Bibliographic record
Abstract
Opposing a good old liberal self to the degraded image of a coercive present is a recurrent argumentative tool in criminal law scholarship. In an important new book, Markus Dubber attempts to make use of a more complex dualistic framework to better achieve the same objective – namely, subjecting penal power to a normative analysis of legitimacy. He argues that criminal law scholars on both sides of the Atlantic have failed to acknowledge the fact that penal power is constantly shaped by two concurring modes of thought: law and police. Thus, subjecting penal power to a reconstruction of the way in which they find their way into institutional reality would offer a path forward for a legal scholarship truly committed to a legal ideal of legitimacy. This review essay focuses on criticizing this diagnosis. It contends that the image of legitimacy analysis offered by the model neglects many of the most pressing issues faced by modern criminal justice. Thus, despite the convincing criticism to which some forms of scholarship are subjected, the book ends up producing an image of legitimacy analysis that is strikingly similar to its departure point.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".