•  
  •  
 

Georgia Criminal Law Review

Document Type

Article

Abstract

The American journalist Ambrose Bierce, who wrote in the late 1800s, was a fierce critic of the judiciary. He lampooned judges for their defective reasoning, arbitrary decisions, and ignorance of the law; he criticized their practice of legislating from the bench and even exposed their outright corruption. Bierce’s work was highly entertaining—in a satirical, cynical way. Yet, as law professor J. Gordon Hylton explained, “beneath the humor and the bitterness of his work lay a sophisticated understanding of the shortcomings of the late nineteenth-century bench and bar.”

This Essay examines Bierce’s criticisms of the judiciary and asks this question: After an intervening century, are his complaints still valid today? Amazingly, after more than 100 years, Bierce’s criticisms are still relevant; in fact, they apply as much to the modern judiciary as they did to that of the Gilded Age. Equally important, Bierce complained with purpose, offering “concrete recommendations” for reform. His primary recommendation—a call to arms for his fellow journalists to expose judicial lawlessness to the public—remains a viable cure for what ails our modern judiciary.

Download

Share

COinS