Legal Problems of People in Mental and Penal Institutions: An Exploratory Study

This exploratory study of the legal problems or needs of prisoners and mental hospital patients (the institutionalized) reveals the wide range and diversity in the perceptions of what the needs are and what the legal responses might be. It argues for the need to conduct research that first promotes our qualitative understanding of legal demand among the institutionalized, and it suggests the need to experiment with and do research on legal supply pro-grams in the institutions. Only then can we begin to think about quantifying the needs and designing with some precision delivery programs based upon such quantitative information. The study also suggests the need for a lawyer role in the institutional context that departs from traditional role perceptions, both in terms of the approach taken to cases and clients and in terms of the substantive problems deemed deserving of legal attention.     

Administrative Justice in the Penitentiary: A Report on Inmate Grievance Procedures

The majority of prisons today have an internal grievance mechanism that gives inmates an opportunity to air complaints and seek solutions to individual and institution-wide problems. This study reports on the way the mechanism functions at two Illinois state prisons—one minimum security and one maximum security. The main findings are: (1) that the mechanism is heavily and repetitively used by only a portion of the inmate population, (2) that the grievances filed range widely in type as well as in merit, although it is clear that there is much frivolous activity, (3) that inmates win only a small percentage of their cases, either at the first-instance level or on appeal, and (4) that among both line prison staff (at least at one of the prisons) and inmates there is considerable dissatisfaction with the process, although a minority of prisoners and the higher echelon prison administrators can be counted on for more favorable assessments. The article goes on to compare these findings with the generally articulated objectives of the grievance process and concludes with a series of suggestions that have been made for improving its workings.     

Franchise Extension and the British Aristocracy

Using evidence from the Second Reform Act, introduced in the United Kingdom in 1867, we analyze the impact of extending the vote to the unskilled urban population on the composition of the Cabinet and the background characteristics of Members of Parliament. Exploiting the sharp change in the electorate caused by franchise extension, we separate the effect of reform from that of underlying constituency‐level traits correlated with the voting population. Our results are broadly supportive of a claim first made by Laski (1928): there is no causal effect of the reform on the political role played by the British aristocracy.     

Democracy,the Market,and the Logic of Social Choice

This article compares the types of knowledge democracy and the market require to rationally allocate resources. I argue that high levels of public ignorance and voters’ inability to compare the effects of different parties’ policies make it difficult for parties and elections to rationally allocate resources. Markets mitigate these problems because the simultaneous existence of multiple firms’ products facilitates comparisons that mimic the conditions of scientific experimentation. The economy of knowledge involved in such comparisons indicates there are epistemic advantages to using firms and markets, instead of political parties and elections, to allocate scarce resources. However, in contrast to arguments that markets merely provide better information than political decisions, I argue markets’ epistemic advantages are derived from the way they facilitate comparisons that minimize decision makers’ need for knowledge or understanding.