Synopses & Reviews
"A thought-provoking book on how accurately criminal law and tis application reflect our sense of justice...an excellent text."
Barry N. Sweet, The Law and Politics Book Review
A police trooper inspects a car during a routine traffic stop and finds a vast cache of weapons, complete with automatic rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and black ski masks-a veritable bank robber's kit. Should the men in the car be charged? If so, with what?
A son neglects to care for his elderly mother, whose emaciated form is discovered shortly before she dies a painful death. Is the son's neglect punishable, and if so how?
A career con man writes one bad check too many and is sentenced to life in prison-for a check in the amount of $129.75. Is this just?
A thief steals a backpack, only to find it contains a terrorist bomb. He alerts the police and saves lives, transforming himself from petty criminal to national hero.
These are just a few of the many provocative cases that Paul Robinson presents and unravels in Would You Convict?
Judging crimes and meting out punishment has long been an informal national pasttime. High-profile crimes or particularly brutal ones invariably prompt endless debate, in newspapers, on television, in coffee shops, and on front porches. Our very nature inclines us to be armchair judges, freely waving our metaphorical gavels and opining as to the innocence or guilt-and suitable punishment-of alleged criminals.
Confronting this impulse, Paul Robinson here presents a series of unusual episodes that not only challenged the law, but that defy a facile or knee-jerk verdict. Narrating the facts in compelling, but detached detail, Robinson invites readers to sentence the transgressor (or not), before revealing the final outcome of the case.
The cases described in Would You Convict? engage, shock, even repel. Without a doubt, they will challenge you and your belief system. And the way in which juries and judges have resolved them will almost certainly surprise you.
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments xi
Prologue 1
1 Punishing Intent, Harm, or Dangerousness? 3
Are Evil Intentions a Crime? 3
People's Intuitions of Justice 8
The Law's Rules 9
Background 9
The Aftermath 11
Attempt versus the Complete Offense: The Significanceof Resulting Harm 19
Can Father and Daughter Kill the Same Man Twice? 20
People's Intuitions of Justice 21
More Facts 22
People's Intuitions of Justice 23
The Law's Rules 25
The Aftermath 25
Murder versus Attempted Murder: The Significance ofResulting Harm 27
The Final Outcome 28
The Requirements of Criminal Liability 28
Life Imprisonment for Air Conditioning Fraud? 28
People's Intuitions of Justice 31
Trial and Sentence 32
Punishing Dangerousness: Cloaking Preventive Detentionas Criminal Justice 32
The Appeal 37
The Cost of Undercutting the Criminal Law's
Moral Credibility 37
The Final Outcome 40
Segregating Preventive Detention from Criminal Justice 41
2 Knowing the Law's Commands 44
The Congenial Cadaver 44
People's Intuitions of Justice 50
The Legality Principle and Its Rationales 50
The Aftermath 52
Today 53
When Can an Officer Carry a Gun? 54
People's Intuitions of Justice 56
The Law 57
At Trial 73
At Trial Again: Ignorance or Mistake of Law Is No Excuse 74
Acquitting the Bakers but Convicting the Marreros? 74
Communicating the Criminal Law's Commands 76
The Outcome 76
Legality in Omission Offenses 78
Neglecting Mom . . . to Death 78
People's Intuitions of Justice 81
The Charge 81
The Law's Reluctance to Impose Duties 82
The Outcome 83
Today 84
Striking the Proper Balance between Legality and Justice 84
Finders Keepers, Losers Weepers? 85
The Law 87
Ignorance of Law an Excuse? 88
People's Intuitions of Justice 89
The Aftermath 90
The Problem of Discretion 90
Same Facts, Different Perspective 91
The Virtues of Legality 95
Finishing the Story 96
3 Can Committing a Crime Be Doing the Right Thing? 97
Escaping the Prisoners 97
The Law's Rules 103
The Trial and Sentence 104
The Defense's Problems 105
On Appeal 106
People's Intuitions of Justice 107
The Green Case under the Criminal Law of Other States 107
The Final Outcome 109
Killing for Apples 110
The Law's Rule 113
The Trial and Appeal 114
People's Intuitions of Justice 115
Another Look at Ignorance of the Law 116
The Right Deed for the Wrong Reason 123
Disagreement in the Law 125
People's Intuitions of Justice 127
The Outcome 127
A Terrorist's Right to Resist the Thief? 129
Today 130
4 Can Doing the Wrong Thing Ever Be Blameless? 132
Loving, Killing Parents 132
At Trial 137
The Law's Challenge 138
The Outcome 140
People's Intuitions of Justice 140
Adjudicating Blameworthiness versus Announcing
Rules of Conduct 141
The Sentence 142
Killing a Sleeping Abuser 142
The Law's Challenge, Again 147
The Aftermath 148
Battered Spouse Syndrome 149
The Trial 150
The Matters Relevant to Justice 150
The Appeal 151
The All-or-Nothing Disagreement 152
On Remand 153
People's Intuitions of Justice 153
The Law's Unmet Challenge 154
The Pedophile Within 155
The Law's Rules 159
People's Intuitions of Justice 162
The Trial 162
On Appeal 163
The American View 164
Today 166
Picking Clean Drunks 166
The Law's Rules 170
People's Intuitions of Justice 171
Legal Conflict over the Reno Decoy Operation 171
The Peculiar Entrapment Defense 173
The Outcome 174
Legal Disagreements over Entrapment 175
The Aftermath 176
Who Will Explain to Kingston Why Hawkins
Gets Off but He Goes to Jail? 176
5 Martyrs for Our Safety 178
A Farm Boy's Treason? 179
The Power of Coercive Indoctrination 181
Richard's Return 183
People's Intuitions of Justice 185
The Law's Rules 186
Finishing the Story 189
Of Hippies and Bread Trucks: The Abused
Learns to Abuse 191
Alex Cabarga and Richard Tenneson 196
People's Intuitions of Justice 198
The Trial and Sentence 199
The Problem of Discretion 199
Desert versus Dangerousness 201
Today 204
Growing Up Gang: The Short, Violent Lifeof Robert Sandifer 206
People's Intuitions of Justice 209
Robert Sandifer and Alex Cabarga 210
The Aftermath 213
Desert versus Dangerousness, Again 215
Epilogue 217
Appendix: Governing Law, Then and Now 219
Index 321
About the Author 328
Review
"Paul Robinson, one of our most distinguished scholars for criminal law, has found a novel mode for both communicating the law to lay people and for integrating popular sentiments into the process of law reform. Everyone interested in the problems of moral and criminal responsibility should read this book, formulate a view about the issues, and discuss the problems with others. Make your view heard and the law will become more just!"-George P. Fletcher,Cardozo Professor of Jurisprudence, Columbia University, and author of A Crime of Self-Defense: Bernhard Goetz and the Law on Trial
Review
"Paul Robinson's writings have established him as the preeminent authority on what American criminal law is and on what the American public thinks of its criminal law. Would You Convict? Masterfully combines his two fields of expertise. Legal scholars, law students, and ordinary citizens will all benefit immensely from this work."-Dan M. Kahan,Professor of Law, Yale University
Review
"Fascinating reading."-Library Journal,
Review
"Anyone interested in law will enjoy this book. . . . Highly recommended." -Choice,
Review
"Paul Robinson, one of our most distinguished scholars for criminal law, has found a novel mode for both communicating the law to lay people and for integrating popular sentiments into the process of law reform. Everyone interested in the problems of moral and criminal responsibility should read this book, formulate a view about the issues, and discuss the problems with others. Make your view heard and the law will become more just!"
"Paul Robinson's writings have established him as the preeminent authority on what American criminal law is and on what the American public thinks of its criminal law. Would You Convict? Masterfully combines his two fields of expertise. Legal scholars, law students, and ordinary citizens will all benefit immensely from this work."
"Fascinating reading."
"In this captivating book, Paul Robinson brings to life the central problems of the criminal law in a most unusual way. He confronts his readers with a cross-section of the most perplexing cases the law has to contend with (robbers armed to the hilt for a 'job', but arrested long before they have had a chance to decide what that 'job' is going to be; or a killer whose victim ends up dying in a way the killer never foresaw) and tries to get them to 'solve' the case before revealing how the law has actually dealt with it. Then, based on his earlier pioneering research into popular perceptions of justice, he is able to tell readers how their peers would have judged the same case. It's a book that should appeal to the academic, the student and the general reader alike."
"Anyone interested in law will enjoy this book. . . . Highly recommended."
Review
Review
"In this captivating book, Paul Robinson brings to life the central problems of the criminal law in a most unusual way. He confronts his readers with a cross-section of the most perplexing cases the law has to contend with (robbers armed to the hilt for a 'job', but arrested long before they have had a chance to decide what that 'job' is going to be; or a killer whose victim ends up dying in a way the killer never foresaw) and tries to get them to 'solve' the case before revealing how the law has actually dealt with it. Then, based on his earlier pioneering research into popular perceptions of justice, he is able to tell readers how their peers would have judged the same case. It's a book that should appeal to the academic, the student and the general reader alike."-Leo Katz,author of Ill-Gotten Gains: Evasion, Fraud, and Kindred Puzzles of the Law
Synopsis
Judging crimes and meting out punishment has long been an informal national pasttime. High-profile crimes or particularly brutal ones invariably prompt endless debate, in newspapers, on television, in coffee shops, and on front porches. Our very nature inclines us to be armchair judges, freely waving our metaphorical gavels and opining as to the innocence or guilt-and suitable punishment-of alleged criminals. Confronting this impulse, Paul Robinson here presents a series of unusual episodes that not only challenged the law, but that defy a facile or knee-jerk verdict. Narrating the facts in compelling, but detached detail, Robinson invites readers to sentence the transgressor (or not), before revealing the final outcome of the case. The cases described in Would You Convict? engage, shock, even repel. Without a doubt, they will challenge you and your belief system. And the way in which juries and judges have resolved them will almost certainly surprise you. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the nation's leading criminal justice experts, Paul H. Robinson has written influential commentary for the New York Times (on the Unabomber case), the Wall Street Journal (on the beating of Reginald Denny after the O.J. verdict), and for Atlantic Monthly. The author of several books, he is currently the Edna B. and Ednyfed H. Williams Professor of Law at Northwestern University.
Synopsis
An illuminating exercise that challenges the reader's beliefs about the justice system
A police trooper inspects a car during a routine traffic stop and finds a vast cache of weapons, complete with automatic rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and black ski masks-a veritable bank robber's kit. Should the men in the car be charged? If so, with what?
A son neglects to care for his elderly mother, whose emaciated form is discovered shortly before she dies a painful death. Is the son's neglect punishable, and if so how?
A career con man writes one bad check too many and is sentenced to life in prison-for a check in the amount of $129.75. Is this just?
A thief steals a backpack, only to find it contains a terrorist bomb. He alerts the police and saves lives, transforming himself from petty criminal to national hero.
These are just a few of the many provocative cases that Paul Robinson presents and unravels in Would You Convict?
Judging crimes and meting out punishment has long been an informal national pasttime. High-profile crimes or particularly brutal ones invariably prompt endless debate, in newspapers, on television, in coffee shops, and on front porches. Our very nature inclines us to be armchair judges, freely waving our metaphorical gavels and opining as to the innocence or guilt-and suitable punishment-of alleged criminals.
Confronting this impulse, Paul Robinson here presents a series of unusual episodes that not only challenged the law, but that defy a facile or knee-jerk verdict. Narrating the facts in compelling, but detached detail, Robinson invites readers to sentence the transgressor (or not), before revealing the final outcome of the case.
The cases described in Would You Convict? engage, shock, even repel. Without a doubt, they will challenge you and your belief system. And the way in which juries and judges have resolved them will almost certainly surprise you.
Synopsis
A police trooper inspects a car during a routine traffic stop and finds a vast cache of weapons, complete with automatic rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and black ski masks-a veritable bank robber's kit. Should the men in the car be charged? If so, with what?
A son neglects to care for his elderly mother, whose emaciated form is discovered shortly before she dies a painful death. Is the son's neglect punishable, and if so how?
A career con man writes one bad check too many and is sentenced to life in prison-for a check in the amount of $129.75. Is this just?
A thief steals a backpack, only to find it contains a terrorist bomb. He alerts the police and saves lives, transforming himself from petty criminal to national hero.
These are just a few of the many provocative cases that Paul Robinson presents and unravels in Would You Convict?
Judging crimes and meting out punishment has long been an informal national pasttime. High-profile crimes or particularly brutal ones invariably prompt endless debate, in newspapers, on television, in coffee shops, and on front porches. Our very nature inclines us to be armchair judges, freely waving our metaphorical gavels and opining as to the innocence or guilt-and suitable punishment-of alleged criminals.
Confronting this impulse, Paul Robinson here presents a series of unusual episodes that not only challenged the law, but that defy a facile or knee-jerk verdict. Narrating the facts in compelling, but detached detail, Robinson invites readers to sentence the transgressor (or not), before revealing the final outcome of the case.
The cases described in Would You Convict? engage, shock, even repel. Without a doubt, they will challenge you and your belief system. And the way in which juries and judges have resolved them will almost certainly surprise you.
Synopsis
The author presents a series of unusual episodes that not only challenged the law, but that defy a facile or knee-jerk verdict.
Synopsis
A thought-provoking book on how accurately criminal law and its application reflect our sense of justice...an excellent text.
--Barry N. Sweet, The Law and Politics Book Review
A police trooper inspects a car during a routine traffic stop and finds a vast cache of weapons, complete with automatic rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition, and black ski masks-a veritable bank robber's kit. Should the men in the car be charged? If so, with what?
A son neglects to care for his elderly mother, whose emaciated form is discovered shortly before she dies a painful death. Is the son's neglect punishable, and if so how?
A career con man writes one bad check too many and is sentenced to life in prison-for a check in the amount of $129.75. Is this just?
A thief steals a backpack, only to find it contains a terrorist bomb. He alerts the police and saves lives, transforming himself from petty criminal to national hero.
These are just a few of the many provocative cases that Paul Robinson presents and unravels in Would You Convict?
Judging crimes and meting out punishment has long been an informal national pasttime. High-profile crimes or particularly brutal ones invariably prompt endless debate, in newspapers, on television, in coffee shops, and on front porches. Our very nature inclines us to be armchair judges, freely waving our metaphorical gavels and opining as to the innocence or guilt-and suitable punishment-of alleged criminals.
Confronting this impulse, Paul Robinson here presents a series of unusual episodes that not only challenged the law, but that defy a facile or knee-jerk verdict. Narrating the facts in compelling, but detached detail, Robinson invitesreaders to sentence the transgressor (or not), before revealing the final outcome of the case.
The cases described in Would You Convict? engage, shock, even repel. Without a doubt, they will challenge you and your belief system. And the way in which juries and judges have resolved them will almost certainly surprise you.
Synopsis
The collapse of the Soviet empire stands as a dramatic reminder that political institutions are human creations that can be designed more or less well. The question of what constitutes a viable political order is as old as it is profound, and is a central part of the works of such thinkers as Plato, Aristotle, Machiavelli, Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, and the American Founders.
In eighteen original essays, Political Order presents the work of major scholars such as Robert Dahl, John Gray, Jennifer Nedelsky, Pasquale Pasquino, James Scott, Karen Orren, Steven Skowronek, Walter Dean Burnham, Morris Fiorina, and Norman Schofield who address some of the most pressing questions about political order. Under what conditions do we get political order rather than political chaos? How is political order sustained once it has been created? Do constitutions and electoral systems matter, and if so how much? Is there one best type of political order, and, if not, what is the range of viable possibilities and how should they be evaluated?
About the Author
Ian Shapiro is Sterling Professor of Political Science at Yale University, where he also serves as Henry R. Luce Director of the Yale Center for International and Area Studies. He is the editor or author of numerous books, most recently
Political Contingency (NYU Press) and
Rethinking Political Institutions (NYU Press).
Russell Hardin is Chairman of the Department of Politics at New York University.