« Wait, does this mean that Iraq DID have WMDs? | Main | Happy to be back »
Tuesday, April 23, 2013
Some Must Reads from the Mich LR Books Issue
I spent a decent bit of time with the recent books issue of the Michigan Law Review. Whenever I read review essays of books, I watch for the degree to which the author performs the script identified and lampooned by David Schleicher. The latest issue of the MLR has no shortage of review essays in which the upshot by the reviewer is: this book would be better and its problems would be cured if it were more interested in the things that I also am interested in and had cited and addressed my work more.
Still, I'm delighted to say that in the area of criminal justice, there are 2 pieces that are absolutely vital for every prof in that area to read.
The first is Steve Schulhofer's polite but fearless and fierce critique of Bill Stuntz's book, The Collapse of American Criminal Justice. As some of you know, this book, and more generally, its late author, have received a cascade of encomia from distinguished and usually shrewd reviewers. The circle of love around Stuntz is understandable and obviously warranted. He was a gem of a human being and a superb colleague. I had Stuntz as a teacher when he arrived at Harvard, and ever since, was grateful for his generosity of spirit and example as a teacher and scholar. But as Nietzsche said, one repays a teacher badly by always remaining a pupil.
And so, on the merits of the work, I have long been a skeptic, though as someone who doesn't specialize in criminal procedure as such, I had refrained from investing the necessary time to ground the skepticism and make it intellectually tidy. Thanks to Steve Schulhofer's piece, however, that task is now substantially underway. With some luck it will do the work of bringing a generation of criminal procedure scholars back on course. For notwithstanding the many deservedly kind things that could be said about Stuntz, my fear is that his seductive writing and bold and innovative claims took too many people off course from truth and justice. Schulhofer's review, which I'm sure was enormously difficult to write, will provide adequate grounds for others to revisit and soberly re-assess the significance of the Stuntzian corpus of scholarship.
Elsewhere in the issue is John Pfaff's review of Ernest Drucker's book on the epidemiology of mass incarceration. John is guesting here at Prawfs over the next while and so I won't steal his thunder and say too much of his review essay other than it artfully and carefully outlines the empirical basis to wholly undermine much of the conventional wisdom found among lots of criminal law academics and some of the prominent journalists who have been clobbered by their Zombie memes.
In short, if you're at all interested in being better informed about the American criminal justice system and the pathologies of its scholarship, read Steve and John's pieces.
Finally, I can't forbear from also highlighting our own Paul Horwitz's contribution to that MLR issue. Paul's critique of Tamanaha and Olson's books on legal education is typically Horwitzian: fair-minded, pointed, and subtle (and thus, Canadian?). Enjoy!
Posted by Administrators on April 23, 2013 at 12:26 PM in Article Spotlight, Criminal Law, Culture, Current Affairs, Dan Markel | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c6a7953ef017eea7cac9e970d
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Some Must Reads from the Mich LR Books Issue:
Comments
A prawfy friend of mine saw this and wrote me the following note, which I reprint with his permission:
"thanks for highlighting the review in the MLR of Stuntz's book. I'll hope to read it soon. I'll admit that I assigned the book to my criminal law theory class this [last year] and completely hated it. I thought it was as good an example of a lawyerly book, as opposed to a scholarly one, as one could hope to find. As scholarship, I thought it was just awful, and that wasn't even including things like putting evidence that tells strongly against one's claims only in endnotes, without signalling what one was doing. It was very much like reading a legal brief for a client, I thought, and exactly not the book we need on the subject. My impression is that he was a genuinely good guy and well loved, but the book seemed to me to be a near perfect example of the dangers of approaching scholarship as a lawyer would, and it makes it harder to get these hard issues right because of that. "
Posted by: Dan Markel | Apr 24, 2013 11:00:29 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.