Author Archive for dan-filler
Introducing Guest Blogger Laura Appleman
posted by Dan Filler
I’m very pleased to announce that Professor Laura Appleman, of Willamette University School of Law, will be doing a reprise visit with us this month. Laura teaches criminal law, criminal procedure and sentencing. She received her J.D. from Yale University, and both her B.A. and M.A. from the University of Pennsylvania. Before joining the Willamette faculty this year, she visited at Hofstra University from 2005-06. Prior to entering law teaching, Laura served for five years as an appellate public defender for the city of New York, where she argued approximately 50 appeals (and actually won three!). Laura also served as a law clerk for A. Wallace Tashima of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
Her current research focuses on the role of punishment theory in recent sentencing reforms, the conflict between 6th Amendment rights and plea deals/bench trials, and, more generally, issues of legal ethics in criminal procedure. Laura serves on the Green Bag’s Board of Advisers for Almanac of Good Legal Writing and occasionally blogs about legal ethics at The Legal Ethics Forum.
Her recent writing includes:
* Retributive Justice and Hidden Sentencing , 68 Ohio St. L.J. __ (forthcoming 2007)
* Rediscovering Retribution: Punishment Theory After Blakely, Fed. Sent. Rep., Vol. 18, No. 4, pp. 247-249 (April 2006)
* Reports of Batson’s Death Have Been Greatly Exaggerated: How the Batson Doctrine Enforces a Normative Framework of Legal Ethics, 78 Temple L. Rev. 607 (2005)
* The Rise of the Modern American Law School: How Professionalization, German Scholarship and Legal Reform Shaped Our System of Legal Education, 39 New England L. Rev. 251 (2005)
October 1, 2007 at 12:04 am
Posted in: Administrative Announcements
Print This Post
No Comments
Farewell, For Now
posted by Dan Filler
On January 16, 2006, I became a guest blogger here at Concurring Opinions. The temporary gig was a great deal of fun but when I was invited to join permanently, I wondered whether I would be able to generate content on a regular basis. The answer, it turned out, was yes and no. I’ve been a binge/purge blogger ever since, cycling between periods of prolific writing and radio silence. I’m sure I could find many explanations for this style, but one of them is the nature of my work life. Helping to start a new law school turns out to be quite time (and mind) consuming.
The good news is that Drexel University College of Law is entering its second year in great shape. We have a fabulous group of new faculty and a remarkably strong entering class. On the other hand, as our Dean Roger Dennis likes to say, we’re building the plane while we fly it. Much remains to be done – and everyone on the faculty is a part of that construction project. All of which is to say: it’s time for me to leave blogging, for now at least.
Concurring Opinions has been an entree to a wonderful community of writers and readers. My co-bloggers are a great bunch of lawprawfs. I’ve particularly appreciated the regular readers – including those critics who think that I’m part of a vast left-wing conspiracy. And I am going to miss wading into debates that are well over my head.
What’s next? Plenty of mundane stuff, I suspect. I’ll be busy with hiring again this year; Drexel will be actively recruiting the next wave of faculty. And then there’s scholarship and teaching. At the same time, I hope to begin imagining fresh ways of cultivating virtual conversation and community. So to make this ending point also a starting point, I’d love to hear what others see as the New New Thing.
Cheers!
July 16, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Posted in: Administrative Announcements
Print This Post
10 Comments
Law School Faculty Lateral Moves, Final 2007 Edition
posted by Dan Filler
Better late (and, inevitably, incomplete) than never! Here is my final list of lateral law school hiring for the 2006-07 hiring season. Thanks to all the people who emailed me. Thanks also to Brian Leiter, Paul Caron, Paul Secunda, and Mary Dudziak, all of whom collected and posted portions of this data set.
I’m looking forward to the new hiring year!
July 13, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Posted in: Law School (Hiring & Laterals)
Print This Post
23 Comments
Vanderbilt Chancellor Gordon Gee Rejoins Big Ten
posted by Dan Filler
Vanderbilt President will be leaving Vandy to become the President of Ohio State University. Gee is the former President of Brown, Ohio State, Colorado and West Virginia, as well as former dean of West Virginia University Law.
July 11, 2007 at 3:42 pm
Posted in: Law School
Print This Post
One Comment
DOJ Attorney Slams His Own Shop
posted by Dan Filler
John S. Koppel, a civil attorney with the Department of Justice, lashed out at DOJ in a Denver Post editorial the other day. Both the content and the (relatively shrill) tenor of the piece are notable, given that Koppel is apparently still employed by Uncle Sam. In an piece titled “Bush DOJ is a National Disgrace”, he pens some juicy lines like:
In more than a quarter of a century at the DOJ, I have never before seen such consistent and marked disrespect on the part of the highest ranking government policymakers for both law and ethics. It is especially unheard of for U.S. attorneys to be targeted and removed on the basis of pressure and complaints from political figures dissatisfied with their handling of politically sensitive investigations and their unwillingness to “play ball.”…. Law enforcement is not supposed to be a political team sport, and prosecutorial independence and integrity are not “performance problems.”
…and…
[The Bush administration] has systematically undermined the rule of law in the name of fighting terrorism, and it has sought to insulate its actions from legislative or judicial scrutiny and accountability by invoking national security at every turn, engaging in persistent fearmongering, routinely impugning the integrity and/or patriotism of its critics, and protecting its own lawbreakers. This is neither normal government conduct nor “politics as usual,” but a national disgrace of a magnitude unseen since the days of Watergate – which, in fact, I believe it eclipses.
The news isn’t that attorneys at the DOJ have these political views – they are, after all, squarely in the mainstream – but that DOJ attorneys are at the point of uttering them very publicly. It is possible that Koppel is an outlier – a person with questionable judgment – or maybe he is trying to place himself in the spotlight so that he can win an offer from another shop. (One cannot understate the difficulty of lateral movement for a mid-career government attorney.) Still, it seems to me emblematic of both the challenges the Bush administration must face from within and, perhaps more importantly, the degree to which DOJ has lost control of its own operations. Perhaps Koppel will, as he fears, be punished. But more likely, based on the active blogging about this piece, he will become a 15 minute superstar whose fame innoculates him from retaliation. In any case, I supsect that there are hundreds (or thousands) of DOJ attorneys who are quietly applauding this piece. “Not sure I would have written that”, they’re whispering at dinner parties. “But he sure is right.”
July 10, 2007 at 12:00 am
Posted in: Politics
Print This Post
No Comments
The Raging Fox v. Hedgehog Debate
posted by Dan Filler
Eric Muller and Belle Lettre have been stirring the pot on the strategic question of how best to advance in academia. Should one be a fox (engaged in many ideas, fully immersed in few) or a hedgehog (diving deeply into one big thing.) Belle fears that she may be a a “dilettantish fox” and asks whether this is toxic for one’s career. Eric says that he started his career as a crim pro hedgehog, went vulpine with his interest in Japanese internment, and ultimately became a hedgehog on internment issues. And he thinks that the hedgehog approach is strategically best unless you have a really big brain (i.e., your name is Ian Ayers, Mitu Gulati, or Jerry Kang.)
These are hard and largely unanswerable questions, but here are some thoughts. First, I must self-identify as a fox. I do have a general area of interest – social anxiety about crime – but it’s a large landscape. I wrote about anxiety over Columbine. I wrote about Megan’s Law. I wrote about anxiety over terrorists as pedophiles. But I also wrote about The Starr Report. About lawyers in the Yellow Pages. And about juvenile specialty courts.
Were these good choices? Some good things came of them. I managed to get several pieces placed in well-branded law reviews. By selecting topics that were engaging for me, and the rest of the world, I was able to create articles that 24 year old editors would enjoy reading. I also managed to have fun with scholarship. I am a dilettante in my day to day anyway; how great to be able to translate that into publications. (Well, let’s be fair here…writing is a beast for me. But the process of thinking about these matters was great.)
But there are downsides to foxhood. First, foxes find it tougher to join a community of scholars. At meetings, and all year long, academic hedgehogs connect over shared issues and interests. They invite each other to give talks and join panels. They share each others’ names when law schools seek potential lateral hires. Foxes often exist on the edges of hedgehog communities but the hedgehogs rarely think of foxes as true experts. And this is the second problem: foxes may in fact be less expert than hedgehogs. The immediate cost of this is that the scholar’s institution (and the world, gosh darnit!) never get the benefit of this additional quantum of knowledge. A secondary effect of this reduced expertise also relates to lateral movement potential: in many cases, better scholars have more opportunities to move. But this is a complicated claim. The truth is that social connections and article placement are absolutely critical predictors of success in the lateral market. Sociable foxes with strong (if not brilliant) scholarship and/or nice placements can move. Yet because many excellent articles never find a marque placement, many hedgehogs are unable to move…despite their expertise.
There is no right answer to this debate. If your school demands that you become a leader in some particular sub-field, you’re probably best playing the hedgehog. But if you’re at one of the 150 law schools that are primarily concerned about productivity (teamed with reasonable quality), the choice is up to you. And simply having that choice is one of the great pleasures of academia.
July 9, 2007 at 8:49 pm
Posted in: Law School (Teaching)
Print This Post
5 Comments
Will There Be A Pill Panic?
posted by Dan Filler
CNN is reporting that “pills are becoming the new marijuana“. This follows on the heels of Al Gore Jr.’s arrest for improper possession of prescription drugs. My question is whether this will trigger a moral panic – a surge of public anxiety exceeding the real extent ot the social problem. (I’ve blogged previously about social panics here and here. I’ve written at greater length about moral panics here.) Will we begin to see a surge of stories documenting this “growing crisis”? We’ve seen as much with crack and methamphetamine, and there’s a long tradition of such panics over marijuana, opium, and other drugs, to say nothing of the ongoing panic over child abduction and sexual abuse. But there’s one big difference between prescription pills and all other types drugs: the pharmaceutical industry has high quality public relations management and easy media access. And many content providers – the very businesses that like to spread fear and anxiety – depend on Big Pharma advertising for substantial revenue.
I suspect that the PR staff of many of these big pharmaceutical companies (to say nothing of industry trade groups) are on high alert, watching this potential pill panic closely. And I have faith that they’ll manage this moment reasonably well. Remember that Oxycontin panic of a couple years back? Not so much anymore.
July 6, 2007 at 10:24 am
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
3 Comments
The Criminal Law (Like All Information) Wants To Be Free
posted by Dan Filler
In the last couple of days, the Pennsylvania House passed legislation making the state’s statutes freely available over the Web. Remarkably, Pennsylvania will be the last state to provide this free and easy access.
It’s hard to believe that only a few years ago, it was actually quite difficult to find state and federal statutes. Sure, they were available in selected public libraries, as well as all law libraries. But law libraries can be a bear to access: in some states, one would have to travel miles to find a law library. And many of these libraries limit public use in one way or another.
When we discuss punishment theory in criminal law, I like to noodle with students about whether, and how, prospective criminals come to learn the law. After all, most theories assume that a defendant has advance notice about what is expected of him and the consequences of lawbreaking. Deterrence theories – essentially, economic punishment models that suggest that higher sentences reduce crime by scaring off potential offenders – all assume that these miscreants can accurately predict their punishment. Putting aside the question of whether offenders act rationally – a serious question for individuals who are working under intense emotion, or the influence of drugs and alcohol – does anyone really know what a second degree burglary is “worth”? Surely there is information flow on the street, but it is far from the perfection assumed in economic modeling.
Obviously, making laws more obvious is much simpler than making potential sentences clear. But the fact that we’re only now completing the task of distributing the easily reproducible information – the statutes themselves – tells you just how much further we’d have to go to provide the information flow needed for criminal sanctions to be even halfway efficient as a deterrent. As Dave suggested a while back (echoing Stefananos Bibas), criminal information markets anyone?
July 3, 2007 at 8:23 am
Posted in: Technology
Print This Post
No Comments
Bush Commutes Libby’s Sentence
posted by Dan Filler
The President commuted Scooter Libby’s sentence today, eliminating the prison term but leaving the non-incarcerative sanctions in place. There is no surprise here but it does bring up at least two interesting issues. The first is the way in which Judge Reggie Walton was pivotal in forcing Bush’s hand. Once Judge Walton decided to impose the prison sentence immediately, Bush was left only two options: infuriating his base or nakedly giving cover to a political and professional ally. He did manage to split the baby a bit – by commuting his sentence, rather than pardoning him, Libby will now have to live with at least a few of the nasty collateral sanctions (potential loss of voting rights, loss of the ability to obtain certain professional licenses, etc.) that come along with a felony criminal conviction.
The second interesting issue is that this maneuver shows how the executive can manipulate sentences. I don’t know federal law, but I wonder whether Bush could have ordered imposition of a different, lesser prison term. Could he have altered the length (to say nothing of terms) of probation? Could he have put Libby on house arrest for eight months? And what if Libby gets caught driving drunk next month. Can he be sent to the pokey for a probation violation? Given that Bush respects the jury’s verdict, why exactly is probation, rather than 30 months, or 20 months, or 6 months, appropriate?
Sometimes a President has to spend some political capital for a friend. He did so today – a bit sooner than he might have liked.
UPDATE: Doug Berman has a flock of good posts here, here, and here. Orin Kerr adds good commentary here . And Ellen Podgor has some thoughts and questions here. Then there is P.S. Ruckman, Jr., who has dedicated an entire blog to the (partially realized) prospect of a pardon for Libby. It’s at www.libbypardon.net.
July 2, 2007 at 8:30 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
8 Comments
The Department of Ill-Advised Job Titles
posted by Dan Filler
UC Berkeley’s Boalt Hall School of Law has just announced the creation of a Lethal Injection Fellowship. I applaud the institutional commitment to this work – the fellow will create and manage a clearinghouse of information regarding lethal injection challenges – but the title is a bit ghoulish.
Or perhaps the discomforting title was strategic. It will certainly create some unusual interview chat as fellows go off to find their first post-fellowship position.
UPDATE: A spelling error has been corrected.
June 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm
Posted in: Capital Punishment
Print This Post
3 Comments
Hillary Taps Into Soprano America
posted by Dan Filler
Hillary Clinton’s featured in a new video playing off the Sopranos closer. It’s fun to see Bill and Hil acting, and there’s a nice guest appearance to boot. Remember Bill playing his sax on Arsenio Hall? These guys understand that you need to position yourself in the true American heartland – TV – if you want to connect with voters.
Watch it here. (You’ll have to pass through a fund-raising machine to get there.)
June 19, 2007 at 2:24 pm
Posted in: Advertising, Culture, Politics
Print This Post
2 Comments
Appropriating “Organic”
posted by Dan Filler
It appears that the titans of the food industry are having their way with the USDA and the feds may soon approve a list of 38 non-organic items that may be included in foods marked “organic.” All of this interesting regulatory play is inidicative of the fact that organic foods finally hit the big time, and thus became worth of Big Food’s attention. We see a several different things happening here.
1. The public is becoming more concerned about the contents of its foodstuffs.
2. With more interest in organic food, Big Food decides to buy into to the industry.
3. Once bought in to the industry, making money off of the public’s (perhaps legitimate) fear of the current foodsupply (that Big Food created and aggressively markets), industry immediately sought to make organic foods cheaper, more attractive, or tastier (or perhaps all three) by adding non-organic ingredients.
4. With its meaning diluted (and I’m not taking a position on whether this dilution is meaningful – whether these 38 ingredients make items more or less healthy), the term organic may slowly lose its value as an indicator that a food product is distinctively more natural.
5. This will open new opportunities for creative small food marketers to create new language signifying the concept that “organic” once conveyed.
In the end, Big Food is simply doing with “organic” what it does with so many of the food products it markets: taking the underlying item (usually things like wheat, but in this case the word organic), processing it until it is a first cousin to its natural state, and serving up this not-quite-real but plenty alluring product to a waiting public.
Is this an example of markets working? Or of the vices of regulation? I’ll leave that question for people who actually spend money on this stuff. And I’ll have a Snickers and a Coke.
June 11, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Posted in: Advertising, Culture, Food
Print This Post
2 Comments
Corporate Law And Democracy Joins The Blogosphere
posted by Dan Filler
For those of you who have missed it thus far, Renee Jones at BC Law has started up a new blog, Corporate Law and Democracy. Here’s how she describes her agenda:
My aim is to bring together concepts and theories from a variety of legal disciplines that touch on questions related to the internal governance of corporations and the influence of corporations and corporate law on our political and social structure.
Best of luck to Renee – I look forward to watching her develop the blog.
May 9, 2007 at 5:23 pm
Posted in: Blogging
Print This Post
One Comment
Felony Murder Laws Really Work? Cut To The Video!
posted by Dan Filler
I’ve been teaching felony murder this week and in the course of one class I discussed the dubious theory that felony murder rules make felons commit their crimes more safely. Then whaddya know! One of my studenets forwards me this video link showing a robber helping his victim (who was having chest pains) call 911! Is it simple human kindness or could it be the criminal law at work???
April 13, 2007 at 7:19 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
One Comment
Don Imus and Megan Kanka In A Soundbite Nation
posted by Dan Filler
Over at BlackProf, Darren Hutchinson has a good post about the understandably strong response to the comments of shock-jock Don Imus. Here’s a taste:
How do persons concerned with racial justice convince people to examine structural racism with the same level of intensity as they devote to incidents such as Nappy-Gate? When idiots like Imus (and Lott and all the other racists du jour) have moments of Freudian slippage, Sharpton, Jackson and others respond; the idiots apologize; and the racist “moments” pass. Victory! But what about the next day? Racism in its structural and individualized forms persists. Is it possible to capitalize on moments like these to bring attention to issues far more dangerous and pervasive than Imus (like conjoined poverty and racism)? Does intense focus on idiot du jour racism, rather than structural racism, make the latter even more obscure and beyond remediation?
I think this is an extremely important point. Events like the Imus fiasco have multiple pathogenic results. They make millions of people feel good about their petty racisms because “I never would have said anything that stupid and offensive.” They create excellent opportunities for individuals and institutions who promote, or benefit from, racism to speak out against Imus and publicly document their supposed opposition to racism, thus innoculating them against future criticism. Most of all, they obscure potent forms of institutional discrimination by creating the impression that Imus-like comments are the prototypical form of racism that we should all worry about.
Ironically, I fear most the suggestion that events like this reduce racism because they generate an important public debate about race. Any public debate happening in the aftermath of Imus seems to be a sideshow obscuring the main event – institutional racism that lacks fingerprints or soundbites, and operates silently and effectively throughout America’s day to day. The Imus affair reminds me a bit of the aftermath of Megan Kanka’s brutal abduction and killing. As bad as that individual case was, the public debate and legislative response – targeting the comparatively rare child sexual abuser who victimizes strangers- completely obscured the much more significant child sexual abuse problem in America: sexual assaults by close friends and family members and, in particular, step-dads and their equivalents. (Robin Wilson’s article remains a critical piece of this literature.)
As a general matter, if CNN can’t describe an issue in 60 second or less, it’s not a problem our society can acknowledge or address. Deep seated societal racism cannot be captured in a clip. Don Imus can be. The consequences? We learn that Imus = racism. Punishment and apology follows. And a relieved nation moves on.
April 11, 2007 at 12:05 am
Posted in: Race, Sociology of Law
Print This Post
5 Comments
Justice Alito Inaugurates Drexel Law And Waxes Nostalgic
posted by Dan Filler
Spring brings birth and renewal, or in the case of Drexel College of Law, a ribbon cutting ceremony. While the inauguration was symbolic (Drexel Law has, after all, been open for business since August and the building opened in January), Justice Alito Amtrak-ed up to Philadelphia yesterday morning to do the honors. (He was joined by Arlen Specter, among others.)
Alito gave a brief speech, talking about his warm feelings for Philadelphia where he sat on the Third Circuit for many years. He said that he liked to think about that hot summer of 1787 when the founders convened to talk about a constitution. He talked of his great interest in the framers whom he described as men of optimism, tolerance and practicality.
His comments suggested a nostalgia for a time 200-plus years ago when a community of men wrote the paper that the Supreme Court has been interpreting – or is it carving up? – ever since. What do we make of these warm memories? I sensed a reverence for the Constitution – a good thing, it seems to me, for any Supreme Court Justice. But reverence doesn’t tell us much substantively. I also heard a subtle claim that that might suggest Alito relies on original intent not simply because it’s required for legitimacy, but also because framers’ intentions were, at core, good public policy. This is a much less apologetic take on framer’s intent than we often hear. Rather than waxing helpless (“sorry we can’t help you, but we’re stuck with the text we’ve got”) his words suggest that he might add “but even if we could change it, we wouldn’t.”
He provided no specifics, of course, and I am reading between the lines. But this does seem to be the logical next step in conservative constitutional jurisprudence: decisions that don’t just sound in the limits of judicial power, but also in good government. In this view, reference to framers’ intent(s) is simply a way of choosing 18th century “practical and tolerant” wisdom over today’s “jaded, short-sighted” opportunism.
In that sense, perhaps Justice Alito is a judicial Ronald Reagan, looking to bring the good old days back to our constitutional law. For him, Philly circa 1787 was that shining city on the hill. Sadly, those cities are never as wonderful – or just – as they appear at a distance.
April 10, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Posted in: Law School
Print This Post
10 Comments
What’s The Deal With Song Lyrics Online?
posted by Dan Filler
When I hear a song and want to learn the lyrics, I turn to the web. Apparently, I’m not alone since there are oodles of these lyrics sites supported by advertisers seeking access to eyeballs. I’ve assumed these sites are operating at the edge of the copyright gray zone. After all, the lyrics are copyrighted text and the sites are profiting from them through ad sales. But if perhaps this isn’t “fair use”, it certainly is useful for music-lovers like me.
Or is it? I’ve been listening to a lot of new music recently. (Understand that new means new to me.) That includes Sufjan Stevens’ Illinois, Jim Guthrie’s Now More Than Ever, The Shins’ Wincing The Night Away, and Rogue Wave’s Out of the Shadow. A couple of friends have been filling the tank with homemade mix cd’s as well and my comments relate to one song included on a disc prepared by a D.C. lawprof buddy: Soul Meets Body, by Death Cab for Cutie.
I was searching to discover the correct lyrics for a line I took to be “there are lugs left in both of our shoes.” I traveled to one, then two, then three lyric sites to find out the “correct” answer. On one site, I was told that the line was “there are holes in left in both of our shoes”, on another it was “there are roads left in both of our shoes”, and on a third (which I cannot find as I write this post) the lyric was ‘soles left in both of our shoes”. (According to Atlantic Records, by the way, the noun is “roads.”) Once I discovered this inconsistency, I looked to see if the lyrics varied in other verses as well. No surprise: different sites showed variance at a number of different points. Using the powerful inferential reasoning I first learned at Wash U’s empirical research workshop, I concluded that these sites must be wrong all the time. These sites aren’t fair use – they’re fairly useless!
In the end, I discovered that various people hear the line in question differently. My own version may not be authentic but I’ll stick with it.
And I do believe it’s true that there are lugs left in both of our shoes
But if the silence takes you than I hope it takes me too
So Brown Eyes I’ll hold you near ’cause you’re the only song I want to hear
A melody softly soaring through my atmosphere
If you happen to see me drive by, that is what I’ll be singing, whether or not Ben Gibbard – or those manifold lyric site operators – would agree.
April 9, 2007 at 12:44 am
Posted in: Culture
Print This Post
5 Comments
Framing And Complaining: Sex Offenders Under A Bridge
posted by Dan Filler
Today’s inspiring news story, out of Miami, is that five sex offenders are living under a bridge with the approval of state authorities. Apparently, they are required to stay under the bridge every night from 10 to 6, and a parole officer routinely checks in on them. The story links the problem to legislation that forbids sex offenders from living withing 2500 feet of just about anything – schools, parks or places kids gather. I have a couple of reactions to this story – which has gotten a nice toehold in the national media (347 news articles in Google News as of 1:53 pm EDT.)
First, I have to put on my critics hat. There is plenty of reason to believe that the residence ordinances are only a piece of the story here. There are surely other places for these folks to live than under a bridge. The problem, I imagine, is that these offenders are poor. Their poverty is presumably related to both their prior convictions (which I suspect make it hard to find a job) and to a broader failure of the social safety net. It may also be related to their mental health, personal preferences, or other social behaviors. The point is, the media frames a nice story (residence restrictions = bridge living) but I have to believe the real narrative is somewhat more complex. (Perhaps the traction of these stories is further evidence that the media is now in mea culpa mode, repenting for its role in promoting the rare but scary stories that produce ineffective and irresponsible sex offender laws.)
But even with that critical eye, it’s still worth noting that some people misunderstand the implications of this story. That is, some view this situation as an example of sex offenders people getting their just deserts. (In the news story, County Commissioner Diaz says “nobody really told them to do this crime.” And a blogger noted that “when sex offenders whine…the media listens.”) To the degree that these offenders are living under a bridge as a result of their sex offenses, that is surely not the punishment legislators in Tallahassee envisioned. More importantly, though, pushing sex offenders onto the streets – where they are difficult to supervise, cut off from a community that provides binding social connections and incentives for good behavior, and left to live in a subcommunity of offenders and outcasts – may generate the precise risks legislators are most concerned about. It seems likely to increase the odds of their reoffending. Ineffective laws are one thing. Laws that make matters worse are something different altogether.
April 7, 2007 at 2:39 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
2 Comments
Defending Alabama
posted by Dan Filler
The University of Alabama, that is, and in particular Dean Ken Randall. Randall has been called to task by Brian Leiter and Gordon Smith for his comments to the Tuscaloosa News about Alabama’s rise in the new US News rankings. Randall said: “It is a proud day for our campus, the legal profession, and the entire state of Alabama. We have proven that our state can offer premier educational opportunities.” Brian places Randall (and others) in the Decanal Hypocrisy Hall of Fame. Gordon called these the “most over the top comments of the season.”
OK, everyone knows I’m biased. Alabama is my academic alma mater, a place where I spent my first eight years in teaching. But there are a couple of reasons why I think this criticism of Randall is harsh. The first, as it relates to the H-word (hypocrisy.) Bucking the dominant “official line”, Ken Randall declined to sign the LSAC letter critiquing US News rankings. (Gordon notes this.) People may disagree with Randall’s decision, as well as his comments, but they can’t quarrel with his consistency.
Second, Randall’s comments are capable of a more generous reading. For example, his second point – that the school has proven that Alabama can offer premier educational opportunities – is not necessarily a claim that this new ranking provides the proof. Indeed, if you listened to Randall travel across the state, you’d have heard him offer that same message for years – well before the new ranking. This is simply a point of pride and a bit of marketing. And it’s something else – something that folks in Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas and the like will appreciate: it’s an opportunity to respond to both the external critiques, and the internal self-image problems, of a state that hasn’t always excelled in education. In this sense, the comment is both a retort to outsiders and a rallying cry to residents. The US News rankings were an opportunity to get this message into the papers, but it is a message that he has been effectively delivering for many years.
Finally, as to the most apparently problematic comment – that the new rankings are proud day for the campus, profession and state – the critiques I think overstate the case. First, this comment was offered to the local mass media and sounds in the language of sports and competition – something anyone in Alabama would recognize as part of the state’s patois. It is also a way to stir up donors. Like his comment about offering a premier education in the state, these words are designed to convince alumni that the law school is a worthy investment.
I suspect that someone could raise a defense of the other offending deans, so I don’t mean to damn them by my failure to comment. And I also don’t mean to argue that US News offers “accurate” rankings. I now teach at a school that is new and utterly unranked. That fact is surely disconcerting to some potential students. Yet I would also put many aspects of our program head to head with schools in the Top 50 – including, yes, Alabama. So in this sense, these rankings very much hurt Drexel. (And as I’ve shown previously, most newer schools do quite badly in the US News reputation competition.) But these rankings do provide some information to students (and, by the way, potential faculty) who might otherwise know very little about the University of Alabama’s of the world. And they also produce significant benefits for schools that do well – in terms of money, faculty recruiting and student recruiting. Isn’t it just as disingenuous to act like the rankings are no big deal, then quietly reap their rewards? And isn’t that what most of the other schools in the Top 50 do every day?
April 4, 2007 at 12:00 am
Posted in: Law School (Rankings)
Print This Post
2 Comments
Sambuca On Ice? New Jersey’s ZUI Case
posted by Dan Filler
I like this story. Zamboni driver John Pergallo was charged with, and convicted of, driving under the influence. From the report:
Peragallo, 64, testified at his trial that he did drink beer and vodka, but not until after he had groomed the ice. However, he told police he had a shot of Sambuca with his breakfast coffee and two Valium-pills before work.
Apparently he operated his machine with a BAC of .12. This is well above New Jersey’s .08 limit for operating motor vehicles on the road. But the Superior Court reversed holding that the state DUI laws didn’t cover the act of driving a Zamboni in a sports arena. Perhaps we should be worried about ZUI’s, but I suspect that the legislature simply didn’t imagine ice grooming while drunk when it crafted the statute. (And did it consider rider mowers and floor buffers, for that matter? Buffing under the influence?)
This holding surely warms the hearts of those hockey players who’ve taken the old Zamboni out for a drunken spin after a late night practice. If you haven’t give it a try, you’d better hurry. The Regulatory State of New Jersey will surely modify it’s laws to face down this frozen menace.
Who knew that smoothing out a rink was so stressful, anyway?
April 3, 2007 at 2:04 pm
Posted in: Criminal Law
Print This Post
2 Comments
