The Unconvincing Case Against Private Prisons

In 2009, the Israeli High Court of Justice held that private prisons are unconstitutional. This was more than a domestic constitutional issue. The court anchored its decision in a carefully reasoned opinion arguing that the state has a monopoly on the administration of punishment, and thus private prisons violate basic principles of modern democratic governance. This position was immediately elaborated upon by a number of leading legal philosophers, and the expanded argument has reverberated among legal philosophers, global constitutionalists, and public officials around the world. Private prisons are a global phenomenon, and this argument now stands as the definitive principled statement opposing them. In this Article, I argue that the state monopoly theory against privatization is fundamentally flawed. The Article challenges the historical record and philosophy of the state on which the theory is based, and then explores two other issues the theory wholly ignores: private custodial arrangements in other settings that are widely regarded as acceptable if not exemplary and third-party state arrangements that are universally hailed as exemplary. The Article presents first-of-its-kind empirical data on private prisons in Australia, discusses the implications of readily available information on juvenile facilities, and explores interstate compacts on prisoner transfers. The Article maintains that the state monopoly theory erroneously asserts that privatization is inconsistent with the modern state, and concludes with a call for policymakers and judges to imbue their future privatization decisions with local knowledge and time-honored pragmatism. Presented as the Jerome Hall Lecture at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington, Indiana, October 23, 2013

Law, Legitimacy, and Symbols: An Expanded View of Law and Society in Transition

A Review of Law and Society in Transition: Toward Responsive Law by Philippe Nonet and Philip Selznic

East Asian Court Reform on Trial: Comments on the Contributions

I am honored to have my book, Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail, serve as the organizing framework for this symposium. The enterprise has proven valuable as it provided a reason to assemble a set of articles that focus on important changes in Asian courts in recent decades. Further, it appears that the reforms in three of the countries are loosely related to each other. While Japan had a head start on judicial reforms, both Korea and Taiwan embarked on the same path as soon as they had shed authoritarian rule. China has pursued a more ambitious project. Court reform is part of a massive effort to keep up with massive changes in society and the economy since the 1980s

The Syracuse Conference on a World Rule of Law: American Perspectives An Introduction

The working group was charged with exploring virtually all facets of democracy and the rule of law, as they pertain to established constitutional democracies, societies undergoing transitions to constitutional democracies, and those societies where democracy remains little more than a hopeful wish. Papers and much of the discussion during the two days probed beneath the structural formalities that are obvious and important requisites of democracy, to explore the subtexts of and cultural conditions for democracy and the rule of law, those features that may be so taken-for-granted that they usually go unacknowledged, let alone unexplored in discussion of democratic theory. Much of what was written and discussed concerned the social bases of democracy

The Unconvincing Case Against Private Prisons

In 2009, the Israeli High Court of Justice held that private prisons are unconstitutional. This was more than a domestic constitutional issue. The court anchored its decision in a carefully reasoned opinion arguing that the state has a monopoly on the administration of punishment, and thus private prisons violate basic principles of modern democratic governance. This position was immediately elaborated upon by a number of leading legal philosophers, and the expanded argument has reverberated among legal philosophers, global constitutionalists, and public officials around the world. Private prisons are a global phenomenon, and this argument now stands as the definitive principled statement opposing them. In this Article, I argue that the state monopoly theory against privatization is fundamentally flawed. The Article challenges the historical record and philosophy of the state on which the theory is based, and then explores two other issues the theory wholly ignores: private custodial arrangements in other settings that are widely regarded as acceptable if not exemplary and third-party state arrangements that are universally hailed as exemplary. The Article presents first-of-its-kind empirical data on private prisons in Australia, discusses the implications of readily available information on juvenile facilities, and explores interstate compacts on prisoner transfers. The Article maintains that the state monopoly theory erroneously asserts that privatization is inconsistent with the modern state, and concludes with a call for policymakers and judges to imbue their future privatization decisions with local knowledge and time-honored pragmatism. Presented as the Jerome Hall Lecture at Indiana University Maurer School of Law, Bloomington, Indiana, October 23, 2013

Interaction of polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons with the aryl hydrocarbon hydroxylase enzyme system in normal and neoplastic C3H mouse embryo cell lines.

Dept. of Biological Sciences. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis1983 .F445. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 40-07, page: . Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 1983