New Books in Law

Latest Episodes:

Mark Fenster, “The Transparency Fix: Secrets, Leaks, and Uncontrollable Government Information” (Stanford UP, 2017) Dec 30, 2017

Show notes

The Transparency Fix: Secrets, Leaks, and Uncontrollable Government Information (Stanford University Press, 2017) dispels the myth that transparency of information will result in a perfect government. Dr. Mark Fenster discusses the motivations of transparency movements and justifications for state secrecy. Through the lens of communications theory, Fenster raises questions about the utility of disclosed information and how it may or may not be deemed valuable by the public. Fenster also examines the state’s ability to keep secrets and what, if any, outcomes result from information disclosure. In conclusion, Fenster asserts transparency, on its own, will not fix the state, but focused efforts on good governance just might.

Beth Windisch is a national security practitioner. You can tweet her @bethwindisch.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Testimony and Anonymity with Sandy Goldberg Dec 28, 2017

Show notes

Sandy Goldberg is Professor of Philosophy at Northwestern University. He specializes in epistemology and philosophy of language, with particular interest in the social aspects of knowledge and speech; these foci converge in his ongoing work on testimony. Sandy has written several books including Relying on Others (Oxford 2010) and, more recently, Assertion (Oxford 2015); his forthcoming book is titled To the Best of Our Knowledge, and is forthcoming with Oxford University Press.

The "Why We Argue" podcast is produced by the Humanities Institute at the University of Connecticut as part of the Humility and Conviction in Public Life project.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Frank Baumgartner, et al., “Deadly Justice: A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty” (Oxford UP, 2017) Dec 22, 2017

Show notes

In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled in Gregg v. Georgia that the death penalty was constitutional if it complied with certain provisions designed to ensure that it was reserved for the ‘worst of the worst.’ The 1976 decision ushered in the ‘modern’ period of the US death penalty, resulting in the execution of over 1,400 inmates, with over 8,000 individuals currently sentenced to die. Each chapter of Frank Baumgartner‘s, Marty Davidson’s, Kaneesha Johnson’s, Arvind Krishnamurthy’s, and Colin Wilson’s Deadly Justice : A Statistical Portrait of the Death Penalty (Oxford University Press, 2017) addresses a specific factual question and provides statistical evidence about how the modern death penalty has functioned.

Baumgartner is Professor of Political Science, University of North Carolina. Davidson, Johnson, Krishnamurthy, and Wilson were all students at North Carolina during the research for the book.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Samantha Lomb, “Stalin’s Constitution” (Routledge, 2017) Dec 21, 2017

Show notes

If any place (outside contemporary North Korea) can be called “Totalitarian,” it would be Stalinist Russia. Under the “Greatest Genius of All Time,” Soviet “citizens” enjoyed no free speech, no free press, and no free assembly. The one-party Bolshevik dictatorship deprived them of their voices, their property, their livelihoods, their liberty, and often their lives all in the name of building a kind of society—Communism—that existed only in the minds of Party theoreticians.

To me at least, it seems odd that such a place would even have something called a “constitution.” What use is a constitution when there is no real law? But the USSR had several constitutions. In her excellent book Stalin’s Constitution: Soviet Participatory Politics and the Discussion of the 1936 Draft Constitution (Routledge, 2017), Samantha Lomb describes how one of them was received in the provinces and discussed by Party officials and the populous. She finds some remarkable things, the most important of which to my mind is that the people of Kirov (or at least the important ones who were consulted) were—much like the tyrannical state that ruled over them—not much interested in things like “equal rights” or, more generally, the “rule of law.” Under the Bolsheviks they had evolved a way of doing things that involved neither of these things and they were fine with that. Listen in.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Forrest Nabors, “From Oligarchy to Republicanism: The Great Task of Reconstruction” (U. Missouri Press, 2017) Dec 13, 2017

Show notes

In From Oligarchy to Republicanism: The Great Task of Reconstruction (University of Missouri Press, 2017) , Forrest Nabors sets out to show that congressional Republicans regarded the work of Reconstruction in the same way they regarded the work of the Founders: as regime change, from monarchy in the one case and from oligarchy in the other, to republicanism. Nabors examines the writings and speeches of Republicans in the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth, and Fortieth Congress (1863-1869), recovering their political analysis of the antebellum South. While Reconstruction scholars have typically emphasized black citizenship as the central concern of congressional Republicans, Nabors demonstrates that they identified Southern oligarchy (tightly linked to slavery) as the problem of the age.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Steven P. Remy, “The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy” (Harvard UP, 2017) Dec 13, 2017

Show notes

In his new book, The Malmedy Massacre: The War Crimes Trial Controversy (Harvard University Press, 2017), Steven Remy, professor of history at City University of New York, examines the Malmedy massacre which took place on December 17, 1944 and the trial that followed after the conclusion of World War II. Remy effectively demonstrates how in the decade following the trial how a network of German and American sympathizers succeeded in discrediting the trial. Remy directly looks at the accusations of torture, which the defendants and their allies alleged led to false confessions. Although these allegations were false, Remy demonstrates how amnesty advocates used them successfully to not only discredit the trial, but distorted our understanding of one of the most brutal massacres in American military history.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Colleen Murphy, “The Conceptual Foundations of Transitional Justice” (Cambridge UP, 2017) Dec 11, 2017

Show notes

Colleen Murphy’s new book, The Conceptual Foundations of Transitional Justice (Cambridge University Press, 2017), argues that attaining some degree of justice is possible in nations transitioning to democratic states. There are many historical instances of nations whose citizens take action to change the nature of their regime from one of authoritarianism to democracy. Whether from France in the 1790s to Eastern Europe and Russia in the 1990s, the challenges facing new leaders to look to the future while accounting for the past can be daunting. Murphy argues that transitions need some degree of justice in order to be successful and she seeks to identify the key elements of just transitions. Murphy notes that a just result can take different forms, because of differences in culture, traditions, and the nature of the old regime. She further notes that transitional justice is not as clear and definitive as more familiar forms of justice, such as the retributive justice of the criminal law or the corrective justice of tort law. Instead, transitional justice involves degrees of accountability for wrongdoers and degrees of compensation and recognition for victims. The tools of transitional justice can include amnesties, criminal trials, memorials, truth and reconciliation commissions or reparations. Accordingly, not everyone in the society will be satisfied with the punishment, if any, meted out to perpetrators and the recognition given to victims may seem incomplete or insufficient. Nevertheless, in order to achieve a society-wide transition to a morally improved regime, traditional notions of justice may remain unsatisfied or incomplete.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Stephen F. Williams, “The Reformer: How One Liberal Fought to Preempt the Russian Revolution” (Encounter Books, 2017) Nov 30, 2017

Show notes

The Reformer: How One Liberal Fought to Preempt the Russian Revolution (Encounter Books, 2017), written by legal scholar Stephen F. Williams, uses a biographic account of the life and career of Vasily Maklakov to explore issues of legality and rule of law in Tsarist Russia from 1905, following the promulgation of the October Manifesto, which established a legislative body for the first time since the 1600s, till the Bolshevik Revolution. Maklakov, a moderate Kadet (Constitutional Democrat) reformer and practicing defense attorney (most famous for his defense of the Jewish Menahem Beilis, sometimes considered the Russian Dreyfus), was a delegate to the Second, Third and Fourth Dumas who advocated for political compromise, the establishment of rule of law and gradual constitutional reform. He advocated for a wide range of amendments to the Tsarist legal code, especially in the realms of religious freedom, national minorities, judicial independence, citizens judicial remedies, and peasant rights. As such Maklakov’s policies presented vivid contrast to the political tactics of the better-known Russian Left (the Narodniks, SRs, and Social Democrats) who refused to work with the autocracy and actively engaged in terrorism, at one point killing over 300 government employees a month in 1906, and advocating for the over through of the Tsarist regime. While Maklakov and other liberal reformist Russians ultimately failed in staving off revolution, in part due to the unwillingness of their own party to compromise with the Tsarist regime and accept anything other than a fully constitutional monarchy, Maklakov’s story serves as an example for movements seeking to liberalize authoritarian countries today—both as a warning and a guide.

Samantha Lomb is an Assistant Professor at Vyatka State University in Kirov, Russia. Her research focuses on daily life, local politics and political participation in the Stalinist 1930s. Her book,Stalin’s Constitution: Soviet Participatory Politics and the Discussion of the Draft 1936 Constitution, is now available online. Her research can be viewed here.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Lawrence R. Douglas, “The Right Wrong Man: John Demjanjuk and the Last Great Nazi War Crimes Trial” (Princeton UP, 2016) Nov 27, 2017

Show notes

In his new book, The Right Wrong Man: John Demjanjuk and the Last Great Nazi War Crimes Trial (Princeton University Press 2016), Lawrence R. Douglas, the James J. Grosfeld Professor of Law, Jurisprudence and Social Thought at Amherst College examines the trial of John Demjanjuk. The Right Wrong Man examines Demjanjuk’s legal odyssey that began in 1975. Over the course of the next several decades Demjanjuk was tried twice, first in Israel where he was thought to be “Ivan the Terrible of Treblinka” only to be exonerated, owing to a case of mistaken identity. He was then tried in Munich for his actual crimes as a guard at the Sobibor death camp. The Right Wrong Man is a fascinating look at the law’s effort to bring closure to the horrific events of the Holocaust.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Melissa Milewski, “Litigating Across the Color Line: Civil Cases between Black and White Southerners from the End of Slavery to the Civil Rights Era” (Oxford UP, 2017) Nov 24, 2017

Show notes

Drawing on materials from archives in eight southern US states, Melissa Milewski’s Litigating Across the Color Line: Civil Cases Between Black and White Southerners from the End of Slavery to the Civil Rights Era (Oxford University Press, 2017) examines how African Americans utilized courts for disputes over property, personal injury, and workplace compensation, among other fields. She argues for a reexamination of African American agency through the use of the courts. In a fascinating juxtaposition, Milewski‘s work also addresses the white lawyers, juries, judges and, of course, often plaintiffs or defendants within these cases, some of whom operated out of concern, some through paternalism, and some, either overtly or not, in order to maintain white supremacy.

Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/law

Our TOPPODCAST Picks

Follow Us

Stay Connected

Related Podcasts

Links

Stay Connected