Library News & Events

For those of us unable to ask this question of Jeremy Bentham in person, Prof. Judtih Resnik's article in Law and Ethics of Human Rights presents a fascinating review of the value Bentham placed on publicity. That's publicity as in "publicity is the very soul of justice. ... It keeps the judge himself, while trying, under trial."  For Bentham, publicity in courts serves accuracy, educative, disciplinary and legitimating functions.

Prof. Resnik notes that with regard to the accuracy function, publicity can -- and often does -- fail to meet Bentham's expectations. Instead, the thing about public adjudication that interests her and Representing Justice co-author Dennis Curtis is its democratic elements: judges hearing all sides as equals, deciding independently of the government employing them. When the United States tries suspected terrorists in closed military "courts" what remains of democratic norms like equal treatment and constrained government authority when publicity is withdrawn? And in light of the tradition of openness in U.S. courts should such closed adjudicative tribunals even be referred to as "courts"? 

Fortunately, whatever becomes of courts as places of public discourse, Bentham and his contemporaries found two other stalwart, too big to fail institutions of discourse: an uncensored press and a subsidized postal system. Hmm... Thanks, guys.

The Law Library's list of new acquisitions for May 2011 is available here.

Use the subject, category or language facets to refine the list.  The full and refined lists are searchable.

Clinical Professor Michael Wishnie argues, in remarks to be published in a forthcoming issue of the Pittsburgh Law Review, that removal orders ought to be subject to proportionality review by federal courts -- and that in appropriate cases, removal should be forbidden as grossly disproportionate to the gravity of the offense. Further, recent court cases dealing with state and local attempts to regulate immigration illustrate the role federal courts can play while waiting for Congress to engage over a national policy. That is, federal courts can check some of the harsher results of local and state policies and simultaneously reserve a place for Congress to legislate.

Further Reading:

ABA Report on Reforming the Immigration System

Darrell M. West, Brain Gain: Rethinking U.S. Immigration Policy.

Eduard Richard, Acadia: Missing Links of a Lost Chapter in American History.

Steven G. Kovan et al., American Immigration Policy: Confronting the Nation's Challenges.