Lawyers use non-trial advocacy skills in court for pre- and post-trial submissions. They are easier to learn than trial advocacy skills, and are much more relevant to the work of most new lawyers. This book examines all key aspects of criminal and civil non-trial advocacy, including bail applications, pleas in mitigation and interim applications made during the course of civil actions. Readers will learn the strategies and techniques of non-trial advocacy through seven realistic case studies: the lawyers involved discuss their strategies and deliver their arguments; the judge makes a decision; and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments are then analyzed. With this innovative, case study approach to teaching advocacy skills, Non-Trial Advocacy provides an insight into how lawyers think and how they translate their strategies into courtroom action. The book concludes with a discussion of ethical conflicts involved in the practice of advocacy and how these affect the quality of lawyers' work in this field.

Lawyers use non-trial advocacy skills in court for pre- and post-trial submissions. They are easier to learn than trial advocacy skills, and are much more relevant to the work of most new lawyers. This book examines all key aspects of criminal and civil non-trial advocacy, including bail applications, pleas in mitigation and interim applications made during the course of civil actions. Readers will learn the strategies and techniques of non-trial advocacy through seven realistic case studies: the lawyers involved discuss their strategies and deliver their arguments; the judge makes a decision; and the strengths and weaknesses of the arguments are then analyzed. With this innovative, case study approach to teaching advocacy skills, Non-Trial Advocacy provides an insight into how lawyers think and how they translate their strategies into courtroom action. The book concludes with a discussion of ethical conflicts involved in the practice of advocacy and how these affect the quality of lawyers' work in this field.

Most people strongly condemn terrorism; yet they often fail to say how terrorist acts differ from other acts of violence such as the killing of civilians in war. Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we focus on terrorism alone and neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. His book challenges influential views on the ethics of war, including the realist view that morality does not apply to war, and Michael Walzer's defence of attacks on civilians in 'supreme emergency' circumstances. It provides a clear definition of terrorism, an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity, as well as discussions of the Allied bombings of cities in World War II, collateral damage, and the clash between rights theories and utilitarianism. It will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, international relations and law.

Most people strongly condemn terrorism; yet they often fail to say how terrorist acts differ from other acts of violence such as the killing of civilians in war. Stephen Nathanson argues that we cannot have morally credible views about terrorism if we focus on terrorism alone and neglect broader issues about the ethics of war. His book challenges influential views on the ethics of war, including the realist view that morality does not apply to war, and Michael Walzer's defence of attacks on civilians in 'supreme emergency' circumstances. It provides a clear definition of terrorism, an analysis of what makes terrorism morally wrong, and a rule-utilitarian defence of noncombatant immunity, as well as discussions of the Allied bombings of cities in World War II, collateral damage, and the clash between rights theories and utilitarianism. It will interest a wide range of readers in philosophy, political theory, international relations and law.

Stephen Nathanson's clear-sighted abridgment of Principles of Political Economy , Mill's first major work in moral and political philosophy, provides a challenging, sometimes surprising account of Mill's views on many important topics: socialism, population, the status of women, the cultural bases of economic productivity, the causes and possible cures of poverty, the nature of property rights, taxation, and the legitimate functions of government. Nathanson cuts through the dated and less relevant sections of this large work and includes significant material omitted in other editions, making it possible to see the connections between the views Mill expressed in Principles of Political Economy and the ideas he defended in his later works, particularly On Liberty . Indeed, studying Principles of Political Economy , Nathanson argues in his general Introduction, can help to resolve the apparent contradiction between Mill's views in On Liberty and those in Utilitarianism , making it a key text for understanding Mill's philosophy as a whole.

Stephen Nathanson's clear-sighted abridgment of Principles of Political Economy , Mill's first major work in moral and political philosophy, provides a challenging, sometimes surprising account of Mill's views on many important topics: socialism, population, the status of women, the cultural bases of economic productivity, the causes and possible cures of poverty, the nature of property rights, taxation, and the legitimate functions of government. Nathanson cuts through the dated and less relevant sections of this large work and includes significant material omitted in other editions, making it possible to see the connections between the views Mill expressed in Principles of Political Economy and the ideas he defended in his later works, particularly On Liberty . Indeed, studying Principles of Political Economy , Nathanson argues in his general Introduction, can help to resolve the apparent contradiction between Mill's views in On Liberty and those in Utilitarianism , making it a key text for understanding Mill's philosophy as a whole.

The death penalty issue has become the epitome of the unresolvable issue, the question which people answer on the basis of gut reactions rather than logical arguments. In the second edition of An Eye for an Eye? Stephen Nathanson evaluates arguments for and against the death penalty, and ultimately defends an abolitionist position to the controversial practice, including arguments that show how and why the dealth penalty is inconsistent with respect for life and a commitment to justice. A timely new postscript and an updated bibliography accompany the volume.

Is patriotism a worthy ideal, one that we ought to promote and support? Or is it a dangerous and destructive notion that leads to war and hostility? Patriotism, Morality, and Peace provides the first sustained philosophical treatment of these questions, distinguishes different forms of patriotism, and shows why some forms are indeed dangerous, while others can be valuable and constructive.