Ten years ago there were no faith-based units in prisons outside South America. Today, they are spreading all over the world, including the United States, Europe and the Commonwealth. My Brother's Keeper is the first major study of a global phenomenon. Exploring the roots of faith-based units in South America, it explains why the Prison Service of England and Wales set up the first Christian-based unit in the western world in 1997 - and its rapid expansion. It also explains how, at exactly the same time, the United States introduced Christian-based units - and why they were complimented by interfaith and multifaith initiatives. At the heart of My Brother's Keeper is an interior account of life inside four Christian-based prison units in England. It draws on the findings of a detailed evaluation conducted by the authors for the Home Office, Prison Service and Kainos Community between 2000 and 2001, including an updated reconviction study. It is an authoritative account of an innovative programme. Its analysis of what works and what doesn't in faith-based units around the world makes My Brother's Keeper a valuable roadmap for all who care about improving prison conditions. It presents a vision of justice that is not just concerned with building more prisons but with rebuilding more prisoners. It argues that by making prisons more human and punishment more humane, faith-based units can be of value - and keep faith in prisons.

The most punitive era in American history reached its apex in the 1990s, but the trend has reversed in recent years. Smart on Crime: The Struggle to Build a Better American Penal System examines the factors causing this dramatic turnaround. It relates and echoes the increasing need and desire on the part of actors in the American government system to construct a penal system that is more rational and humane. Author Garrick L. Percival points out that the prison boom did not naturally emerge as a governmental response to increasing crime rates. Instead, political forces actively built and shaped the growth of a more aggressive and populated penal system. He is optimistic that the shifting political forces surrounding crime and punishment can now reform the system, explaining how current political actors can craft more constructive and just policies and programs. The book shows how rationality and humanitarianism lead to a penal system that imprisons fewer people, does less harm to the lives of individual offenders and those close to them, and is less expensive to maintain. The book presents empirical data to concretely demonstrate what is working and what is not in today's penal system. It closely examines policies and practices in Texas, Ohio, and California as comparative illustrations on what progress has been made or needs to be made in penal systems across the United States. The book includes a comprehensive discussion of highlighted issues, and relates more than two dozen interviews with pivotal political actors who clarify why there is a major shift underway in the American penal system. Their insights reveal paths that can be taken to improve the current penal system.

Although the concept of precedent is basic to the operation of the legal system, there has not yet been a full-length empirical study of why U.S. Supreme Court justices have chosen to alter precedent. This book attempts to fill that gap by analyzing those decisions of the Vinson, Warren, and Burger courts, as well as the first six terms of the Rehnquist Court--a span of forty-seven years (1946-1992)--that formally altered precedent. The authors summarize previous studies of precedent and the Court, assess the conference voting of justices, and compile a list of overruling and overruled cases.

Lord Slynn of Hadley is one of the outstanding judges of his time. He has served as a High Court Judge, as an Advocate General and Owa Judge of the European Court of Justice, and he has been a Lord of Appeal for ten years. This Liber Amicorum bears testimony to the international reputation that he has achieved for his judgments and for his scholarship. In the many distinguished contributions, judges from international courts and from Supreme Courts and Constitutional Courts, together with academics from leading universities around the world, have taken the opportunity to celebrate the accomplishments of Lord Slynn's legal career thus far, and also to discuss areas of law where Lord Slynn can be expected to give important impulses to further development. The thirty years of the legal life of Lord Slynn of Hadley (Gordon Slynn as he is known to his friends) have seen remarkable developments and changes in the legal scenery, both domestic (British), and international. This book, by his friends, extends widely. Recollect that there is a separate volume covering the European Court of Justice, and yet there is enough in this publication to celebrate several separate careers. The reader will note that there are contributions from justices of eight Supreme Courts, plus the German Constitutional Court, the Conseil Constitutionel and the European Court of Human Rights, from ten universities, many of them multiple, together with famous institutions and individuals in many different fields. Even Lord Slynn's young lecturer interest in Air Law is reflected by a professional paper on the Law of Space. Many, if not most, of the contributions bear, appropriately, on the question of the role of courts in reviewing actions of the legislature and the executive, but there are also articles to attract other diverse specialists, several, no doubt to Lord Slynn's pleasure, provocative and forward-looking. Lord Slynn is happily still in office, so this is really a "Festschrift" of celebration.

Written for social scientists who study the judiciary, legal scholars, judges, and others who are interested in the workings of the federal courts, this volume offers a comprehensive examination of the role of U.S. magistrates--the relatively invisible subordinate judicial officers within the federal district courts. The study is unique in its use of an observation methodology: the author was able to study U.S. magistrates during all of their daily activities and observe their interactions with other actors in the federal judiciary. Particularly valuable are its insights into such functions as pretrial conferences, meetings with litigants, and other situations normally beyond the purview of scholars and the public. The author focuses throughout on both the development of the magistrates' varied roles and their consequences for the federal judicial system.

After examining magistrates' roles within several representative courts in detail, the author analyzes the factors which influence the development of these diverse roles and identifies the specific effects--both planned and unplanned--that the subordinate judicial officers have upon the court system. Smith refutes a commonly held view that district judges control the definition of magistrates' roles and concludes that in some cases, especially with regard to the coercion of litigants, the magistrate systeM's effects cannot be seen to be completely beneficial. In addition, the book contains an in-depth study of the appointment process for magistrates complete with a case history of the merit selection committee process. The author documents the influence of district judges over the merit selection process, adding concrete support to scholarly arguments about the inherently political nature of judicial selection.

Incarceration Without Conviction addresses an understudied fairness flaw in the criminal justice system. On any given day, approximately 500,000 Americans are in pretrial detention in the US, held in local jails not because they are considered a flight or public safety risk, but because they are poor and cannot afford bail or a bail bond. Over the course of a year, millions of Americans cycle through local jails, most there for anywhere from a few days to a few weeks. These individuals are disproportionately Black and poor. This book draws on extensive legal data to highlight the ways in which pretrial detention drives guilty pleas and thus fuels mass incarceration--and the disproportionate impact on Black Americans. It shows the myriad harms that being detained wreaks on people's lives and well-being, regardless of whether or not those who are detained are ever convicted. Rabinowitz argues that pretrial detention undermines the presumption of innocence in the American criminal justice system and, in so doing, erodes the very meaning of innocence.

This is the first in-depth analysis of the Rehnquist Court viewed as a functional entity. Well known for his work in constitutional law, Stanley Friedelbaum analyzes leading cases and rigorously examines the Court's full opinions. He reviews the interaction between the Justices and points to the patterns of the Court as a new centralist coalition comes to control critical policymaking relating to abortion, the right to die, affirmative action, reverse discrimination, and privacy interests. A table of important cases and a bibliography enhance this short study for general readers and for students in introductory constitutional law courses and in advanced courses in judicial politics and American government.

First Published in 1998. Routledge is an imprint of Taylor & Francis, an informa company.

This book reports on research which investigates the perceptions of ethnic minorities concerning their treatment in the criminal courts. It examines the extent to which ethnic minority defendants and witnesses in both the Crown Court and the magistrates' courts perceived their treatment to have been unfair, whether they believed any unfairness to have been the result of ethnic bias, and whether this had affected their confidence in the criminal courts. The study, carried out by the Oxford Centre for Criminological Research in association with the University of Birmingham for the Lord Chancellor's Department, involved observations of cases and interviews with more than a thousand people (defendants, witnesses, barristers, solicitors, judges, magistrates and others), and focused on courts in Manchester, Birmingham and London. A Fair Hearing? Ethnic minorities in the criminal courts begins by showing how widely held the belief has been that ethnic minorities are discriminated against by the courts and by other agencies in the criminal justice system. It discusses the factors that contributed to this belief, including the findings of the Macpherson Report and the notion of 'institutional racism'. The main part of the book then looks at the institutional setting in which the research took place, the experience of defendants and witnesses, their views about how they were treated by the criminal courts, and the views of others involved in the court process. Final chapters in the book address the issue of sensitivity to ethnicity on the part of judges, magistrates and lawyers. It shows that attitudes and practices are perceived to have changed for the better and examines what more needs to be done to increase the confidence that members of ethnic minorities have in the fairness of the criminal courts.

Asked if the country was governed by a republic or a monarchy, Benjamin Franklin replied, "A republic, if you can keep it." Since its founding, Americans have worked hard to nurture and protect their hard-won democracy. And yet few consider the role of constitutional law in America's survival. In Unfit for Democracy, Stephen Gottlieb argues that constitutional law without a focus on the future of democratic government is incoherent-illogical and contradictory. Approaching the decisions of the Roberts Court from political science, historical, comparative, and legal perspectives, Gottlieb highlights the dangers the court presents by neglecting to interpret the law with an eye towards preserving democracy. A senior scholar of constitutional law, Gottlieb brings a pioneering will to his theoretical and comparative criticism of the Roberts Court. The Roberts Court decisions are not examined in a vacuum but instead viewed in light of constitutional politics in India, South Africa, emerging Eastern European nations, and others. While constitutional decisions abroad have contributed to both the breakdown and strengthening of democratic politics, decisions in the Roberts Court have aggravated the potential destabilizing factors in democratic governments. Ultimately, Unfit for Democracy calls for an interpretation of the Constitution that takes the future of democracy seriously. Gottlieb warns that the Roberts Court's decisions have hurt ordinary Americans economically, politically, and in the criminal process. They have damaged the historic American melting pot, increased the risk of anti-democratic paramilitaries, and clouded the democratic future.

Based on general concepts of collective action, Private Enforcement of Antitrust analyzes how collective litigation mechanisms can be designed to encourage victims of anti-competitive conduct to access justice.Through the expert assessment of the US Federal Courts' case on competition law, alongside that of domestic Europe, Arianna Andreangeli provides a fresh response to the issues surrounding collective litigation. The discussion is skillfully placed in the wider context of competition enforcement, whilst at the same time exploring both past and present trends. The book concludes that collective litigation of competition claims must strike a 'fair balance' between respecting rules of due process and ensuring fuller access to justice. An enlightening perspective, this book will be an invaluable resource for academics and competition civil justice experts. It will also be of interest to practitioners active in competition cases and policy makers concerned with human rights issues. Contents: 1. Setting the scene: European debates on collective Redress in competition law 2. Rule 23 FRCP: 'aggregating' individual antitrust claimants in diffuse injury cases-the certification criteria of commonality , predominance and superiority and the obligation to serve notice 3. 'Managing' antitrust class actions under Rule 23(b)(3) FRCP: who 'plays the pipe'? And who pays the piper? 4. The EU Commission agenda on collective redress: from a 'sector specific' to a mainstream discussion of group justice questions 5. Collective litigation in competition cases in the United Kingdom: between personal autonomy in civil litigation and effective judicial protection 6. Collective litigation and collective redress in competition claims: continental solutions-the case of Italy and of the Netherlands 7. Access to justice, diffuse torts and competition litigation in the EU: where do we go from here? Index

The U.S. Supreme Court is not a unitary actor and it does not function in a vacuum. It is part of an integrated political system in which its decisions and doctrine must be viewed in a broader context. In some areas, the Court is the lead policy maker. In other areas, the Court fills in the gaps of policy created in the legislative and executive branches. In either instance, the Supreme Court's work is influenced by and in turn influences all three branches of the federal government as well as the interests and opinions of the American people. Pacelle analyzes the Court's interaction in the separation of powers system, detailing its relationship to the presidency, Congress, the bureaucracy, public opinion, interest groups, and the vast system of lower courts. The niche the Court occupies and the role it plays in American government reflect aspects of both the legal and political models. The Court has legal duties and obligations as well as some freedom to exercise its collective political will. Too often those studying the Court have examined it in isolation, but this book urges scholars and students alike to think more broadly and situate the highest court as the "balance wheel" in the American system.

He reviled the rich for their cupidity and they found his rhetoric repulsive. Plebians believed him their champion and patricians knew he was their bete noire, remarks Halford Ryan in his eloquent foreword to this definitive survey of Clarence DarroW's development as orator and unique American myth. As a writer, lecturer, debater, and trial lawyer Darrow spoke for the have-nots and cultivated an image of mythic proportions as the underdog's advocate. Many of the more than 2,000 trials in which he was active reflected the major social and philosophical issues of the last quarter of the nineteenth and first third of the twentieth centuries in America. Read today, DarroW's speeches still ring true both as political statements and as models of persuasive pleading and pathos--reason enough to study the work of this uncommon advocate who stood perpetually opposed to the great and powerful of the earth. Richard J. Jensen has written a clearsighted volume that documents how Darrow created and then enlarged his personal myth through speeches, writings, and actions. Each chapter focuses on particular segments of that creation. Half of the book consists of authoritative texts of several of DarroW's most influential and rhetorically brilliant speeches, and a speech chronology simplifies the work of researchers.

The study opens with a brief biography, an overview of DarroW's rhetoric, along with the forces that affected it, and some initial comments on the elements that make up the myth. The next chapter, Schoolmaster of the Courtroom, chronicles the origins of DarroW's image as a defender of the downtrodden and his early trials in defense of labor unions and their leaders. What is considered to be one of the most famous speeches in American legal history, that given by Darrow at the conclusion of the 1924 Leopold and Loeb trial, is the focus of Chapter Three. Chapter Four centers on the Scopes Trial, perhaps the most famous trial in recent American history, during which the dramatic confrontation with William Jennings Bryan occurred. The penultimate chapter explains the arguments Darrow used to defend the poor, radicals, Blacks, and other less fortunate members of society. Finally, DarroW's rhetoric as a writer and as an active speaker and debater on the lecture circuit is examined. Part II contains the authoritative texts of seven speeches including those given during the Leopold and Loeb Trial and the Scopes Trial, among others. The Chronology of Speeches, Bibliography, and Index close the volume. The speeches along with Jensen's intelligent, readable analysis and criticism will be an important resource for those teaching and studying Legal Rhetoric and the History of Public Address.

Court and policy makers have increasingly had to deal with-and sometimes even embrace-technology, from podcasts to the Internet. Televised courtroom broadcasting especially remains an issue. The debate surrounding the US Supreme Court and federal courts, as well as the great disparity between different forms of television courtroom broadcasting, rages on. What are the effects of television courtroom broadcasting? Does research support the arguments for or against? Despite three Supreme Court cases on television courtroom broadcasting, the common thread between the cases has not been highlighted. The Supreme Court in these cases maintains a common theme: there is not a sufficient body of research on the effects of televising courtroom proceedings to resolve the debate in a confident manner.

This book engages with and advances the current debate on new governance by providing a much-needed analysis of its relationship with the courts. New modes of governance have produced a plethora of instruments and actors at various levels that present a challenge to more traditional forms of command-and-control regulation. In this respect, it is commonly maintained that new governance generally - and political experimentation more broadly - weakens the power of the courts, producing a legitimacy problem for new forms of governance and, perhaps more fundamentally, for law itself. Focusing on the European Union, this book offers a new account of the role of the courts in new governance. Connecting new governance with the conception of deliberative democracy, this book demonstrates how the role of courts has been transformed by the legal and political experimentation currently taking place in the European Union. Drawing on a series of case studies, it is argued that, although deliberations in governance frameworks provide little by way of hard, binding law, these collaborative frameworks nevertheless condition judicial decision making. With far-reaching implications for how we understand the justiciability of 'soft law', participation rights, the legitimacy of governance measures, and the role of courts beyond the nation-state, this book argues that, far from undermining the power of the courts, governance regimes assist their functioning. Its analysis will therefore be of considerable interest for lawyers, political scientists and anyone interested in the transformation of the judiciary in the era of new governance.

There are more than 600 Federal district judges serving today, and they decide some 230,000 civil cases each year. About 90% of the decisions they reach are final. Lyles argues that these lower court judges not only influence the flow of information to the judicial hierarchy, but they formulate questions that influence how higher courts, including the Supreme Court, respond. As such they are key elements in the formulation and implementation of public policy. To cite a few examples, they desegregate school districts, run mental institutions and prisons, break up monopolies, and reapportion legislatures. Lyles begins by examining the structure and function of federal courts and detailing the history, operation, and purpose of the district courts. He then turns to the selection, nomination, and appointment of district judges. Lyles then analyzes the extent to which presidents might advance policy objectives through their judicial appointments to the district courts. After examining how African-American, Latino, and white judges, male and female, view their roles as policy actors, Lyles concludes with a discussion of the implications of the study. Important for students and scholars of contemporary public policy and the court system.

The Political Thought of Antonin Scalia: A Hamiltonian on the Supreme Court traces Justice Antonin Scalia's jurisprudence back to the political and constitutional thought of Alexander Hamilton. Not only is there substantial agreement between these two men in the areas of constitutional interpretation, federalism, separation of powers, executive and judicial power, but the two men also have similar temperaments: bold, decisive, and principled. By examining the congruence in thought between Hamilton and Scalia, it is hoped that a better and deeper understanding of Justice Scalia's jurisprudence will be achieved. While an abundance of scholarship has been written on Justice Scalia, no one has systematically examined his political philosophy. This book also draws out the important differences between Justice Scalia's jurisprudence and that of the other conservative members of the Court_the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justices Sandra Day O'Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas.

This book demonstrates the use of the personal computer as an integral component of legal decision making. Nagel begins with an overview of the use of microcomputers as a tool in the legal decision-making process. He reviews in detail the currently available decision-aiding software. Several important areas of decision-making are covered, including predicting the outcome of future cases in light of previous relevant cases and present facts; litigation choices such as whether to go to trial or to settle; allocating attorney resources; and negotiating and mediating. The book can help one's law practice more profitable, less time-consuming, and more competitive.

The U.S. Supreme Court is not a unitary actor and it does not function in a vacuum. It is part of an integrated political system in which its decisions and doctrine must be viewed in a broader context. In some areas, the Court is the lead policy maker. In other areas, the Court fills in the gaps of policy created in the legislative and executive branches. In either instance, the Supreme Court's work is influenced by and in turn influences all three branches of the federal government as well as the interests and opinions of the American people. Pacelle analyzes the Court's interaction in the separation of powers system, detailing its relationship to the presidency, Congress, the bureaucracy, public opinion, interest groups, and the vast system of lower courts. The niche the Court occupies and the role it plays in American government reflect aspects of both the legal and political models. The Court has legal duties and obligations as well as some freedom to exercise its collective political will. Too often those studying the Court have examined it in isolation, but this book urges scholars and students alike to think more broadly and situate the highest court as the "balance wheel" in the American system.

In 2005, the Supreme Court ruled in Kelo v. New London that a city might take property from one private owner and transfer it to another for economic redevelopment. The ruling marked a new interpretation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, and set a precedent which has raised significant questions regarding government takings and property rights. The ruling also reawakened a public interest in private property and created a vicious reaction among many citizens, journalists, academics, and legislators. This book is unique because it offers an in-depth analysis of the case law found in the opinions and decisions of the state and federal courts, but also uses a variety of other sources including the oral argument before the Supreme Court, the amicus curiae briefs, American political and legal history, as well as the personal stories of those involved in the case. This book also analyzes the public backlash from several different perspectives including opinion polls, media coverage, academic articles and commentary, subsequent case law, and legislative action. Finally, this book offers an insightful critique of the case, including what the Supreme Court got wrong, what it got right, and where the law and courts should go from here.

This book is an unconventional reappraisal of Soviet law: a field that is ripe for re-evaluation, now that it is clear of Cold War cobwebs and, as this book shows, and that appears surprisingly topical and newly compelling. Drawing on a wide range of sources - including Russian-language Soviet statues and regulations, jurisprudence and legal theory, English-language 'legal Kremlinology, ' and works of general legal, political, social, and economic theory - this book analyses the central significance of law in the design and operation of Soviet economic, political, and social institutions. In short, Scott Newton argues here that the Soviet order was a work of law. And, in arguing that it was an exemplary, rather than aberrant, case of the uses to which law was put in twentieth century industrialised societies, this book provides an insightful account, not only of the significance of modern law to the Soviet case, but of significance of the Soviet case for modern law

- Provides new Law students with a step-by-step guide to answering a key form of assessment. - Accessibly written so will suit both domestic and international students studying Law for the first time. - Includes extensive pedagogical assistance with tasks to reinforce learning at each step in the process.

In the first part of the 20th century, a group of law scholars offered engaging, and occasionally disconcerting, views on the role of judges and the relationship between law and politics in the United States. These legal realists borrowed methods from the social sciences to carefully study the law as experienced by lawyers, judges, and average citizens and promoted a progressive vision for American law and society. Legal realism investigated the nature of legal reasoning, the purpose of law, and the role of judges. The movement asked questions which reshaped the study of jurisprudence and continue to drive lively debates about the law and politics in classrooms, courtrooms, and even the halls of Congress. This thorough analysis provides an introduction to the ideas, context, and leading personalities of legal realism. It helps situate an important movement in legal theory in the context of American politics and political thought and will be of great interest to students of judicial politics, American constitutional development, and political theory.

The Court's decisions are interpreted and disseminated via the media. During this process, the media paints an image of the Court and its business. Like any artist, the media has license regarding what to cover and the amount of attention devoted to any aspect of the Court and its business. Some cases receive tremendous attention, while others languish on the back pages or are ignored. These selection effects create a skewed picture of the Court and its work, and might affect public attitudes toward the Court. Indeed, studies of media coverage of other governmental institutions reveal that when, and how, their policy decisions are covered has implications for the public's understanding of, compliance with, support for, and cynicism about the policy. This book uncovers and describes this coverage and compares it to the confirmation hearings, the Court's actual work, even its members. Rorie Spill Solberg and Eric N. Waltenburg analyze media coverage of nominations and confirmation hearings, the justices' "extra-curricular" activities and their retirements/deaths, and the Court's opinions, and compare this coverage to analyses of confirmation transcripts and the Court's full docket. Solberg and Waltenburg contend that media now cover the Court and its personnel more similarly to its coverage of other political institutions. Journalists still regurgitate a mythology supported by the justices, a "cult of the robe," wherein unbiased and apolitical judges mechanically base their decisions upon the law and the Constitution. Furthermore, they argue the media also focus on the "cult of personality," wherein the media emphasize certain attributes of the justices and their work to match the public's preferences for subject matter and content. The media's portrayal, then, may undercut the Court's legitimacy and its reservoir of good will.

Charles M. Sevilla finds comic gems in court transcripts and now brings readers a delightful, all-new collection. Starting with a chapter on the defendants (one of whom, when asked his marital status, replies after a long pause, Adequate ) and following with sections on lawyers, experts, witnesses, evidence, and even one called Malaprops (DA: The status of the boat has no relevance to this case at all. This is a total fishing expedition). Stories from the previous books have become viral Internet sensations, priming readers for more legal disorder, such as:

Clerk: Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you are about to given in the cause now pending before this court shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help you God?

Witness: Yes, I swear. I ll say anything but the truth, nothing but the truth."