Impartial Justice

Eric T. Kasper is an associate professor of political science for the University of Wisconsin Colleges and serves as the municipal judge in Rice Lake, Wisconsin, where he lives with his wife Julie and their two children, Madison and Jackson. This is his third book, having previously written Don’t Stop Thinking About the Music: The Politics of Songs and Musicians in Presidential Campaigns (with Benjamin Schoening) and To Secure the Liberty of the People: James Madison’s Bill of Rights and the Supreme Court’s Interpretation.

• AcknowledgementsPrefaceIntroduction: A Short History of What It Means to Be a Neutral, Impartial, and Unbiased DecisionmakerPart One: An Impartial Jury Trial in Criminal Cases1. Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity: Sheppard v. Maxwell (1966)2. Avoiding Mob Justice: Frank v. Mangum (1915) and Moore v. Dempsey (1923)3. Racial Discrimination in Jury Selection: Batson v. Kentucky (1986) and Miller-El v. Dretke (2005)4. Sex Discrimination in Jury Selection: Hoyt v. Florida (1961) and Taylor v. Louisiana (1975)5. Death-Qualified Juries: Witherspoon v. Illinois (1968) and Lockhart v. McCree (1986)Part Two: Due Process and the Right to an Impartial Judge6. Mayor-Judges with a Financial Stake in the Outcome: Tumey v. Ohio (1927) and Ward v. Village of Monroeville (1972)7. A Judge Hearing a Contempt Proceeding after Being Vilified by the Defendant: Mayberry v. Pennsylvania (1971)8. Non-Lawyer Judges: North v. Russell (1976)9. The Judge Who Was Bribed in Other Cases: Bracy v. Gramley (1997)10. A Judge Deciding a Case Involving a Major Campaign Supporter: Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co. (2009)Part Three: Due Process and the Right to an ImpartialDecisionmaker in Quasi-Judicial, Non-Court Settings11. Parole Revocation: Morrissey v. Brewer (1972)12. Medical License Review: Withrow v. Larkin (1975)13. Mental Health Commitments for Juveniles: Parham v. J.R. (1979)14. Prison Discipline: Edwards v. Balisok (1997)15. Enemy Combatant Cases: Hamdi v. Rumsfeld (2004)ConclusionsCatalog of CasesBibliographyIndex

The word "disinterested" has multiple meanings. Although "apathetic" or "unenthusiastic" may be the first definitions that come to mind, in a juridical context the notion of "disinterest" is positive, a guarantee that the decision maker in a dispute is unbiased and not slanting rulings or playing favorites. Without this virtuous form of disinterest, a truly just system of dispute resolution is not possible. Kasper, who also serves as a municipal judge, has written a multifaceted study of the various settings in which impartiality is a core value in Anglo-American law. After a brief introduction tracking the evolution of impartiality from the 1215 adoption of the Magna Carta, Kasper explores the concept of unbiased decision making by juries, judges, and quasi-judicial actors or bodies. The next 13 chapters are organized as examinations of forums for impartiality--some examples are "death-qualified" juries, judges with financial stakes in the outcomes of cases, and medical license reviews--each viewed through the prism of a specific US Supreme Court decision. Kasper's accounts of the cases avoid jargon and are thus highly readable as well as interesting and informative. Summing Up: Recommended. All readership levels.