What do you think?
Rate this book
A Pattern of Violence: How the Law Classifies Crimes and What It Means for Justice
A law professor and former prosecutor reveals how inconsistent ideas about violence, enshrined in law, are at the root of the problems that plague our entire criminal justice system—from mass incarceration to police brutality.We take for granted that some crimes are violent and others aren’t. But how do we decide what counts as a violent act? David Alan Sklansky argues that legal notions about violence—its definition, causes, and moral significance—are functions of political choices, not eternal truths. And these choices are central to failures of our criminal justice system.The common distinction between violent and nonviolent acts, for example, played virtually no role in criminal law before the latter half of the twentieth century. Yet to this day, with more crimes than ever called “violent,” this distinction determines how we judge the seriousness of an offense, as well as the perpetrator’s debt and danger to society. Similarly, criminal law today treats violence as a pathology of individual character. But in other areas of law, including the procedural law that covers police conduct, the situational context of violence carries more weight. The result of these inconsistencies, and of society’s unique fear of violence since the 1960s, has been an application of law that reinforces inequities of race and class, undermining law’s legitimacy.A Pattern of Violence shows that novel legal philosophies of violence have motivated mass incarceration, blunted efforts to hold police accountable, constrained responses to sexual assault and domestic abuse, pushed juvenile offenders into adult prisons, encouraged toleration of prison violence, and limited responses to mass shootings. Reforming legal notions of violence is therefore an essential step toward justice.
318 pages, Kindle Edition
Published March 23, 2021
8 people are currently reading
182 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
March 7, 2021
Really good. A nuanced and clear eyed look at the legal treatment of violence.
April 25, 2021
A very interesting book that breaks down a common problem that is associated with categorizing violence, a problem that the law doesn't seem to resolve either.
The problem is that first, "there is a disagreement regarding how far, if at all, the concept of violence should extend beyond the use of force to inflict immediate physical injury. 2nd, there is uncertainty regarding whether violence must, by definition, be wrongful.
There is also a disagreement in the book about where the violence originates from. Moreover, the book breaks down how in some context...violence is viewed as being inherent in the individual, but in others, it depends on the environment the individual is placed in. The latter is used as an excuse to not improve the prison system. But the author points out that "violence does not have a single psychological root but a number of them, working by different principles".
It's also interesting to learn that criminal law used to not differentiate between violent and non-violent crimes the way it does not. Currently, it is common for people convicted of violent crimes to be banned statutorily from forms of employment, rehabilitation programs, and voting. However, this pattern is a modern development that is roughly half a century old. in fact, the author points out that there is a long history of courts "refusing to treat violent offenses as crimes of moral turpitude". The phrase "moral turpitude" is often defined as conduct that is inherently base, vile or depraved".
However, various factors like WW2 and an increase in mass shootings in America prompted the law to change and distinguish violent crimes from nonviolent crimes.
The book goes on to present how this transition shaped laws governing police conduct, rape, gun rights, and other areas of crim law. It's interesting to see how in some areas of law...like police conduct and freedom of speech this shifted perception of violence didn't have an impact on those areas much at all.
In fact, as it pertains to stop and frisk, the SC in Terry refused to even mention the violent aspect of the crime in question.
My favorite chapter was perhaps the chapter on violence in prisons. It's very eye-opening how prisons, like schools to a degree, serve as a place where certain constitutional rights don't apply at all.
"The social response to sexual assault in prisons remains ambivalent. It is formally condemned but often, in practice, treated as being far less serious than sexual assault outside of caral institutions. Physical assault is as serious a crime in prison as it is in the outside world. Unofficially, though, violent crimes in prison are often treated as though they do not entirely count.
But yeah this was an interesting book that broke down how criminal law/procedure developed into what it is today and the way the law addressed violence. The only reason this wasn't a 5-star book for me is that it wasn't always an enjoyable read. Like it was very informative...but lacked an element of excitement/entertainment at times.
The problem is that first, "there is a disagreement regarding how far, if at all, the concept of violence should extend beyond the use of force to inflict immediate physical injury. 2nd, there is uncertainty regarding whether violence must, by definition, be wrongful.
There is also a disagreement in the book about where the violence originates from. Moreover, the book breaks down how in some context...violence is viewed as being inherent in the individual, but in others, it depends on the environment the individual is placed in. The latter is used as an excuse to not improve the prison system. But the author points out that "violence does not have a single psychological root but a number of them, working by different principles".
It's also interesting to learn that criminal law used to not differentiate between violent and non-violent crimes the way it does not. Currently, it is common for people convicted of violent crimes to be banned statutorily from forms of employment, rehabilitation programs, and voting. However, this pattern is a modern development that is roughly half a century old. in fact, the author points out that there is a long history of courts "refusing to treat violent offenses as crimes of moral turpitude". The phrase "moral turpitude" is often defined as conduct that is inherently base, vile or depraved".
However, various factors like WW2 and an increase in mass shootings in America prompted the law to change and distinguish violent crimes from nonviolent crimes.
The book goes on to present how this transition shaped laws governing police conduct, rape, gun rights, and other areas of crim law. It's interesting to see how in some areas of law...like police conduct and freedom of speech this shifted perception of violence didn't have an impact on those areas much at all.
In fact, as it pertains to stop and frisk, the SC in Terry refused to even mention the violent aspect of the crime in question.
My favorite chapter was perhaps the chapter on violence in prisons. It's very eye-opening how prisons, like schools to a degree, serve as a place where certain constitutional rights don't apply at all.
"The social response to sexual assault in prisons remains ambivalent. It is formally condemned but often, in practice, treated as being far less serious than sexual assault outside of caral institutions. Physical assault is as serious a crime in prison as it is in the outside world. Unofficially, though, violent crimes in prison are often treated as though they do not entirely count.
But yeah this was an interesting book that broke down how criminal law/procedure developed into what it is today and the way the law addressed violence. The only reason this wasn't a 5-star book for me is that it wasn't always an enjoyable read. Like it was very informative...but lacked an element of excitement/entertainment at times.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews