Law & Humanities Blog |
| Posted: 26 Feb 2014 12:20 PM PST Michael Stokes Paulsen, University of St. Thomas School of Law, is publishing Kermit Gosnell and Uncle Tom's Cabin in the St. Thomas Journal of Law & Public Policy. Here is the abstract. Stories persuade and illustrate in a way that pure logic does not. What Kermit Gosnell - the Butcher of Philadelphia - did is, in principle, no different from what any other abortionist does. This repulsive true crime story persuades and it is important for that reason. But the lesson we should draw from it – the logic of the parable, if you will – ought to be one about abortion and abortionists generally. The Kermit Gosnell story has the potential to function, for the anti-abortion movement, in much the same way that Harriet Beecher Stowe's serialized novel Uncle Tom's Cabin, functioned for the anti-slavery movement more than 150 years ago. It persuades the mind by first moving the heart and wrenching the soul. Kermit Gosnell is today's Simon Legree. But Gosnell is no composite fictional character. |
He is the real-life face and voice of Abortion.Download the article from SSRN at the link. 
Eighteenth Century Lawyers On Stage
Posted: 26 Feb 2014 11:26 AM PST
Simon Stern, University of Toronto Faculty of Law, has published William Blackstone: Courtroom Dramatist? in Re-Interpreting Blackstone's Commentaries: A Seminal Text in National and International Contexts (Wilfrid Prest, ed.; Oxford, Hart, 2014). Here is the abstract.
This book chapter discusses William Blackstone's role as a judge, in relation to accounts (such as Bentham's) that portrayed him as "formal, precise, and affected." Rather than evaluating legal performance, in the courtroom, by reference to binaries such as formal/informal, cautious/inquisitive, or stolid/creative, I argue that the success of a legal performance depends on the speaker (e.g., witness, lawyer, judge), the audience (e.g., jury, judge, public), and the subject (e.g., the prosecution's motives, the defendant's alibi, the majesty of the common law). To explore this idea, I look at eighteenth- and early nineteenth-century commentators who praised or criticized particular lawyers or judges (in the course of offering "strictures on the bar") by invoking the language of theatricality. As I show, this language was most prevalent in discussions of jury trials, and was often pointedly abandoned in discussions of purely legal arguments (e.g., arguments before appellate courts). The figures in question include William Garrow, Sir John Scott, Sir Francis Buller, and Richard Sheridan. I also consider portrayals of inarticulate lawyers on the eighteenth-century stage, arguing that for the most part, these portrayals make none of the distinctions suggested here, as to audience and subject, but instead simply treat this character as a figure of fun because he is incompetent to perform his task, whatever that task may be. I close by reconsidering a shorthand transcription of Blackstone's performance on the bench in the 1770 trial of Onslow v. Horne, arguing that his conduct comports with an emerging sense of what makes for a good legal argument -- namely, one that takes written explanation as the template for an effective style of oral presentation, and one that Blackstone's own Commentaries helped to promote.Download the essay from SSRN at the link.
| You are subscribed to email updates from Law & Humanities Blog To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
