One of those doctrinal distinctions that 1L Criminal Law courses often overlook: What exactly is the difference between Witchcraft in the First Degree and Witchcraft in the Second Degree? (From Hale's Pleas of the Crown, 1682). play.google.com/books/reader?i…
Today we're like, what kind of mass hysteria was needed to believe in witches? Back then, they were like, see Matthew Hale, Pleas of the Crown 6-8.
Sorry I can’t answer some of the practical questions being raised. As I am a law professor, I focus more on witchcraft theory than witchcraft doctrine.
There seems to be a lot of interest in this question, so here's the text of the statute that Hale is discussing. statutes.org.uk/site/the-statu…
Ok, I'm spending way too much tonight researching witchcraft law, so I'll leave this Mel Torme link and try to move on. :)
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
In my view, the history here is a mess but a stable mess; on stare decisis grounds, the Court would be smart to just leave this body of law alone. But I don’t know how many Justices are so inclined.
This may end up being a pretty big criminal procedure case; the first big Miranda decision in a few years. Worth watching.
On his latest podcast, Akhil Amar raises an interesting point about the contingency of the current Supreme Court. I'll elaborate on Akhil's point below, as I think it has some relevance for debates on court-packing.
Thread.
Amar notes that when McConnell decided not to bring up Garland for a vote, that was a major gamble. Garland was a surprising pick in some ways, as he was so centrist. And throughout 2016, Hillary was favored to win the election: it seemed unlikely Trump (Trump!?!?) would win.
In 2016, confirming Garland meant a centrist Supreme Court with a slightly left of center bent, as Garland would be the swing vote. But if they block Garland, good chance President Hillary picks a younger and more liberal person than the very-centrist Garland for the Scalia seat.
Entick v. Carrington (1765), was a major inspiration for the 4A. There are two versions of the opinion, from Howell's State Trials and from the Eng. Rep. It's hard to find them online, so I have post them:
"Outside the world inhabited by the professional and managerial classes in a handful of major metropolitan areas, many, if not most, Americans are leading their lives as if COVID is over, and they have been for a long while." theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/…
How the author reconciles his view that masks, etc. are just bogus posturing with the fact of 800,000 American deaths so far (and counting) is not explained, but the essay is a good reminder of where a lot of people are coming from.
And obviously, the argument has to be not just that you personally think masks etc don’t work, but that the people who wear them don’t believe they work either. It’s all just symbolism *to them,* the argument goes, and they’re actually not trying to save lives.
Over at Prawfs, Paul Horwitz conducts the very first ever empirical study of the rise of novelty claims in law review articles -- finding a roughly 10x increase over 20 years. (Too bad the post is already placed, though.) prawfsblawg.blogs.com/prawfsblawg/20…
Paul comments:
My advice: If you feel it's accurate, feel free to make a direct novelty claim ("this is the first article to...") in the draft you submit to journals. But change it to avoid that formulation by the final. With novelty claims, as in other writing, best to show, don't tell.
Put another way, direct novelty claims have become so common and so formulaic that they come off as a bit amateurish. You'll sound more sophisticated if you don't make that direct claim.