Studies in Law, Politics, and Society: Volume 70

This paper examines coverage of America’s death penalty in “mainstream” and “radical” newspapers in the 1970s. That decade was a crucial period for capital punishment, and newspapers during that time helped set the trajectory of the public’s awareness and understanding for the remainder of the twentieth century. While scholars have recognized the role played by newspaper framing of capital punishment, most have limited their consideration to the mainstream press. We broaden the consideration to the radical press and note similarities in the treatment of the moral status of the death penalty across newspapers of different types. We find that the radical press was more likely to portray it as an instrument of racial and class oppression. In addition, long before mainstream papers attended to questions about the reliability of the death penalty system, radical papers were calling attention to the number of innocent people who were erroneously sentenced to death. Like dissenting opinions in judicial decisions, the radical press highlighted issues not emphasized in mainstream papers and foresaw concerns that would become important in the death penalty debate a decade or two later.

From one angle, abortion law appears to confirm the regime politics account of the Supreme Court; after all, the Reagan/Bush coalition succeeded in significantly curtailing the constitutional protection of abortion rights. From another angle, however, it is puzzling that the Reagan/Bush Court repeatedly refused to overturn Roe v. Wade. We argue that time and again electoral considerations led Republican elites to back away from a forceful assertion of their agenda for constitutional change. As a result, the justices generally acted within the range of possibilities acceptable to the governing regime but still typically had multiple doctrinal options from which to choose.

This paper challenges and expands commonplace assumptions about problems of time and temporality in emergencies. In traditional emergency powers theory “emergency time” is predominantly an “exceptional time.” The problem is that there is “no time” and the solution is limited “in time”: exceptional behavior is allowed for a special time only, until the emergency is over, or according to formal sunset clauses. But what is characteristic of many emergencies is not the problem of “no time” but the ways in which time is legally structured and framed to handle them. Using the Israeli High Court of Justice 1999 decision on the use of physical interrogation methods under conditions of necessity, this paper illustrates how legally significant emergency-time structures that lay beyond the problematic of exceptional time, gravely implicate the way that “exceptional measures” are practiced and regularized.

This paper highlights the voices of some Muslim American women and identifies the processes of gendered racialization in a context of White supremacy. Informed by Rita Dhamoon’s (2011) intersectional “processes of differentiation” and interviews with 20 Muslim American women, we find gendered patterns of racial violence emanating from state and society. According to the interviews, the primary source of the racial violence against women is “society” while men are targeted in a complex configuration of state and society. We argue that this binary is a mirror of the gendered racialization process of maintaining White supremacy in the United States.

The paper articulates common organizing narratives which recur within alternative movements in law, and posits the art of dispute resolution as an experimental reconstructive methodology for engaging conflicts, while incorporating a critique of classical liberal thought. The paper offers a reading of conflict resolution approaches, including Alternative Dispute Resolution; Therapeutic Jurisprudence; Restorative Justice, and Transitional Justice, in search of a new legal culture or jurisprudence which emerges from the following narratives: emphasis on process; emphasis on constructive conflict intervention; deconstruction and hybridization; a search for an underlying layer; emphasis on relationship and acknowledgment of emotions; community work and bottom-up development.

Indigenous peoples are often alienated from their lands and culture. This has arguably resulted in Indigenous peoples figuring disproportionately in the social and economic statistics. The right of self-determination is often touted as a panacea to these statistics. The focus of this paper is to rethink the notion of self-determination and examine whether the process afforded by the United Nations Decolonization Committee can assist or whether the sway of State politics and State power impedes this right for Indigenous peoples.