Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
  • Print publication year: 2019
  • Online publication date: April 2019

4 - The Process Is the Problem

from Part I - The Process Is the Punishment

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.

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.
Bell, Griffen D., Varner, Chilton Davis, and Gottschalk, Hugh Q.. 1992. “Automatic Disclosure in Discovery – The Rush to Reform.” Georgia Law Review 27: 158.
Blaner, Kathleen L., Cortese, Alfred W., and Green, Donald H.. 1998. “Federal Discovery: Crown Jewel or Curse?Litigation 24(4): 865.
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.
Clark, Charles E. and Samenow, Charles U.. 1929. “The Summary Judgment.” Yale Law Journal 38: 423–71.
Denlow, Morton. 1998. “Summary Judgment: Boon or Burden?The Judges’ Journal 37: 2631.
Feeley, Malcolm. 1979. The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
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.
Gilles, Myriam. 2012. “Procedure in Eclipse: Group-Based Adjudication in a Post-Concepcion Era.” St. Louis Law Journal 56: 1203–29.
Hazelton, L. W. Morgon. 2015. “Quit Your Complaining? Considering the Impact of Supreme Court Decisions on Strategic Litigants.” Unpublished working paper.
Hornby, D. Brock. 2010. “Summary Judgment Without Illusions.” Green Bag 2d 13: 273–88.
Hubbard, H. J. William. 2017. “The Effects of Twombly and Iqbal.Journal of Empirical Legal Studies 14: 474526.
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.
Moore, Patricia Hatamyar. 2010. “The Tao of Pleading: Do Twombly and Iqbal Matter Empirically.” American University Law Review 59: 553634.
Talesh, Shauhin. 2009. “The Privatization of Public Legal Rights: How Manufacturers Construct the Meaning of Consumer Law.” Law & Society Review 43: 527–62.
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.
Talesh, Shauhin. 2013. “How the ‘Haves’ Come Out Ahead in the Twenty-First Century.DePaul Law Review 62: 519–54.
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: 9731005.
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: 131.
Wood, Diane P. 2011. “Summary Judgment and the Law of Unintended Consequences.Oklahoma City University Law Review 36: 231–52.
White House signing ceremony, Feb. 18, 2005; transcript and official press release available at www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/.

  • 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).

  • 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)

  • Civil Code § 1793.22(c)