Explore the vast range of titles available.

The volume proposes a breakthrough analysis of defence rights in criminal proceedings, through the lens of a computable approach to the law. It presents a multi-level research, tackling EU law, national legislation, and case-law across the European Union.

This book of essays celebrates Mark Aronson's contribution to administrative law. As joint author of the leading Australian text on judicial review of administrative action, Aronson's work is well-known to public lawyers throughout the common law world and this is reflected in the list of contributors from the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the UK. The introduction comes from Justice Michael Kirby of the High Court of Australia. The essays reflect Aronson's interests in judicial review, non-judicial grievance mechanisms, problems of proof and evidence, and the boundaries of public and private law. Amongst the contributors, Peter Cane, Elizabeth Fisher, and Linda Pearson write on administrative adjudication and decision-making, Anita Stuhmcke writes on Ombudsmen, and Robin Creyke and John McMillan, the Commonwealth Ombudsman, write on charters, codes and 'soft law'.

Criminal defense attorneys protect the innocent and guilty alike, but, the majority of criminal defendants are guilty. This is as it should be in a free society. Yet there are many different types of crime and degrees of guilt, and the defense must navigate through a complex criminal justice system that is not always equipped to recognize nuances. In Guilty People, law professor and longtime criminal defense attorney Abbe Smith gives us a thoughtful and honest look at guilty individuals on trial. Each chapter tells compelling stories about real cases she handled; some of her clients were guilty of only petty crimes and misdemeanors, while others committed offenses as grave as rape and murder. In the process, she answers the question that every defense attorney is routinely asked: How can you represent these people? Smith's answer also tackles seldom-addressed but equally important questions such as: Who are the people filling our nation's jails and prisons? Are they as dangerous and depraved as they are usually portrayed? How did they get caught up in the system? And what happens to them there?  This book challenges the assumption that the guilty are a separate species, unworthy of humane treatment. It is dedicated to guilty people-every single one of us.

Scholars have written much about Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg's legacy in many areas of law, but her criminal justice legacy has yet to be fully articulated, likely because she penned few important opinions in this field. This article argues that Justice Ginsburg had an enormous impact across a large area of criminal justice cases decided by the slimmest majority. We explore these close cases and, in so doing, we show her to have played a crucial role in a remarkable number of landmark cases that extended important constitutional protections to criminal defendants. Specifically, she joined the majorities in important decisions extending the rights to a jury trial, to an impartial tribunal, and to counsel. She also voted to shield juveniles and people with mental impairments from excessive punishments and to extend protections to property owners who faced civil penalties due to criminal wrongdoing. As our review aptly shows, Justice Ginsburg's work in criminal justice lived up to the ideals of the Torah passage that she displayed behind her office chair as a Justice, which read \"Justice, justice shalt thou pursue...\" Rabbinic scholars interpret the passage as a command for judges to provide meaningful hearings for those who seek justice, that judges should act with impartiality toward all who come before them, and should temper strict justice with mercy. She likely pursued these principles in other areas of law as wellthe commands for meaningful and impartial justice do not apply exclusively to criminal judges. Nonetheless, the principles arguably apply more poignantly in the criminal justice area which, unlike other areas of law, strives to provide heightened constitutional safeguards while also permitting severe punishments.

The idea that one's punishment should depend on the crime committed rather than which judge happens to do the sentencing strikes most as uncontroversial, if not a requirement for a fair sentencing regime. Forty years ago, the passage of the Sentencing Reform Act promised just that result. Increased data availability allows us to evaluate the project's success. The results are not encouraging.

The criminal process in the Province of Buenos Aires has been affected by radical reforms in the last decades. Beginning with the complete replacement of the criminal procedure code in 1998 to the introduction of pre-trial hearings and simplified procedures for cases declared in flagrante delicto in 2004 the reforms have impacted more than legal procedures; they have changed the way judicial actors perceive themselves and their relations with the institution. Based on interviews with ten public defenders of the PBA this article offers an exploratory analysis on how public defenders’ perceptions have been impacted by those reforms and to what extent those internal changes have affected the internal dynamics of the PD. Drawing from the sociology of Bernard Lahire and Laurent Thenevot we identify in the public defenders’ responses how these changes affected their personal commitments. Mapping those commitments allow us to describe the subjective folds of the PD through which it is possible to better understand the decisions of public defenders by considering the internalization they make of the judicial world and its relationship with the institutional context.

Most criminal law defenses serve the criminal law’s goal of shielding blameless defendants from liability. Justification defenses, such as selfdefense and law enforcement authority, exculpate on the ground that the defendant’s conduct, on balance, does not violate a societal norm. Excuse defenses, such as insanity and duress, exculpate on the ground that, while the defendant may well have violated a societal norm, it was done blamelessly. That is, it is the excusing conditions, not the defendant, that is to blame. In contrast, a third group of general defenses, which have been called “non-exculpatory defenses,” bar liability in instances where the defendant may have clearly violated a societal norm with full blameworthiness yet nonetheless is exempt from criminal liability because giving the exemption advances some societal interest independent of—and in conflict with—the criminal law’s goal of imposing deserved punishment in proportion to an offender’s blameworthiness. Non-exculpatory defenses openly sacrifice doing justice in order to promote the competing non-justice interest. A wide variety of non-exculpatory defenses are commonly recognized, including, for example, statutes of limitation, executive and legislative immunities, double jeopardy, diplomatic immunity, and the doctrines of the legality principle. Each of these defenses let blameworthy offenders go free even for serious crimes because such restraint promotes or protects some non-desert societal interest. Our examination of the doctrines suggests, however, that those balances of competing interests are commonly misaligned. This occurs in some instances because societal circumstances have significantly changed since the initial formulation of the defense, without any corresponding revision of the doctrine. In other instances, there is reason to suspect that no thoughtful balancing of the competing interests ever took place, perhaps because at the time there was insufficient appreciation of the practical importance of doing justice and the societal costs of regular failures of justice. In this article, we illustrate the problem by examining the three most commonly used non-exculpatory defenses: statutes of limitation, the double jeopardy rule, and the legality principle’s rule of strict construction. We acknowledge that each of these defenses was created to promote or protect an important societal interest. But we show that in each instance the societal circumstances have changed, altering the balance of competing interests, yet the formulation of the doctrines has not been adjusted accordingly. Our larger conclusion is that non-exculpatory defenses, based as they are upon a balance of competing societal interests, rather than principles of societal harm and personal blameworthiness, require constant re-examination and adjustment in ways that justification and excuse defenses do not.

This article sought to understand the adequacy of criminal defense services within prisons. By analyzing secondary data and interviews, it describes the justiciable problems and legal needs, the lines of action, and the obstacles that the adult prison population encounters. The results show that the experience and needs that arise in prison surpass the institutional capabilities of the chilean Public Defender’s Office. Therefore, a new institutional framework must be created to meet the justice claims of prisoners.