検索キーワード： 制作 "-- Kevin Wright --" 司法制度

With the gravitas of Joan Biskupic and the irreverence of Elie Mystal, Leah Litman brings her signature wit to the question of what’s gone wrong at One First Street. In Lawless, she argues that the Supreme Court is no longer practicing law; it’s running on vibes. By “vibes,” Litman means legal-ish claims that repackage the politics of conservative grievance and dress them up in robes. Major decisions adopt the language and posture of the law, while in fact displaying a commitment to protecting a single minority: the religious conservatives and Republican officials.

The legal system was not designed for poor people. Yet, we ask citizens to use this system every day in spite of its shortcomings. If you have been sued or need to sue to seek legal redress, this book is for you. It will guide you through some of what to expect, and further explain why the system does not render justice every day.

London, 1953. Police discover the bodies of three young women hidden in a wall at 10 Rillington Place, a dingy terrace house in Notting Hill. On searching the building, they find another body beneath the floorboards, then an array of human bones in the garden. But they have already investigated a double murder at 10 Rillington Place, three years ago, and the killer was hanged. Did they get the wrong man?

An introductory lecture on jurisprudence (philosophy of law) delivered at the Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta on March 26, 1993.

Will Johnnie Veal—convicted of the murder of two police officers in 1970—be granted parole after 50 years in prison? How can he convince the parole board he’s reformed when he insists he’s innocent? What is prison time even supposed to accomplish? These are the questions that propel The Parole Room forward as it builds toward Johnnie’s 20th parole hearing—after 19 rejections.

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.

The Supreme Court has always had the authority to issue emergency rulings in exceptional circumstances. But since 2017, the Court has dramatically expanded its use of the behind-the-scenes “shadow docket,” regularly making decisions that affect millions of Americans without public hearings and without explanation, through cryptic late-night rulings that leave lawyers—and citizens—scrambling. But Americans of all political stripes should be worried about what the shadow docket portends for the rule of law, argues Supreme Court expert Stephen Vladeck.

CNN Senior Supreme Court Analyst Joan Biskupic provides an urgent and inside look at the history-making era in the Supreme Court during the Trump and post-Trump years, from its seismic shift to the Right to its controversial decisions, including its reversal of Roe v. Wade, based on access to all the key players.

In the tight-knit community of Lorain, Ohio, a whirlwind of horror swept through as unsettling allegations surfaced - a trusted bus driver and her alleged companion were accused of shattering the innocence of preschoolers in the respected Head Start program. The verdict? Life-long prison sentences that would cast a shadow over a community, and initiate an untiring quest for truth.

Inside Strafprozess. Täglich sollen sie den moralischen Verfall unserer Gesellschaft verhindern, doch wie finden Richter zu ihrem Urteil? Und mit welchen Herausforderungen sind sie dabei konfrontiert? Strafrichter Patrick Burow gewährt seltene Einblicke in den Gerichtssaal. "Auf hoher See und vor Gericht ist dein Leben in Gottes Hand", weiß der Volksmund. Doch wie denkt und arbeitet ein Richter? Und wie findet er zu einem gerechten Urteil ? Spiegel-Bestseller-Autor Patrick Burow ist Richter aus Leidenschaft. In seinem neuen Buch blickt er hinter die Kulissen deutscher Gerichte.

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.

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.

Barrister Charlotte Proudman has represented countless women in cases spanning rape, domestic abuse, child abduction, forced marriage and female genital mutilation. She has seen first-hand how the family court deepens the trauma of vulnerable women, staking their futures on the biases of individual judges and forcing them to endure the torture of a judicial process that stretches over months and sometimes years.

Dive into the intricate web of judicial interpretations surrounding religious freedom and the First Amendment with "What’s Law Got to do With it?." In this thought-provoking exploration, Rev Dr. Anthony Suarez Esq, a seasoned legal scholar, dissects the evolving landscape of the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" and delves into the inherent tensions between these constitutional principles.

While this book may not handle every single possible scenario you may run across, I do have my finger on the pulse of the legal industry and what lawyers are challenged by every day. Take what you can from what I’ve learned and perfected on legal business development, marketing and networking to make it your own. My greatest hope is to hear from you someday that you did take action and that this book made the difference for you in your legal career. So enjoy the book, take lots of notes and most importantly, be that lawyer!

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.

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.