M_Schlanger_Jail_Strip_Searches - JAIL STRIP-SEARCH CASES:...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–3. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
JAIL STRIP-SEARCH CASES: PATTERNS AND PARTICIPANTS MARGO SCHLANGER* I INTRODUCTION Among Marc Galanter’s many important insights is that understanding litigation requires understanding its participants. In his most-cited work, 1 Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead , 2 Galanter pioneered a somersault in the typical approach to legal institutions and legal change: Most analyses of the legal system start at the rules end and work down through institutional facilities to see what effect the rules have on the parties. I would like to reverse that procedure and look through the other end of the telescope. Let’s think about the different kinds of parties and the effect these differences might have on the way the system works. 3 The interested parties—plaintiffs, defendants, and their counsel—are key, Galanter suggests. Indeed, this is one of the recurring themes of his work. If we wish to understand legal change, he warns us not to “exclude[] or marginalize[]” “[s]ources of legal change other than changes in the rules . . . (for example, changes in the number, organization, or style of lawyers and changes in the expectations, organization, or capabilities of litigants).” 4 Differences among litigants and lawyers mean that “the same rule change may bring about quite Copyright © 2008 by Margo Schlanger. Permission is granted for distribution at or below cost to prisoners or students in a class. This Article is also available at http://law.duke.edu/journals/lcp. * Professor of Law, Washington University in St. Louis. B.A., Yale College; J.D., Yale Law School. The author may be reached at mschlanger@wulaw.wustl.edu. Thanks to the many people who spoke or corresponded with me about their strip-search litigation: Mark Bennett, Randy Berg, John Boston, Fay Clayton, Jennifer Duncan-Brice, Ken Flaxman, David Friedman, Howard Friedman, Harvey Gross, Bob Herbst, Mike Kanovitz, Charles LaDuca, Alexandra Lahav (who also offered very useful comments on a draft), Barry Litt, Mark Merin, Tom Poulton, Jan Susler, Mike Sutherlin, and Flint Taylor. Thanks, too, to my colleagues at Washington University in St. Louis and at the Law & Society Association 2007 conference for their helpful feedback, and, as always, to Sam Bagenstos. All remaining errors are mine. 1. Fred R. Shapiro, The Most Cited Law Review Articles Revisited , 71 CHI.-KENT L. REV. 751 tbl.1 (1996). 2. Marc Galanter, Why the “Haves” Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change , 9 LAW & SOC’Y REV. 95 (1974). See also IN LITIGATION: DO THE “HAVES” STILL COME OUT AHEAD? (Herbert M. Kritzer & Susan S. Silbey eds., 2003). 3. Galanter, supra note 2, at 97. 4. Marc Galanter, Conceptualizing Legal Change and Its Effects: A Comment on George Priest’s “Measuring Legal Change , 3 J.L. ECON. & ORG. 235, 236 (1987) [hereinafter Galanter, Conceptualizing Legal Change ].
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
66 LAW AND CONTEMPORARY PROBLEMS [Vol. 71:65 varied changes of practice in different settings.” 5 More generally, Galanter
Background image of page 2
Image of page 3
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/15/2011 for the course CJ 471 taught by Professor Christophersmith during the Fall '10 term at Michigan State University.

Page1 / 24

M_Schlanger_Jail_Strip_Searches - JAIL STRIP-SEARCH CASES:...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 3. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online