Category Archives: Law

Call for Contributors: Controversies in Criminal Evidence

Posted by Sarah Lucy Cooper, Birmingham City University

In 2012, Birmingham City University’s School of Law launched a new centre of excellence, the Centre for American Legal Studies (CALS). CALS was launched to celebrate and advance the School of Law’s expertise in the theory and application of American law. The Centre’s members have expertise in a variety of areas including American criminal law and procedure, the death penalty, equal protection and environmental law. In addition, CALS hosts the largest UK to USA student internship programme and the British Journal of American Legal Studies (BJALS), the only peer reviewed journal of its kind in the UK. The BJALS Editorial Board is headed up by President Obama’s first Federal judicial appointee, the Honourable Judge Joseph A. Greenaway Jr., and is currently in its third volume.

In order to celebrate the launch of CALS, bring together the scholarly interests of its members, and further engage with colleagues in the United States, CALS was delighted to strike a relationship with Ashgate Publishing Ltd to develop, under the Series Editorship of Dr. Jon Yorke and Dr. Anne Richardson-Oakes, a multi-volume series entitled Controversies in American Constitutional Law. The volumes, each of which will be led by the Centre’s faculty, will include edited collections on equal protection law, death penalty law and international law and American exceptionalism. The first collection in the series, Controversies in Innocence Cases in America, led by Sarah Lucy Cooper was published in May, 2014. Founders of the American Innocence Movement, Peter J. Neufeld and Barry C. Scheck, reviewed the collection and commented that “Anyone who cares about miscarriages of justice and thinks critically about the system as a whole will find this collection to be a provocative, insightful, and valuable resource.” Purchasing information about this title can be found here, and the Editor’s review of the collection can be found here.

Ms. Cooper’s second collection – Controversies in Criminal Evidence – will bring together leading experts on the theory, application and scholarly analysis of evidence law in America, from a variety of legal, scientific, policy and ethical perspectives. The contributors will investigate contemporary questions concerning the issues presented by criminal evidence. The chapters will be placed within a multi-disciplinary perspective to provide cogent observations and recommendations for the effective application and development of criminal evidence law.

The topics to be included are:

  1. Theory and criminal evidence.
  2. Basic principles, burdens, presumptions and procedural aspects.
  3. Perspectives on major federal and state admissibility frameworks such as the Federal Rules of Evidence.
  4. Expert evidence, including scientific, forensic and medical evidence in criminal cases.
  5. Circumstantial, character, hearsay and impeachment evidence.
  6. Integrity issues and criminal evidence.
  7. Judicial notice, privileges and trial procedure.
  8. Current legislative and policy reforms in evidence law.
  9. International perspectives and/or comparative discussions.

Submissions Information

Interested contributors may focus upon one of the above topics or submit a different issue to be analysed. Co-authored chapters are welcome. Chapters should be approximately 12,000 words, including footnotes. Footnotes should be Bluebook compliant, but chapters will otherwise accord with the Ashgate house-style. The submission deadline for abstracts (max. 400 words) is December, 12, 2014. After this, a proposal will be formed and forwarded to Ashgate for approval. The provisional deadline for first drafts is August 1, 2015.

If you have any questions or you would like to discuss an alternative topic to the ones identified above, please contact me the Editor at: sarah.cooper@bcu.ac.uk.

Restorative Justice Symposium 2014, sponsored by RJ4All

Posted by Sarah Stilwell, Senior Marketing Manager

Ashgate authors Theo Gavrielides and Vasso Artinopoulou recently organised a 2nd Restorative Justice Symposium on the island of Skopelos, Greece.

The highly successful Symposium was built on the model of the 1st International Symposium on Restorative which took place in 2012; as before, it was sponsored by the Restorative Justice for All Institute (RJ4All), and followed the format of an ancient Greek symposium to allow in-depth discussion.

This year’s Symposium took the theme ‘Race and Power’ and brought together international experts in the field of race equality, international relations and restorative justice to explore new avenues in dealing with the issue of power structures within society, racism and the growing levels of violence and xenophobia locally, nationally and internationally. Delegates were a mixture of academics and practitioners in order to achieve an interdisciplinary dialogue.

The Symposium methodology allowed the exchange of ideas and experiences that will help bridge a gap in restorative justice and race equality issues in academia, research and policy areas internationally. It is hoped that the final output of the Symposium will be the production of a series of webinars using the delegate presentations. These will form part of a package that will be made available through the RJ4All website.

The Aristotle RoomPrior to the Symposium a book launch was held at the Panteion University of Athens – the photo here is of the ‘Aristotle’ room.

Authors Theo Gavrielides and Vassao Artinopoulou

Authors Theo Gavrielides and Vassao Artinopoulou

The proceedings of the first Symposium of seven days of in-depth discussion, debate and collaboration, are published by Ashgate under the title Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy.

Honorable Mention for Richard Weisman’s book Showing Remorse: Law and the Social Control of Emotion

Posted by Sarah Stilwell, Senior Marketing Executive

Showing remorseWe are delighted to learn that Richard Weisman’s book Showing Remorse: Law and the Social Control of Emotion has received Honorable Mention from the Committee for the Distinguished Book Award for 2014 of the Sociology of Law section of the American Sociological Association. The Honorable Mention will be formally recognised at the Sociology of Law Section Business Meeting at the 2014 ASA Conference in San Francisco.

The award panel’s citation includes:

The work is deeply researched, persuasively argued and lucidly written.  In its treatment of emotions as an event mediated by symbols and interpretations, the work suggests an inextricable social component in expressions of remorse.  Its argument that expressions of remorse vary across social contexts in terms of cultural style, when called for and how they should be conveyed and that these are matters to be explained is evocative.  Along with Foucauldian roots in the notion of the creation of ‘the subject of power’, the book offers an intriguing focus on the contingency of attributions of remorse as well as recognition of the pathological approach to the absence of remorse where a transgressor who is perceived as unable to experience remorse is naturalized as different and somehow deficient.  Emphasis on the ways in which defiance in the refusal to express remorse can be construed as a challenge to the moral basis for the actions of the court offers new insight into the ways communal normativity is reaffirmed or, as in the case of South Africa, reshaped.  This book adds nuance and depth to a much considered topic and so makes a most significant contribution to the intellectual wealth of our field.”

Richard Weisman is Professor Emeritus, Department of Social Science, Law and Society Program, Faculty of Liberal Arts and Professional Studies, and Department of Sociology, Glendon College, York University, in Toronto, Canada

‘My current research analyzes the social processes by which remorsefulness and remorselessness are claimed by self and attributed by other. Law is one important site for this process in that considerations of remorse enter into judgments about parole, sentencing, dangerous offender status in Canada and capital punishment in the United States’.

Other endorsements for Showing Remorse include:

‘In this gem of a book, Richard Weisman wrestles with the concept of remorse in surprisingly novel ways, using rich illustrations to depict remarkably diverse rituals of apology. Weisman’s effort to probe the contested meanings that remorse holds in our culture, law, and morality has yielded a tour de force.’   Constance Backhouse, University of Ottawa, Canada

In the legal system, much depends on whether an accused wrongdoer shows appropriate remorse, yet little attention has been paid to how and why remorse should be exhibited. Richard Weisman’s important book explores what the community expects from a remorseful wrongdoer and what happens – or ought to happen – when those expectations are thwarted.’   Susan Bandes, DePaul University College of Law, USA

In this carefully argued and researched volume, Richard Weisman provides an original examination of the concept of remorse. The work constitutes a valuable addition to the literature on this complex issue and will be of great interest to sociolegal scholars and legal practitioners alike.’   Julian V. Roberts, University of Oxford, UK

‘While contemporary criminal justice is officially secular and fact-driven, offenders are nevertheless expected to show remorse, and lack of visible remorse can have a marked negative impact in parole and probation contexts as well as in sentencing. In this innovative work Richard Weisman explores the complex emotional, psychological and legal issues raised by the criminal justice’s system unwritten expectations about offending and remorse. The book will be of interest to criminologists, sociolegal scholars, forensic psychologists, defence lawyers, and judges, but it is also accessible to the general public.’   Mariana Valverde, University of Toronto, Canada

Showing Remorse was published by Ashgate in January 2014. For more information on the book please visit Ashgate’s website

Controversies in Innocence Cases in America: Editor’s Review

This is a guest post from Sarah Lucy Cooper, Senior Lecturer in Law at Birmingham City University Law School, UK, and Fellow, Arizona Justice Project. It was originally published on the Human Rights and Public Law Blog.

Sarah Cooper presenting 1In 2010 I joined the Arizona Justice Project – a non-profit organization that represents Arizona inmates with significant claims of innocence and ‘manifest injustice’ — as an Adjunct Fellow. The Justice Project is the fifth oldest member of the Innocence Network, which brings together over 60 such projects worldwide.

As a Fellow, I started to engage with the many and varied controversies of innocence work at a time when the American Innocence Movement had found its stride, with around 1000 exonerations to its name. These controversies ranged from the impact of restricted resources and antipathetic attitudes towards reform, to the difficulties of investigating common causes of wrong convictions such as false confessions, eyewitness misidentification and flawed forensic evidence, and the challenges of navigating complex and stringent post-conviction relief rules.

In the heat of the Justice Project trenches, further exploration often led to more questions than answers. Luckily, however, in 2011 Ashgate Publishing Ltd commissioned the Centre for American Legal Studies at Birmingham City University to produce an edited collection series — Controversies in American Constitutional Law — and presented me with the opportunity to provide some answers.

Controversies in Innocence Cases in AmericaMy collection is titled Controversies in Innocence Cases in America and the final line up of contributors includes some of America’s finest ‘innocence’ scholars and lawyers. This includes frontline members of the Innocence Network Keith Findley and Jacqueline McMurtrie, and scholars at the forefront of innocence associated research, namely Jules Epstein, Richard A. Leo, Deborah Davies, Lissa Griffin, Marvin Zalman, Nancy Marion, Michael J. Williams, Carrie Leonetti and Francine Banner, as well as scholars working live innocence cases daily, namely D. Michael Risinger and Lesley C. Risinger at Seton Hall’s Last Resort Exoneration Project and Carrie Sperling the Co-Director of the Wisconsin Innocence Project.

With this diversity of perspective and experience, the collection naturally formed into anthology that provides a 360 degree view of controversies associated with the American Innocence Movement. Moreover, to underscore the practical significant of the collection, the Arizona Justice Project provides a foreword intertwining the collection’s themes with its real-life experiences.

The collection is presented in four sections. Below I discuss some of the highlights across the collection.

PART I: THE RISE OF THE INNOCENCE MOVEMENT IN AMERICA

Part I charts the rise of the American Innocence Movement from the unique perspectives of Keith Findley, the President of the Innocence Network, and Jacqueline McMurtrie, the Director of the Innocence Project Northwest and founding member of the Innocence Network.

Findley considers the Innocence Movement as the “new revolution” in American criminal justice, whereas McMurtrie approaches the journey of the Innocence Network “from beginning to branding,” considering notions of collaborative governance and future research about developing an Innocence Network brand. As such, these accounts of the development of this crucial era of American criminal justice are unrivalled.

PART II: HOW ARE INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED? COMMON CAUSES OF WRONGFUL CONVICTIONS

Part II explores some of the most common causes of wrongful convictions in America, providing a clear insight on how innocent people are convicted of crimes they did not commit. In chapter 3, Jules Epstein considers the “conundrum” of eyewitness misidentification, the most common cause of wrongful convictions in America with research showing around 75% of the DNA exonerations are attributable to such errors. More information about this pervasive issue can be found here.

In Chapter 4, Deborah Davis, Richard A. Leo and Michael J. Williams, examine the issue of false confession, with a particular concentration on interrogation-induced false confessions. They conclude a “real overhaul” of core interrogation techniques is required to resolve this problem. The cases of John Watkins and Eddie Joe Lloyd showcase the need for this research. See: http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php.

In Chapter 5, Lissa Griffin tackles the issue of the suppression of exculpatory evidence by prosecutors. Griffin explores the Brady doctrine from its conception in the United States Supreme Court to notions of formalised reform. She concludes that Brady has not provided “meaningful” protection for innocents.

Finally, in a bespoke, Chapter 6, Carrie Leonetti considers the largely untouched issue of America’s contribution to wrongful convictions abroad via foreign aid programmes that provide far more extensive resources for prosecution bodies than defense. Leonetti concludes that America needs to “foster a domestic conversation” about the end goal of American rule of law programs, boldly stating “blindly doing more of the same will not work.”

PART III: REALITY BITES: PROBLEMS WITH INVESTIGATING, PROVING AND DEFINING INNOCENCE

In their foreword, leaders of the Arizona Justice Project state this section of the collection “largely reflects the debates and challenges we engage in daily.” They note familiarity with the “innocence lawyer” role discussed by D. Michael Risinger and Lesley C. Risinger in Chapter 7.

The Risingers argue the emerging role of ‘innocence lawyer’ is different from the traditional criminal defense role, and warrants different ethical considerations. They say this role involves signalling a “well-warranted belief in actual innocence, or at least the gross unsafety of the verdict in regard to actual guilt.” They conclude that this role should be supported by any “mature legal system calling itself a system of individual justice.”

In Chapter 8, Carrie Sperling – by highlighting the myriad of complex and stringent post-conviction procedures faced by a hypothetical innocent inmate – cleverly narrates the difficulties that result when finality and innocence collide. The Arizona Justice Project label the problems faced by the hypothetical inmate as “all too familiar.”

Finally, in Chapter 9, Francine Banner critically examines the contemporary post-conviction innocence standard in light of the rise of DNA evidence; a crucial discussion in any anthology dedicated to innocence issues. To date, 316 people have been exonerated by post-conviction DNA evidence in America and access to DNA testing has been labelled a priority issue by the Innocence Network’s most famous member, The Innocence Project. The Innocence Project’s recommendations about access to DNA statutes can be found here.

PART IV: INNOCENCE REFORM

The final section of the collection looks at how the Innocence Movement has encouraged reform across the American criminal justice system. In Chapter 11 I focus on the concept and development of innocence commissions across America since the new millennium. The chapter highlights how these bodies face tensions with traditional facets of the criminal justice system, framing issues, complex group dynamics and a lack of legitimacy and resources, which has, generally, prevented them from successfully integrating into the criminal justice system, as mechanisms for reducing the likelihood of wrongful convictions.

In Chapter 10, Marvin Zalman and Nancy Marian take a wider, more eclectic approach to reform, exploring the policy work of the Innocence Movement in light existing policy making theories. They suggest innocence reform can be explained by borrowing elements from various existing theories, but no single theory. They conclude by encouraging scholars to engage in further research.

The collection has been described as a “provocative, insightful and valuable resource” by Barry C. Scheck and Peter J. Neufeld, the widely recognised God-fathers of the Innocence Movement. Similarly, Professor Daniel Medwed has described the collection as a “thoughtful and wide-ranging treatment of the topic and a major addition to the academic literature.” Larry Hammond, former President of the American Judicature Society, hails the “Hall of Fame” of contributors and describes the collection as a “roadmap” that might help “us more unerringly to convict the guilty and to free the innocent.”

Admittedly, the collection is not exhaustive, but it would be impossible to – no pun intended — ‘do justice’ to such a vast, complex and ever-evolving area of discourse in a single collection. To that end, it has been a privilege to bring together a discussion of some of the most important issues in the world of innocence from the perspectives of people who engage with it in the most meaningful ways.

More information about Controversies in Innocence Cases in America

 

Toward a Green Criminological Revolution

Exploring Green CriminologyIn their new book Exploring Green Criminology: Toward a Green Criminological Revolution, Michael J. Lynch and Paul B. Stretesky call for criminologists to take green harms more seriously, and for the discipline of criminology to be revolutionized so that it forms part of the solution to the large environmental problems currently faced across the world.

‘In this book two pioneers of Green Criminology show how the perspective can enrich traditional criminology and make it more relevant to a world in danger. This is an impressive and important work, recommended to anyone with an interest in green issues and the future of criminology or the planet.’   Nigel South, University of Essex, UK

‘Lynch and Stretesky’s call for a revolution in criminology that would redirect the field away from its historic attention to personal crimes and toward the far graver threats posed by blameworthy environmental wrongdoing is a must read for any criminologist who hopes to remain relevant to the future of our planet.’   Raymond J. Michalowski, Northern Arizona University, USA

‘In Exploring Green Criminology, Lynch and Stretesky lay out an ambitious framework and research agenda for the future of green criminology. In this groundbreaking work, they demonstrate how traditional criminology must adapt, if it is to remain relevant in an era of human history that is replete with environmental crime.’   Michael A. Long, Oklahoma State University, USA

Here is an edited extract of Chapter 1 of Exploring Green Criminology:

The earth is being destroyed as we watch, often as we do too little to stop the destruction. Today, for example, the Global Footprint Network estimates that it takes the earth one and one-half years to regenerate the resources that we have extracted from the earth in a year. This means that we are using the earth’s resources at a greater rate than is sustainable.

Unfortunately unsustainable business practices have been occurring since the early 1980s and are accelerating at such a rapid rate that we will consume nearly three times what the earth can regenerate annually by the year 2050 (Global Footprint Network, 2013). To be sure, there are those who take note of these alarming trends and are doing something to work toward sustainability. But, the efforts of a few individuals when compared to the majority of the human race are too little to overcome the devastating and unsustainable forces humans unleash on the planet. Thus we hide our head in the sand. We hope that divine intervention1 or the next generation can prevent the impending ecological calamity. However, there may not be too many more next generations and time is running out to take care of the problem.

It is not our intention to write about the general neglect of environmental problems within society at large. Rather, our topic is much more limited, and is in many ways simply a microcosm of these broader social tendencies to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear toward environmental problems. In the scheme of things, the small area we address in this work appears to have little relevance to the vast problems of ecological destruction that lay before us as humans. Yet, that is, perhaps, precisely the point. All these small situations and contexts sum together to create our unsustainable and devastating behavior that result in massive ecological destruction. Since many people believe that the big ecological problems of the world are too big to tackle, the alternative is to approach these problems at smaller levels of aggregation. The hope is that changing each small situation will lead to large-scale change. Whether or not that is true is hard to determine and it is entirely possible that small change is an inefficient and ineffective strategy to prevent large-scale global harm.

We, as criminologists, are concerned with the general neglect of ecological issues in criminology. We are concerned with teaching people lessons about crime, law and justice within the context of our biosphere. Indeed, a small number of criminologists continually call attention to the fact that criminology neglects widespread and important forms of harm such as green or environmental crimes. And still other criminologists suggest that these green crimes present the most important challenge to criminology as a discipline. As criminologists, we are not simply concerned that our discipline continues to neglect green issues, we are disturbed by the fact that as a discipline, criminology is unable to perceive the wisdom of taking green harms more seriously, and the need to reorient itself in ways that make it part of the solution to the large global environmental problems we now face as the species that produces those problems.

We expect that most criminologists will reject the idea that they ought to be paying greater attention to the problems of green crimes and justice. After all, the history of criminology as a discipline is the history of an academic field devoted to the study of ordinary forms of street offending and efforts to control those offenses. In our view, these offenses and their consequences are quite small in comparison to the forms of environmental destruction taking place in the world around us. Yes, people are hurt by crime—but those are small hurts when one considers them in comparison to the end of humanity.

As criminologists we are dissatisfied to be part of a discipline that has become rather meaningless within the context of the modern world. The meaninglessness of criminology in that context will not change overnight, and this book may have little impact on that situation. Yet, at the same time, we feel that it is our obligation to propose that this situation needs to change, and to outline the ways in which criminologists can actively engage in research of importance in the contemporary world.

While the research of criminologists is unlikely to change the world, any small step forward that addresses green crime and justice is a step in the right direction, and contributes to changing the social attitudes and practices needed to help reform the behaviors that have produced the ecologically damaging situation in which we now find ourselves. While our book is no solution to the ecological problems of our times, it exposes a way of thinking that pushes the discipline of criminology closer to being relevant in the modern context of ecological destruction.

To take this step forward, this book explores the parameters of green criminology, its theory and practice, and why environmental issues ought to become more central to the study of crime, law, and justice, or, more specifically, an integral part of criminological research and the criminological imagination.

We argue that if harm is the primary concern addressed by criminology—that is, if criminology exists as a science designed to understand, address, reduce, or eliminate crime in the hope of reducing or eliminating harms and to promote justice for humans, nonhumans, and the environment—then criminologists need to recreate criminology, redesign its focus, open it to new understandings of harms and crimes, criminals, laws, corrective responses to crime and harms, victims, and justice.

But how do we redesign criminology to consider environmental harm as an important area of study in an era when the destruction of the earth and the world’s ecosystem is the predominant concern of our times? And, if we are correct in stating that this has yet to happen, we must ask why this has not been accomplished given that this situation has been known for quite some time.

The how question comprises a large section of this work, and is illustrated in various chapters that apply an environmental frame of reference that underlies a green approach to issues that can be addressed within criminology.

Taking this environmental frame of reference as the starting point and applying it to criminological issues is the substance of green criminology. Such a perspective helps us to see criminology in a new way that is only apparent once this green environmental frame of reference is adopted.

Read the whole of chapter one on Ashgate’s website

About the Authors:

Michael J. Lynch is a professor in the department of criminology, and associated faculty in the Patel School of Global Sustainability, at the University of South Florida. He has been engaged in research on green criminology since 1990. His other interests include radical criminology, racial bias in criminal justice processes, and corporate crime and its control. He is the recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Society of Criminology’s Division on Critical Criminology.

Paul B. Stretesky is a Professor of Criminology in the Department of Languages and Social Science at Northumbria University. In addition to his research on green criminology, he is engaged in research on families of homicide victims and missing persons, and the study of environmental justice. He is co-author of Guns, Violence and Criminal Behavior: Accounts from the Inside as well as Environmental Crime, Law and Justice.

Exploring Green Criminology: Toward a Green Criminological Revolution is published in Ashgate’s Green Criminology series

 

When Soldiers Say No: Selective Conscientious Objection in the Modern Military

“adds considerably to the literature by bringing together a range of perspectives on the merits of selective conscientious objection, as well as consideration of its application (or lack thereof) in a number of states. Its interdisciplinary nature is particularly attractive.”

Gary Wilson, Senior Lecturer in Law at Liverpool John Moores University, has reviewed When Soldiers Say No for the LSE Review of Books. You can read his full review here.

Shannon E. French, Case Western Reserve University:

‘We expect members of the military to accept civilian authority and not determine foreign policy. But what if a nation commits its troops to an unjust war? Are they then morally obligated to refuse to fight? This is a question with potentially devastating real-world consequences that should concern every citizen. Whetham, Robinson, and Ellner have produced a brilliant, provocative volume that examines the issue of selective conscientious objection from many perspectives and across several cultures to provide a balanced array of arguments from which readers can derive their own conclusions.’

David Rodin, University of Oxford:

‘The issue of selective conscientious objection is where the rubber really hits the road for recent debates about the moral status of soldiers. The real achievement of this fine volume is to connect the theoretical debate with the concrete policy challenges faced by military and government – and to substantially advance both. Essential reading for anyone working on the ethics of war.’

When soldiers say noTraditionally few people challenged the distinction between absolute and selective conscientious objection by those being asked to carry out military duties. The former is an objection to fighting all wars – a position generally respected and accommodated by democratic states, while the latter is an objection to a specific war or conflict – theoretically and practically a much harder idea to accept and embrace for military institutions.

However, a decade of conflict not clearly aligned to vital national interests combined with recent acts of selective conscientious objection by members of the military have led some to reappraise the situation and argue that selective conscientious objection ought to be legally recognised and permitted. Political, social and philosophical factors lie behind this new interest, which together mean that the time is ripe for a fresh and thorough evaluation of the topic.

This book brings together arguments for and against selective conscientious objection, as well as case studies examining how different countries deal with those who claim the status of selective conscientious objectors. As such, it sheds new light on a topic of increasing importance to those concerned with military ethics and public policy, within military institutions, government, and academia.

When Soldiers Say No is edited by Andrea Ellner, Defence Studies Department, King’s College London, Paul Robinson, professor in the Graduate School of Public and International Affairs, the University of Ottawa, and David Whetham, Senior Lecturer in Defence Studies, King’s College London, based at the Joint Services Command and Staff College at the UK Defence Academy.

Contents:

Foreword, Jeff McMahan

Introduction, Andrea Ellner, Paul Robinson and David Whetham

Part I Arguments For and Against Accepting Selective Conscientious Objection:

The duty of diligence: knowledge, responsibility, and selective conscientious objection, Brian Imiola

There is no real moral obligation to obey orders: escaping from ‘low cost deontology’, Emmanuel R. Goffi

Selective conscientious objection: a violation of the social contract, Melissa Bergeron

Who guards the guards? The importance of civilian control of the military, David Fisher

An empirical defense of combat moral equality, Michael Skerker

Selective conscientious objection and the just society, Dan Zupan

Part II Case Studies in Selective Conscientious Objection:

Selective conscientious objection in Australia, Stephen Coleman and Nikki Coleman (with Richard Adams)

Conscientious objection to military service in Britain, Stephen Deakin

Selective conscientious objection: philosophical and conceptual doubts in light of Israeli case law, Yossi Nehushtan

Claims for refugee protection in Canada by selective objectors: an evolving jurisprudence, Yves Le Bouthillier

Conscience in lieu of obedience: cases of selective conscientious objection in the German Bundeswehr, Jürgen Rose

Part III Conclusions:

Selective conscientious objection: some guidelines for implementation, J. Carl Ficarrotta

War resisters in the US and Britain – supporting the case for a right to selective conscientious objection?, Andrea Ellner

The practice and philosophy of selective conscientious objection, Andrea Ellner, Paul Robinson and David Whetham

Ashgate Author, Roger Cotterrell, Awarded the Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA) 2013 Prize for Contributions to the Socio-Legal Community

The Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA) was formed in 1990, established as a result of the Socio-Legal Group’s annual meeting (now a conference) for socio-legal scholars to gather and circulate their work.  The conference, however, is not the SLSA’s only annual occurrence.  They also facilitate three annual awards, one of which is the SLSA Prize for Contributions to the Socio-Legal Community.  It is this prize we are pleased to announce that Ashgate author, Roger Cotterrell, of Law, Culture and Society (among several others) has been awarded.

Cotterell is formally trained in both law and sociology from the University of London and has been an academician for some time.  He’s been an Anniversary Professor of Legal Theory at School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London since 2005—which was the same year he was elected as a Fellow of the British Academy. This honor is given only to a select few law professors and is considered the highest recognition for scholars in the UK.  This alone illustrates the importance of Cotterrell’s work to the field.

However, prior to this most recent appointment as Anniverary Professor, Cotterrell served in various other capacities, including the Acting Head and Head of the College’s Department of Law (1989–1991), Dean of the Faculty of Laws (1993–1996), and Professor of Legal Theory (1990–2005).  And, before joining the Queen Mary faculty, he taught at the University of Leicester. He has held several visiting academic positions over the years, spanning across the globe from Texas to Brussels to Hong Kong.  He’s served on countless journal advisory boards also with an international range, including but not limited to the Journal of Law and Society (UK); Griffith Law Review (Australia); Clio & Themis (France); and Comparative Law Review (Poland).  In addition to this service, he’s authored and edited over 100 books, chapters, and journal articles over the course of his (still on-going) career.

It should be of no surprise then that other scholars in his field recognize him as an essential contributor to the Socio-Legal field.  Other scholars like David Nelken (also an Ashgate author) nominated Cotterell for this award. In his nomination letter, Nelken stated:

Roger is, for most of his peers, the leading social theorist of law and sociologist of law in
the UK, and amongst the very best worldwide…The range of his corpus of work is second
to none amongst his colleagues…Roger has been a model to generations of colleagues
and students. He is an exemplary scholar that our field is fortunate to have produced.

We congratulate Cotterrell on his most recent accomplishment and celebrate in the outstanding contributions he’s made to his field and to academia. May we also say, we are proud to have him among our Ashgate authors.

Roger Cotterrell’s other Ashgate books include: Law and Society (1994), Sociological Perspectives on Law (two volumes, 2001), Law in Social Theory (2006), Living Law (2008) and Émile Durkheim (2010).

Interested in accessing free online content to Roger Cotterrell’s book Law, Culture and Society?  Become an email subscriber and receive monthly updates on exclusive promotions and offers.  Sign up at www.ashgate.com/updates. In February 2014, we’ll be featuring Cotterrell’s book!

Leonidas Cheliotis named the Critical Criminologist of the Year by the ASC Division on Critical Criminology

Posted by Alyssa Berthiaume, Marketing Coordinator

Every year at the American Society of Criminology Conference the Division on Critical Criminology (DCC) awards an individual with the title of Critical Criminologist of the Year. The recipient is often an early-to-mid career individual with distinguished accomplishments in the field that have symbolized the spirit of the DCC via their scholarship, teaching and/or service in most recent years.  This November, Ashgate author of The Arts of Imprisonment, Leonidas Cheliotis, was the worthy recipient of this award for 2013.

Currently Dr Cheliotis is the Chancellor’s Fellow in Law at the University of Edinburgh and Co-Director of the Centre of Law and Society. Prior to this he was both lecturer and founding Deputy Director of the Centre for Criminal Justice at the School of Law, Queen Mary, University of London.

Dr Cheliotis is no stranger to awards, having received a number of others for his research. In addition, he’s well-established in his field as an editor—having edited at least four books since 2010, as well as serving as an Associate Editor of the European Journal of Criminology and sitting on the boards of Punishment & Society: The International Journal of Penology and the British Journal of Criminology. He is also well- recognized as an author, having written countless chapters, journal articles, reports, notes and reviews.

Cheliotis-The Arts of Imprisonment:De-Giorgio Re-think PoliticalHis main research interests include political economy of crime, violence and punitiveness; “street level” criminal justice policies and practices; and, the method and practice of interdisciplinary and international comparative penology. His book The Arts of Imprisonment (2012), is a part of Ashgate’s series, Advances in Criminology, and focuses on states’ use of the arts for the purposes of controlling prisoners and the broader public, and the use made of the arts by prisoners and portions of the broader public as tools of resistance to penal states.

Professor Water DeKeseredy, of the Univiersty of Ontario Institute of Technology, who introduced the award, commented:

Dr. Cheliotis is a path-breaking scholar who continuously makes important scholarly
contributions to an international critical criminological understanding of punitive
social control…

Ashgate is pleased to have among us Dr. Cheliotis and his academic contributions to the field. We whole-heartedly congratulate him on this most recent success.

Riël Vermunt selected for the International Society of Justice Research Lifetime Achievement Award

We are delighted to learn that Riël Vermunt (University of Leiden) has been selected for the ISJR Lifetime Achievement Award. The award will be officially presented at the next biennial conference of the International Society of Justice Research, 19-22 June, 2014, in New York, at which Professor Vermunt will present an address.

“Professor Riël Vermunt of the University of Leiden, the Netherlands, has over many years made significant and lasting contributions to the study of justice, specifically on procedural justice, its interrelations with distributive justice, and links to affect, self-esteem and stress. Riel was highly instrumental for the establishment of ISJR, which grew out of a series of interdisciplinary justice conferences he organised in the 1980s and an initial justice research center that he co-founded at Leiden. Riel’s commitment to justice research and ISJR has not waned since and he has been an inspiring mentor for new generations of justice researchers.”   Michael Wenzel, President, International Society for Justice Research

Riël Vermunt’s new book: The Good, the Bad, and the Just: How Modern Men Shape Their World, will be available in hardback and e-format in April 2014.

Drawing on multidisciplinary findings and ideas, the book discusses fair allocation of social resources, such as goods, services and information, in a novel and integrated way. The role of the essential features of allocation behaviour: motivation, cognition and emotion, as well as morality and reactions to perceived unfairness are examined in the newly developed Justice Model. Riël Vermunt offers explanations as to why, how and to what extent, people, in an effort to attain justice, allocate social resources between self and others and among others. The book is relevant for academics and researchers working in the areas of crime, law, justice, public policy and governance.

Distributive and Procedural JusticeRiël Vermunt is Associate Professor of Social and Organizational Psychology at Leiden University, the Netherlands.  He is also editor, with Kjell Törnblom, of Distributive and Procedural Justice.

A new book for International Restorative Justice week: ‘Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy’

This week – 17th–24th November – is International Restorative Justice (IRJ) week and to coincide with this event Ashgate is publishing Theo Gavrielides’ and Vasso Artinopoulou’s book: Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy.

There is more information about IRJ week on the IARS website:

“Restorative Justice Week, initiated by Correctional Service Canada (CSC) aims to celebrate restorative justice practitioners, volunteers and those who are working in the community as well as to raise awareness of restorative justice and its practices worldwide. This year’s theme “Inspiring Innovation” encourages practitioners’ and those who are working on the field to showcase and share innovative thoughts and practices as well as to consider new innovative approaches to their work taking advantages of technology and theoretical progression of the field.”

IARS is holding its annual conference on 6 December, with the theme of “Listening to Community Evidence: Race, Gender and Restorative Justice”. The conference will be attended by Alison Kirk, Ashgate’s commissioning editor for Law and Legal Studies, and copies of Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy will be on sale.

The book can also be purchased online. To take advantage of a 10% discount during IRJ week visit http://www.ashgate.com/isbn/9781409470717

Reconstructing Restorative Justice Philosophy is edited by Theo Gavrielides, Independent Academic Research Studies (IARS), and Vasso Artinopoulou, Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences.

Reconstructing Restorative Justice PhilosophyThis book takes bold steps in forming much-needed philosophical foundations for restorative justice through deconstructing and reconstructing various models of thinking. It challenges current debates through the consideration and integration of various disciplines such as law, criminology, philosophy and human rights into restorative justice theory, resulting in the development of new and stimulating arguments. Topics covered include the close relationship and convergence of restorative justice and human rights, some of the challenges of engagement with human rights, the need for the recognition of the teachings of restorative justice at both the theoretical and the applied level, the Aristotelian theory on restorative justice, the role of restorative justice in schools and in police practice and a discussion of the humanistic African philosophy of Ubuntu.

With international contributions from various disciplines and through the use of value based research methods, the book deconstructs existing concepts and suggests a new conceptual model for restorative justice. This unique book will be of interest to academics, researchers, policy-makers and practitioners.

‘Gavrielides and Artinopoulou propose a reconstructed philosophy of restorative justice that is much more expansive and inclusive, much less either/or, than the usual approach. For the restorative justice movement to progress, they argue, we first must reconcile the internal tensions identified by the authors in this volume: conceptual, philosophical, political, personal. Their proposed reconstructed philosophy helps point a direction but in addition, they also suggest some rules for moving in this direction, asking those of us working in and advocating for restorative justice to redirect some of our energies. The methodology the editors adopted for this volume is also significant. Instead of limiting contributions to empirical analysis, they encouraged authors to write freely from a variety of sources and perspectives. As the library recall notice says, this book is long overdue.’   Howard Zehr, Eastern Mennonite University, USA

‘No one will be able to read this book without wishing they were there for the journey that gave it birth. Rich outcomes are enabled by richness of process. This book succeeds in drawing us into the journey of its travelers and is a grand exercise in critical retrieval, revival, renewal of those teachings, ancient and recent. There is a great, enduring core of restorative justice teachings that has an increasingly global quality about it. This fine collection helps us renew and reconstruct the core of restorative justice teachings at their holistic philosophical foundations while also helping us to look at them with wider historical and cultural lenses. As the Epilogue reminds us, restorative justice lives and evolves in the hands of this generation of travelers on our planet. Our obligation, the Epilogue sums up, is not to be the kind of philosophers whose aim is to define restorative justice more carefully, because if we “define water too narrowly”, we prevent people from seeing its other properties.’   John Braithwaite, Australian National University, Australia