Showing posts with label Crime and Criminal Law. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Crime and Criminal Law. Show all posts

Friday, April 16, 2021

Federal History 2021

Federal History: Journal of the Society for History in the Federal Government 13: 2021 is available online.  Here’s the TOC:

Editor’s Note
Benjamin Guterman

Roger R. Trask Lecture
Bill Williams

The Case for John Jay’s Nomination as First Chief Justice
Benjamin Lyons

“This disease . . . knows no State boundaries”: The 1918 Spanish Influenza Epidemic and Federal Public Health
Jonathan Chilcote

“America must remain American”: The Liberal Contribution to Race Restrictions in the 1924 Immigration Act
Kevin Yuill

The Combined Chiefs of Staff and the Public Health Building, 1942–1946
Christopher Holmes

Federalism and the Limits on Regulating Products Liability Law, 1977–1981
Ian J. Drake

Gerald Ford’s Clemency Board Reconsidered
Alan Jaroslovsky

Interview An Interview with Chandra Manning
Benjamin Guterman

--Dan Ernst

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Welcome, Samuel Fury Childs Daly!

 We are delighted to welcome our guest blogger for the month of April: Samuel Fury Childs Daly (Duke University). 

Professor Daly is a historian of twentieth-century Africa. His research combines the methods of legal, military, and social history to examine the post-independence period in both West and East Africa. He is the author of A History of the Republic of Biafra: Law, Crime, and the Nigerian Civil War (Cambridge University Press, 2020), a study of the Biafra War (1967-70). Using an original body of legal records from the secessionist Republic of Biafra, the book looks at how technologies, survival practices, and moral ideologies emerging from the fighting shaped how crime was practiced and perceived after Biafra's defeat. Connecting the violence of the battlefield to violent crime, it sheds new light on law and politics in Africa after colonialism. 

Prof. Daly's current project is a transnational history of military desertion over the longue durĂ©e. From desertion in 17th-century Kongo armies to the African experience in the world wars, this project reveals how leaving the battlefield could be a productive act. At many points in African history, deserters founded communities, created new social orders, and generated fresh ideas about honor and obligation. 

Prof. Daly's other research interests include the global history of drug trading, customary law in the British empire, and the history of policing and prisons.

Welcome, Professor Daly!

--Mitra Sharafi

Thursday, February 18, 2021

Morse on the Insanity Defense

Stephen Morse, University of Pennsylvania Law School, has posted Before and after Hinckley: Legal Insanity in the United States, which is forthcoming in The Insanity Defence: International and Comparative Perspectives (2022), edited by Ronnie Mackay and  Warren Brookbanks:

This chapter first considers the direction of the affirmative defense of legal insanity in the United States before John Hinckley was acquitted by reason of insanity in 1982 for attempting to assassinate President Reagan and others and the immediate aftermath of that acquittal. Since the middle of the 20th Century, the tale is one of the rise and fall of the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code test for legal insanity. Then it turns to the constitutional decisions of the United States Supreme Court concerning the status of legal insanity. Finally, it addresses the substantive and procedural changes that have occurred in the insanity defense since the wave of legal changes following the Hinckley decision.

--Dan Ernst

Tuesday, February 2, 2021

Ford and Hinchy in Legal Histories of Empire Symposium

[We have the following announcement.  DRE}

Legal Histories of Empire: Second Symposium

Join us for the second of several symposia planned for 2020 and 2021 for Legal Histories of Empire.

Our speakers:

Lisa Ford: 'The King's Colonial Peace: Variable subjecthood and the transformation of empire'

This paper is drawn from my forthcoming book, The King's Peace: Empire and Order in the British Empire. The book uses colonial peacekeeping as a lens through which to examine the shifting parameters of crown prerogative in Empire in the Age of Revolutions. This paper will argue that the legal vulnerability of (and often threats to order posed by) a diverse array of subjects - formerly French Catholics in Quebec, Caribbean slaves and NSW convicts - both prompted and justified the unravelling of the very idea of the freeborn Englishman that had been mobilised by protestant Britons in pre-revolutionary America.

Lisa Ford is Professor of History at the University of New South Wales, Australia. Her major publications include Settler Sovereignty: Jurisdiction and Indigenous People in America and Australia, 1788-1836 (2010) which won the Littleton-Griswold Prize (American Historical Association); the Thomas J. Wilson Prize (Harvard University Press); and the Premiers History Award (NSW). She is also co-author of Rage for Order: The British Empire and the Origins of International Law, 1800-1850 (co-authored with Lauren Benton, 2016) and author of The King’s Peace, which will be published by Harvard later this year. Ford is currently leading a collaborative project funded by the Australian Research Council exploring the role of commissions of inquiry sent throughout the British Empire in the 1820s on which subject she hopes to lead author a book manuscript this year. She also holds a four-year ARC Future Fellowship, during which she will explore the changing use of martial law in the British Empire from the late eighteenth century until 1865.

Jessica Hinchy: 'Child Removal and the Colonial Governance of the Family: Hijra and "Criminal Tribe" Households in North India, c. 1865-1900'

Historians have primarily examined colonial child removal projects in settler colonial contexts. Yet from 1865, the colonial government in north India forcibly removed children from criminalised communities. Child separation began in the households of gender non-conforming people labelled ‘eunuchs,’ particularly Hijras, and eventually extended to socially marginalised people designated as ‘criminal tribes,’ especially Sansiyas. First, what does a comparison of these child removal schemes tell us about the colonial governance of the family? Patrilineal, conjugal and reproductive household models marginalised Hijras and Sansiyas in differing ways, while the category of ‘child’ was contingently defined. Child separation was attempted to varying ends, including both elimination and assimilation. Yet often, the colonial state could not sustain such intensified forms of intimate governance in the face of resistance from households. Nor could officials simply determine removed children’s futures. Second, what does child removal suggest about the making of colonial law? When children were initially removed from Hijra and Sansiya households, officials admitted that ‘the law may have been somewhat strained,’ since existing laws did not provide police or magistrates with legal powers to separate these children. The Sansiya child removal project, for instance, prompted debates about colonial legal exceptions and the ‘legality’ of the colonial state’s practices among colonial officials and Indian and European non-officials.

Jessica Hinchy is an Assistant Professor of History at Nanyang Technological University in Singapore. She researches the history of gender, sexuality, households and family in colonial north India. In 2019, Cambridge University Press published her first monograph, Governing Gender and Sexuality in Colonial India: The Hijra, c. 1850-1900. Her research has also appeared in Modern Asian Studies, Gender & History and Asian Studies Review, among other journals.

The event will take place by zoom on Friday 5 March (or Thursday 4 March, depending on your timezone - see below). Please register here (via Eventbrite) to attend.

Timezones:

Sydney @ 12.30 pm on 5 March
Singapore @ 9.30 am on 5 March
Auckland @ 2.30 pm on 5 March
New Delhi @ 7.00 am on 5 March
London/Dublin @ 1.30 am on 5 March
Nairobi @ 4.30 am on 5 March
Vancouver @ 5.30 pm on 4 March
New Haven/Toronto @ 8.30 pm on 4 March

Tuesday, January 19, 2021

Thompson on crime, violence, and phrenology

Courtney E. Thompson (Mississippi State University) has published An Organ of Murder: Crime, Violence, and Phrenology in Nineteenth-Century America with Rutgers University Press. From the publisher: 

An Organ of Murder explores the origins of both popular and elite theories of criminality in the nineteenth-century United States, focusing in particular on the influence of phrenology. In the United States, phrenology shaped the production of medico-legal knowledge around crime, the treatment of the criminal within prisons and in public discourse, and sociocultural expectations about the causes of crime. The criminal was phrenology’s ideal research and demonstration subject, and the courtroom and the prison were essential spaces for the staging of scientific expertise. In particular, phrenology constructed ways of looking as well as a language for identifying, understanding, and analyzing criminals and their actions. This work traces the long-lasting influence of phrenological visual culture and language in American culture, law, and medicine, as well as the practical uses of phrenology in courts, prisons, and daily life.

 Praise for the book:

"Courtney Thompson provocatively measures the face, head, and soul of American phrenology and invites us to a discovery of the historical origins of scientific criminology." - Stephen Casper

"In this compelling book, Courtney Thompson takes readers to the prisons, courtrooms, and streets of antebellum cities to expose just how phrenology claimed authority on criminality. Rich in detail and analysis, An Organ of Murder vividly illustrates the long history of making criminal minds and bodies into objects of medical and scientific inquiry." - Carla Bittel

Further information is available here.

--Mitra Sharafi

Friday, January 15, 2021

A Blurb for Bartie's "Free Hands and MInds"

Some time ago, we posted a notice of Susan Bartie’s Free Hands and Minds: Pioneering Australian Legal Scholars.  At the time, we had no endorsement to post with it.  We have one now:

Free Hands and Minds is centered in absolutely first rate, short-form—longer than an article and shorter than a book—intellectual biographies of three Australian legal scholars, each active at the time when Australian law teaching was professionalizing years after World War II.  Peter Brett who took a Harvard JSD under Henry Hart centered his work  on Criminal Law; Alice Erh-Soon Tay, first on comparisons with and between the Marxist legal systems of China and Russia and later on Human rights; and Geoffrey Sawer the law governing Australian federalism seen from the perspective of political and social circumstances at the time of the relevant decisions.  For each, the scholarship is taken seriously, the life is taken seriously and the academic surround is taken seriously, pretty much all at the same time.  No one could ask more from work in this form.

                    --John Henry Schlegel, University at Buffalo School of Law

--Dan Ernst

Monday, January 4, 2021

Conley on "Women Who Killed, London 1674-1913"

 Oxford University Press has published Debauched, Desperate, Deranged: Women Who Killed, London 1674-1913, by Carolyn A. Conley (University of Alabama at Birmingham). A description from the Press:

Contemporary studies have concluded that women are far less likely to kill than men and that when women do kill, they do so within the family. Debauched, Desperate, Deranged: Women Who Killed, London 1674-1913 examines the evolution of this pattern in the over 1400 trials in which women were prosecuted for homicide in London from the late seventeenth century until just before the First World War. Which deaths were considered homicides and in what circumstances women were culpable illustrates profound changes in the prevailing assumptions about women. The outcomes of trials and the portrayals of these women in the press illuminate changes in perceptions of women's status and their physical and mental limitations. Debauched, Desperate, Deranged breaks new ground in existing studies of gender and homicide, using a long time frame to discern which trends are brief anomalies and which represent significant change or continuity.

Debauched, Desperate, Deranged is the first empirical, quantitatively as well as qualitatively based study of women and homicide from the seventeenth century to the twentieth. It presents new and significant conclusions on changing incidence of maternal homicides and the remarkable constancy of spousal homicides.

More information is available here. H/t: New Books Network.

-- Karen Tani

Thursday, December 31, 2020

Eunice Hunton Carter, 1899-1970

[My annual exam in American Legal History also includes a biographical essay.  Previous years’ were on Stella Akin, the father-daughter duo Gaius and Jane Bolin, and others.  The subject of this year’s essay was Eunice Hunton Carter.  In writing it, I relied heavily upon Stephen L. Carter’s Invisible: The Forgotten Story of the Black Woman Lawyer Who Took Down America's Most Powerful Mobster (Henry Holt 2018).  Also, Carter appears, facing away from the camera, here.  DRE]
            
Eunice Hunton Carter (1899-1970) was born in Atlanta to Black middle-class parents.  Her father, William Hunton, was the grandson of a Virginia slave who purchased his freedom and moved to Canada, where William was born.  College-educated, he founded the “Colored Division” of the Young Men’s Christian Association and in that capacity traveled widely in the United States to create chapters that recruited local African Americans to the YMCA’s creed of “education, hard work, and Christian virtue.”  While founding a chapter in Norfolk, Virginia, he met and married Eunice’s mother, Addie Waites Hunton, who had been educated in the elite Boston Latin School.  The couple moved to Atlanta shortly before Eunice’s birth.  Both parents traveled, leaving Eunice and her younger brother Alpheaus in the care of a maid or family friends.  Addie gained a national reputation as a founder of Black women’s clubs and lecturer.  In a famous address, “Pure Motherhood the Basis for Race Integrity,” she argued that the most important duty of Black women was to tend to the family.  

The Huntons’ life was shattered in 1906 when a terrible race riot devastated Atlanta’s Black middle-class neighborhood.  Within months they moved to Brooklyn, New York.  Both parents continued to travel, in Addie’s case, for the Young Women’s Christian Association, the NAACP, and a group advocating world peace.  As before, Eunice and her brother the children usually roomed with other families.  Even William’s death in November 1916 did not slow down Addie’s clubwork.  Indeed, after the American entry into World War I, she spent 18 months in France bolstering the morale of Black troops stationed there.

Eunice was already on her way.  In 1917 she enrolled in Smith College, an elite and overwhelmingly White women’s college in Northampton, Massachusetts.  A society matron in the NAACP may have paid her tuition.  A government professor introduced her to Calvin Coolidge, at the time, governor of Massachusetts, who gave her advice and let her read in his well-stocked library as she worked on her thesis on state government.  The experience reinforced her lifelong attachment to the Republican Party, a family legacy.  In 1921, she graduated cum laude with both a bachelor’s and master’s degree.

Eunice spent one miserable academic year teaching at a Black college in the Deep South before returning to New York City, where was a substitute teacher and wrote short stories, some of which appeared in journals alongside works by Langston Hughes and other writers of the Harlem Renaissance.  Her mother helped her find jobs in various charitable and race organizations in Harlem.  Through one of her projects, a free dental clinic, she met Lisle Carter, an immigrant for the Caribbean island of Barbados, who owned the most profitable dental practice in Harlem.   They married in November 1924, and a year later their only child, Lisle Jr., was born.

Soon Eunice Carter was back at her social work jobs.  She helped her mother host an international “Pan-African Congress,” which brought to New York City people of African descent from around the world to discuss “the many problems of racial and social uplift.”  She also joined in several civil rights campaigns, such as protests of white-owned businesses that refused to hire African Americans.  But she wanted more.  As a child of eight, she had told a friend that she wanted to be a lawyer so she could “make sure the bad people went to jail.”  Starting in 1927, while still employed as a social worker and against her mother’s advice, she enrolled in the evening program at Fordham Law School, one of only three women in a class that would graduate 367.

Carter’s initial grades were well above average, but she had to take a year off, probably to care for her son, who may have been ill.   She graduated from Fordham Law School in 1932, the first Black woman to do so.  In May 1933, on her second try, she passed the New York bar exam.  The success came during an odd interlude, lasting into the winter of 1933-1934, during which she may have had a hysterectomy and battled depression.  

Carter attempted the practice of law but had few clients.  She wrote a few wills and represented a few misdemeanor defendants before magistrates sitting without a jury but spent more of her time as a supervisor for the Harlem Division of the Emergency Unemployment Relief Committee, which coordinated the distribution of cash, in-kind benefits, and public works jobs during the Depression.  She also was an unpaid assistant in the Harlem branch of the city’s Women’s Court, probably as an interviewer and counselor of the prostitutes whose arrests made up most of the docket.  Carter’s biographer called Women’s Courts “dark, fetid, grim chambers, loud and disorderly and presided over by bored, time-serving magistrates, many of whom . . . were thoroughly corrupt.”

She also campaigned for Republican political candidates.  When stumping in Harlem for a Black Republican candidate for the State Assembly in 1928, she was appalled by the dirty tricks of Tammany Hall Democrats, including a fake flyer that played upon the racial fears of the district’s White residents.  In that year she also worked for Herbert Hoover’s election as president but also protested that his handlers, seeing a chance to win the votes of White Southerners appalled by the selection of the Irish Catholic Al Smith to head the Democratic ticket, were ignoring Black Republicans and dealing only with the party’s “lily-white” Southern faction.  Even so, she gave a rousing speech on Hoover’s behalf in 1932, and when the Republicans needed a candidate to run for the state assembly seat encompassing Harlem in November 1934, she agreed.  Despite the endorsement of the nonpartisan Citizens Union, she lost.

The race made her known outside Harlem’s Black social elite and earned her the gratitude of the city’s Republican leaders, which they soon repaid.  In March 1934, Harlem residents, angered by what proved to be a false report of police brutality, attacked white-owned businesses in Harlem.  Three African Americans died, and hundreds were arrested.  The newly elected mayor, Fiorello La Guardia, a Progressive Republican who won with Black support (including Carter’s), appointed a biracial investigatory commission to investigate.  As its secretary, Carter became the public face of the commission, whose final report La Guardia deemed too critical of the racial biases of city officials to release to the public.

A still greater opportunity came a few months after her appointment.  An increase in mob-related violence forced the Tammany-approved District Attorney to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate organized crime in New York City.  Thomas E. Dewey, a graduate of the University of Michigan and Columbia Law School who served as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York at the end of the Hoover administrator, got the job.  When assembling his staff of twenty lawyers, he told a local judge he wanted to hire a woman.  The judge recommended Carter, and Dewey appointed her on August 5, 1935.  

Dewey was intent on busting the mob’s most lucrative enterprises, including the “numbers racket,” an illegal lottery.  Carter was put to work examining tickets and found those favored by Harlem’s residents never won.  But she was also convinced that the mob ran Harlem’s brothels, a view that went against received wisdom but was consistent with her observation of the Women’s Court.  Prostitutes who paid their employers a weekly “bonding fee” invariably escaped jail time.  The same lawyer appeared on their behalf, and when he did, arresting officers mysteriously forgot material details.  Carter reasoned that the mob must have used bribed police officers and judges. She persuaded a reluctant Dewey to conduct raids that led to the conviction of a top mobster.  Carter never appeared in court, however.

In the fall of 1937, Dewey easily won election as District Attorney.  Upon taking office in January 1938, he appointed Carter Deputy Assistant District Attorney in charge of the largest division, Special Sessions, whose staff, consisting mostly of white male lawyers, prosecuted 14,000 misdemeanors a year.  Her annual salary of $6,500 (about $122,000 today) was more than Charles Hamilton Houston made from working for NAACP.  Newspaper profiles had her working until at least 7:00 and often 11:00 at night but also mentioned her attire and on at least one occasion photographed her cooking.

Other African American lawyers took notice.  Carter addressed the national meeting of the National Bar Association in 1938 and served on two standing committees, Resolutions and on Discriminatory Legislation.  Sadie Alexander congratulated her on conducting “actual trial work” before juries.  “I cannot say too much for the ability that you have shown as well as the diplomacy you must have exercised to have obtained such a position,” Alexander wrote.

In her public addresses she was something less than a thorough-going feminist.  She did announce, “I believe in the independence of women,” but she also told an audience at Howard University in 1937 that too few Black children “learned the habit of working” and that Black women had “to see that the path is broken in the right direction.”  In 1938 she told a group of Black women voters, “Never argue with a man.  I believe that I have quarreled with a man only six times in my life.  Always it resulted in disaster.”  She elaborated: “Women’s influence should be from behind the throne, not on it.”   And: “Women must never forget that men should dominate the race and that a race is only as strong as its men.  We must continue to inspire them.”

The advice jibed uneasily with her own personal life.  While Carter attended law school, her son Lisle, Jr., often lived in the home of his father’s brother in New Jersey.  Then, in February 1935, the nine-year-old boy was sent to live with his father’s family in Barbados.  It would be a year before Eunice would see him; thereafter she visited only annually.  When he turned 14, he returned to the United States, only to be sent to prep school in upstate New York.  By that time his parents were living separately.  Lisle, Sr.’s extramarital affairs were well-known in the community; Eunice contemplated leaving him for another man.  Still, they stayed married and would later live together until Lisle Sr.’s death in 1963.

Carter continued to campaign for Dewey whenever he sought elective office, such as his unsuccessful run for governor of New York in 1938 and for the Republican presidential nomination in 1940.  The latter bid included a whistle-stop campaign through Illinois, ending in a Chicago appearance in which Carter and other African Americans joined Dewey on the platform.  She supported Dewey in his successful gubernatorial bid in 1942, again in his quest for the Republican presidential nomination in 1944, and yet again in his presidential campaign against Harry S. Truman in 1948, notwithstanding the Democrats’ impressive civil rights platform.  Promotions or other preferments no longer followed, however.  Instead, Dewey’s successor as District Attorney demoted her (albeit at the same salary) to head the Adolescent Offender Bureau, where she implemented an innovative probation system for teenage offenders.  A judgeship she coveted went not to her but a Black male lawyer who started in the District Attorney’s office after she did.  

Carter thought she knew the problem: her brother.  Alphaeus Hunton had gotten a bachelor’s degree from Howard and a master’s degree from Harvard.  He then returned to Howard as an instructor of English and Romance Languages Department while pursuing and ultimately receiving a Ph.D. at New York University, with a dissertation, directed by a Marxist professor, on the politics of an English poet.  From at least 1933 onward, he met with Black communists, and he was a leader in John P. Davis’s National Negro Congress.  In 1943 he moved to New York to edit the journal of the Council on African Affairs, a group that turned up on the Attorney General’s List of Subversive Organizations.  For refusing to give the House Un-American Committee the records of another Communist Front group, he was imprisoned for six months in 1951.  After his release, he could find no employment and emigrated to Africa.  Although Carter had severed her ties with Alphaeus years earlier, she suspected, correctly, that the FBI had a substantial file on him and that it mentioned her and her connection to Dewey.

Carter left the District Attorney’s office in January 1945.  She attempted to practice law on her own but found leadership roles in Black women’s groups more interesting and remunerative.  Most of her new work had an international dimension, as when she represented the National Council of Negro Women at the organizational meeting of the United Nations in San Francisco.  She attended several overseas conferences as a representative of NGOs in the 1940s and 1950s.  “Each individual in this world has his own peculiar character and his own particular talent,” she said at one in 1951.  Democracies allowed the individual to “grow in character and in personality according to his own personal ability.”  Dictatorships, in contrast, forced him to “slave at tasks he would never choose for himself.”  They also denied women the chance to “choose and develop their individual beings in an atmosphere of freedom.”

Wednesday, December 23, 2020

Nadal, "Queering Law and Order: LGBTQ Communities and the Criminal Justice System​"

Lexington Books has published Queering Law and Order: LGBTQ Communities and the Criminal Justice System​ (2020), by Kevin L. Nadal (John Jay College of Criminal Justice and Graduate Center at the City University of New York). A description from the Press:

Throughout US history, lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) people have been pathologized, victimized, and criminalized. Reports of lynching, burning, or murdering of LGBTQ people have been documented for centuries. Prior to the 1970s, LGBTQ people were deemed as having psychological disorders and subsequently subject to electroshock therapy and other ineffective and cruel treatments. LGBTQ people have historically been arrested or imprisoned for crimes like sodomy, cross-dressing, and gathering in public spaces. And while there have been many strides to advocate for LGBTQ rights in contemporary times, there are still many ways that the criminal justice system works against LGBTQ and their lives, liberties, and freedoms.

Queering Law and Order: LGBTQ Communities and the Criminal Justice System examines the state of LGBTQ people within the criminal justice system. Intertwining legal cases, academic research, and popular media, Nadal reviews a wide range of issues—ranging from historical heterosexist and transphobic legislation to police brutality to the prison industrial complex to family law. Grounded in Queer Theory and intersectional lenses, each chapter provides recommendations for queering and disrupting the justice system. This book serves as both an academic resource and a call to action for readers who are interested in advocating for LGBTQ rights.

Advance praise:

"Queering Law and Order is the most comprehensive review of the justice system and its effects on LGBTQ communities to date. It is informative, insightful, and thought-provoking, mixing stories and data to help bring to life the many instances that the criminal justice system has failed sexual minorities. Kevin Leo Yabut Nadal is able to show again and again how sexual minorities have suffered at the hands of an unjust criminal justice system. He does an outstanding job of weaving together a cohesive narrative that articulates what many of us suspected—we need to be more skeptical and critical of our justice system." — Roddrick Colvin
More information is available here. H/t: New Books Network.

-- Karen Tani

Thursday, December 3, 2020

Richman and Seo on Federalism and the FBI

Daniel C. Richman and Sarah Seo, Columbia Law School, have posted How Federalism Built the FBI, Sustained Local Police, and Left Out the States, which is forthcoming in the Stanford Journal of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties 17 (2021):

Diplomacy Ceremony, National Police Academy (LC)
This Article examines the endurance of police localism amid the improbable growth of the FBI in the early twentieth century when the prospect of a centralized law enforcement agency was anathema to the ideals of American democracy. It argues that doctrinal accounts of federalism do not explain these paradoxical developments. By analyzing how the Bureau made itself indispensable to local police departments rather than encroaching on their turf, the Article elucidates an operational, or collaborative, federalism that not only enlarged the Bureau’s capacity and authority but also strengthened local autonomy at the expense of the states. Collaborative federalism is crucial for understanding why the police have gone for so long without meaningful state or federal oversight, with consequences still confronting the country today. This history highlights how structural impediments to institutional accountability have been set over time and also identifies a path not taken, but one that can still be pursued, to expand the states’ supervisory role over local police.

--Dan Ernst

Thursday, October 15, 2020

De and Evans in Legal Histories of Empire

 [We have the following announcement.  DRE]

Legal Histories of Empire Symposium: Rohit De and Catherine Evans

Please join us for the first of several planned symposia in 2020 and 2021 for Legal Histories of Empire and for the celebration of a special birthday of the founder of the Legal Histories of Empire Conferences.

Our speakers:

Rohit De: "Brown Lawyers, Black Robes: Decolonization, Diasporic Lawyers and Minority Rights"

Rohit De is Associate Professor of History at Yale University and is the author of A People's Constitution: The Everyday Life of Law in the Indian Republic (2018). As a Carnegie Fellow, he is currently working on a book on a history of rebellious lawyering and decolonization

Catherine Evans: “Civilization as Sanity in the Victorian Empire”

Catherine L. Evans is Assistant Professor at the Centre for Criminology and Sociolegal Studies at the University of Toronto. Her first book, Unsound Empire: Civilization and Madness in Late-Victorian Law, comes out next fall (Yale University Press, 2021).

Timezones:
New Haven/Toronto @ 4 pm on 30 October
Vancouver @ 1pm on 30 October
Sydney @ 7 am on 31 October
Auckland @ 9 am on 31October
London/Dublin @ 8 pm on 30 October
Singapore @ 4 am on 31 October

Registration: Free via Eventbrite [here].  Registration is required.  You will be emailed a Zoom link 36 hours before the event.

Tuesday, October 13, 2020

Selden Society Prizes to Papp-Kamali and Kennefick; Honorable Mention to McSweeney

[We have the following announcement from the Selden Society.  DRE] 

David Yale Prize

Instituted in 1998, this biennial prize is awarded for an outstanding contribution to the history of the law of England and Wales from scholars who have been engaged in research in the subject for not longer than about ten years.  Since 2017, separate prizes have been given for the best book and the best article published  in the preceding two years. The prize is named in honour of Mr David Yale, QC, FBA, then President of the Society and formerly Literary Director.

The 2019 David Yale Book prize was awarded to Elizabeth Papp Kamali for Felony and the Guilty Mind in Medieval England (Cambridge University Press, 2019). The prize committee said of this work:

Papp-Kamali’s Felony and the Guilty Mind in Medieval England is a wide-ranging and deeply researched contribution to the history of criminal law. In seeking to understand what ‘felony’ meant in medieval England, Papp-Kamali takes on a question which Maitland considered unanswerable. This book changes our existing understanding, using a challenging methodology which uses a much wider range of sources than is often the case in legal history scholarship. In doing so she places legal history within the history of wider cultural norms and influences to produce perceptive and valuable conclusions.
The committee also recommended that an honourable mention be given to Thomas J. McSweeney for his book Priests of the Law: Roman Law and the Making of the Common Law’s First Professionals (Oxford University Press, 2019)

The 2019 David Yale article prize was awarded to Ciara Kennefick for ‘‘The Contribution of Contemporary Mathematics to Contractual Fairness in Equity, 1751-1867’ in the Journal of Legal History 39 (2018), pp.  307-339. The prize committee said of this article:
Kennefick’s ‘The Contribution of Contemporary Mathematics to Contractual Fairness in Equity, 1751-1867’ is a genuinely novel re-examination of an important part of English legal history, highlighting the interaction between questions of law about contractual fairness, and mathematics. Interest in legal questions drove interest in the study of probability, while developments in the mathematics of probability came to resolve legal questions. The article changes the way we look at the history of this area of law.

Thursday, September 17, 2020

Abrams on the Mail Fraud Statutes

Norman Abrams, UCLA Law School, has posted Uncovered: The Legislative Histories of the Early Mail Fraud Statutes:

The federal crime of mail fraud is generally viewed as the original federal auxiliary jurisdiction crime—that is, not made a crime because it serves to protect direct federal interests against harm, but rather as an auxiliary to state crime enforcement. Mail fraud is also a crime that scholars, judges and lawyers have viewed as not having any significant legislative history linked to its original enactment in 1872, nor to its two early revisions in 1889 and 1909.

This paper uncovers and elaborates on legislative history details related to each of those three legislative enactments and, along the way, presents a more nuanced view of the status of mail fraud as the original federal auxiliary jurisdiction crime.

 --Dan Ernst

Wednesday, July 22, 2020

Taiwan Legal History: A Symposium Issue

We note the publication of a special issue of Academia Sinica Law Journal (2019:1, in Chinese) entitled Law, History and Taiwan: The Development of Taiwan Legal History.  It commences with “The Emergence of Taiwanese Legal History and Its Becoming a Discipline,” by Tay-Sheng Wang, and continues with comments by Pengsheng Chiu, Hwei-Syin Chen, and Chueh-An Yen, with a reply by Tay-Sheng Wang.  The forum is followed by a series of articles:

Exploring Changes in Property Law in Taiwan: The Current Condition and Issues of Research on History of Property Law in Taiwan, by Wan-Yu Chen

Retrospect and Prospect of Taiwan Historical Research of Criminal Justice in the Recent Thirty Years, by Cheng-Yu Lin

A Review on Taiwan Legal Profession Studies (1992-2017), by Chun-Ying Wu

Bad (Wo-)man Theory of Traditional Chinese Law: From the Vantage Points of Adultery and Abduction Cases in Tan-Hsin Archives, by Yun-Ru Chen

Revisit Law and Development Orthodox through the Lens of Taiwan and China’s Development Paths, by Weitseng Chen

Hidden Hands: A Legal-historical Study of Youth Labor in Taiwan, by Yen-Chi Liu

The Development of LGBT Rights in Democratic Taiwan: An Analysis from the Perspective of Law and Social Movements, by Hsiao-Wei Kuan

--Dan Ernst

Thursday, July 16, 2020

Special Issue: Policing, Justice, and the Radical Imagination

The Radical History Review has a new special issue out on Policing, Justice, and the Radical Imagination. All articles are available for download free.
Here's the Table of Contents for vol.2020, issue 137:
  • Amy Chazkel, Monica Kim, A. Naomi Paik Editors' Introduction: Worlds without Police 
  • Tom Lambert Public Order and State Violence: A View from Tenth-Century England
  • Luke A. Fidler The Coercive Function of Early Medieval English Art
  • Gagan Preet Singh Property's Guardian, People's Terror: Police Avoidance in Colonial North India
  • Alex Winder Anticolonial Uprising and Communal Justice in Twentieth-Century Palestine
  • Toby Beauchamp Beyond the 'Pine Pig': Reimagining Protection through the US National Park Ranger
  • A. J. Yumi Lee Repairing Police Action after the Korean War in Toni Morrison's Home
  • Michael De Anda Muniz, Janae Bonsu, Lydia Dana, Sangeetha Ravichandran, Haley Volpintesta, From Graduate Practicum to Activist Research Collective: A Roundtable with Members of the Policing in Chicago Research Group and Our Community Partners
  • Andreia Beatriz Silva dos Santos, Fabio Nascimento-Mandingo, Amy Chazkel React or Be Killed: The History of Policing and the Struggle against Anti-Black Violence in Salvador, Brazil
  • Micol Seigel Places without Police: Brazilian Visions
  • Samuel Fury Childs Daly Policing and the Limits of the Political Imagination in Postcolonial Nigeria
  • Cho-kiu Li, Kin-long Tong, "We Are Safer without the Police": Hong Kong Protesters Building a Community for Safety
  • Project NIA, Monica Kim, Rossen Djagalov, Restorative Posters: Representing Justice Visually
More information is available here.

--posted by Mitra Sharafi

Saturday, July 11, 2020

Weekend Roundup

Charles Sumner (LC)
  • Lucy Salyer (University of New Hampshire) posted "'It Has Not Been My Habit to Yield': Charles Sumner and the Fight for Equal Naturalization Rights" (HNN).
  • Mary Ziegler (Florida State Law) on June Medical Service on NPR and in The Atlantic.
  • Caroline Fredrickson reviews Sara Mayeux’s Free Justice: A History of the Public Defender in Twentieth-Century America (Washington Monthly). 
  • The US Supreme Court's engrossed dockets from 1791 to 1995 are available here.  H/t: @SCOTUSPlaces.
  • Larry Tye discusses Demagogue: The Life and Long Shadow of Senator Joe McCarthy with Terry Gross on Fresh Air (WAMU). 
  • Law Book Exchange has circulated a catalogue on Legal Education. 
  • Harvard Law School has launched the new Journal of Islamic Law. It's a peer-reviewed, online journal with a special interest in data science tools and primary sources.
  • The Historical Society of the New York Courts has posted a new podcast, a discussion about Chancellor James Kent with the Hon. Robert S. Smith.
  • Jed Handelsman Shugerman (Fordham Law) on "The Imaginary Unitary Executive" (Lawfare)Josh Blackman (South Texas College of Law Houston) takes issue with Chief Justice Roberts's references to Aaron Burr’s treason trials in Trump v. Vance  (SCOTUSBlog).  Kristin E. Tremper, a Ph.D. Candidate at Lehigh, offers a brief history of the Founders and public health (Salon).  Stephen B. Presser asks whether George Washington would have worn a mask (Newsmax).  And apparently Stone Mountain isn't going anywhere.  Ugh.
 Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Sunday, July 5, 2020

AJLH 60:2

American Journal of Legal History, 60:2 (June 2020) is now available online

Reforming Criminal Justice in the Ottoman Empire: Police, Courts and Prisons in Rusçuk, 1839-1864   
Mehmet Celik

Combatting Bias in the Criminal Courts of France, 1870s-1913   
James Donovan

Political Judging and Judicial Restraint: The Case of Learned and Augustus Hand   
Jak Allen

Law at a Critical Juncture: The US Army’s Command Responsibility Trials at Manila, 1945-1947   
Jamie Fellows

White Subversion of Public School Desegregation in South Carolina, 1963-1970   
Stephen Lowe

Book Reviews

Elizabeth Papp Kamali, Felony and the Guilty Mind in Medieval England   
Sarah B White

Anat Rosenberg, Liberalizing Contracts: Nineteenth Century Promises Through Literature, Law and History   
Victoria Barnes

Saturday, June 20, 2020

Weekend Roundup

  • The National History Center hosts a virtual congressional briefing on the history of vaccination usage and policy on Monday, June 22 at 11 a.m.  More.
  Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Acevedo on Crime Fantasies

John Acevedo, Alabama Law, has posted Crime Fantasies, which appeared in the American Journal of Criminal Law 46 (2019): 194-240:
Trial of George Jacob for Witchcraft (NYPL)
Trial of George Jacobs for Witchcraft (NYPL)
Throughout American history the public has been gripped by fantasies of criminal activity. These crime fantasies manifest in two distinct but related typologies: witch-hunts and crime panics. On the one hand, witch-hunts target individuals based on their beliefs and are exemplified by the two Red Scares of the early and mid-twentieth century and the persecution of the Quakers in seventeenth century Massachusetts Bay. These are fundamentally distinct from crime panics, which target activity that was already classified as criminal but do so in a way that exacerbate deep procedural deficiencies in the criminal justice system. Crime panics are exemplified by the Salem witchcraft trials and the “Satanic Panic” of the 1980s and 1990s. President Trump’s relentless focus on undocumented immigration can be seen as a partially successful attempt to create a crime panic, while, perhaps surprisingly, the investigation by Robert Mueller is neither a witch-hunt nor a crime panic. By bringing ongoing criminal law issues into conversation with legal history scholarship, this article clarifies our understanding of the relationship between politics and large-scale criminal investigations and highlights areas for future reform.

--Dan Ernst

Saturday, June 6, 2020

Weekend Roundup

  • Reminder: Applications for the William Nelson Cromwell Foundation awards to support research and writing in American legal history by early-career scholar are due on July 1.  (The Committee for Research Fellowships and Awards of the American Society for Legal History reviews the applications and makes recommendations to the Foundation.)  More.
  • This year’s recipients of Charlotte W. Newcombe Doctoral Dissertation Fellowships include Tamar Menashe, Columbia University, for "People of the Law: The Imperial Supreme Court and Jews in Cross-Confessional Legal Cultures in Germany, 1495–1690," and Lila Teeters, University of New Hampshire, for “Native Citizens: The Fight For and Against Native Citizenship in the United States, 1866–1924.”
  • Process, the blog of the Journal of American History and the Organization of American Historians, has put out a call for submissions on "all aspects of the history of disability in the United States."
  • Here is the Harvard Law School faculty's open letter condemning "a series of acts by President Trump and other public servants that endorse violence and are inconsistent with a democratic legal order." Signatories include every legal historian we can think of who teaches there.
  • The Consortium for Undergraduate Law & Justice Programs recently announced its 2020 awards for teaching and best undergraduate paper.
  • ICYMI: Dean Risa Goluboff draws on her own historical research in her message to UVA law students.  David Blight on Frederick Douglass and "the tortured relationship between protest and change" (The Atlantic). Alexander Zhang on this history of "school-to-prison pipeline" policing in Minneapolis (Slate).
  • ICYMI, Insurrection Act EditionGautham Rao on the Posse Comitatus and Insurrection Acts (CNN).  The History Channel on the Jeffersonian origins of the Insurrection Act.  Still more, in WaPo's Retropolis.
  • Over at Balkinization, Stephen Griffin develops an aspect of his recent SSRN post "Optimistic Originalism and the Reconstruction Amendments."Also at Balkinization: Gregory Ablavsky (Stanford Law School) on "PROMESA and Original Understandings of the Territories’ Constitutional Status."
Weekend Roundup is a weekly feature compiled by all the Legal History bloggers.