Explore the vast range of titles available.

In the last decade, economists have produced a considerable body of research suggesting that the historical origin of a country's laws is highly correlated with a broad range of its legal rules and regulations, as well as with economic outcomes. We summarize this evidence and attempt a unified interpretation. We also address several objections to the empirical claim that legal origins matter. Finally, we assess the implications of this research for economic reform.

He demonstrates that these communities of experts are divided on such questions as, Can a novel or film be both high art and obscene? and, Is the world of heterosexual pornography categorically different from the worlds of gay and lesbian pornography? He observes that the ideas of an \"average\" psychological or behavioral response to a story or an image and the \"community\" standard of decency or tolerance are outmoded myths that elude all attempts at careful measurement. Nowlin concludes that lack of agreement among experts, for example, as to how and why some sexually explicit imagery titillates or pleases some people, while disgusting or demeaning others, can no longer be viewed simply in terms of moral, religious, or even political predilections. Judging Obscenity traces the way freedom of speech and the right to equality have taken shape within the worlds of pornographic expression and consumption and provides a historical glimpse of changing views about literature and art, as well as a critical examination of the nature of social science research in matters of human sexuality, media-response, and sexual expression.

Attitudes toward crime, criminals, and rehabilitation have shifted considerably, yet the idea that there is a causal link between drug addiction and crime prevails. As law reformers call for addiction treatment as a remedy to the failing war on drugs, it is also time to consider the serious implications of joining legal and therapeutic practices in an assumedly benevolent bid to cure the offender. Drawing on theoretical tools inspired by Foucault, Latour, and Goffman, Criminal Artefacts casts doubt on the assumption that drugs lie at the heart of crime. Case studies from drug treatment courts and addiction treatment programs illustrate the tensions between law and psychology, treatment and punishment, and conflicting theories of addiction. By looking curiously on the criminal addict as an artefact of criminal justice, this book asks us to question why the criminalized drug user has become such a focus of contemporary criminal justice practices. This interdisciplinary book will appeal to students, academics, and practitioners in law, social theory, criminology, criminal justice, addictions, cultural studies, sociology, and science studies.

In the 1980s, Canada witnessed a public outcry over child sexual abuse cases that were being reported in the media. Elected officials sought a remedy not through policy changes or other social mechanisms but rather through legal reforms. Amendments were made to the Criminal Code of Canada and sexual assault was redefined. The word “rape” was replaced with a continuum of sexual assault categories intended to reflect the full range of sexually intrusive behaviours. Most women’s groups, having fought for recognition of harm done to women and children, supported this legislation, though some questioned the approach Margaret Wright examines how the courts have dealt with child sexual abuse cases since then and what effect the “resort to law” has had. Analyzing the sentencing phase of these cases, she demonstrates that although the laws may have changed, their interpretation still depends on the social construction of children at the court level and on judges’ own understanding of what constitutes child sexual abuse. Judicial Decision Making in Child Sexual Abuse Cases is a rich and detailed study of the court process that will be welcomed by students and scholars of law and society, social work, criminal justice, and social policy

In 1931, a 12-year-old boy shot and killed the sheriff of Asotin, Washington. The incident stunned the small town and a mob threatened to hang him. Both the crime and Herbert Niccolls's eventual sentence of life imprisonment at the Washington State Penitentiary in Walla Walla drew national attention, only to be buried later in local archives.Journalist Nancy Bartley has conducted extensive research to construct a compelling narrative of the events and characters that make this a unique episode in the history of criminal justice in the United States. Niccolls became a cause for Father Flanagan of Boys Town, who took to the airwaves, imploring listeners to write Governor Hartley on the boy's behalf. The bitter campaign put Hartley in such a negative light that he lost his bid for reelection. Under a new and progressive warden, Niccolls thrived in prison. Inmates like physician Peter Miller and literary agent James Ashe became his tutors, finding that Niccolls had an insatiable appetite for knowledge. During the deadly 1934 prison riot at Walla Walla, several prisoners kept him from harm.Niccolls was finally released from prison in his early twenties. He went to work at 20th Century Fox in Hollywood, where he kept his secret for the rest of his long life. The Boy Who Shot the Sheriff explores this little-known story of a young boy's fate in the juvenile justice system during the bloodiest years in the nation's penitentiaries.Watch the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jRKFFQDgW20&list=UUge4MONgLFncQ1w1C_BnHcw&index=6&feature=plcp

In R. v. Ewanchuk, the Supreme Court of Canada held that sexual touching must be accompanied by express, contemporaneous consent. In doing so, the Court rejected the idea that sexual consent could be \"implied.\" Ewanchuk was a landmark ruling, reflecting a powerful commitment to women's equality and sexual autonomy. In articulating limits on the circumstances under which women can be said to \"consent\" to sexual touching, however, the decision also restricts their autonomy - specifically, by denying them a voice in determining the norms that should govern their intimate relationships and sexual lives.In Implied Consent and Sexual Assault, Michael Plaxton argues that women should have the autonomy to decide whether, and under what circumstances, sexual touching can be appropriate in the absence of express consent. Though caution should be exercised before resurrecting a limited doctrine of implied consent, there are reasons to think that sexual assault law could accommodate a doctrine without undermining the sexual autonomy or equality rights of women. In reaching this conclusion, Plaxton challenges widespread beliefs about autonomy, consent, and the objectives underpinning the offence of sexual assault in Canada.Drawing upon a range of contemporary criminal law theorists and feminist scholars, Implied Consent and Sexual Assault reconsiders the nature of mutuality in a world dominated by gender norms, the proper scope of criminal law, and the true meaning of sexual autonomy.

A strong tradition in democratic theory claims that only constitutions made with direct popular involvement can establish or deepen democracy. Against this view, we argue that new constitutions are likely to enhance liberal democracy when they emerge through a plural agreement among political elites with distinct bases of social support. Power dispersion during constitution writing induces the adoption of institutions that protect opposition forces from the arbitrary use of executive power without unduly impairing majority rule. However, since incumbents may renege on the bargain, the democratizing effect of politically plural constitutional agreements is likely to be larger in the short term, when the identity of negotiating political forces and the balance of power between them tend to remain stable. We find support for these arguments using an original global dataset on the origins of constitutions between 1900 and 2015 and a difference-in-differences design.

In Judging Insanity, Punishing Difference, Chloé Deambrogio explores how developments in the field of forensic psychiatry shaped American courts' assessments of defendants' mental health and criminal responsibility over the course of the twentieth century. During this period, new psychiatric notions of the mind and its readability, legal doctrines of insanity and diminished culpability, and cultural stereotypes about race and gender shaped the ways in which legal professionals, mental health experts, and lay witnesses approached mental disability evidence, especially in cases carrying the death penalty. Using Texas as a case study, Deambrogio examines how these medical, legal, and cultural trends shaped psycho-legal debates in state criminal courts, while shedding light on the ways in which experts and lay actors' interpretations of \"pathological\" mental states influenced trial verdicts in capital cases. She shows that despite mounting pressures from advocates of the \"rehabilitative penology,\" Texas courts maintained a punitive approach towards defendants allegedly affected by severe mental disabilities, while allowing for moralized views about personalities, habits, and lifestyle to influence psycho-legal assessments, in potentially prejudicial ways.

Legal results often turn on motive, and motive is often complex. How do various domains of law deal with mixed motives? Are we condemned by our darkest motive, forgiven according to our noblest, or something in between? This Article conducts a sweeping examination of motivations in the law, from equal protection and employment discrimination to insider trading and income taxation. It develops a precise descriptive vocabulary for categorizing the treatment of mixed motives in numerous areas of law. This framework yields several important insights. For example, nearly all domains of law pick among just four motive standards, and motive-based analysis is far more workable than commonly believed.

House Rules takes a hard look at the law and norms governing family life, compelling readers to rethink entrenched inequalities in familial relationships and proposing ways to approach legislative solutions.