This book examines the factors that facilitate the inclusion of women on high courts, while recognizing that many courts have a long way to go before reaching gender parity. Why did women start appearing on high courts when they did? Where have women made the most significant strides? To address these questions, the authors built the first cross-national and longitudinal dataset on the appointment of women and men to high courts. In addition, they provide five in-depth country case studies us to unpack the selection of justices to high courts in Canada, Colombia, Ireland, South Africa, and the United States. The cross-national lens and combination of quantitative analyses and detailed country studies examines multiple influences across region and time. Focusing on three sets of explanations —pipelines to high courts, domestic institutions, and international influences- analyses reveal that women are more likely to first appear on their country's high court when traditional ideas about who can and should be a judge erode. In some countries, international treaties, regional emulation, and women's international NGOs play a role in disseminating and linking global norms of gender equality in decision-making. Importantly, while informal institutions and reliance on men-dominated networks can limit access, women are making substantial strides in their countries' highest courts where the supply grows, and often where selectors have incentives to select women. Further, sustained pressure from advocacy organizations-at the local, national, and global levels-contributes to some gains. Comparative Politics is a series for researchers, teachers, and students of political science that deals with contemporary government and politics. Global in scope, books in the series are characterized by a stress on comparative analysis and strong methodological rigour. The series is published in association with the European Consortium for Political Research. For more information visit www.ecprnet.eu The series is edited by Susan Scarrow, John and Rebecca Moores Professor of Political Science at the University of Houston, and Jonathan Slapin, Professor of Political Institutions and European Politics, Department of Political Science, University of Zurich.

In their timely and topical book, Reimagining Courts, Victor Flango and Thomas Clarke argue that courts are a victim of their own success. Disputes that once were resolved either informally in the family or within the community are now handled mainly by courts, which strains government agency resources. The authors offer provocative suggestions for a thorough overhaul of American state and local courts, one that better fits the needs of a twenty-first century legal system. Reimagining Courts recommends a triage process based upon case characteristics, litigant goals, and resolution processes. Courts must fundamentally reorganize their business processes around the concept of the litigant as a customer. Each adjudication process that the authors propose requires a different case management process and different amounts of judicial, staff, and facility resources. Reimagining Courts should spark much-needed debate. This book will be of significant interest to lawyers, judges, and professionals in the court system as well as to scholars in public administration and political science.

"Home : a place that provides access to every opportunity America has to offer.--A.H."--P. [vii]

Public value theory speaks to the co-creation of value between politicians, citizens, and public managers, with a focus on the public manager in terms of her contributions, initiatives, and limitations in value creation. But just who are public managers? Public value regularly treats the "public manager" as synonymous with bureaucrat, government official, civil servant, or public administrator. However, the categories of public managers represent a more versatile and expansive set of agents in society than they are given credit for, and the discourse of public value has typically not delved sufficiently into the variety of possible cadres that might comprise the "public manager." This book seeks to go beyond the assumed understandings of who the public manager is and what she does. It does so by examining the processes of value creation that are driven by non-traditional sets of public managers, which include the judiciary, the armed forces, multilateral institutions, and central banks. It applies public value tools to understand their value creation and uses their unique attributes to inform our understanding of public value theory. Tailored to an audience comprising public administration scholars, students of government, public officials, practitioners, and social scientists interested in contemporary problems of values in society, this book helps to advance public administration thought by re-examining the theory’s ultimate protagonist: the public manager. It therefore constitutes an important effort to take public value theory forward by going "beyond" conceptions of the public manager as she has thus far been understood.

Both historically and in the present, the Supreme Court has largely been a failure In this devastating book, Erwin Chemerinsky—“one of the shining lights of legal academia” (The New York Times)—shows how, case by case, for over two centuries, the hallowed Court has been far more likely to uphold government abuses of power than to stop them. Drawing on a wealth of rulings, some famous, others little known, he reviews the Supreme Court’s historic failures in key areas, including the refusal to protect minorities, the upholding of gender discrimination, and the neglect of the Constitution in times of crisis, from World War I through 9/11. No one is better suited to make this case than Chemerinsky. He has studied, taught, and practiced constitutional law for thirty years and has argued before the Supreme Court. With passion and eloquence, Chemerinsky advocates reforms that could make the system work better, and he challenges us to think more critically about the nature of the Court and the fallible men and women who sit on it.

Combines original empirical data with theoretical and normative analysis of access to justice in the Court of Protection.

"Restorative justice theory has largely failed to keep pace with the rapid expansion of restorative practices worldwide – indeed, it is remarkable how much support RJ has when so few advocates can even define what it is. As such, this insightful and comprehensive new contribution from two of the top scholars on the frontlines of restorative justice research is hugely welcome." Professor Shadd Maruna, Centre for Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of Manchester "Reimagining Restorative Justice is a reflective and balanced reconsideration of restorative justice. It deftly sweeps across the large literature on the subject, putting it in perspective, seeing anew through its wide-angle lens. Empowerment and accountability provide a fertile framework for this richly reimagined justice." Professor John Braithwaite, Australian National University "David O'Mahony and Jonathan Doak have made a significant contribution to the confusing and over-complicated field of restorative justice theory. They do so through their use of empowerment theory to bring conceptual and operational clarity to the concepts of agency and accountability in restorative processes and outcomes. As a result they develop a convincing argument for face to face dialogue between victim and perpetrator within the core of the criminal justice system. Their emphasis upon ethical and skilful practice is a welcome riposte to the rapid spread of 'restorative justice lite' driven by managerialism and the need to cut costs." Tim Chapman, Lecturer at the University of Ulster. "O'Mahony and Doak convincingly argue that rapid developments in the practice of restorative interventions have outstripped restorative justice theory. They provide both an outstandingly helpful review of the literature and a fresh theoretical approach based on empowerment theory. Everyone seriously interested in restorative justice will want to reflect carefully on the authors' conclusions." Anthony Bottoms, Emeritus Wolfson Professor of Criminology at the University of Cambridge. In recent years, restorative-based interventions have expanded rapidly and are increasingly viewed as a legitimate, and even superior means of delivering justice. The result of this swift but piecemeal development has been that restorative justice practice has outpaced the development of restorative justice theory. This book takes up this challenge by 'reimagining' a new framework for the operation of restorative justice within criminal justice. In essence, it is contended that the core empowering values of 'agency' and 'accountability' provide a lens for reimagining how restorative justice works and the normative goals it ought to encompass.