« Major Seventh Circuit ruling permitting judges to vary from guidelines based on fast-track disparity | Main | Feds urging LWOP sentence for doctor and wife involved in (extreme!?!) health care fraud »

October 7, 2010

At FSU for "The Constitution in 2020: The Future of Criminal Justice"

I have the great pleasure and honor of being in Tallahassee being hosted by the terrific folks at the Florida State University College of Law to participate in this event with an amazing group of people considering "The Constitution in 2020: The Future of Criminal Justice."  Here are the schedule basics:

October 7:

Keynote Address by Steve Bright, Southern Center for Human Rights

Friday, October 8:

Opening Remarks

Panel One: National Security and Liberty

Panel Two: Crime Control and Equality

Lunch: Remarks and Q & A with Judge Lynn Adelman, E.D. Wisconsin

Panel Three: Citizenship and Community

Panel Four: Punishment and the Constitution

Excitingly, even if you can't be at FSU in person, bookmark this link, and then you can watch the video of the conference when it happens or at least shortly after next week.  In addition, conference co-organizer Jack Balkin has posted a lot of the ideas being developed by participants on his blog Balkinization.

October 7, 2010 at 05:31 PM | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference At FSU for "The Constitution in 2020: The Future of Criminal Justice":


I wanted to listen to some of the presentations before criticizing this pro-criminal, left wing propaganda garbage love fest. Couldn't.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 7, 2010 11:43:55 PM

Supremacy Claus,
I'm sitting next to DAB right now, and as a favor to him, I'm sharing the link with you right now:


Go easy on the rest of us.

Posted by: Dan Markel | Oct 8, 2010 1:45:30 PM

Prof. Markel: It is working now, after downloading Silverlight. I want to watch several of the presentations.

Before I do, a quick personal question. Isn't it more intellectually exciting to have people with whom you disagree more fundamentally on the roster? Is there any criminal law prof around who believes, 1) 23 million Index felonies is too high; 2) bastardy must be decreased to decrease crime; 3)incapacitation is the sole mature goal of the criminal law, all others are immature, from a religion, not useful to the public, 4) the police and the justice system address crime on the margin (23 million felonies, 2 million prosecutions, and drowning under the flood of that small number; 5) self-help will have to be encourages and grown, by immunity, reward, praise, to get rid of the 90% of crimes not being addressed; and finally, the crime is the stand in for the character of the criminal, and must be used to incapacitate the person; 6) is more loyal to the general preamble of the constitution than to the job generating loophole ridden Amendments, and that outside of job generation, the victim's rights and safety is as important if less visible as those of the criminal?

I would appreciate the name of any colleague who has it down so far to the bare fundamentals. I have not been able to find anyone who shares the ideas that are very commonplace in the average member of the public.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 8, 2010 4:04:08 PM

Prof. Markel: The video is not available again. I briefly heard a female presenter discuss incapacitation, and the seminar may not be as bad or as one sided as I anticipate.

The term "2020" implies an interest in the modern and in the future. Here is a modest, narrow, specific proposal, supported by the constitution. 1) Does Daubert apply to the criminal law. I think it does. 2) Does the lawyer profession want crime to take place less often, as everyone else does? I have my doubts, but officially it does. 3) At least for the major crime victim, is the crime a personal catastrophe? In most cases it is. Even groups with high victimization rates never get used it, and are just as upset as you or I would be.

The modern concept of catastrophe is that factors cluster until a tipping point arises, then a catastrophe take place. Even if a weak, remote factor is prevented, the entire catastrophe is prevented. This methodology has been validated by bringing the airplane crash rate from low to extremely low.

In this analysis, there almost no criticism, just neutral pointing to mistakes made along the path to the catastrophe. One prevents what factors one can, but it does not matter, because the catastrophe does not take place at all.

Posted by: Supremacy Claus | Oct 9, 2010 4:03:08 PM

Post a comment

In the body of your email, please indicate if you are a professor, student, prosecutor, defense attorney, etc. so I can gain a sense of who is reading my blog. Thank you, DAB