A must-read for 1Ls - 'Rich in anecdote and historical detail, it explains how laws - from the Constitution to decisions of local zoning boards - are made and administered by courts and administrative agencies. It also surveys the wide variety of law: antitrust, criminal justice, family law, torts, consumer protection, and commercial law, and explores the relationship between law and society.'

If you want a reasonably good understanding of the what, how, and why of the American legal system without having to go to law and grad school, this is the book for you. Friedman, in just over 300 pages of text, manages to cover the entire field of law in America, from legislation through administration to judgment, from the workings of the local sewer district to the trappings of the Supreme Court.

Friedman is a renowned legal scholar, but this should not scare away the legal neophyte. He has done a remarkable thing for a renowned scholar to do -- he has written an introduction that truly is an introduction! The writing is clear, straightforward, and devoid of all but the most essential legal jargon, and, when the jargon is unavoidable, it is clearly explained. Further, the book is notable for its lack of endless recitation of court decisions. While Friedman disscusses most of the important cases, he does not expect the reader to slog through them. And he is excellent at connecting the cases -- and the law in general -- to real-life events easily within the experience of ordinary people.

If you are already familiar with American law you will probably learn nothing new here. It is, nevertheless, a good, refreshing read. Finally, for those of us that teach in this area, particularly in undergraduate education, this is an excellent teaching book.

Friedman's survey of 20th Century American Law is an accessible, enjoyable read. The reader untrained in constitutional law, however, should note the following remarks with care.

This is not an objective survey of 20th Century American Law. It is, in my view, but a legal commentary written with an unabashed political slant - a slant that Friedman makes no attempt whatsoever to hide - that undermines the credibility of its author entirely. (I recently read a review by Elaine Cassell of this piece, in which she refers to this commentary as a "treatise." That comment is, to put is mildly, laughable. Cassell's glowing review as a whole is, of course, merely an approval of Friedman's politics rather than an appraisal of its scholarly value) Make no mistake, Friedman has every right to write such a book, and perhaps I didn't research the book thoroughly enough prior to my purchasing it (mine was encased suspiciously in shrink-wrap on the shelf, by the way, and the scholarly-looking cover bears no information whatsoever about the book's substance), but I received a clear impression that this was a book of legal history (i.e., an objective (and probably dry) assessment of legal development in 20th Century America) when I bought it.

To the contrary, this book is positively dripping with sarcasm throughout, be it when Friedman rips into various unnamed constitutional scholars (i.e., anti-intellectual cheap-shots), when he unashamedly mocks the role of traditional homemakers (evidently not one of Friedman's target audiences), or when he gleefully points out whenever Congress reacts to Supreme Court decisions he doesn't like by (gasp!) legislating (evidencing Friedman's eerie contempt for our system of government, that is, our representative democracy and its written Constitution).

To be sure, this book only accomplishes in cultivating the notion that the Supreme Court sits as some sort of "super-legislature" with Platonic Guardian-like wisdom (to borrow Judge Learned Hand's description) and power to make laws where democratic processes fall short. Friedman's thinking, while morally splendid from a relativist perspective, simply ensures the continuous politicization of the Judiciary. While such is indeed instant gratification for righting societal moral ills (i.e., effectuating social justice in the eyes of (at best) nine Justices), one cannot help but wonder where this usurpation of legislative power will end. People like Lawrence Friedman ensure that it never will.

What made this all rather offensive to me is that anyone simply looking to pick up a comprehensive book on 20th Century American Law might grab this one assuming, as I certainly did, that it would reflect a sober survey of the legal developments of the United States during the 20th Century. A "treatise" this book is woefully not. Despite Friedman's utter lack of restraint, the book is, again, a very easy, enjoyable, albeit quasi-educational, read. Let the reader beware, however, that one receives only the bits and pieces Friedman wants you to receive, and that, for a more complete and educational account of 20th Century American Law, one will need to purchase another book (to his credit, Friedman does supply an absolutely fabulous bibliography in the rear of the book for, perhaps, precisely that reason).

Mr. Friedman has written the excellent follow up to his "classic" history of American law. I'd recommend the first book, if it's still in print, and if not check the used book sites.

Due to a somewhat nasty review by an Amazon customer - probably some obscure and jealous colleague of Lawrence Friedman's, angry at the writer's success - I hesitated to purchase the book. I have a PhD. in law and a Master's degree from Georgetown law but I still learned a lot and I enjoyed every chapter, paragraph and line. Friedman's erudition and mastery of the subject is obvious. He writes clearly, eloquently and is never boring. His tongue in cheek systematic use of the feminine is pleasantly ironic. He keeps referring to a hypothetic lawyer as "she" instead of the politically correct and tedious "he or she".
From the point of view of a civil law lawyer (or indeed anyone wanting to learn more about the American legal system) this book is compulsory reading. Friedman's assumption that laws are shaped by society and its changes may be discussed and some of his views one may or may not agree with. But that is irrelevant, because here are 607 seven pages of superb quality and interest. ...

Professor Friedman's book is subtitled "A Short History" of American Law. The book does indeed take a historical approach, but its subject is more the nature of American law than its detailed history. Professor Friedman describes how our law has become what it is and the sources of change in the law.

The theme of his book is that law follows social and economic changes. It responds to the needs that people in society assert. At the beginning of the 21st Century, we live in a large, pluralistic, technologicaly complex, impersonal and interdependent country. We are all dependent upon the actions of other people whom we don't know and don't control to meet even the most basic needs of our daily lives. The growing complexity and bulk of our laws, in economic relations, family law, criminal law and much else changes in response to social needs and mores. In addition, there has been a move towards centalization -- for people to look to the Federal government as a source of law and as an aggresive participant in social change and in the satisfaction of needs.

Given his basic claim that law follows society, Professor Friedman provides a short, useful, overview of law in the colonial period pointing out how societies were smaller, more homogeneous in terms of culture and religion and more able to use more intimate, so to speak, forms of social control than those available to the current administrative state. He follows this with a good discussion of law and economics which suggests how and why the focus of tort law has changed from protecting growing business to protecting workers. A section on family law explores the effect of changing sexual mores, among other matters, on the nature of law. There is a discussion of the changing nature of race relations and of the role of the modern large welfare state.

The book is clearly written. It is thoughtful and provocative in that Professor Friedman sets out a thesis and proceeds to expound and defend it in his exposition of American law. His book is not and does not purport to be a full, complete treatment of American legal history. It is possible too that the nature of legal change and the interrelationship between law and social change is more complex and multi-layered than the book takes it to be. This book is a short, good introduction to American law which should stimulate the reader in his or her own thinking.

It is the first book I read about law. I borrowed this book from library just want to know a little about law. But it turns out that I really like it and I decided to buy it. I think it make me think a lot about the law itself and the culture of the law and make the law. The only shortcoming is I think it could better if it explains a little more context for each important case. That can help me understand the issue and the background.

Supposing that this book would be another one of those banal Law 101 type of introductory text books, I proved myself wrong by breezing through the entire book within one day. I simply couldn't put the well written book down. By well written, I meant that the author really mastered in organizing the book so it is easily followed and comprehended, and in eliminating the jargon, the unnessary legal structures, and case studies that could only confuse the readers. Upon finshing the book, I not only learned about the infrastructure of the American legal/judicial systems and their development concisely, but also was educated on the very socio-cultural environment, the one and the only american society, this system was conceived and nurtured in.

This is one long book (>700pgs). Unless you really have the time for it you might want to pass. It ate up alot of my free time.

Otherwise, I have found it to be a great intro for all sorts of (unsophisticated) legal lingo. Also a good base from which to build further legal knowledge. Friedman keeps what could be a miserable topic lively and engrossing with his prose. I will say that some of the chapter sections just can't be rescued - i was still bored. It's no one's fault but my own though. Colonial legal economics (among other topics) just aren't my thing.

Overall: thumbs up.

Though I have some reservations, I give this tome four stars, mainly because I do not want to discourage anyone from buying it, seeming as it does to have no better rival on the market.

But perhaps my criticisms are only petty: for one, I found the author's near-total neglect of the law vis-à-vis Native Americans an egregious oversight; for another, his increasing catankerousness as the book progressed put me off some; also, his occasional facetiousness was, at least for me, disproportionately maddening (e.g., "The blacks, for example, had rudely taken over, with hardly a thank-you, the job of their own liberation" (p. 680)).

So, overall, I'd have to say this book is definitely worth your while. But beware--it is by no means a definitive, comprehensive, or flawless exposition, only a starting point, and occasionally annoying (if generally very well-written) at that.

I read this book prior to starting law school. It is the best introduction to the history of American law, and to the law in general. Too many lawyers look at law as a trade, and have no perspective into why or how the law has developed and evolved as it has. This hefty volume goes a long way to remedy that shortcoming. In spite of its academic rigor, it is very readable and clear.

This is not a history book; it is one long editorial for a left wing view of the criminal justice system. Even when I agreed with Friedman's views, I found his repetitive political claims, given with no factual support, frustrating in a book supposedly reviewing how we got here. Even when Friedman discussed history, he does so without objective support.

Typically, Frieman cites some broad principal and then "proves" it with a single anecdote. Thus, e.g. he claims that police generally "believe in fighting fire with fire", stating "Police brutality was part of a more general system of police power. It rested on a simple credo: the battalions of law and order had the right, if not the duty, to be tough as nails with criminals. Force was the only language the criminal understood." (Pg. 361).

Now, this may very well be a true statement (although again typically Friedman is not clear as to the time period in our history for which he is making the claim) but it is hardly proven as a general proposition by the evidence that Friedman provides: a single story about a street cop named McCloy who in December 1914 in Brooklyn apparently knocked out an "eighteen-year old no-good" named Peter Gaimano with McCloy's nightstick after Gaimano struck at the officer with a blackjack and ran.

The book goes on for almost 500 pages in this vein, along the way making clear Friedman's hostility to criminal prosecutions of almost every kind. Through it all, he offers no alternatives to the systems that he deplores.

Whatever, if the reader is looking for history (as versus social commentary), I strongly recommend you look elsewhere.

"Crime and Punishment in American History", by Lawrence Friedman, was definitely interesting and thought-provoking. It is just technical enough in detail and substance to give an intimate feel for the specifics of the subject matter, but still geared enough toward the more uninitiated in the field of criminal justice (such as myself) so as to not come off as boorish or formidable. Friedman does an excellent job of documenting the evolution of American criminal justice, both the mechanics of law and punishment, and also the cultural motivations behind the evolution. In places, especially towards the end of the book where he deals with 20th century material, he seems to display somewhat of a "ho-hum" attitude towards the licentiousness that has pervaded American society, especially in his exultations that the laws against "victimless" crimes are being repealed. He also has a low-level, pervasive theme of class struggle as a root of criminal injustices which tends towards socialism. All in all, however, a good read despite the occasional leftist aside. I recommend it to anyone interested in the social sciences, even if these are not your primary field of study.