検索キーワード： 司法制度

裁判官も人の子。重い刑を言いわたす前には大いに迷うし、法と世間の常識のギャップに悩むこともある。頑なな被告人の心を揺さぶった言葉を厳選。

元最高裁判事の千葉勝美が、同性婚を認めない現行法の憲法適合性を論じる。同性婚を認めない制度を合憲とするのが現在の判例である。しかし、昨今国内で係属している裁判の一部で、憲法への抵触を宣言するものが出てきている。

As one of just a few judges licensed to try murder cases at the Old Bailey, the author has presided over many of the high-profile cases that all too often grab our attention in dramatic media headlines—for every unlawful death tells a story. But, unlike most of us, a judge doesn't get to turn the page and move on. Nor does the defendant, or the family of the victim, nor the many other people who populate the court room. Peeling apart six dramatic murder and manslaughter cases, Unlawful Killings removes this distinction between 'them' and 'us'.

The concept of habeas corpus - literally, to receive and hold the body - empowers courts to protect the right of prisoners to know the basis on which they are being held by the government and grant prisoners their freedom when they are held unlawfully. It is no wonder that habeas corpus has long been considered essential to freedom.

AI and other high-tech tools embed and reinforce America’s history of prejudice and exclusion — even when they are used with the best intentions. Patrick K. Lin’s Machine See, Machine Do: How Technology Mirrors Bias in Our Criminal Justice System takes a deep and thorough look into the use of technology in the criminal justice system, and investigates the instances of coded bias present at every level.

Underlain by an acute sense of ethics, this provided the basis for his strongly declared, wide-ranging views on many subjects: prohibition of cock-fighting, liberty of the press, universal suffrage, the removal of religious tests for office and even hunting. All were radical ideas for his time. He also proposed the decriminalisation of homosexuality, though even he did not dare to publish his essay on this subject during his lifetime. But An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation was his major work.

Courtroom 302 is the fascinating story of one year in Chicago's Cook County Criminal Courthouse, the busiest felony courthouse in the country. Here we see the system through the eyes of the men and women who experience it, not only in the courtroom but in the lockup, the jury room, the judge's chambers, the spectators' gallery. From the daily grind of the court to the highest-profile case of the year, Steve Bogira's masterful investigation raises fundamental issues of race, civil rights, and justice in America.

The Supreme Court endorses terrorists' rights, flag burning, and importing foreign law. Is that in the Constitution? You're right: it's not. But these days the Constitution is no restraint on our out-of-control Supreme Court. The Court imperiously strikes down laws and imposes new ones purely on its own arbitrary whims. Even though liberals like John Kerry are repeatedly defeated at the polls, the majority on the allegedly "conservative" Supreme Court reflects their views and wields absolute power.

Will Sandeson seemed like a model son. A member of the Dalhousie University track and field team, he was about to start classes at Dalhousie’s medical school. He worked at a group home for adults with disabilities. He came from a good family. “There’s times for whatever reason that things don’t go quite as planned,” a Halifax police officer told Sandeson shortly after he was arrested for the first-degree murder of Taylor Samson, who also, on the surface, seemed like a model son.

Since America's founding, the US Supreme Court had issued a vast number of decisions on a staggeringly wide variety of subjects. And hundreds of judges have occupied the bench. Yet as Cass R. Sunstein, the eminent legal scholar and best-selling co-author of Nudge, points out, almost every one of the Justices fits into a very small number of types regardless of ideology: the hero, the soldier, the minimalist, and the mute.

Anna-Jane Cheney was a vivacious, popular and talented lawyer with an impeccable middle-class upbringing. The man she loved, Henry Keogh, was a divorced Irish migrant with three children. She died just six weeks before their wedding date, and Keogh was convicted of her murder. Journalist Graham Archer became fascinated by the case. It wasn’t a matter of guilt or innocence but that a man could be sentenced to life without having received a fair trial.

On January 12, 2007, what began as a felony tax trial for Ed and Elaine Brown in Plainfield, New Hampshire, spiraled into the longest armed standoff in U.S. Marshals history. Refusing to appear in court and surrender to federal authorities, the Browns transformed their home into a fortress, drawing support from militia groups and anti-government activists nationwide.

For thirty years, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Linda Greenhouse chronicled the activities of the U.S. Supreme Court and its justices as a correspondent for the New York Times. In this Very Short Introduction, she draws on her deep knowledge of the court's history and of its written and unwritten rules to show listeners how the Supreme Court really works.

In "Judicial Reform: Understanding Supreme Court Ethics and Term Limits for a Fairer System," author Sage Ellison addresses the pressing need for integrity within the Supreme Court. As trust in judicial institutions wanes, this book explores the significance of ethical practices and the potential implementation of term limits for justices to promote a fairer judicial system. Ellison provides insights into the challenges currently facing the judiciary, including public uncertainty about ethical standards and the need for a court that reflects modern democratic values.

The law is supposed to represent fairness, equality, and transparency. Yet in a world where injustice is normalized, many struggle to understand why our legal system fails despite its lofty principles. In Law on Trial, award-winning legal scholar Shaun Ossei-Owusu offers a rare perspective as an insider and a clear-eyed critic of its deep, baked-in structural problems. He begins with a tour through American legal education, where some of the seeds of inequality are planted in the emphasis on abstract thinking.

Since the publication of the first edition of Critical Race Theory in 2001, the United States has lived through two economic downturns, an outbreak of terrorism, and the onset of an epidemic of hate directed against immigrants, especially undocumented Latinos and Middle Eastern people. On a more hopeful note, the country elected and re-elected its first black president and has witnessed the impressive advance of gay rights. Critical Race Theory is essential for understanding developments in this burgeoning field, which has spread to other disciplines and countries.

We are all familiar with the image of the immensely clever judge who discerns the best rule of common law for the case at hand. But is this common-law mindset, which is appropriate in its place, suitable also in statutory and constitutional interpretation? In a witty and trenchant essay, Justice Scalia answers this question with a resounding negative.

Over the past decade, several American cities have been rocked by race riots. With each passing year, a new racial agenda emerges—from police defunding to education reform to reparations—inciting more and more division and radicalization along racial lines. What started all of this? The roots of this pathology run much deeper than the recent symptoms suggest.

The definitive exposé of forced arbitration, the secret justice system that protects abusers, employers, and powerful corporations America has a hidden justice system. There, decisions are made in secret, and “judges” are paid for by the companies and abusers who are being sued. Victims...

Christian Davis, a former big-firm lawyer turned social justice warrior, has just been assigned the case of his life by the State of California. Jamel Jackson, a sixteen-year-old black boy, has just been convicted for the brutal rape of a prominent movie star. Christian digs into the case with gusto, as he examines the trial court transcript for any hint that the trial court might have erred in Jamel's case. As he gets into the investigation of the case, he's shocked at what he has found. Corruption at the highest level is staring him in the face.

A myth-busting glimpse into the inner workings of the Supreme Court, revealing what we get wrong about the Roberts Court, what the justices' clerks gossip about, and how to fix a court in crisis—from the popular ABC news pundit and top legal podcaster "Isgur has all your answers in these smart...

If you were ever curious about the ins and outs of jail, then this book is a must-listen for you. The author takes you by the hand and walks you through the Penal Process. He reveals a first-hand account of his experiences behind the walls of the Judiciary System. He navigates from Processing to Sentencing by way of the pages between the cover of this Literary Work.

Read by the author. Are you discouraged by our divided, angry culture, where even listening to a different perspective sometimes feels impossible? If so, you're not alone, and it doesn't have to be this way. Learning to Disagree reveals the surprising path to learning how to disagree in ways...

Since the Supreme Court's 1984 decision in Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, this judicial review has been highly deferential: courts must uphold agency interpretations of unclear laws as long as these interpretations are "reasonable." But the Chevron doctrine faces backlash from constitutional scholars and, now, from Supreme Court justices who insist that courts, not administrative agencies, have the authority to say what the law is. Recognizing that Congress cannot help relying on agencies to carry out laws, Merrill rejects the notion of discarding the administrative state.

On January 22, 1973, the United States Supreme Court released two interlocked abortion decisions overturning the laws of all the individual states. Only one of the decisions, Roe v. Wade, tends to get much media attention, and it is popularly said that it grants a "woman's right to choose". But Justice Blackmun is in several places very adamant: Though it had been explicitly sought, he was not granting to women the "right to choose". In Doe v. Bolton, the second and often unexamined companion decision, Blackmun is explicit. The right he is granting is to the doctor.

Americans are taught that justice means fairness. They expect it from our legal system. “Equal Justice Under Law” is prominently inscribed on the Supreme Court. Yet, law and justice in America are not necessarily the same thing. And they are certainly not applied in equal ways.

Unschuldig hinter Gittern. Jens Söring wurde in den USA wegen angeblichen Doppelmordes trotz fragwürdiger Beweislage verurteilt – 33 Jahre verbrachte er zu Unrecht im Gefängnis. Ein solches Fehlurteil ist in Deutschland undenkbar? Mitnichten! Zwei der renommiertesten Strafverteidiger Deutschlands packen aus und nehmen das deutsche (Un-)Rechtswesen auseinander. "Im Zweifel gegen den Angeklagten" ist bedauerlicher Alltag in deutschen Strafprozessen. Justizirrtümer sind an der Tagesordnung.

Our legal system often feels like it only works for the rich and powerful - for those who have the means to use the courts to enforce their will and defend their interests. But we can fight back. Jolyon Maugham KC founded Good Law Project in 2017 with the belief that the law can also put power in the hands of ordinary people. . It has brought a series of landmark cases against a dishonest and increasingly autocratic government and won widespread acclaim in successfully reversing Boris Johnson's unlawful suspension of Parliament.

Almost every society has professional judges, but from ancient Athens to modern Asia, cultures have wanted ordinary people involved in legal decisions. The use of juries comes with challenges; societies must determine how to select jurors, what cases jurors should decide and by what rules, and how to inform jurors about the law and evidence. This Very Short Introduction shows how and why societies around the world have used juries, charting the spread of the twelve-person jury from England to the British colonies in America, Canada, India, Australia, New Zealand, and the Caribbean.

How can you keep your faith in people after seeing the flaws of the American justice system? Juror #11 exposes the flaws and weaknesses in the American justice system from the perspective of a murder trial juror who endured months of trauma, the threat of jail, and thousands of dollars in fines and legal fees because of them.