(Part 2) Best jurisprudence law books according to redditors
We found 55 Reddit comments discussing the best jurisprudence law books. We ranked the 38 resulting products by number of redditors who mentioned them. Here are the products ranked 21-40. You can also go back to the previous section.
As a critical criminologist, I agree that the American criminal justice system is fundamentally flawed. For example, young black men are more likely to enter prison than college.
I would recommend two excellent books for further reading about how the American criminal justice system is used to segregate and oppress equity seeking groups.
Websdale, N. (2001). Policing the Poor.
Reiman, J. (2009). The Rich get Richer and the Poor Get Prison.
> Gender should have no place in the decision. Decision should be on law, not feelings or gender.
If only the distinction between law and feelings was so simple. We, as modern Westerners, sometimes believe that we have achieved a legal system that is at least potentially unbiased, leaves personal feelings and identity politics out of it, but actually, law hasn't changed much since the days of "an eye for an eye" and honor and blood debts. We just cover up the elements of lex talionis that make up the foundations of our modern legal system instead of acknowledging them. That human element is impossible to eliminate, both in terms of passions and in terms of cognitive limitations. There's a reason there's an odd number of judges on the Court, after all- the people who created it knew that these decisions could never be purely, objectively legalistic.
From that perspective, understanding how to make as neutral a decision as possible sometimes necessitates having access to information that, while objective in itself, is unevenly distributed in society. For example, as a man, I might have a disadvantage when it comes to legislating around the intimate bodily facts of pregnancy (this is exactly the kind of point Ginsburg is making,) or as someone from a rich background (I wish, haha,) I might have little awareness of the objective nuts and bolts of a life of poverty, making me less fit to legislate about it. And from the perspectives of passions and tribalism, it's important not to let one group's subjective interests come to dominate legal decisions, as they have in days past (racist or sexist laws being the most direct examples.) For those reasons, not having the entire court belong to one demographic or another is a good thing.
Here's an excellent recent book on the subject by a law professor and legal historian: http://www.amazon.com/Eye-William-Ian-Miller/dp/0521704677
We used this book in my Criminal justice class. Pretty good.
It really depends on what you mean by "privacy." To wrap your head around all the different ways it's used, Dan Solove's article "A Taxonomy of Privacy" is a good read.
In general, Dan Solove's Nothing to Hide is definitely worth reading.
Robert O'Harrow's No Place to Hide is another good one.
Not books, but Peter Fleischer's blog, Bruce Schneier's blog, and Eugene Volokh's blog.
Also, privacy is kind of the flip-side of the free speech coin, so you'll want to read up on that. There are a bunch of authors that write about the privacy/free speech dichotomy, so here's a random list of various interesting things I've read recently: Eugene Volokh, Robert Larson, Anita Allen, Woodrow Hartzog, etc.
At least for Anarchists or other left-libertarians it should also be important to actually read up on some basic or even fundamental ethical texts given most political views and arguments are fundamentally rooted in morality (unless you're a orthodox Marxist or Monarchist). I'm sadly not familiar enough with applied ethics to link collections of arguments for specific ethical problems, but it's very important to know what broad system you're using to evaluate what's right or wrong to not contradict yourself.
At least a few very old texts will also be available for free somewhere on the internet like The Anarchist Library.
Some good intro books:
Some foundational texts and contemporary authors of every main view within normative ethics:
>Shall I cite the FBI agent that said that to me? Didn't ask for his name.
I was talking about the statute text, not the FBI quote. For example, something like:
>(a) No person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed greater than is reasonable and prudent under the conditions and having regard to the actual and potential hazards then existing. Consistent with the foregoing, every person shall drive at a safe and appropriate speed when approaching and crossing an intersection or railroad grade crossing, when approaching and going around a curve, when approaching a hillcrest, when traveling upon any narrow or winding roadway and when special hazards exist with respect to pedestrians or other traffic or by reason of weather or highway conditions.
>(b) Except when a special hazard exists that requires lower speed for compliance with subsection (a) of this section, subject to W.S. 31-5-203(b), the limits specified in this subsection or established as otherwise authorized shall be maximum lawful speeds and no person shall drive a vehicle on a highway at a speed in excess of maximum limits...
Wyoming Statute available here.
>But I will take odds on gamble you yourself have committed a felony at some point. I'll take 10:1 against on any american out there.
OK, but this is not the issue at hand. Maybe that comes from the laws being too broad. Maybe it comes from too many laws. Maybe too many things are felonies. Assuming we agree that it really is a problem that everyone commits felonies that they don't even know about, we can still disagree on the solution to the problem.
If you want to learn, read some of the links I gave you. Those are free. Also consider getting a textbook like this. You can't learn this stuff from some Reddit posts. To get to the level of discussion that you seem to want to have you will need to spend some time learning about the basic fundamentals, just as I would need to go learn some basic physics and engineering fundamentals before I tried to have a deep discussion on shipbuilding.
Unless I misunderstand your point, Conklin's position isn't about deterrence. Lengthier sentences take people (some of whom will likely be career criminals) out of society where they then, ipso facto, cannot commit crime.
But make no mistake, he doesn't think that's good policy. I mean what would you do, lock up 1% of the population? (Sigh.)
If you'd like a reference, he wrote a book. It's yours for 84 cents.
https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Law-Revised-Lectures/dp/0300001886
This is the book I was talking about by Roscoe Pound. It will be slightly outdated, because he published it in 1922, but it's a great starting point (written specifically for beginning law students)
https://www.amazon.com/History-American-Law-Third/dp/0684869888
This was the textbook we used in my 3L Legal Philosophy class, but I wouldn't be intimidated by that, it's very easy to understand.
Other than that, just googling "introduction to philosophy of law" will give you an array of options. Pick one, and go from there. Remember, it's going to take more than just one introductory text to get you comfortable with the subject.
Any book that gives an overview of the different schools of thought should do. Bix or Harris, for example.
Totally agree about this! There is actually a great book on this called Confident Pluralism
Isn't it interesting how we are so often afraid/ reluctant to talk about so much of the stuff that shapes our values and weighs on our thoughts?
This post makes no sense. Anyway there are a plethora of works which directly address your question:
http://www.amazon.com/Nietzsche-Law-Philosophers-Francis-Mootz/dp/0754626202
http://www.amazon.com/Critical-Jurisprudence-Political-Philosophy-Justice/dp/184113452X
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0691133778/ref=cm_sw_su_dp
and these are just the ones that directly invoke Nietzsche rather than Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze, Lacan, Heidegger, Agamben which together probably are the entirely of jurisprudence as a field. You seem to have a bunch of misundstandings about Nietzsche's thought and what jurisprudence is so I can't really answer your question.
Glanville Williams' "Learning the Law".
> So no links or anything?
Here you go:
Lloyd's Introduction to jurisprudence
Introduction to Jurisprudence and Legal Theory
Connally v General Construction Co. 269US385 (1926)
> You suck at what you do.
More user attacks ...
Other countries don't have life sentences and they're doing just fine. Our prison system has everything to do with extreme punishment to the point where Hammurabi would give us a bow, and absolutely nothing to do with actually fixing the root of the issues.
I speak as someone who has been through the system, and with that being said I would HIGHLY recommend the book: Problems at the root of Law
I had the same soc class a year ago and you can't find it online because she wrote her own textbook. Unfortunately you do need the textbook because the quizzes come straight out of the text so your best bet is renting it used at the ASU bookstore.
The other class you can get the Kindle (digital version) for like $54 if that's in your price range. Or you can rent it on Amazon (physical copy) for like $20. It's a version older but I can't imagine it's super different
https://www.amazon.com/Crime-Control-America-What-Works/dp/0133495485
> If complying with the law results in profit, the company will comply. If it results in loss, the company will not comply
That's the whole point of law. Cause and effect. That is what most people on this planet called preventative. Congratulation for discovering the basic concept of law, though taking a long winded road to it. You are still extremely confused about it though.
> The next time somebody comes to kill you go ahead and hold that law out in front of you and see if it stops a bullet or a knife blade. Then we'll see who is living in reality.
What the fuck are you talking about? Law isn't a physical object you moron. How the fuck are you going to "hold that law" out in the first place? The fact that law is in place deters people from coming to my place and trying that in the first place.
> Well my society isn't lawless, so I find this to be a moot point.
Laws in your society is fucking useless and thus lawless. Law in your society is no different commandments from the Bible.
> Whose repercussions? The governments?
Yes. Governments prevent me from hitting your face.
> I could fly to your house, punch you in the face, leave immediately, and if your lucky an officer might take your statement.
Yea, do that. I have cameras set up that provides enough evidence for the officer to hunt you down. Obviously the threat of being in jail (criminal law) doesn't deter you from hitting people but it deters you from cheating taxes (tax law). You contradict even yourself.
> You've placed me in a situation where I am forced to concede property in order to protect my freedoms or my life.
No shit moron. I'm place in a situation where I am forced to not punch you in order to protect the freedom of my life. This is the whole point of the law. You don't like to concede property, I don't like to not punch your face. But we both have to follow the law due to repercussions.
> I must give money to the government or I lose more money, freedom (prison), or death.
Yes. That is the law and thus it prevents you from trying to not pay tax. See how preventative it is? It works because it has repercussions. This is an example of law preventing you from acting out a behaviour (not paying tax).
> Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from taxation.
LMFAO, every idiotic libertarian always trot out this bullshit like it's on automatic playback. Explain to me how a mugger with a gun to your head ("Your money or your life") is different from paying rent to your landlord.
> You used a word made up by a comedian with a satirical political show to insult my argument
Yes, that's the point. Your arguments are based upon nothing but GUT INSTINCT. What you lack in knowledge, you made up in confidence. That word, "truthiness", describes you extremely well.
> It's an insult made up by a different person.
It can't be an insult when it is true. Calling a fat overweight person "fat" is not an insult. Likewise with you. You are IGNORANT and you WANT TO and LIKE TO remain IGNORANT.
> These types of law do not prevent anything.
Holy fuck you are dumb. Two sentences ago you admit to having to pay tax. The tax laws prevents you from cheating tax. That's what it prevents. The environmental laws prevent companies from polluting due to financial disincentives. That's what it prevents.
> Tort law is by definition only relevant to disputes. Two parties who settle their differences on their own are completely outside the purview of the law. The case must be brought to court before the law applies.
No you dumb idiot. Tort laws specified a companies or a person can be fined for misconduct. THis is made aware to everyone and thus prevent people and companies in engaging in misconducts.
> You moved the goal posts here.
Wrong. 1+1 is not 5.
I said laws encompasses MANY (M for Mary, A for Asshole, N for nelly, Y for Yellow). MANY, not ALL (A for Asshole, L for Lily, L for Lily) but MANY. See how I have to spell it out for you?
> That's largely irrelevant though, seeing as you missed the point entirely and provided a faulty example of your own point.
Er no dumb ass. I didn't miss my own point. I set the point and you missed it and interpret into something else. You purposely moved the goal post and you blame me for missing my own point. Do you see how fucking stupid you are?
> In your example the law recognizes marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions for homosexuals.
Yep, support both set of moralities - people who hates gay, and gay people who want to be recognized as couple.
> What if I believe gays shouldn't have civil unions? What if I believe marriage should be outlawed? What if I believe government recognition of union, marriage or civil, should be banned? Maybe only gays should be allowed to marry.
So fucking what? What you show is only an example of a subset of ethics.
> The law can only support ONE ethical and moral outcome.
Nope. It supports many morality and ethics. It takes some from each group. Do you understand SET Theory? Each morality and ethics contains a set of beliefs. For example, Morality of person A has { BeliefA1, BeliefA2, BeliefA3, ...} Morality of person B has { BeliefB1, BeliefB2, BeliefA3, ...}
The law accommodate some beliefs from each morality. It is an intersection of belief sets. It never has to accommodate ALL beliefs from everybody or one set of the other beliefs.
> You repeatedly ignore my attempts to provide detailed resources that explain how a DRO type system might form in order to enforce law.
NO! ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION IN YOUR OWN WORDS
I'm not going to waste time and read your bullshit if you never bother to pick up a book and read about the core concept of the legal systems and the foundation of human civilizations.
> Once again: The Machinery of Freedom
Yea, read these first: Concept of law, Republic, The Prince, Das Kapital, History of Civilization
Yea read those books first and understand that you are a complete fucking moron, before you even suggest to me to read your filthy masturbatory junk literature.
You've purposely throughout this ENTIRE conversation dropped arguments you cannot addressed. You are ignorant and are intellectually dishonest with me as well as yourself.
Fuck man, you're like a child with a leaking diaper. You purposely dropped so many fucking points that inconvenient the way you think in your shitty bubble of alternative reality.
> so I'm done arguing this point with you.
Meh, I don't really give a fuck in continuing this conversation with a wilful moron, who is most likely a shittiest of engineer, whose ideology is nothing but a fucking fairy tale for adults.
The short answer is no. Nobody gives a shit what beliefs evolution equipped us with - even if we all evolved to belong to groups, this doesn't mean we are actually obligated to join/obey these groups.
The longer answer is sort of. Nobody makes your argument, because it is terrible, but some people make arguments that because of the nature of human groups, including political organizations, we are obligated to obey them. The best example of this is Margaret Gilbert's A Theory of Political Obligation: Membership, Commitment, and the Bonds of Society. If you want something shorter than a book, here are some articles:
Pitkin, Hanna. "Obligation and Consent--I." The American Political Science Review 59.4 (1965): 990-999.
Pitkin, Hanna. "Obligation and Consent--II." The American Political Science Review 60.1 (1966): 39-52.
Pateman, Carole. "Political Obligation and Conceptual Analysis." Political Studies 21.2 (1973): 199-218.
Gilbert, Margaret. "Group Membership and Political Obligation." The Monist 76.1 (1993): 119-131.
I think the value of diving right into the middle of the obligation debate without having a good idea of the territory is not great, so ideally you'd read Plato and Hobbes and Locke and Rousseau and Kant and a bunch of modern stuff (Christopher Heath Wellman has an excellent collection of his essays on the topic coming out very soon, for instance) but that's just me saying "read everything."
In the future, questions like this would best go in /r/askphilosophy.