This book provides an introduction to the American legal system for a broad readership. Its focus is on law in practice, on the role of the law in American society; and how the social context affects the living law of the United States. It covers the institutions of law creation and application, law in American government, American legal culture and the legal profession, American criminal and civil justice, and civil rights. Clearly written, the book has been widely used in both undergraduate and graduate courses as an introduction to the legal system; it will be useful, too, to a general audience interested in understanding how this vital social system works. This new edition follows the same basic structure as applied in the previous editions providing a thorough revision and reworking of the text. This edition reflects upon what has happened in the years since the second edition was published in 1998, and how these events and evolutions have shaped our fundamental comprehension of the workings of the American legal system today.
DNF. The section on the history of American law, which was basically just an overview of US history, was reprehensible.
Friedman somehow writes about the colonization of the US West by saying that the US "chose not to act as a colonial power" and never mentioning the native people of this continent until the very end of the chapter. Only after claiming multiple times that the land was "empty". He even uses the word "destiny" to describe genocidal westward expansion by whites.
Not content to insult the indigenous people of this land, Friedman also chooses to treat the horrors of slavery as a kind of footnote to the rosy picture of American "freedom". I stopped reading the book when he said that nineteenth century visitors would have been impressed at the amount of personal freedom in the US.
Yes, the *nineteenth century*, for most of which the US had what I think was the only surviving chattel slavery system on earth, perpetrating some of the worst brutality humanity has seen upon people who, by definition, were not free.
I can't trust an author whose racism was clear from the first chapter. I'll have to find a fairer and more accurate overview of US law.
This is a text book from my undergrad days at UW in 1984. It is interersting to read how much has changed and how much has stayed the same. Well written and organized though the author uses judgy biased language at times where it was uneeded...though maybe it wasn't thought to be judgy and biased in 1984.
I thought this was well-written and "did what it said on the tin", although, as others have noticed, it could be a bit dry at times.
Friedman aims for political neutrality quite successfully, although his selection of topics, his emphasis on context, and his pointing to discrepancies between the law in theory and the law in practice suggest that he is left-of-centre (which I had no problem with).
My only siginificant problem was he would often tease the reader with a reference to a case or article which sounded quite interesting. He references professionally, but it would have been nice for him to include a couple more details - I'm much too lazy to actually track down the sources that he refers to!
A well written account of pretty basic stuff when it comes to the law. Things are a bit outdated and the text can be a bit dry, but good for an overview of how American law came to be and how it works (or worked a decade or so ago).