Last year, I queried whether there would be an 8th Annual Jdog award.
This marks the 7th year of the Best Criminal Law Blawg Post, and there was a very serious question of whether the crim law blawgosphere would have the legs to make it this far. So many of the blawgs that existed when the contest began have since gone dormant that it seemed, at the time, that there would be little left from which to choose.
As it turns out, there is not only life remaining in the criminal law blawgosphere, but some damn fine writing out there, as reflected in the nominations (as well as some truly excellent criminal law blogs that, inexplicably, didn’t muster a nomination but are still doing great work).
The same was true this year, but a different issue arose. While the problem with criminal law blawgs fading into the sunset was disturbing, and for those of you who wondered why Fault Lines exists, you might want to noodle this a bit, this year was shy of nominations.
There was a grand total of 22 posts nominated. Of those, all but five were on Fault Lines. Of the nominated posts, not one came from a prior Jdog winner. What this means isn’t entirely clear, but it certainly doesn’t speak of a healthy and diverse blawgosphere.
It seems most likely that the robust criminal law community that once existed is gone. Whether that means the blawgers of old are no longer interested, or have burned out, or have said all they have to say, or didn’t get the return on investment they anticipated, I dunno. Each may have their own reasons, and some may overlap while others may be unique.
But that doesn’t mean there haven’t been great posts in the past year, even if the bulk nominated here come from what would best be described as my children. As managing editor of Fault Lines, I’m probably the only person who has read every post there. Each one is like a child to me, even though someone else wrote it. How does one pick between children?
Beyond Fault Lines, there remain posts worthy of your time and effort. I know I read them, and think about them, and occasionally pine for the fact that someone else wrote them when I wish I did. The vitality of the crim law blawgosphere may have contracted greatly, but the depth of thought of those who remain is as strong as ever. Do you still read them? Do you still care?
It takes two to tango, kids, and while the writers who provide you free insight are doing the heavy lifting here, often with little to show for it beyond a brilliant blog post, it takes people interested in reading the post, in thinking about the post, to complete the process.
The Jdog Prize is about more than giving out an award. It’s an opportunity to create a reader-generated list of great posts to read, and an opportunity for reader feedback. From my side, it’s an opportunity to take the temperature of the blawgosphere. It used to be on fire. Now, it’s on life support.
When mommy blogs can review their 497th baby stroller and get 3 million reads, but an analysis of a Supreme Court opinion barely interests 10,000 readers, it’s a problem. When lawyers will flock to figure out which logo will make them filthy rich, but can’t be bothered to give a damn about a Chicago cop mowing down a kid in the street, it’s a problem.
To be even more blunt than usual, if you don’t support the lawyers and judges who take the time to write, your only source of legal information and analysis will be 22-year-old humanities majors with far deeper political agendas than legal knowledge and experience writing for “credible” internet soapboxes for minimum wage, yet cited as if they have a clue what they’re talking about. You will be made stupider, even if it will validate your feelz.
That there were only 22 posts nominated out of hundreds? Well…
You might be thinking right about now (if not a lot earlier), when is he going to get to the Best Criminal Law Blawg Post of 2016 already? And so I will, now that I’ve gotten that off my chest.
This year’s Jdog Prize goes in a different direction than any of its predecessors. It’s hard, almost impossible, for a criminal defense lawyer to adequately appreciate posts with which he disagrees. As my pal Orin explained, brilliant people agree with me. Thus, when I don’t necessarily agree with a post, it must not be brilliant. But of course, that’s not the case at all.
This year’s winner is someone who has worked exceptionally hard to make his point, even when he knows that most readers will rip him to shreds because they won’t agree with his outcome. His reasoning may require more of an open mind than many of us can muster, and regularly flies against some strongly held beliefs. Yet, he has persisted in the face of some very harsh challenges, and done so with humor and grace.
The winner of the 2016 Jdog Prize for Best Criminal Law Blawg Post is Delaware County, Ohio, prosecuting attorney Andrew King.
Congratulations, Andrew. You earned this prize, and my gratitude for your fortitude and efforts.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Kudos to Andrew!
Well earned and may your prose be as plentiful this year as last!
The same applies to the mean a** editor as well!
Happy New Year to all!
You’re allowed to write “ass” here. Just in case you want to.
I respectfully submit the criminal law blawgosphere isn’t on life support. It’s just transformed into a monstrous beast called Fault Lines.
And a former winner (Gamso) was the very first nominee this year, even if it was a Fault Lines post. While there were other nominees, it can’t be helped you found a bunch of mad, passionate, educated folks who gave a damn and created a monster that is the one-stop shop for the best legal analysis on the web. As long as Fault Lines exists, the most nominations are going to come from Fault Lines, because that’s where the best stuff is.
As to the current winner, what a way to start off 2017 than to give the Jdog to the Heat Magnet. Giving a prosecutor the one award for criminal law blawging worth a damn forces me to actually say something nice about Andrew King. I can only fall back on the words of Buddy Rogers as the bile rises in my throat:
“To a nicer guy, it couldn’t happen.”
Even monsters need to be fed.
All the posts were quite worthy. Congrats to Andrew.
I do have to take exception to the idea that you’re the only person who’s read every post on Fault Lines. There are more of us out there than you think.
Happy New Year!
A credit to the prosecutor’s table if there ever was one. Congratulations Andrew.
I trust you will use this new found fame and fortune to set up shoe donation collection boxes for public defenders across the nation.
P.S. Blawging isn’t dead esteemed one. In fact in 2017 I predict that one or two prosecutors will lay down their thoughts about why the strategies that they deploy to resist the temptation to roll their eyes at “rouge” members of a grand jury are nearly as effective as “the stare”.
Fold that in with one or two posts from the basement of the bar about why it is more fun to drink beer with bailiffs as oposed to judges and it’s off to the races.
That should lock it up even without the anticipated shoe size discussions surrounding the next supreme and if “it” is a she wheather or not she had a poster of Margaret Thatcher in her dorm room.
But even then, if numbers don’t come in as projected, all it will take is some solid posts about discovery or the lack there of this spring to get peoples feelzs working enough to Google appellate jurisdiction.
Meanwhile the oozing preponderance of queasy quandary will keep grinding on because people want them some “justice”.
Simple really …
Mirriam Seddiq tweeted up a storm about you destroying the blawgosphere. [Ed. Note: Link deleted per rules.]
“You want a healthy and diverse blawgosphere, stop being an asshole to young lawyers. Stop acting like you discovered the law.”
“Emails berating you for not linking to a blog post they wrote before you even became a lawyer.”
Looks like you sent her a mean email and hurt her feelings.
Perhaps she’s talking about someone else, since there was no email. Or perhaps she’s confused. Beats me. If she wants to write, she doesn’t, and shouldn’t, need my approval.
There’s a difference between being blunt and being an asshole. Unfortunately, some folks can’t see that difference.
If there was something to see, then it might be an issue. If there’s nothing to see, then it’s not.
That’s what was odd. I couldn’t understand why you would care at all, no less care enough to berate her. Unlike Billy Bob, I didn’t find her feelings interesting at all, and even when she mentioned law, it was only about her feelings about the law.
The beauty of blogging is that you can write about whatever you want, without anyone’s approval. If you don’t care for it, you don’t have to read it.
Seems to me she’s got some daddy thing going with you, seeking your approval. For someone who want to play tough online, it doesn’t get more fragile than this. Nothing like a tough poseur whining about not getting a tummy rub.
I have kids. I’m not in the market for any more. Wouldn’t it be nice if you congratulated Andrew instead of going down this rabbit hole?
You’re right. Congratulations, Andrew. Sorry.
Who is Mirriam Seddiq, and whom does she think discovered the law?
A young criminal defense and immigration lawyer. As for discovering the law, I have no better idea than you do what that means.
Young? Don’t think she’s that young, but probably younger than you. Seems like she went on an hour-long rant yesterday in between cooking in her new clay pot and tweeting about recipes. Not clear who or what set her off. It coulda been anyone or anything? Her fifth entry in the series ends, “Hi new followers. I think most of you are going to be disappointed. Seriously.” CVC = Clever, very clever!
She got a lot of Likes on that one. We hate it when that happens. The disappointments, that is. Everybody hates disappointments. Especially if you’re a lawyer, especially if you lose in court. However, jumping into her blawg, somewhat randomly, we are not disappointed. Mirriam writes a mean blawg. We have no difficulty relating and/or empathizing. Come to think, we like her blawg, always did. We drifted away, and now we’re back for more punishment. But not Life without Parole!
Maybe she ate some bad food. Maybe she had too much time on her hands yesterday? The First can be a slow day, if you don’t watch football. Everything is closed, except the ski slopes and the Pakistani convenience stores. She could use a “proof reader”/editor; however, even blawgers are entitled to the occasional slip-up and/or temper tantrum.
Young is relative. That’s nice that you enjoy her blog.
Congrats to Andrew – Even though he’s wrong about almost everything.
I remember, he slipped up once and was on the right side (and against Bill Otis and Paul Cassell), which proves there’s still good in him.
Why I said “almost everything.”