Zarana Acharya & Dhyey Jani, both 1st -year law Students at the Institute of Law, Nirma University have authored the Article on the topic of Kangaroo courts: When the law takes a Hop, Skip and Jump.
“A kangaroo court is like a game of dice: the outcome is determined not by the evidence, but by the way the dice fall.” – John Grisham
This article discusses the concept of kangaroo courts, which are informal, unauthorized, and often illegal courts. These Courts lack due process, impartiality, and fairness and operate outside the established legal system. The article delves into the various types of kangaroo courts, why they are in the news, the historical and cultural context, the reasons for their establishment, the consequences and impact, prevention and remedies, their relevance to international law and human rights, and so on. It investigates the reasons for the establishment of kangaroo courts, such as a lack of rule of law and the need to resolve grievances or disputes. The article also emphasises the dangers of kangaroo courts, such as abuse of power and undermining democracy. Finally, the article emphasises the importance of preventing the formation of kangaroo courts and ensuring that everyone has access to a fair and impartial legal system.
Introduction – What are Kangaroo Courts?
The term “kangaroo court” is frequently used to describe a court or tribunal that operates outside of the legal system’s norms and standards and is biased towards one party or outcome.
Kangaroo courts are widely regarded as unjust and illegitimate, as they frequently lack the basic safeguards required for a fair trial.
They may, for example, deny the accused the right to legal representation, fail to follow established procedures, or exclude relevant evidence from the case.
They lack the impartiality and procedural safeguards that are required by the rule of law and often result in arbitrary, extrajudicial punishment.
Kangaroo Courts are known for working against the phrase “innocent until proven guilty”.
Origin of the term kangaroo court
The term “kangaroo court” is a colourful piece of American slang that refers to an unfair trial that is conducted in direct opposition to the legal system. It can refer to a trial convened by a self-appointed tribunal that quickly hands down harsh punishments, or it can refer to a clearly biased trial with a predetermined outcome. The charge of referring to a legal trial as a kangaroo court is serious because it implies that the trial was not conducted legally or fairly. The term is not as widely recognised in countries other than the United States.
There are several different explanations for the term, which originated in the United States rather than Australia, the kangaroo’s home. The first is that kangaroos jump to conclusions as quickly as they jump to move. The second theory is that the term is a pun on “claim jumpers,” the people who were most frequently charged in early kangaroo courts.
Characteristics of Kangaroo courts
Kangaroo courts are informal, unauthorized, and often illegal courts that lack due process and operate outside the established legal system. They are characterized by the following features:
- Lack of Independence: Judges and decision-makers are frequently biased, and they may not be impartial or independent. They may have a vested interest in the trial’s outcome or be swayed by others.
- Lack of Transparency: Court proceedings are frequently kept secret, with no public access to or record of the trial. Because of the lack of transparency, it is difficult to challenge or appeal the decision.
- Unfairness: The accused is frequently denied the right to legal representation and a fair hearing. Evidence may be ignored, and the trial’s outcome is frequently predetermined.
- Lack of Accountability: Because judges and decision-makers are frequently not accountable to any higher authority, it is difficult to hold them accountable for any wrongdoing.
- Swift and Harsh Punishments: Kangaroo courts frequently impose swift and harsh punishments, often without regard for the gravity of the crime or the circumstances of the accused.
- Mob Mentality: Rather than pursuing justice, kangaroo courts may be motivated by mob mentality or a desire for vengeance.
Kangaroo courts are not legitimate legal institutions, and their decisions are not legally binding. They are frequently used as oppressive tools by those in power and can result in grave violations of human rights.
Historical and Cultural Context
Kangaroo courts have a long history and can be found in many different cultures around the world. The term “kangaroo court” is thought to have originated in the United States during the California Gold Rush in the mid-nineteenth century. It is believed to have been used to describe makeshift courts set up in mining camps to settle disputes and crimes.
The concept of a non-official court or tribunal operating outside of the legal system, on the other hand, has existed for centuries in many different cultures.
In ancient China, for example, “justice mobs” were formed by local communities to punish individuals deemed a threat to the community. Similarly, “village courts” were established in mediaeval Europe to settle disputes between villagers.
Kangaroo courts have different cultural contexts depending on when and where they are found. They have been used as a form of social control in some cases, allowing those in power to maintain their authority over a specific community. In other cases, marginalised or oppressed groups have used them to seek justice when the official legal system fails to protect them.
Kangaroo courts, for example, have been used in some parts of Africa to deal with issues such as theft and adultery that are deemed too minor to warrant the attention of the official legal system. These courts have been used in some cases to impose traditional forms of justice, such as public shaming or corporal punishment.
Kangaroo courts, on the other hand, have served as a tool of oppression by those in power in other parts of the world. They have been used to punish political dissidents, religious marginalized groups, and other groups seen as a threat to the existing order.
Kangaroo courts have a complex and varied history and cultural context, and their application can have both positive and negative consequences depending on the circumstances. However, they are widely considered a violation of fundamental human rights and are not recognised as legitimate legal institutions.
Reasons for Establishment
Kangaroo courts are usually set up for a variety of reasons, which vary depending on the context and culture of the society in which they exist. Kangaroo courts are commonly used for the following reasons:
- Lack of trust in the official legal system: In some cases, people may establish kangaroo courts as an alternative means of obtaining justice because they believe the official legal system is corrupt, biased, or ineffective.
- Inaccessibility to the official legal system: Some groups, like those in rural or underserved communities, may not have access to the official legal system in some places. As a way to meet these groups’ needs, kangaroo courts might be set up.
- Traditions or cultural practices: Traditional methods of dispute resolution or justice may be favoured over the official legal system in some cultures. To uphold traditional values and practices, kangaroo courts may be established in these instances.
- Political motivations: In some instances, those in power may establish kangaroo courts as a means of maintaining control over a particular population or community. They could be used to silence political dissidents or punish those who challenge the current government.
- Economic motivations: Criminal organizations or other groups with a vested interest in controlling economic activity in a particular area may sometimes establish kangaroo courts. It is possible to extort money or resources from local businesses or individuals through these courts. Revenge or vigilante justice: Kangaroo courts can be set up for retaliation or vigilante justice against people or groups that are seen as a threat to the community in some cases.
It is essential to keep in mind that, despite the fact that kangaroo courts may be established for a variety of motives, they are typically regarded as illegal and a violation of fundamental human rights. They frequently lead to outcomes that are unfair or unjust, and they can have serious negative effects on both individuals and society as a whole.
Consequences and Impact of these Courts
Kangaroo courts can have a number of serious consequences and negative impacts, both for the individuals who are subjected to them and for society as a whole.
- Injustice: The primary result of kangaroo courts is that they frequently produce unfair or unjust outcomes. The accused may be denied a fair trial, legal representation, and the right to present evidence, and harsh punishments may be imposed without due process. This can result in the punishment of innocent people while allowing guilty parties to go free.
- Lack of trust in the legal system: Kangaroo courts undermine the rule of law by eroding trust in the official legal system. If people do not believe that they can get a fair trial in the official legal system, they may be more likely to take matters into their own hands, which can lead to vigilantism and further violence.
- Human rights violations: Kangaroo courts frequently violate fundamental human rights, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to legal representation, and the right to be free of cruel and unusual punishment. These violations can have long-term physical and psychological consequences for those who are subjected to them.
- Inequality perpetuation: Kangaroo courts can be used to keep existing power structures in place and perpetuate inequality. They could be used to target members of marginalised or minority groups while protecting those in power.
- Fear-mongering: The use of kangaroo courts can foster a climate of fear and intimidation, as people may be afraid to speak out or challenge those in power for fear of repercussions.
- Development impediment: The presence of kangaroo courts can deter foreign investment and economic development by creating an unstable and unpredictable legal environment that is unsuitable for business.
To summarise, kangaroo courts can have serious negative consequences for individuals and society as a whole and are widely regarded as a violation of fundamental human rights. Governments and civil society organisations must work together to eliminate these informal and illegal legal systems and promote the rule of law and equal access to justice for all.
Examples of Kangaroo Courts
There are unfortunately many examples of kangaroo courts that have been established in various parts of the world, and some of these include:
- Taliban courts: During their rule in Afghanistan, the Taliban established a court system that was notorious for harsh punishments, a lack of due process, and violations of human rights.
- Mob justice: Mobs may form and establish their own form of justice in many parts of the world when they believe the official legal system has failed them. As a result, kangaroo courts that lack basic legal procedures and protections are common.
- Vigilante justice: Vigilante groups may also set up kangaroo courts to punish individuals deemed a threat to the community. These courts frequently lack due process, which can lead to violence or extrajudicial killings.
- Pirate courts: In some parts of the world, pirate organisations may set up their own courts to settle disputes and enforce their own code of conduct. These courts frequently lack basic legal safeguards and can result in harsh punishments for those found guilty.
- Drug cartels: In some areas where drug cartels wield significant power, they may set up their own courts to settle disputes and punish those who break their rules. These courts are frequently marked by violence and a lack of due process.
Prevention and Remedies.
It is important to prevent the establishment of kangaroo courts in order to promote the rule of law, protect human rights, and ensure that justice is served fairly and equitably. There are several preventive and corrective measures that can be implemented to address this issue, including:
- Strengthening the official legal system: Strengthening the official legal system is one of the best ways to prevent the establishment of kangaroo courts. Investing in legal education and training, increasing resources for courts and legal aid programmes, and promoting transparency and accountability in the justice system are all examples.
- Raising awareness: It is critical to raise public awareness about the dangers of kangaroo courts and the importance of the rule of law. This can be done through public education campaigns, media outreach, and community-based education programmes.
- Legal aid: Legal aid for those who cannot afford it is critical to ensuring that everyone has access to justice. This includes pro bono legal services, legal clinics, and other resources to assist people in navigating the legal system.
- Law enforcement should take action to enforce the law and prosecute those who set up kangaroo courts or participate in their proceedings. This has the potential to send a strong message that these illegal and unjust practices will not be tolerated.
- Human rights protections should be strengthened: Governments should work to strengthen human rights protections, such as the right to a fair trial, the right to legal representation, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. This can help to avoid the formation of kangaroo courts and ensure that justice is served fairly and equitably.
- Civil society organisations should be supported: Civil society organisations can play an important role in promoting the rule of law and protecting human rights. Governments should support these organisations and provide them with the resources they need to carry out their work effectively.
To summarise, preventing the formation of kangaroo courts necessitates a multifaceted approach that includes strengthening the official legal system, raising awareness, providing legal aid, enforcing the law, strengthening human rights protections, and supporting civil society organisations. Governments, civil society organisations, and individuals can work together to ensure that justice is served fairly and equitably for all.
International Law and Human Rights
There are several international legal frameworks that address the issue of kangaroo courts and their impact on human rights. Human rights treaties and international criminal tribunals are examples of these.
Individuals have the right to a fair and impartial trial, the right to legal representation, the right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment, and the right to access to justice, according to human rights treaties such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, among others. These treaties also impose obligations on states to protect these rights and ensure their respect and enforcement.
International criminal tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), have been established to bring individuals to justice for serious international crimes such as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity. These tribunals are critical in holding people accountable for their actions and ensuring that justice is served fairly and equitably.
For example, the ICC has jurisdiction over individuals who commit crimes in countries that have signed the Rome Statute, the treaty that established the ICC. The International Criminal Court (ICC) has the authority to investigate and prosecute people who have committed serious crimes, including those who have established or participated in kangaroo courts that violate human rights.
Additionally, other international criminal tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have played an important role in holding individuals accountable for their actions during conflicts and ensuring that justice is served for victims of human rights abuses.
In summary, the international legal framework around kangaroo courts includes human rights treaties and the role of international criminal tribunals. These legal frameworks establish the rights of individuals to a fair and impartial trial, the right to legal representation, the right to be free from torture and other forms of cruel and degrading treatment, and the right to access justice. International criminal tribunals also play an important role in holding individuals accountable for their actions and ensuring that justice is served fairly and equitably
Why are kangaroo courts in News?
The former Chief Justice of India, N.V. Ramana, claimed that the media holds “kangaroo courts” on issues that even seasoned judges find difficult to decide.
The impact of media trials and coordinated campaigns against judges, particularly on social media, has an impact on how the justice system functions. It is not an easy task to deliver justice. False narratives about judges’ “easy lives” are difficult to accept, according to the CJI.
He claimed that discussions in the media about legal issues that are still being litigated are biased, misinformed, and agenda-driven.
“New media tools have the enormous amplifying ability but appear to be incapable of distinguishing between the right and the wrong, the good and the bad and the real and the fake. Media trials cannot be a guiding factor in deciding cases,” Chief Justice Ramana noted.
The media is not at all objective. This is due to large corporations controlling the media as well as government censorship of the media. Significant funds are spent on retaining employees and acquiring cutting-edge equipment. This expense requires funding. As a result, advertising is a strategy used by the media to generate revenue. Manipulation of news for TRPs is not only financially unethical but also morally and ethically wrong. Certain channels promote hate speech, infringing on citizens’ fundamental right to know the truth through the media. The media is now spreading disinformation, which is unethical. Both the legal and ethical implications are significant.
Recent cases where kangaroo courts played an important role–
There have been several recent cases in India in which kangaroo courts have played an important role. Here are a few examples:
Khap Panchayats: Khap panchayats are community councils that adjudicate disputes and impose social norms in rural India. These councils have been chastised for their lack of objectivity and for imposing oppressive social norms such as honour killings. The Indian Supreme Court issued guidelines in 2018 to govern the operation of khap panchayats, including a prohibition on interfering with the marriage of two consenting adults.
Lynchings: Several lynchings have occurred in India in recent years, with mobs attacking individuals suspected of cow slaughter or other crimes. Local politicians and community leaders have backed the mobs in some of these cases, holding kangaroo courts and imposing punishment without due process.
Maoist Trials: In areas of India where Maoist insurgencies have erupted, security forces have set up special courts to try Maoist suspects. These courts have been chastised for a lack of due process and impartiality, as well as for using torture and other forms of coercion to extract confessions.
Honour Killings: In the case of “honour killings,” family members or community leaders may hold kangaroo courts to try and punish individuals who are perceived to have brought dishonour to their family or community. These courts are frequently held outside of the formal legal system, resulting in extrajudicial punishment.
These recent cases in India highlight the persistent issue of kangaroo courts, which undermine the rule of law and perpetuate human rights violations. It is critical that the Indian government and civil society work together to prevent the establishment of kangaroo courts and ensure that all citizens have access to a fair and impartial legal system.
Landmark judgements related to it at both national and international levels
There have been several landmark judgments related to kangaroo courts, both at the national and international levels. Here are a few examples:
- Vishaka v. Rajasthan State (India, 1997): The Indian Supreme Court issued a landmark decision that established guidelines for the prevention of sexual harassment in the workplace. The judgment held that in cases of sexual harassment, the employer must take appropriate action to redress the grievance and that in the absence of an internal complaint mechanism, the victim can approach a court or other authority. The decision also emphasised the significance of preventing sexual harassment by non-state actors, such as kangaroo courts.
- Thomas Lubanga Dyilo v. The Prosecutor (International Criminal Court, 2012): This case was the first trial held at the International Criminal Court, and the first to consider the crime of enlisting and conscripting child soldiers. The judgement held that the use of child soldiers is a war crime and that the trial of Lubanga was conducted in accordance with international standards of due process
- Germain Katanga v. The Prosecutor (International Criminal Court, 2014): In this case, Germain Katanga, a Congolese warlord, was found guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity. The court ruled that the proceedings against Katanga were conducted in accordance with international due process standards, rejecting claims that the trial was a “show trial” or a kangaroo court.
- State of Maharashtra v. Khushal Rao (India, 1958): The Indian Supreme Court ruled in this landmark case that the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Indian Constitution. The court emphasised the importance of the rule of law, ruling that any proceedings conducted in violation of due process are invalid.
These landmark decisions emphasise the importance of preventing the formation of kangaroo courts and ensuring that all individuals have access to a fair and impartial legal system. The decisions also provide important guidance for preventing human rights violations and prosecuting international crimes.
Kangaroo courts Vs Media trials
Kangaroo courts and media trials are two distinct concepts, but both can have negative consequences for the rule of law and the administration of justice.
The Kangaroo courts are non-judicial, informal proceedings conducted by individuals or groups outside of the formal legal system. They often result in arbitrary, extrajudicial punishment because they lack the impartiality and procedural safeguards required by the rule of law. Kangaroo courts may be established for a variety of reasons, including resolving disputes, enforcing social norms, or exercising vigilante justice.
Media trials, on the other hand, refer to the practice of the media sensationalising or biassing reporting on criminal cases and trials before the cases have been adjudicated in a court of law. This includes prejudicial reporting that assumes the accused’s guilt or innocence and may influence public opinion and the outcome of the trial. Media trials have the potential to undermine the presumption of innocence, violate the right to a fair trial, and harm the reputations of those who are the subject of the reporting.
While both kangaroo courts and media trials can have a negative impact on the administration of justice, their nature and scope are distinct. Kangaroo courts involve the direct imposition of punishment outside of the formal legal system, whereas media trials involve the media’s indirect influence on case adjudication in the formal legal system. Both practices are detrimental to the rule of law and the right to a fair trial, and they can have serious consequences for individuals and society as a whole.
Kangaroo courts, also known as mock courts, are judicial proceedings that are informal, unauthorised, or illegitimate and do not provide fair or impartial hearings. As a result, they are not legally recognised and are frequently used to avoid the proper legal process.
Kangaroo courts are subject to a number of laws and legal principles, including:
- Right to a Fair Trial: Many legal systems, including international human rights law, recognise the right to a fair trial. This includes the right to a fair hearing before a competent and impartial tribunal, as well as the right to be heard and present evidence.
- Due Process: Due process is a fundamental legal principle that requires legal proceedings to be conducted fairly and according to established rules and procedures. This principle ensures that individuals’ rights are not violated without a fair hearing.
- Judicial Independence: The principle of judicial independence states that judges should be free to make decisions without interference or pressure from other branches of government or outside parties. This is critical for maintaining impartiality and fairness in legal proceedings.
- Unauthorized Practice of Law: It is illegal in many jurisdictions to practise law without a licence. This includes posing as a lawyer, giving legal advice, and conducting legal proceedings.
- Contempt of Court: The offence of being disobedient to or disrespectful towards a court of law and its officers is known as contempt of court. Interfering with the administration of justice or the proper functioning of legal proceedings falls under this category.
It is important to note that the laws related to kangaroo courts may vary depending on the jurisdiction and legal system involved.
Future of Kangaroo courts
The future of kangaroo courts is uncertain and is heavily influenced by a variety of factors, including the strength of the established legal system, the political and social environment, and actions taken by authorities to prevent their emergence and growth.
Kangaroo courts may continue to operate in some regions or countries due to poor governance, a lack of access to justice, or widespread corruption. This can lead to a situation in which people seek justice through these courts despite being aware of their illegitimacy and lack of credibility.
However, increased awareness, education, and access to justice may cause people to be less willing to rely on kangaroo courts and instead demand fair and impartial justice through legitimate legal systems. Authorities must commit to improving access to justice, promoting the rule of law, and ensuring that the existing legal system is strong and effective.
Finally, the future of kangaroo courts is dependent on society, the legal profession, and authorities working together to address the underlying factors that contribute to their emergence and growth, as well as to ensure that the principles of fairness, impartiality and due process are upheld in all legal proceedings.
There is a need for strict laws to prevent and punish those who operate kangaroo courts, as these institutions pose a serious threat to the rule of law and the principles of justice and fairness.
Some countries have laws in place that make it illegal to set up and operate kangaroo courts, with penalties ranging from fines to imprisonment. However, enforcing these laws can be difficult, especially in areas where the government’s authority is weak or there is widespread corruption.
To ensure that laws prohibiting kangaroo courts are effective, law enforcement agencies must be adequately trained and resourced to detect and prosecute those who operate these courts. Furthermore, public awareness campaigns can be carried out to educate people about the risks of using kangaroo courts and the importance of seeking justice through legitimate legal systems.
In addition to strict laws, it is critical to address the underlying causes of the emergence and growth of kangaroo courts, such as poverty, a lack of access to justice, and poor governance. This necessitates a multifaceted approach that includes steps to improve access to justice, strengthen the legal system, and promote human rights.
In conclusion, strict laws are required to prevent and punish those who operate kangaroo courts; however, these laws must be accompanied by effective enforcement and comprehensive efforts to address the underlying factors that contribute to their emergence and growth.
Kangaroo Courts are unjust and unfair trials which are still functional in various parts of the world. Kangaroo Courts work on the principle that contradicts Democratic policy. It is a major threat to society.
Kangaroo courts can have a significant and negative impact on the current judicial system.
Firstly, kangaroo courts have the potential to undermine the legitimacy of the existing legal system by eroding public trust in the judiciary. If people believe they cannot obtain justice through the established system, they may turn to alternative forms of justice, which can erode the rule of law even further.
Secondly, kangaroo courts can perpetuate injustices by depriving people of fundamental rights such as the right to a fair trial, legal representation, and the presumption of innocence. This can result in wrongful convictions and other types of human rights violations.
Thirdly, the presence of kangaroo courts can lead to a breakdown in social law and order. Individuals and groups may resort to vigilante justice in the absence of a legitimate and effective legal system, which can further destabilise communities and exacerbate conflicts.
In conclusion, kangaroo courts have a negative impact on the current judicial system because they can undermine the rule of law, perpetuate injustices, and lead to the breakdown of law and order in society. As a result, it is critical to ensure that the existing legal system is strong, fair, and impartial, with strong safeguards and protections in place to prevent the emergence of alternative forms of justice.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) about Kangaroo Courts
Q: What is a kangaroo court?
A: A kangaroo court is a mock court or a court that operates without regard for fairness or justice, often characterized by being biased, predetermined, or corrupt. It is typically used to give the appearance of a fair trial, but the outcome is already predetermined.
Q: Where did the term “kangaroo court” come from?
A: The origin of the term “kangaroo court” is uncertain, but it is believed to have originated in the American Wild West during the mid-19th century. Some historians suggest that it may have originated from the way kangaroos hop around aimlessly, symbolizing the chaotic and disorganized nature of a biased court.
Q: Why are kangaroo courts unfair?
A: Kangaroo courts are unfair because they do not follow established legal procedures or principles of fairness. They often deny defendants the right to a fair trial, the presumption of innocence, and the right to defend themselves. They are usually set up to achieve a predetermined outcome, often to punish someone for something they didn’t do or for an unfair reason.
Q: Who typically runs kangaroo courts?
A: Kangaroo courts can be run by any group or individual who has the power or authority to do so. They can be run by criminal organizations, political parties, or even government officials who want to punish someone without going through the proper legal channels.
Q: What are some examples of kangaroo courts?
A: Some examples of kangaroo courts include lynch mobs, military tribunals that do not follow due process, and workplace tribunals that are set up to target employees unfairly. They can also occur in authoritarian regimes or countries where the judiciary is not independent, and the legal system is used to suppress dissent or punish political opponents.
Q: What can be done to prevent kangaroo courts?
A: To prevent kangaroo courts, it is essential to uphold the rule of law, protect individual rights, and ensure that the legal system operates independently and fairly. This requires the establishment of an independent judiciary, the protection of freedom of speech, and the enforcement of laws that prohibit the abuse of power or corruption. It is also important to raise awareness of the dangers of kangaroo courts and to advocate for justice and fairness in all legal proceedings.
- Vishaka v. Rajasthan State, AIR 1997 SC 3011 (India 1997).
- Thomas Lubanga Dyilo v. The Prosecutor, ICC-01/04-01/06, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (International Criminal Court, Trial Chamber I, March 14, 2012).
- Germain Katanga v. The Prosecutor, ICC-01/04-01/07, Judgment Pursuant to Article 74 of the Statute (International Criminal Court, Trial Chamber II, March 7, 2014).
- State of Maharashtra v. Khushal Rao, AIR 1958 SC 22 (India 1958).
- Indian Express, “What is a kangaroo court?”, Everyday Explainers (June 22, 2021), https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/everyday-explainers/kangaroo-court-meaning-phrase-8057627/.
- The Hindu, “Media is running kangaroo court: CJI”, National News (September 15, 2021), https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/media-is-running-kangaroo-court-cji/article65673959.ece.
- Benjamin Levin, “Kangaroo Court”, 134 Harv. L. Rev. 965 (2021), https://harvardlawreview.org/2021/02/kangaroo-court/.