. Just to give an example, she notes in her book that many countries have something similar to Constitution or Bill of Rights that intends to uphold liberty and democracy, but many fail to enforce it nearly as well as United States, a country that enshrines "the right of its unelected Supreme Court to use the Bill of Rights to declare illegal the actions of the democratically elected legislature or executive". The book does not attempt to give a theory about how institutions influence development or how institutions itself evolve, but it shows that these are very interesting and potentially very important questions to answer.

For someone out of the legal profession, this book also provides the very necessary basic knowledge in balanced width and depth. (However, I can understand if a person well acquainted with law may find it too elementary.)

History of Constitutional Law and some interesting notes about judges., July 1, 2006
This book starts off in a dull way: the history of constitutional law and the judges who helped shape it. Later on Judge O'Connor talks about her perspective of the people she worked with, which makes it well-worth reading. I plan to read her other book: her life growing up on a Texas ranch.

Informative, March 4, 2004
Like other books from Supreme Court Justices, this one is informative and interesting. It is very easy to read, probably more so than some of the others. The sections on law and history are very interesting. The section on women was not quite as interesting, but that was to be expected (focusing on a special interest as opposed to the broader scope of the court). The explanations of how the Court works is very good and something about which the public is often wrong. Overall, a good Supreme Court book. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Editorial Review

This book stands against the current of judgments long settled in the schools of law in regard to classic cases such as Lochner v. New York, Near v. Minnesota, the Pentagon Papers case, and Bob Jones University v. United States. Professor Hadley Arkes takes as his subject concepts long regarded as familiar, settled principles in our law - "prior restraints," ex post facto laws - and he shows that there is actually a mystery about them, that their meaning is not as settled or clear as we have long supposed. Those mysteries have often given rise to illusions or at least a series of puzzles in our law. They have at times acted as a lens through which we view the landscape of the law. We often see what the lens has made us used to seeing, instead of seeing what is actually there. Arkes tries to show, in this text, that the logic of the natural law provides the key to this chain of puzzles. ... Read more

Editorial Review

First published in 1961, The Concept of Law is the most important and original work of legal philosophy written this century. It is considered the masterpiece of H.L.A. Hart's enormous contribution to the study of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. Its elegant language and balanced arguments have sparked wide debate and unprecedented growth in the quantity and quality of scholarship in this area--much of it devoted to attacking or defending Hart's theories. Principal among Hart's critics is renowned lawyer and political philosopher Ronald Dworkin who in the 1970s and 1980s mounted a series of challenges to Hart's The Concept of Law. It seemed that Hart let these challenges go unanswered. However, after his death in 1992, his answer to Dworkin's criticism was discovered among his papers.

In this valuable and long-awaited new edition Hart presents an Epilogue in which he answers Dworkin and some of his other most influential critics including Fuller and Finnis. Written with the same clarity and candor for which the first edition is famous, the Epilogue offers a sharper interpretation of Hart's own views, rebuffs the arguments of critics like Dworkin, and powerfully asserts that they have based their criticisms on a faulty understanding of Hart's work. Hart demonstrates that Dworkin's views are in fact strikingly similar to his own and in a final analysis, Hart's response leaves Dworkin's criticisms considerably weakened and his positions largely in question.

Containing Hart's final and powerful response to Dworkin in addition to the revised text of the original The Concept of Law, this thought-provoking and persuasively argued volume is essential reading for lawyers and philosophers throughout the world. ... Read more

Reviews

a seminal text on legal philosophy and jurisprudence, April 19, 1998
One of the most important books written in the field of jurisprudence and legal philosophy. A must-read for anyone who wants to talk intelligently about the topic. Each of Dr. Hart's chapters has been the springboard for entire areas of discussion since its publication, such as law as a system of rules, the separation of law and morality, etc. After you finish this book, read Prof. Dworkin's critique in "The Model of Rules," 35 Univ.Chi.L.Rev. 14 (1967) (excerpted in "The Philosophy of Law") and Prof. Dworkin's "Taking Rights Seriously" to see how Hart's theories have affect jurisprudential scholarship since the publication of this text in 1961. Again, if one had to select the top thinkers in the field, it's Austin, Hart, and Dworkin.

Obligatory reading., October 4, 2003
One of the highest achievements in the history of jurisprudence. Simple to read, complex to thoroughly grasp, written in clear prose but full of ideas. Previous familiarity with Kelsen and Austin should prove helpful to extract the most out of this book. You can follow it by reading Dworkin and Bobbio (sadly unavailable in English - his Teoria della norma giuridica and Teoria dell'ordenamento giuridico are as obligatory as Kelsen and Hart).

Even though it is a work of legal positivism, it contains one of the best analyses of natural law and ethics I have ever read. This is, much more than the elements it's most famous for (the distinction between primary and secondary rules), what makes The Concept of Law shine.

The postscript, also sold separetely at Amazon, is included in this second edition of the book.

A good start for analytical jurisprudence, but no more, November 20, 2003
Hart takes apart the legal positivism of Austin and acknowledges some validity in natural law theory. But Hart fails to connect the "minimum content of natural law" with his analysis of a "rule of recongition" that allows a legal system to exist.

Hart's critique of Austin's legal positivism is right on and rightly consigns it to the dust bin as a way of explaining all manifestations of the phenomenon of law. Law as a threat backed up by force simply cannot explain contracts, wills, and trusts. The law doesn't just threaten people, it also empowers them. Positivism also fails to acknowledge the "internal" aspect of legal rules as well as failing to give an account of how law is recognized, clarified, and changed. Hart posits a "rule of recongition" to take care of this. Hart acknowledges a "minimum content of natural law" that explains the purpose of law as responding to certain human needs (bodily vulnerability, limited altruism, etc.). This gave rise to the revival of natural law theory in Anglophone jurisprudence in the 20th century. But Hart just kind of sticks the natural law chapter in his book without saying how it connects to the rest of what he says about legal rules and systems. Look at Finnis' Natural Law and Natural Rights for the "extension" of Hart's project.

Read only if required by your professor!, March 20, 2009
This is a fairly intractable philosophical examination of the questions: what defines a legal system, what provides a legal system with legitimacy, and what are the origins of law.

The author is inexcusably verbose and convoluted in discussing these otherwise interesting and important questions. If your professor has assigned this book, well, you have no choice. Otherwise, I'd recommend curling up with verbatim copies of the U.S. Constitution, The Declaration of Independence, The Federalist Papers and/or the Magna Carta, as more productive & fascinating ways to spend hours contemplating the history and meaning of the law.

Inadequacies of Hart's concept of a rule, February 28, 1998
Hart insists that there are many differen kinds of rules - he only 'elucidetes social rules' -but he also accepts that not all legal rules are social rules. What then are they? The foundation of his account of a social rule is an aspect of the form of life (vide Wittgenstein) underlying the use of language - but it is life without the multiplicity of activity at any one time and without conflict. ... Read more

Editorial Review

A judge hands down a stretch in a local, state, or federal prison. It's time for some serious life lessons. With the crime rates soaring in the United States and the prison population growing faster than at any time in American history, staying alive and well -- both mentally and physically -- is tougher than ever. ... Read more

Reviews

Some good prison info but padded with bad legal advice, January 31, 2004
The chapters on how to survive prison are decent, but I believe that after the authors finished writing them, they realized that they had only about 100 pages and they needed to plump the book out. Unfortunately, rather than delving deeper into the promised subject matter -- I would have liked to read excepts from interviews with former inmates, and anecdotes about mistakes they made in prison or how they prevailed in bad situations -- the authors added sections decrying the U.S. penal and legal system and the war on drugs and, most egregiously, dispensing often incorrect or misleading legal advice.

I am a criminal defense attorney. One of the biggest problems I have with the book is the reckless advice that a defendant should generally not plea guilty and rather take the case through trial. There's a good reason that over 90% of defendants plead guilty, whether their lawyers are retained or appointed, and it's not because those lawyers coerced them into doing so. It's because the rise of sentencing guidelines and mandatory minimums have made it Russian roulette for many felony defendants to go to trial. At least where I practice, many plea offers can save defendants significant jail time compared with a trial conviction. Look, I love to try cases, and it's great to get a client with a decent case and the willingness to fight it all the way, but taking a loser case to trial is usually a colossal mistake for the defendant, one which can cost them years. The book's broad claim that it's generally better to go to trial is no substitute for a skilled and honest lawyer's individualized assessment of the strength of a case and the risks of a trial verdict.

There are also preposterous claims in the book about the legal system, such as that if marijuana is found in a car and one of the car's occupants previously pled guilty to a crime while the other occupant was convicted of a crime after trial, then the marijuana will be pinned on the person who pled because the prosecutors feel it'll be an easier conviction since the guy will presumably just roll over again. That's ridiculous -- in fact, both will be charged with the weed. The authors also claim, erroneously, that defense lawyers owe their allegiance to the legal system at the expense of their clients. That is the type of misstatement which breeds a mistrust of defense attorneys, and that can hurt defendants if it causes them to disregard good advice from their attorneys. The authors do better when they stick to what they know -- how life is in prison -- rather than speculating on how the legal system works.

The authors also try a little too hard to make their case that the criminal justice system is blatantly rigged, and it comes off like propaganda. I am someone whose professional experience has made him wary of the criminal justice system and acutely aware of the disproportionate power of prosecutors and police, but when the authors start claiming that police may be paying informants with narcotics, I become skeptical about whatever the book claims as fact. Look -- there's enough wrong with the laws and the criminal justice system that an author doesn't need to make the system appear to be an overt, sinister compact between judges, prosecutors, cops and defense attorneys to railroad people.

The book places an undue emphasis on the minority of cases which involve conspiracy convictions, prosecutions for selling fake drugs to undercovers (so rare!), cooperation agreements, and no-knock home raids. Little misleading comments, such that there are people in federal prison for merely failing to repay their student loans, detract from the book's credibility. The authors try too hard to sell the reader on the injustice of it all, but they really don't need to clobber the reader over the head with dubious and paranoid claims. The real problems with the system are inflammatory enough!

That said, the middle section of the book regarding prison life is instructive, and I assume it's not as misinformed as the earlier section but rather founded on personal experience and solid research. If you're going to jail, this is a useful book, but skip the first few chapters and be skeptical of the information outside of the authors' area of expertise.

Do Not Think This Book Will Never Apply To You, July 27, 2002
Most Americans are blissfully unaware of the massive prison complex that surrounds them in America. Unless they have themselves had the misfortune to get caught up in the maw of our criminal justice system or have a close family member who has, they generally have no idea of how our systems of prisons are operated. Many of them have the notion that prison inmates loll around on their bunks all day watching TV or while away their days lazily shooting baskets out in the prison yard. Reading this book, co-written by one who has actually served some substantial prison time, will quickly disabuse them of those notions.

Prisons today are essentially warehouses where inmates are shuffled from place to place like cattle. You will learn how at any given time, there are a hundred or more buses transporting prisoners from one prison to another all over the country and that some prisons actually have their own airports, at least one of them capable of receiving commercial jets! There are now nearly 2 million people incarcerated in jails and prisons across American and nearly twice that many if you include those on parole or probation.

This is a no-nonsense book that give you the low-down on the prison system in America today and how to survive within it. For those who may feel that this book will never apply to them, don't be so sure. The United States is now one of the most tightly regulated and policed nations in the world. There are so many laws on the books these days that even lawyers and judges can't figure them all out. It is not as hard for a law-abiding citizen to unwittingly run afoul of the law as one may believe. Have a couple of drinks at dinner and have the misfortune to have a car wreck that results in fatalities - or hit a pedestrian - and you will likely serve some time in prison for manslaughter. If your neighbor decides to grow some marijuana plants in the back corner of your property, it is YOU who will likely have your property seized and a stiff mandatory prison sentence will be meted out to YOU and not your neighbor, unless you can afford a good lawyer to prove otherwise. With all the laws on the books these days, the possibilities are virtually endless. That is why this book should be read by all. For it is indeed possible that even a non-violent, law-abiding citizen such as yourself may someday land in jail or prison.

The authors of this book do not have a political agenda, like most other books on this subject. They do not take the side of the inmates nor do they seem to have a vendetta against those who run our prison system. They simply discuss life in prison as it exists today and they provide very practical and sound advice for those who must enter into it.

What I found most disturbing about this book was that our prison system is doing virtually nothing to rehabilitate prisoners and to prepare them for their re-entry into civilization. Inmates seeking to serve their time and better themselves so that they can start a new life outside the prison walls are frustrated at every turn. Education inside the prison walls are barely tolerated and even frowned upon by prison authorities, who fear loss of control (when inmates get educated and can, for example, write intelligent letters to the media about prison conditions). Inmates must deal with hostility and indifference and must learn to survive in a brutal atmosphere where at any time, they could get "shanked" by a fellow inmate or "thrown into the hole" for simply trying to defend themselves. One of the great tragedies is when a first-time prisoner serving a short sentence for some non-violent crime such as marijauna possession is victimized so badly by his fellow inmates that he is forced to defend himself or join a prison gang for protection. If he should kill one of his tormentors, his 3-5 year sentence has now been converted to life. If he befriends the prison gang, he begins to hang with hardcore criminals and his chances of staying out of prison once he gets out is greatly reduced.

I'm no bleeding heart liberal. Prisons should not be fun places to be. Anybody leaving the prison system should never want to go back there again. But I do believe that our prison inmates should be prepared to lead productive lives when they are released from prison. Otherwise, they will have no choice but to link up with the bad elements that got them into prison in the first place. Putting released inmates on a Greyhound bus with a cardboard box and a $5 bill is insane. Might as well just install revolving doors on those prisons.

This Book Tries to Do the Impossible, August 3, 2006
Prison is a mean ugly horrible place. The rules are all subjective until someone wants them to be otherwise. Prison is about politics not justice in America. Prison is about so much more than just what what happens in the court room.

There is NO book that can teach you to survive in prision because, life in prison is never a static picture. Prison life is just that LIFE. The minute you take an physical or intellectual snapshot of a living thing it changes in the next instant. The whole deal about surviving in prison is being able to adapt to change. Prison is an environment whose constantly changing factors are designed to keep newbie's and punks off guard. Prisons are run by the convicts with the help of the officers in ways designed to maintain many differing constantly shifting balances of power.

In prison Alliances needs passions angers and the power that goes with them are in constant play shifting ebbing and flowing to meet the needs of the moment. Survival in prison is all about making sure you know what the next game is BEFORE IT IS PLAYED by the officers or inmates. Each prison has its own heartbeat, culture and niches' that no one book could ever prepare you for. Simplistic answers to complex problems like to avoid rape fight for all you are worth in prison is stupid. Yes fighting will delay a rape but fighting alone is just posponing a rape in prison.

Surviving in prison is about fighting but also includes using your cunning to situate yourself in ways that give others reason not to see you hurt. Sometimes surviving prison is about being more brutal, cold hearted or creul than others. Smart people with skills can sometimes survive because, if you can write great legal breifs or have other other legal skills valued in prison you can work it to your advantage so you have protectors.

Develop non-sexual skills that help those with power in prison so they help you in return. Help strong respected inmates who have nothing but personal protection to offer you in return write, draw, learn to read or achieve some other life goal they want for themselves. I guess what I am saying is their is no one cut and dry way of surviving prison. What you must do to survive prison is learn to see opportunities that allow you to survive without being turned out before anyone else sees and takes advantage of them.

Funny as it seems there are some inmates who are tired of the stupidity of prison and they would protect from all harm someone who is teaching them. Prison is about learning how to see and exploit every opportunity to survive you can identify before it is detected by your fellow inmates or destroyed by prison staff \ administration. No book can teach you how to survive prison because surviving prison part instinct, part psychology, part bluff, part bare handed fight and part a sadistic will to do whatever it takes to survive. A book that hopes to teach you how to survive prison is obsolete the minute the words are written because, prison life changes in real time.

In prison you can get your head kicked in for just being unimaginative with your game because, if your game is lame it is considered a disrespectful insult to those you are trying to run it on and that can lead to a brutal fight. Read the book for fun and background but don't expect any book to prepare you for survival in prison because no matter how good a book is, prison life is so much more hellish and real than even the best intentioned man's words can convey.

Surviving prison has to be done in a way that conveys your own style because trying to follow a books advice on surviving prison is like thinking living in prison is a recipe you can copy. Surviving in prison is no recipe it must become part of who you are on the deepest levels of your psyche and soul because it it is not you will be beat down for being fake, not real. See if you think a book will prepare you for prison life you will be up hells creek without a paddle when that book runs out of ideas. This book will not have the right solution for every issue you will face in prison life. The book can not supply dynamic solutions and problems in prison are the most dynamic you will ever face because, change from moment to moment is how convicts and officers keep you off guard and ready to be used and exploited. Real inmates don't need no book to survive prison and that will be your down fall that will tell on you.

Use the book to get in touch with the person you are on the level of the most real and prepare that person for prison situations you see in this book. First rule of survival in prison is keep it real, if you can really fight fight, if you can really con then con, if you can exploit then do it but be true to your skills. There is no such thing as fair in prison anything that allows you to survive another minute in prison is as an intact man is always fair. Your job in prison is to survive by fighting to be and stay real without BS about your life and your dealings with others. See everything and say nothing. Never snicth and sometimes to avoid more beatings by knowing when to take a beating prison is filled with complicated decisions that no single book can ever deal with fully. Thats the problem with this book it answers questions but not in the detailed ways that take into considerations all the complexities of prison life.

You are a fool if you think prison inmates are not smart. Convicts are some of the smartest people alive they are in prison because they chose to employ their vast skills to antisocial tasks. No one single book will ever explain the complex nature of surviving prison life so read the book for insight but don't go inside thinking you KNOW prison life because this book could make you just smart enough to make dumb mistakes prison might not decide to forgive.

a must read for students and lay persons alike, November 26, 2002
Criminologists Drs. Ross and Richards (respectively, a former guard and a former federal inmate) provide a cogent and accessible look at the brutal reality that is our criminal justice system. Their humanistic and jargon-free coverage of what it's like to be taken into custody, processed and incarcerated is a refreshing departure from the stale, emotionally distant (and of often apologetic) coverage that has sadly become the standard fare in the academic coverage of the correctional system. Located both in the world of experiential closeness and scholarly rigour, Ross and Richards expose the harshness and inhumanity inherent in America's incarceration industry. - Finally, something that I can comfortably fit between Sykes' "Society of Captives" and Irwin and Austin's "It's About Time" on my book shelf. Interested in what life in prison is like? Turn off Oz, and open up BEHIND BARS.

Nancy Poon University of Saskatchewan, March 6, 2005
Based on both authors' personal experiences, one an ex-convict, the other a former correctional officer, as well as conversations with other ex-convicts, Behind Bars is a no- nonsense quick tour of what one can expect if you go to jail or prison in the United States. This book, divided into four sections, is easily accessible and easily readable and is meant for a generalist audience, particularly those novitiates wanting initial "insider" information on the American prison system.

The first section, "You're Arrested," is about what can get a person into trouble and how to avoid getting into further trouble if you are arrested. Things to avoid include, among other things, resisting arrest, giving up your right to remain silent and retaining an attorney. The authors also offer cursory explanations about why these things should be minded. The authors stress two important points at this juncture, that one should be wary of the criminal justice system and how it works. Ross and Richards point to, among other things, entrapment or burn laws, take downs, and sting operations (explaining each along the way) to make their case. Second, as an important qualifier, the authors point out that neither are all arrested folk innocent, nor are all law enforcement people evil. This latter point is a recurring theme throughout this volume.

The second section, "You've Got Jail!," in two chapters, is about the United States prison system including private prisons, and offender and guard characteristics and classifications. A cursory description is also offered of the differences between State and Federal prisons in terms of general conditions, size, resources and levels of security. Unclear to this reader, however, is whether offender needs are ever considered when handing down security classifications and/or prison placements. Despite this ambiguity, we learn that offenders primarily male, half of whom are white, are further categorised in terms of management issues-protection from others (inmates or otherwise), their publicity profile, level of criminal organisation, or disruptiveness. But, as the authors point out, a more meaningful categorisation might be to examine offenders' levels of experience in prison. The authors are unclear, however, as to why, or how, this second categorisation might be more meaningful.

Section Three, "Doing Time," in seven chapters, takes the reader through what can be expected during their time inside including the formal and informal admissions process, the formal and informal economies, employment and education prospects in prison, and the why's and how's of minimising "trouble" in prison. These include how to: (1) cultivate "trouble free" friendships; (2) avoid debt; (3) do time in solitary confinement; (4) avoid unsolicited homosexual advances; (5) eat healthily in prison (6) minimising involvement in prison disturbances and gang violence, and finally, (7) how to make "productive" use of time inside. The final chapter in this section briefly deals with women behind bars, noting that women take different paths to prison than do men and that there are fewer women behind bars than men. The authors point out that the reasons for this result from differences social location, i.e., differences in both economic status (in that women have less earning potential than men) and gender role with regards to familial responsibility (in that women generally are the primary caregivers for young children). Moreover, women do their time differently than men (where women are more likely to form pseudo families with corresponding obligations and responsibilities). While true, this chapter does not even begin to delve into the substantial differences between how women and men do time. For example, women are more likely to self-injure inside, suffer different kinds of emotional trauma, have longer histories of drug and alcohol addictions, have longer histories of sexual and physical abuse than do men, and are the primary caregivers to young children more often than men. These issues have far reaching implications for how women do their time.

The final section, "Beyond the Walls," briefly offers descriptions of different types of community corrections or aftercare operating, once you leave prison. The authors also provisionally describe some barriers to reintegration including disorientation, institutionalisation, employment prospects, reconnecting with loved ones and the lure of the criminal lifestyle as an easy way to deal with the barriers. In the concluding chapter, the authors not only state that it takes humility and patience to psychically survive prison, more so than physical stamina, but they also make some cursory recommendations as to how to stop the revolving door to prison.

A short compendium of slammer slang and prison reform groups comprise the two appendices. Despite the brief treatment of what is arguably a very complex social institution, this book is well written and useful for those who want a brief introductory tour through American jails and prisons.

Prison analysis from the inside, August 19, 2002
Make no mistake; Behind Bars is written for cons, and by cons. Because of this, the reader can be certain that the information contained in this text is not glossed-over, heavy-on-the-big-words academic pretense written from inside an office. Drs. Ross and Richards offer this book as both an analysis and a precaution. Step-by-step advice from the moment of arrest to months after release that refuses to ignore the physical and mental/emotional problems modern American correctional facilities provide. There is nothing resembling coddling in prison, and there is nothing within this book that will attempt to coddle the reader. Rather, the fact that fifty percent of federal convicts return to prison in under a year after initial release is constantly beaten into the head of the reader. However, Ross and Richards do present methods of proper social interaction among cons, with guards and other personnel, who to trust and not trust, etc. If, as an individual, you so much as know of any illegal activity, you are liable to serve jail and/or prison time. No one is innocent, and no one should be so smug as to think their life experiences could never include those mentioned in this book.

How Your Prison Dollars Are Being Spent, August 11, 2002
This book is not just for those going to prison but for every taxpayer. We spend $25,000 a year per person on prisons. For that money, we make people WORSE. When they get out, ex-cons are going be somebody's neighbor. You'd think we'd want to help people become better.

This is a fascinating, well written book about the insanity of prison life.

All citizens should read it.

Very practical realistic educational book., November 16, 2003
I read this book out of curiousity, and found practical information. The authors not only tell you how it is in prison, but they also explain why. When you hear of something happening in prison, you never hear the full story. These guys tell you everyone's side of the story, and the full ugly truth about prison life. They explain why the guards let some fights happen, how a guard can make your life hell how without even touching you (tearing up your mail, taking your clothes, etc), they also explain how most cons bribe or blackmail guards (have an outsider find out where the guard lives, snap a pic of wife or kids, mail to con) and why sometimes guards let fights happen and look the other way so to speak.

A criminology student, May 25, 2002
This was the most fascinating portrayal of life "behind bars" that I have ever read. A must read and it's also quick and readable . I enjoyed the narrative and description of prison food. You want to buy this book because it will probably give you a lot ot talk about with other people. It's a great conversation piece. It will also make you question the brutality of the federal prison system and understand why recidivism rates are so high. It was like taking an entire class course in one book. It is the kind of book that will make you want to dedicate yourself to studying this subject. A fundamental read if you want to understand the basics of the prison system. If you get arrested or are facing criminal charges this is the book you want to buy.

Brutal but Honest Portrayal, May 5, 2005
This book does not pull any punches about prison life. Advice is freely given and some of it may be disturbing. For example, the authors clearly state that you WILL have to fight in order to survive behind bars. If for no reason other than to show others that you cannot be "turned out" or be made a victim. As an attorney who has toiled in the criminal justice system (both as a defense atty and as a prosecutor), I was moved by the book's honesty, compassion, and accounts of prison life. There are sections dealing with corrupt guards, gangs, drugs, sex, money, etc. Nothing is left out. This book should be required reading for all those who advocate "tough on crime" as this read clearly demostrates that prison is a brutal and unforgiving experience. ... Read more

Editorial Review

An adaptation of Levinthal’s Drugs, Behavior and Modern Society 5e, the second edition of this successful, widely-regarded, highly readable and pedagogy-oriented textbook on drug use and abuse is oriented toward a sociological/psychological perspective, with particular attention to issues related to drug-related crime and the criminal justice system. ... Read more

Reviews

GREAT textbook, September 18, 2010
I really like this textbook, more so than any of the other criminal justice ones I am using this semester. It is very thorough in defining specific categories of drugs, something useful for me as I am completely dumb outside of knowing about cocaine and marijuana. I am glad my professor chose this book for our drugs class. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Written by former community corrections professional, this book provides a state-of-the-art view of probation and parole. Offering a new two-color design, this revision contains updated material from agencies throughout the country and features 12 chapters that focus on all aspects of topic from the practitioner’s point of view. Throughout the book, controversial issues are addressed and capture the conflict between the need to maximize community safety and the need to control the cost of operating prisons. Additional attention is paid to both the juvenile and adult populations and the book considers how the probation officers work with each. ... Read more

Reviews

Parole and Probation, November 6, 2009
This text book is for my class and I am totally pleased with it.

Thank you.

Bernadette Hinkson

Great Overview of Probation and Parole Practices, November 5, 2009
I thought that this book was very detailed and full of information regarding the probation and parole aspect of the criminal justice system. Any questions or doubts you may have before reading this book will be answered or addressed. Great textbook.

Very Satisfied, June 15, 2009
I got a super deal with goodwillct on the book *Probation and Parole: Theory and Practice*. It is very great condition. The price was unbeatable!!! Plus, it arrived within one week!!! Very glad to find quality deals out there..
Jo

Interesting Book, January 28, 2009
This book is very interesting. I bought this book because I was taking a college course. I would recommend this book to anyone!!

Interesting History, March 27, 2007
If you have ever been in law enforcement and have a curiosity of the system that you are apart of this is a good overview with interesting connections to the legal system. ... Read more

Editorial Review

What does economics have to do with law? Suppose legislators propose that armed robbers receive life imprisonment. Editorial pages applaud them for getting tough on crime. Constitutional lawyers raise the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Legal philosophers ponder questions of justness. An economist, on the other hand, observes that making the punishment for armed robbery the same as that for murder encourages muggers to kill their victims. This is the cut-to-the-chase quality that makes economics not only applicable to the interpretation of law, but beneficial to its crafting.

Drawing on numerous commonsense examples, in addition to his extensive knowledge of Chicago-school economics, David D. Friedman offers a spirited defense of the economic view of law. He clarifies the relationship between law and economics in clear prose that is friendly to students, lawyers, and lay readers without sacrificing the intellectual heft of the ideas presented. Friedman is the ideal spokesman for an approach to law that is controversial not because it overturns the conclusions of traditional legal scholars--it can be used to advocate a surprising variety of political positions, including both sides of such contentious issues as capital punishment--but rather because it alters the very nature of their arguments. For example, rather than viewing landlord-tenant law as a matter of favoring landlords over tenants or tenants over landlords, an economic analysis makes clear that a bad law injures both groups in the long run. And unlike traditional legal doctrines, economics offers a unified approach, one that applies the same fundamental ideas to understand and evaluate legal rules in contract, property, crime, tort, and every other category of law, whether in modern day America or other times and places--and systems of non-legal rules, such as social norms, as well.

This book will undoubtedly raise the discourse on the increasingly important topic of the economics of law, giving both supporters and critics of the economic perspective a place to organize their ideas. ... Read more

Reviews

Well Organized, Clear and Concise, August 21, 2000
David Friedman presents a well organized, clear and concise treatise of Law and Economics from a positive perspective. This book is orgainzed into twenty-two chapters dealing with everything from the efficiency of law to antitrust enforcement. Friedman uses excellent examples and writes in a clear manner making this book easily understood by the layman, first year law students or undergraduate economics students.

Challenging and Thought-Provoking Reflections, April 4, 2002
At the outset, I must acknowledge that this proved to be one of the most challenging books I have read in recent years. (You can thus understand why it was also among the most thought-provoking books I have read in recent years.) The subtitle informed me that Friedman would explain "what economics has to do with law and why it matters." In the Introduction, he observes:

"The legal rules that we are most familiar with are laws created by legislatures and enforced by courts and police. But even in our society much of the law is the creation of not of legislatures but of judges, embedded in past precedences that determine how future cases will be decided; much enforcement of the law is by private parties such as tort victims and their lawyers rather than by police; and substantial bodies of legal rules take the form, not the laws, but of private norms, privately enforced."

Friedman helps his reader to "understand various systems of legal rules by asking what consequences they will produce in a world in which rational individuals adjust their actions to the legal rules they face." He cites two possible objectives of the economic approach to achieve such understanding the logic of law: the law may have no logic to understand or the law does have a logic "but that it is, or at least ought to be, concerned not with economic efficiency but with justice." These are indeed critically important issues. How to address them? Friedman does so with an economic analysis of the law in terms of both economic ideas and areas of the law. First, he examines basic economic concepts (e.g.) "that can be used to to understand a wide range of legal issues. Then he shifts his attention to various questions raised what that examination reveals. For example: Why do other legal systems differ so much from ours? Why have two legal systems -- tort law and criminal law -- which "do roughly the same thing [but] in different ways?" Why not eliminate one of them? What arguments can be made to support or oppose the view that "judge-made law" is economically efficient? In the final chapter, he summarizes "what we have learned about systems of legal rules" throughout his extended analysis of the interaction of law with economics.

If I correctly understand what Friedman has shared throughout the book (and I may well do not), his ultimate objective is to create what is (in effect) a rough draft of what in final form would be a much more efficient legal system. Such a system would presumably increase the efficiency of other domestic systems (e..g. political and economic) as well as, in all probability, the efficiency of those systems' interaction with counterparts in other countries. For me at least, this was not an easy book to read, in part because I lack any formal education in either law or economics but also because of the inherent difficulty of drawing correlations and suggesting cause-and-effect relationships between two such complex human enterprises...

Should Voodoo practice be punishable?, January 5, 2004
As soon as I was finished with this book, I turned around and read it again. Friedman is picking up a theme that he introduced towards the end of the revised Machinery of Freedom, in which he states that in order to understand certain mechanisms, we must undertake the economic analysis of law. This discipline was generally considered to have been initiated by Ronald Coase and taken up and popularized by Richard Posner. Friedman's own work advances the study into areas of law that relate to the internet and computers.
This particular book, however, concentrates on advancing the work done by Posner to a wider audience. Posner's perspective is that of a very, very talented legal theorist attempting to apply economic tools to law; Friedman's is that of a very talented economist applying his own discipline to law.
The complete book is available online; in fact the book was intended to be an off-line anchor for a number of other links. Friedman does away with references to landmark cases, mathematics, and other references in the book, and moves them all to the online version. While it seemed like a good idea at thte time, I ultimately found it to be annoying.

I would say that this is the first book I've read that connects technical economic ideas - like efficiency, the Coase Theorem, externalities, and rent-seeking - to the real world with practical applications.

Like whether or not voodoo practice should be punishable as attempted murder (huh? Read the book - this and other stories are both entertaining and enlightening).

Well written, well reasoned, and inspiringly insightful, October 11, 2001
This book, as its title suggests, is on the ECONOMICS of law. And as Dr. Friedman skillfully illustrates in the text, economics has a great deal to say about both the theory and application of law. In particular anyone interested in understanding how modern systems of law arose will find fascinating information in this book that isn't often discussed in your run-of-the-mill law, history, or economics courses. This is just the sort of information that is important to achieving a better understanding of the structure of legal systems, yet is, perhaps necessarily, left out of most courses in law (or history or economics) because it doesn't neatly fit into any one category.

The use of economic tools and ideas to analyze and understand legal systems is a relatively new idea. Yet as you'll discover when reading this book, it is a very GOOD idea. One that yields immediate and satisfying results. The book places modern legal systems in their proper historical context. It compares private and public methods of handling a variety of legal issues and disputes.

What does economics have to do with law? Suppose legislators propose that armed robbers receive life imprisonment. Editorial pages applaud them for getting tough on crime. Constitutional lawyers raise the issue of cruel and unusual punishment. Legal philosophers ponder questions of justness. An economist, on the other hand, observes that making the punishment for armed robbery the same as that for murder encourages the muggers to kill their victims (since they are less likely to be caught if there are no surviving witnesses). This is the cut-to-the-chase quality that makes economics not only applicable to the interpretation of law, but beneficial to its crafting.

Buy this book or steal your friend's copy. It, along with David Friedman's other works, are well worth reading.

Compelling reading about a different kind of "legal" system., March 20, 2003
Anyone who has had the privilige of debating David Friedman on the Internet knows that he is though-provoking. Most books about law discuss this loophole or that bias or perhaps the outrage du jour. What is missing, though, is an alterative system.

David Friedman comes at the subject from a different angle. What if the legal system operated like any other market system?

Well, not just ANY other market system. One of the presumptions is that to be truly efficient the market must be completely free. Any system today is encumbered by vested interests, many of which can be traced back to an economic concern. Why not bring that out into the open?

Would you subscribe to a traffic court where penalties were based on how much economic damage your behavior caused? In a way, you already do!

You'll be thinking that way about all manner of legal issues after reading this book. A good addition to anyone's shelf, especially those of us who enjoy a philosphical reality check.

A fun, clear read, May 14, 2002
A book on an interesting topic, written more for the layman than for the specialist (but with references for the latter), Law's Order introduces the basic economic aparatus necessary for the analysis of the effects of different legal rules. Friedman (more than his father) is an especially good author for people who quickly dismiss economic models as overly simplistic, both because he is aware of the real limitations of simplified models and because he defends the real benefit in understanding that they often provide. Here he applies his clarity to the questions of why the law is the way it is, and what impact its features have on its effects. Especially interesting to me were the discussions, near the end, of the legal systems in place in Iceland and England centuries ago, and how sets of social norms can function in place of legal rules, and be subject to the same analysis. Throughout the book he implies that the book is meant as something of a rejoinder to Posner's theory that common law is economically efficient, but this becomes a small dog being wagged by the broad discussion needed to bring most of his readers up to speed; when he does take on Posner's thesis directly, it is interesting, respectful, and well-reasoned, but is only a small part of the appeal of the book, which is based more on the survey that precedes it.

Nice, but a little bit too biased, July 13, 2003
David Friedman is anarcho-capitalist who teaches economics to law students. This book, written mainly for laymen, shows both sides of him. He explains the relevant ideas from economics quite well and applies them to legal questions. He argues that even apart from moral arguments, many laws can be justified by economic efficiency.

The logic is something like this: Stealing is a process where someone takes something away from someone without the consent of that person. One loses, one gains. So what's the problem? The problem is that the thief spends energy on stealing, the potential victims on securing themselves and to some degree they produce less, since they may not keep everything. Therefore stealing is inefficient in a certain sense. Many laws can be justified on such grounds.

He also describes the legal system of ancient Iceland, a system that worked without government. Inspired by that, Friedman proposes some rather radical ideas like allowing murderes to buy themselves free. It also happens that the more radical ideas are the ones with the worst arguments in favor of them. He makes some rather strange assumptions (like that murderes are able to pay millions of dollars...).

The book is clearly biased, but it is well written and explains economic ideas quite nicely. It's also pobably the only book on law and economics that is written for laymen.

Seems Like Normal Law and Econ to Me!, December 31, 2007
I had heard a lot about David Friedman over the years... mostly words like "loony" and "anarchist." Being a great admirer of his father's work I decided to give this book a read despite the warnings. I was asolutely shocked to discover that there is absolutely nothing nutty in this book at all! In fact, I dare say it is a rather generic law and economics text book. Like Milton, David succeeds in presenting economic concepts in an entertaining easy-to-read (and perhap more importantly, easy-to-understand) manner. If you've never studied law and econ this seems like a great place to start! If you've already studied the topic, however, I just don't see anything new or terribly interesting here.

interesting read, annoying footnote approach, August 7, 2003
Liked the book. But instead of using citations and footnotes, he uses icons that point to his web site. This is supposed to be make it easier to read, but it's very annoying. I hope this doesn't become a trend. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Unique in its topical approach, this best-selling book examines systems of law, police, courts, and corrections by using more than 30 different countries to show the diversity in legal systems around the world. The book's organization helps readers understand the various ways policing, adjudication, and corrections systems can be organized and operated. This edition features more complete coverage of Islamic legal tradition, information on reform in Japan, more use of primary sources and updated material throughout. Fully updated to include more information on: The Patriot Act; Sunni and Shia Muslims; Substantive and procedural law changes for France, Germany, and Nigeria; Inquisitorial and adversarial systems; Trial under an inquisitorial proces; Juvenile justice system changes in England, Wales and China. Gives greater attention to the Islamic legal tradition and includes detailed descriptions of its key aspects. Reflect up-to-date events in Japanese criminal justice and covers changes that have been officially approved, but are not yet fully implemented. References the actual laws of many countries and provides additional information supplied by that country’s criminal justice agency.  Anyone interested in criminal justice across the world. ... Read more

Reviews

book, March 3, 2010
shipped to me so fast, was very happy with the price and the time it took to get my book ... Read more

Editorial Review

Now available with MP3 audio CDS: the bestselling book-and-audio set of Supreme Court oral arguments.

Until The New Press first published May It Please the Court in 1993, few Americans knew that every case argued before the Supreme Court since 1955 had been recorded. The original book-and-tape set was a revelation to readers and reviewers, quickly becoming a bestseller and garnering praise across the nation. William Safire, writing in the New York Times, called it "a fascinating, you-are-there experience...an ear to history in the making," and the Los Angeles Times Book Review dubbed it a "treasure trove."

Including both transcripts of the most significant cases argued before the Supreme Court and recordings of the oral arguments, May It Please the Court offers "a front-row seat in America's most powerful courtroom, where very, very few have had the opportunity to sit" (American Bar Association Journal ). This new edition of the original volume makes the recordings available for the first time in MP3 audio CDs.

The audio for this new edition is on MP3 compact discs. MP3 audio books on compact disc can be played on newer CD players that support MP3 technology and accept a standard-sized CD, and on any personal computer that has Apple's iTunes, Microsoft's Media Player or similar software. ... Read more

Reviews

A facinating look at the Court, August 14, 2000
The book contains edited and slightly commented oral arguments for a number of cases brought before the Supreme Court of the United States since Earl Warren ordered that oral arguments be recorded. Few know that it is possible to attend oral arguments at the court (highly recommended if you ever visit Washington D.C.), and even fewer know the recordings exist. This is a set of six tapes with edited and commented (by Peter Irons) cases, together with a book which transcribes the tapes and includes highlights of the opinions in the case. There is also a brief introduction to the Court in the first tape.

The cases touch on a number of issues, ranging from the highly controversial (Roe v. Wade and abortion rights, Edwards v. Aguillard and teaching of creationism in school, Johnson v. Texas and flag burning) to issues which perhaps aren't so controversial anymore (such as the 'one person, one vote' rule). They are, nonetheless, very interesting to listen to.

I have very few regrets about the book, but they should perhaps be mentioned. First, there is no doubt that there is a somewhat liberal slant to the presentation and comments by Peter Irons in the tapes; I don't find it too problematical since they tend to agree with my own feelings on the subject, but others may find it annoying. Second, I cannot but be somewhat disappointed that these are ->edited<- and not the full arguments. I realize one hour or more per case may be prohibitive and it is perhaps better to have more cases and edited highlights of the arguments, but I would have loved to have access to the full argument nonetheless. At least in some cases, the impression given is certainly not that of the whole argument (in Edwards v. Aguillard, one gets the feeling that the attorney for Aguillard did pretty well, but one need only read Stephen J. Gould's account of the arguments to know that Justice Scalia trounced him and it was only through the intervention of the amicus curiae brief by the Nobel Laureates that the eventual decision was reached). And thirdly, it is very disappointing that the companion book has only highlights of the opinions in the case. The full opinion (together with full dissents and concurrences) would have been a very welcome addition to the set.

Despite these problems (which are the reason I give it a 4 star rating rather than a 5; I wish we had a 4.5 rating), this is a highly recommended set. This is a great and facinating look at the Court and at oral arguments therein, and it is highly recommended. Even if you are only interested in three or four of the cases or issues, you will find it a very worthwhile investment.

Truly fascinating glimpse of our judicial system at work, August 9, 1999
These tapes are fascinating! Regardless of how you feel about the issues involved, to hear the arguements made on both sides, and the questions of the justices as they weigh issues in a forum that is protecting our individual rights and our system of government is truly riveting. They make the Supreme Court come alive. And the editors have done a fine job of appropriate commentary to place each case argued in context, and then to further explain what has happened concerning the issue involved since the case was decided. You will want to share the tapes with everyone you know.

Very Entertaining With A Few Missteps, March 26, 2005
I fully enjoyed this series and own each set. The first series has additional charm because of the nice packaging, which decreased in charm as later sets came out. The plastic display holder and hard cover companion book, including a transcript of each tape, is a nice touch.

The sets does have a liberal slant, though not excessive, which reflects the author. [Justice Marshall gets some play a lot, but then again, his questions often tend to be entertaining.] This doesn't hurt too much, since the commentary is relatively brief, and centers largely on the facts of the case. And, the cases are generally landmark, not leaning one way or the other per se. Anyway, the first tape's "introduction to the Supreme Court" is well done.

I don't find it too troubling that the book doesn't have the whole opinion. The book uses a typical "casebook" approach and prints important excerpts. The book would be much larger if the full opinions were printed. Nor do the excerpt style hurt too much, again it would take much more space to do so. For those interested, Jerry Goldman has a CD-ROM with complete orals of some cases. Or, the Oyez.com website.

I must, however, note that Irons et. al. provided some sloppy editing, which he admitted to some degree later on. He has the "Reagan Administration" involved in a case before Reagan came to office. He has "Justice Marshall" asking a question in a case before he came to the Court. And, some substantive facts and explanations contain some errors. I'm not sure how some of these things were missed in editing.

[I'd add that Edward Lazarus has been particularly critical of this series, including how the comments and editing slants the cases. He has a point, but it is probably exaggerated. Still, with many cases w/i the last twenty years in particular having transcripts, providing full arguments, this is something to keep in mind.]

Nonetheless, overall, it is a very educational series. It further suggests why we should be able to hear these things on C-SPAN.

An Historical Glimpse into Supreme Court Proceedings, June 28, 2000
When I purchased this compilation, I held a wide range of very high hopes. Here I thought I would find numerous High Court appeals characterized by forceful and powerfully persuasive argument, a balanced selection of cases demonstrating the scope of issues addressed by our nation's highest judicial body, and neutral yet informative commentary. Well, one out of three ain't bad.

Irons does a fine job choosing and editing the most intriguing parts of the oral arguments. Leaving in gaffes such as the assistant State Attorney General in the Gideon case seriously (but rather unwisely) suggesting to the Court that any lay person be permitted to represent criminal defendants makes one think deeply about the need for timely and effective responses to questions from the bench. The lack of preparation on the part of Sarah Weddington (attorney for Roe) is so painfully evident during the first iteration of Roe v. Wade, even the listener is embarrassed. The Court's public lambasting of the state's attorney in Brown can only bring to mind visions of Thurgood Marshall grinning with satisfaction.

However, my satisfaction beyond this point was somewhat diminished.

Irons deifies Chief Justice Warren far too many times for my taste (e.g., Warren broke the justice's code of silence by insisting on taping, Warren provided the Court with inimitable guidance in selecting only the cases of the greatest import, Warren's judicial foresight changed the nation, etc.) Also, the tone of the cases (Miranda v. Arizona, United States v. Nixon, Roe v. Wade, etc.) is unambiguously liberal - an irritating characteristic found on all six tapes. Further, Iron's commentary is somewhat strained when attempting, yet ultimately failing, to maintain a balanced perspective.

Overall, this is an interesting and provocative work. If you can look past the editor's bias (also evidenced in his other publication May It Please the Court: The Supreme Court and the First Amendment), it has much to offer and makes for a mesmerizing evening. Recommended but be sure to keep your liberal academic filter on.

Absolutely Outstanding!, November 21, 2004
This is probably the best item I have purchased all year long, and definitely the most intellectually stimulating. I was expecting a product that would be informative and interesting, but my expectations where surpassed by leaps and bounds.

I am currently working on a case as a Pro Se litigant that I feel may very well wind up before the high court before all is said and done, and so I purchased this item to gain insight on how the justices decide cases, the methods used to argue, how the points are made and

I was surprised at the quality of the recordings. I typically dislike narrated tapes because many narrators are overbearing and feel the need to explain every little event, usually resulting in my mumbling of various expletives at the tape player like "Shut up and let me decide for myself" and "I want to hear the justices, not you describing the paintings on the wall". May It Please the Court was different however, the narrator spoke no more than necessary and was unusually informative when he did speak.

Every citizen who wants to learn how our legal system works should listen to these tapes. I have little doubt that these tapes would prove to be invaluable learning tools in the classrooms in both public high schools and in the collegiate setting.

Whether you are a law student, pro se litigant, seasoned attorney or just an average citizen wanting to know more about how the system works, May It Please the Court is well worth the price and your time.

Must Have for ALL Law Students!!, October 22, 2004
I bought this book because it sounded interesting, and because I hoped that itwould help me remember the cases that I needed to for class. I am a law student. The cases covered in this book are: Baker v Carr, US v Nixon, Deshaney v Winnebago County, Abington School District v Schempp, Edwards v Aguillard, Wisconsin v Yoder, Cox v Louisiana, Tinker v Des Moines, Communist Party v Subversive Activities Control Board, Texas v Johnson, New York Times v United States, Gideon v Wainwright, Terry v Ohio, Miranda v Arizona, Gregg v Georgia, Cooper v Aaron, Heart of Atlanta Motel v US, Loving v Virginia, Palmer v Thompson, Regents v Bakke, San Antonio v Rodriguez, Roe v Wade, and Bowers v Hardwick. These are all super important cases which are studied in multiple classes. It helps to hear the oral argument to understand the issue and what is at stake in these decisions better. If you are a law student and would like to be able to listen to the cases, understand them and therefore remember them better, this series is the way to go. I highly recommend purchasing this book.

This excellent book helps Americans understand the Court, December 14, 2000
I am not a U.S. Supreme Court enthusiast, but in light of the Courts activity in the 2000 presidential election case (George W. Bush vs. Al Gore), I searched out books on the U.S. Supreme Court and found "May It Please the Court" to be a fascinating read. It sheds light on the ebb and flow of the U.S. Supreme Court's rulings and reasonings over the past 30 years.

Recently millions of Americans were privileged to hear live the two presidential election cases that the U.S. Supreme Court took and vicariously we all had a "fascinating you-are-there experience." In "May It Please the Court" editors Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton spent scores of hours at the National Archives in Washington retrieving and editing twenty-three cases and once again give average Americans the opportunity to experience, in proxy, each court case.

In 1955 the U.S. Supreme Court began tape recording all cases from which twenty-three ground-breaking cases were selected by Peter Irons and Stephanie Guitton. These are segmented into five sections: "Secure the Blessings of Liberty," "Congress Shall Make No Law," "In All Criminal Prosecutions," The Equal Protection of the Law" and "A Right of Personal Privacy." Each section has an informative foreword by the Editors.

Skilled advocates on both sides, as in the two presidential election cases, argue each landmark case forcefully, and most often, as in the recent presidential election cases, the Court's opinions have sparked controversy. Our Constitution invested great powers in government officials and these powers are only kept in check by the Bill of Rights. And these Rights only have meaning if government officials can be forced to obey them. Only the courts have the ultimate power of enforcement and thus the Supreme Court of the United States of America has the ultimate power. This excellent book helps all Americans to understand how this Court balances the legitimate powers of government officials and the rights of the people. Highly Recommended.

How the sausage is made, November 7, 2010
As a member of the US Supreme Court Bar Association I've only had two cases go up for cert and none get accepted for argument. The person I know whose argued the most is a professor of law and even he's only been there twice.

The point is: in one book, you can gain more practical experience with how arguments actually work before the US Supreme Court than people who are actually credentialed in the field.

And for what it is, it's pretty exciting stuff. In this short, accessible volume, editor Peter Irons tackles the big issues that have come before the US Supreme Court since it first started recording oral arguments and up until the book's then date of publication in 1993.

The areas treated are as follows:

"Secure the Blessings of Liberty"

This area covers the cases of Baker v. Carr (supporting the principle of one man/one vote), US v. Nixon (where President Nixon was forced by a unanimous Supreme Court to hand over White House tapes), and Deshaney v. Winnebago County (where the Supreme Court struck down an attempt to make protective services agencies liable if they failed to properly protect their charges).

"Congress Shall Make No Law"

This area covers important first amendment cases relating to relgion, prayer in schools, freedom of speech/freedom of association, flag burning and prior restraint. The religion/prayer cases are Abington School District v. Schempp (prohibiting state sanctioned prayer time in school), Edwards v. Aguillard (striking down a Lousiana law which ordained the teaching of the so called creation science), and Wisconson v. Yoder (which permitted Wisconson Amish to stop their children from attending school after the 8th grade...before that the kids could be home schooled). The freedom of speech/freedom of association cases are Tinker v. Des Moines (where peaceful civil rights protest was upheld) and Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board (where the Supreme Court punted on the constitutionality of a McCarthy type board to supervise the activities of the American Communist Party). The flag burning case was Texas v. Johnson and the prior restraint case was New York Times v. United States.

"In all criminal prosecutions"

This area is perhaps most critical to Americans because of the number and powers of the various police agencies which exist throughout the country. It includes Gideon v. Wainwright (where the Supreme Court established the right of appointed counsel for indigent in all criminal cases), Terry v. Ohio (where the Supreme Court recognized the right of police officers to stop and frisk people merely suspected of wrongdoing), Miranda v. Arizona (where the Supreme Court established the famous rights of the same name...most popularized on the TV show Dragnet), and Gregg v. Georgia (where the Supreme Court upheld the death penalty provided that juries awarding it were given sufficient guidelines upon which to make their decision).

"Equal Protection of the Law"

This area is also critical because of the way in which it reflects official sensitivity to racial and minority concerns. It includes the cases of Cooper v. Aaron (where it told Arkansas governor Orval Faubus it meant business in terms of school desegregation), Heart of Atlanta Hotel v. United States (wherein the Supreme Court upheld law which said that even private businesses can't discriminate in offering services), Loving v. Virgina (which overturned a Virginia law prohibiting black/white marriages), Palmer v. Thompson (which allowed the closure of a public swimming pool for the reason that all residents were thereafter deprived of the services that had previously been offered there), Regent v. Bakke (which did away with affirmative action quotas but nonetheless permitted race to remain a factor in determining college admissions), and San Antonio v. Rodriguez (which let stand a funding desparity between the various school systems in a state...critical because the desparity operated in that case to the detriment of hispanic students).

"A Right of Personal Privacy"

The two cases treated here are Roe v. Wade (creating the right to abortion) and Bowers v. Hardwick (upholding an antisodomy law which defined homosexual sex as being sodomy and therefore criminally punishable).

To be sure, owing to the publication date of this book, the cases are all dated but what's important here is that actually hearing the arguments give one of sense of just exactly how the legal reasoning process works. For serious students interested in learning more about US Supreme Court practice and procedure I would highly recommend both this book and Bob Woodward's very excellent (but also admittedly dated) The Brethren.

Radio Theater, August 20, 2009
The 'actors' in these judicial episodes are amateurs. As radio commentators, I mean; their credentials and abilities as jurists are not in question. It's fascinating to hear such semi-legendary folk as Earl Warren mumble, pause, and drone in surprisingly folksy accents. I'm not being sarcastic. It humanizes them, the processes of the Court, and history. And it's worth being reminded that the glibbest talkers are not always the best thinkers. Just listen to Justice Antonin Scalia.

I listened to this set of recordings many years ago, and I don't have them here before me to refreshen my memory of them in detail. The editor and exegete of the cases is Professor Peter Irons, whose book "A People's History of the Supreme Court" is extremely insightful and readable. I've reviewed that book already. This review is merely a "heads up" for other readers interested in the "third branch" of American government.

Great buy, July 14, 2008
The book arrived in great condition. The material covered is great. I am very pleased.

If you are looking for some education on cases and how the court works, this is great. ... Read more

Editorial Review

Law Enforcement in the 21st Century is the first book to examine the “linkage blindness” in the criminal justice system (the lack of connection between theories of policing and what actually happens in police departments), making linkages between theory and police practice through problem-solving and crime mapping applications.

It offers a fresh, new approach to presenting introductory law enforcement material that is both practical for the future law enforcement officer and intellectually rewarding for readers who may be entering a whole new field of study. The authors have organized the material in a developmental framework beginning with a discussion of law enforcement's place within the criminal justice system and a discussion of the origins of policing; the reader is then introduced to the traditional model of policing and the core aspects of the work—organizational structure and units, field operations, and investigations. The authors provide information important to law enforcement in the 21^st century, including topics such as terrorism and the latest technology.

Reviews

what happened?, February 10, 2010
The book arrrived and it was in horrible shape.The binder was falling off and the cover is warped and blistered like it was in water. There was many highlights in the book with writing on the pages. ... Read more