Skip to main content

Imagined Law: "We followed the law word by word!"

Prof. Michael Birnhack, Tel Aviv University, Faculty of Law 
Dr. Lotem Perry-Hazan University of Haifa, Faculty of Education

Our teachers in school, back in the 1970s and 1980s used to tell us that they had eyes in their backs, and that they could see us when they were writing on the blackboard.  That was the old school way of trying to achieve discipline, by creating a sense of supervision.  Discipline was achieved also through the schools’ architecture, typically with the principal’s office overlooking the schoolyard.  And there was education too.  Our teachers taught us right from wrong.  Increasingly, the new school strives to achieve discipline and order by using technological means.  Today, in many schools in western democracies, we find a host of technologies, typically Closed Circuit TV (CCTV) systems, and in American schools, one can find metal detectors, biometric identification and other technologies.  Schools introduce these technologies in order to achieve security, safety, efficiency and a host of other fine goals.  But they also produce supervision and surveillance.  We are intrigued by the introduction of such surveillance technologies into the educational setting.  The premise of our study is that a school that installed a surveillance technology is not just the same school with another technical element.  It is a different school.  The technology is not technical; it is normative and has an effect.

Our project explores the introduction of surveillance technologies into schools.  Our case study is the introduction of CCTV systems in Israeli schools.  This is the first surveillance technology that is installed in Israeli schools, and rapidly so.  We began with interviewing school principals, city officials, and have since continued with interviewing teachers, primary school children and high school students.  We approached the principals with a set of questions borrowed from administrative law: we wanted to know who initiated the decision, who made it, did the decision makers consult others, which considerations did they take into account, and which did they ignore. 



One of the first principals we interviewed was highly confident.  She firmly tapped the table and replied: “I followed the law, word by word”.  She referred to a binding regulation of the Ministry of Education.  We let her continue for a while, but then had to interrupt.  There is no such law, we told her.  It was an awkward moment.  The principal called her secretary, and asked to see the folder on CCTV.  The secretary indeed brought such a folder.  It had “CCTV” in capital letters on its cover. The principal opened it.  It was empty.
Other principals then offered similar answers.  Of course, we double-checked ourselves: perhaps there was a regulation that we missed.  Perhaps an unofficial draft circulated or leaked.  Nothing.  We framed the findings within Lauren Edelman’s theory of the endogeneity of the law, and added our findings: imagined law.  Some principals imagined a law, and acted upon it.  It was not merely a mistake about the content of an existing law.  They self-convinced themselves that there was a binding legal rule, and they acted upon it.  The imagined laws, by the way, differed from one principal to another.  The contents of the imagined law seems to be their own beliefs and convictions, projected onto this non-existing rule. 
We find this autosuggestion fascinating: can the law be made out of thin air?  How powerful is such an imagined law?  Are there other such laws in our lives, beyond the school environment?  The school setting provided us with a real case study of an imagined law.  A teaching moment for all lawmakers.

Popular posts from this blog

Europeanization or National Specificity? Legal Approaches to Sexual Harassment in France, 2002–2012

By Abigail Saguy, UCLA

Sexual harassment represents a massive problem for working women worldwide. A recent social media campaign has brought increased awareness to this fact. In late 2017—after three-dozen women accused Hollywood producer Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment, assault, or rape—millions of women posted “Me Too” on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, and other social media platforms. Taking inspiration from African American activist Tarana Burke—who, in 2007, started an offline “Me Too” campaign to let sex abuse survivors know that they were not alone—actress Alyssa Milano launched this online Me Too campaign to shift the focus from Weinstein to victims. She hoped this would “give people a sense of the magnitude of the problem.”[1] While some posted simply, “Me Too,” others provided wrenching detail about abuse they had sometimes never before shared publicly. In France, a similar social media campaign flourished, under the hashtag “balance ton porc,” loosely translated as “sq…

Comment: Making valid claims in social science research: A comment on Jenness and Calavita

By Tom Tyler, Yale Law School

I am writing to comment on several methodological issues raised by the article by Valerie Jenness and Kitty Calavita, entitled “It depends on the outcome”: Prisoners, grievances, and perceptions of justice”. I am pleased that the methodology blog for Law and Society Review has been created and provides a forum to discuss research design issues. I will address three aspects of the study: operationalization of the variables; statistical analysis; and inclusiveness of the literature review.

The Jenness/Calavita paper studies California prisons using data collected through interviews with prisoners. The paper says that it tests the perceptual procedural justice model, in particular there are frequent references to the Tyler model, in a prison setting. The study concludes that “prisoners privilege the actual outcome of disputes as their barometer of justice” showing “the dominance of substantive outcomes” (from the abstract)”.

I agree with Jenness and Cala…

The Roots of Life Without Parole Sentencing

By Christopher Seeds, New York University



Since the early 1970s, life imprisonment without the possibility of parole (LWOP)—an extreme prison sentence offering no reasonable possibility of release—has emerged as a routine legal sanction and penal practice in the United States. A century, even several decades ago, this would have been unexpected. Yet today, with more than 50,000 prisoners so sentenced and hundreds of laws authorizing it, LWOP is firmly entrenched in American penal policy, in judicial and prosecutorial decisionmaking, and in public discourse. Two general theses—one depicting LWOP as a replacement penalty for capital crimes; another linking LWOP with tough-on-crime sentencing policy of the mass incarceration era—have served as working explanations for this phenomenon. In the absence of in-depth studies, however, there has been little evidence with which to carefully evaluate these narratives.

My article, “Disaggregating LWOP: Life Without Parole, Capital Punishment, and …