Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T20:52:26.490Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

4 - The Process Is the Problem

from Part I - The Process Is the Punishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2019

By
Shauhin Talesh
Edited by
Rosann Greenspan ,
Hadar Aviram  and
Jonathan Simon
Rosann Greenspan
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Hadar Aviram
Affiliation:
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Jonathan Simon
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

Malcolm Feeley’s pathbreaking book The Process Is the Punishment is a classic study of the gap between the law on the books and the law in action. In particular, Feeley exposes the tension between the ideal of “due process,” which seeks to allow individuals an opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner, with the reality of how criminal processes and procedures impact a litigant navigating through the criminal justice process in powerful ways. Although due process protections in theory protect defendants and preserve the ideal of serving justice, they developed largely without regard to cost. Feeley’s book highlights the challenges and costs of invoking due process rights in various criminal settings.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Legal Process and the Promise of Justice
Studies Inspired by the Work of Malcolm Feeley
 , pp. 72 - 94
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Beisner, John H. 2010. US Chamber Inst. for Legal Reform. “The Centre Cannot Hold: The Need for Effective Reform of the U.S. Civil Discovery Process,” at 7, available at www.instituteforlegalreform.com/sites/default/files/ilr_discovery_2010_0.pdf.Google Scholar
Bell, Griffen D., Varner, Chilton Davis, and Gottschalk, Hugh Q.. 1992. “Automatic Disclosure in Discovery – The Rush to Reform.” Georgia Law Review 27: 1–58.Google Scholar
Blaner, Kathleen L., Cortese, Alfred W., and Green, Donald H.. 1998. “Federal Discovery: Crown Jewel or Curse?” Litigation 24(4): 8–65.Google Scholar
Boyd, L. Christina, Hoffman, David A., Obradovic, Zoran, and Ristovski, Kosta. 2013. “Building a Taxonomy of Litigation: Clusters of Causes of Action in Federal Complaints.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 10: 253–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, Charles E. and Samenow, Charles U.. 1929. “The Summary Judgment.” Yale Law Journal 38: 423–71.Google Scholar
Denlow, Morton. 1998. “Summary Judgment: Boon or Burden?” The Judges’ Journal 37: 26–31.Google Scholar
Feeley, Malcolm. 1979. The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Gelbach, Jonah. 2012. “Note: Locking the Doors to Discovery?: Assessing the Effects of Twombly and Iqbal on Access to Discovery.” Yale Law Journal 121: 2270–345.Google Scholar
Gilles, Myriam. 2012. “Procedure in Eclipse: Group-Based Adjudication in a Post-Concepcion Era.” St. Louis Law Journal 56: 1203–29.Google Scholar
Hazelton, L. W. Morgon. 2015. “Quit Your Complaining? Considering the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Strategic Litigants.” Unpublished working paper.Google Scholar
Hornby, D. Brock. 2010. “Summary Judgment Without Illusions.” Green Bag 2d 13: 273–88.Google Scholar
Hubbard, H. J. William. 2017. “The Effects of Twombly and Iqbal.” Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14: 474–526.Google Scholar
Moore, Patricia Hatamyar. 2012. “An Updated Quantitative Study of Iqbal’s Impact on 12(b)(6) Motions.” University of Richmond Law Review 46: 603–58.Google Scholar
Moore, Patricia Hatamyar. 2010. “The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically.” American University Law Review 59: 553–634.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2009. “The Privatization of Public Legal Rights: How Manufacturers Construct the Meaning of Consumer Law.” Law & Society Review 43: 527–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2012. “How Dispute Resolution System Design Matters: An Organizational Analysis of Dispute Resolution Structures and Consumer Lemon Laws.” Law & Society Review 46: 463–96.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2013. “How the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead in the Twenty-First Century.” DePaul Law Review 62: 519–54.Google Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2014. “Institutional and Political Sources of Legislative Change: Explaining How Private Organizations Influence the Form and Content of Consumer Protection Legislation.” Law & Social Inquiry 39: 973–1005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Talesh, Shauhin. 2015. “Rule-Intermediaries in Action: How State and Business Stakeholders Influence the Meaning of Consumer Rights in Regulatory Governance Arrangements.” Law & Policy 37: 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wood, Diane P. 2011. “Summary Judgment and the Law of Unintended Consequences.” Oklahoma City University Law Review 36: 231–52.Google Scholar
White House signing ceremony, Feb. 18, 2005; transcript and official press release available at www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/.Google Scholar

Cases

Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co., 398 U.S. 144 (1969).

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, 477 U.S. 242 (1986).

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009).

AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, 563 U.S. 333 (2011)

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007).

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986).

Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41 (1957).

Epic Systems Corp. v. Lewis, 138 S. Ct. 1612 (2018).

Matsushita Electrical Industrial Corp. v. Zenith Radio, 475 U.S. 574 (1986).

Poller v. CBS, Inc., 368 U.S. 464 (1962).

Shearson/American Express, Inc. v. McMahon, 482 U.S. 220, 232 (1987).

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 564 U.S. 338 (2011).

American Express Co. v. Italian Colors Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228 (2013).

Rules

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 1

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 8

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 23

Fed. R. Civ. Pro. Rule 26

Fed R. Civ. Pro. Rule 26(b)(1) 398 U.S. 977, 982 (1970) (amended 2000)

Statutes

Civil Code § 1793.22(c)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×