|
Showing 1 - 5 of
5 matches in All Departments
A law professor and former prosecutor reveals how inconsistent
ideas about violence, enshrined in law, are at the root of the
problems that plague our entire criminal justice system-from mass
incarceration to police brutality. We take for granted that some
crimes are violent and others aren't. But how do we decide what
counts as a violent act? David Alan Sklansky argues that legal
notions about violence-its definition, causes, and moral
significance-are functions of political choices, not eternal
truths. And these choices are central to failures of our criminal
justice system. The common distinction between violent and
nonviolent acts, for example, played virtually no role in criminal
law before the latter half of the twentieth century. Yet to this
day, with more crimes than ever called "violent," this distinction
determines how we judge the seriousness of an offense, as well as
the perpetrator's debt and danger to society. Similarly, criminal
law today treats violence as a pathology of individual character.
But in other areas of law, including the procedural law that covers
police conduct, the situational context of violence carries more
weight. The result of these inconsistencies, and of society's
unique fear of violence since the 1960s, has been an application of
law that reinforces inequities of race and class, undermining law's
legitimacy. A Pattern of Violence shows that novel legal
philosophies of violence have motivated mass incarceration, blunted
efforts to hold police accountable, constrained responses to sexual
assault and domestic abuse, pushed juvenile offenders into adult
prisons, encouraged toleration of prison violence, and limited
responses to mass shootings. Reforming legal notions of violence is
therefore an essential step toward justice.
Everyone is for "democratic policing"; everyone is against a
"police state." But what do those terms mean, and what should they
mean? The first half of this book traces the connections between
the changing conceptions of American democracy over the past
half-century and the roughly contemporaneous shifts in ideas about
the police—linking, on the one hand, the downfall of democratic
pluralism and the growing popularity of participatory and
deliberative democracy with, on the other hand, the shift away from
the post-war model of professional law enforcement and the movement
toward a new orthodoxy of community policing. The second half of
the book explores how a richer set of ideas about policing might
change our thinking about a range of problems and controversies
associated with the police, ranging from racial profiling and the
proliferation of private security, to affirmative action and the
internal governance of law enforcement agencies.
Everyone is for "democratic policing"; everyone is against a
"police state." But what do those terms mean, and what should they
mean? The first half of this book traces the connections between
the changing conceptions of American democracy over the past
half-century and the roughly contemporaneous shifts in ideas about
the police-linking, on the one hand, the downfall of democratic
pluralism and the growing popularity of participatory and
deliberative democracy with, on the other hand, the shift away from
the post-war model of professional law enforcement and the movement
toward a new orthodoxy of community policing. The second half of
the book explores how a richer set of ideas about policing might
change our thinking about a range of problems and controversies
associated with the police, ranging from racial profiling and the
proliferation of private security, to affirmative action and the
internal governance of law enforcement agencies.
Focusing on the relationship between prosecutors and democracy,
this volume throws light on key questions about prosecutors and the
role they should play in liberal self-government. Internationally
distinguished scholars discuss how prosecutors can strengthen
democracy, how they sometimes undermine it, and why it has proven
so challenging to hold prosecutors accountable while insulating
them from politics. The contributors explore the different ways
legal systems have addressed that challenge in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and continental Europe. Contrasting those
strategies allows an assessment of their relative strengths - and a
richer understanding of the contested connections between law and
democratic politics. Chapters are in explicit conversation with
each other, facilitating comparison and deepening the analysis.
This is an important new resource for legal scholars and reformers,
political philosophers, and social scientists.
Focusing on the relationship between prosecutors and democracy,
this volume throws light on key questions about prosecutors and the
role they should play in liberal self-government. Internationally
distinguished scholars discuss how prosecutors can strengthen
democracy, how they sometimes undermine it, and why it has proven
so challenging to hold prosecutors accountable while insulating
them from politics. The contributors explore the different ways
legal systems have addressed that challenge in the United States,
the United Kingdom, and continental Europe. Contrasting those
strategies allows an assessment of their relative strengths - and a
richer understanding of the contested connections between law and
democratic politics. Chapters are in explicit conversation with
each other, facilitating comparison and deepening the analysis.
This is an important new resource for legal scholars and reformers,
political philosophers, and social scientists.
|
|