This chapter examines constitutional theory and doctrine as applied to emerging government regulations of video image capture and proposes a framework that will promote free speech to the fullest extent possible without facilitating unnecessary intrusions into legitimate privacy interests.

This chapter provides a brief overview of the sociolegal history of undercover investigations.

This chapter considers some of the new technologies that make undercover investigations easier, and considers the benefits and dangers of these advances.

This chapter examines how the ethics of undercover investigations in the field of journalism have varied considerably over history, and are contextually driven. It is not true that the practice has always been viewed as dubious, nor is it accurate to say that it is uniformly celebrated and accepted.

This chapter considers how investigative deceptions fit into the traditional rationales for protecting free speech, and offers guidance on where the law is likely to evolve on these questions.

This chapter reports on the findings of a number of original studies designed to test the public acceptance of undercover investigations. We study public attitudes about investigations generally and in a variety of specific contexts.

This chapter summarizes some of our legal and empirical conclusions and suggests how they might impact legislation and judicial decisions. We also identify some best practices for investigations.

The American system of criminal law and punishment is racist, classist, destructive, and ineffective in preventing harm and promoting justice. This isn’t an extreme view, nor is it a secret. Indeed, more than half of the country has concluded that aspects of our system of punishment are unfair according to recent polling. Nonetheless, many Americans reflexively seek out punitive interventions in response to vexing social problems. We operate in a realm of dissonance recognizing in the abstract the dysfunction and cruelty of the system, but also endorse criminal interventions in support of the social goals we support. These complicated, contradictory views about the system of law, policing, and imprisonment have been, until quite recently, relatively unexamined. This book encourages reflection on these complex issues of progressive carceralism.

Many animal lawyers react to critiques of carceral animal law by contending that punishment is no longer a priority, and that there are only but a handful of anecdotes about over-charging. One might listen to animal lawyers who support criminal interventions and conclude that incarceration is no longer a priority. But a critique of incarceration alone was never the point, and such a framing would actually let the movement off too easy. Prosecutions that do not result in sentences of imprisonment, under this logic, are examples of the merciful progression of animal law. This chapter focuses attention on the other-than-incarceration efforts that might be incorrectly conflated with leniency and just outcomes by animal advocates. Recognizing that for many of our readers, it will sound ridiculous to suggest that police interventions that do not lead to incarceration can be an over-reaction to animal crimes. Thus, a substantial portion of the chapter is comprised of short vignettes that describe the role of police in animal protection efforts that do not involve incarceration. These examples are not exhaustive, but they provide a foundation for thinking about how policing and prosecution that does not result in incarceration or even a conviction can be affirmatively bad for animals.