In bringing together accomplished and thoughtful scholars of different disciplines, with a command of literature ranging from the legal to the literary, and in relating the works to the central arguments of the late Professor Robert Cover, Sarat and Kearns have created a first-rate up-to-date exposition of this important and complicated issue, namely, how to understand better the violence implicit and explicit in law.--Legal Studies Forum The relationship between law and violence is made familiar to us in vivid pictures of police beating suspects, the large and growing prison population, and the tenacious attachment to capital punishment in the United States. Yet the link between law and violence and the ways that law manages to impose pain and death while remaining aloof and unstained are an unexplored mystery. Each essay in this volume considers the question of how violence done by and in the name of the law differs from illegal or extralegal violence--or, indeed, if they differ at all. Each author draws on a distinctive disciplinary tradition-- literature, history, anthropology, philosophy, political science, or law. Yet each reminds us that law, constituted in response to the metaphorical violence of the state of nature, is itself a doer of literal violence. Austin Sarat is William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Jurisprudence and Political Science and Chair of the Program in Law, Jurisprudence, and Social Thought, Amherst College. Thomas R. Kearns is William H. Hastie Professor of Philosophy, Amherst College.

A law professor and former prosecutor reveals how inconsistent ideas about violence, enshrined in law, are at the root of the problems that plague our entire criminal justice system—from mass incarceration to police brutality. We take for granted that some crimes are violent and others aren’t. But how do we decide what counts as a violent act? David Alan Sklansky argues that legal notions about violence—its definition, causes, and moral significance—are functions of political choices, not eternal truths. And these choices are central to failures of our criminal justice system. The common distinction between violent and nonviolent acts, for example, played virtually no role in criminal law before the latter half of the twentieth century. Yet to this day, with more crimes than ever called “violent,” this distinction determines how we judge the seriousness of an offense, as well as the perpetrator’s debt and danger to society. Similarly, criminal law today treats violence as a pathology of individual character. But in other areas of law, including the procedural law that covers police conduct, the situational context of violence carries more weight. The result of these inconsistencies, and of society’s unique fear of violence since the 1960s, has been an application of law that reinforces inequities of race and class, undermining law’s legitimacy. A Pattern of Violence shows that novel legal philosophies of violence have motivated mass incarceration, blunted efforts to hold police accountable, constrained responses to sexual assault and domestic abuse, pushed juvenile offenders into adult prisons, encouraged toleration of prison violence, and limited responses to mass shootings. Reforming legal notions of violence is therefore an essential step toward justice.

Law punishes violence, yet law depends on violence. In this book, a group of leading interdisciplinary legal scholars seeks to map the inexorable but unstable relationship of law to violence. What does it mean to talk about the violence of law? Do high incarceration rates and increased reliance on capital punishment indicate that U.S. law is growing more violent at a time when violence is being restrained in other legal systems? How is the violence of law represented in popular culture and does this affect law's actual legitimacy? Does violence express or distort the essence of law? Does law's violence serve justice? In deeply original essays, the authors build on the seminal work of Robert Cover--one of the few legal scholars ever to consider the question of law and violence. In striving to situate his insights within current political, social, economic, and cultural contexts, they contemplate diverse and interrelated subjects surrounding the theme of law and violence. Among these are the purpose of law as punishment, the increasing number of executions in the United States, prison violence, racial disparity in sentencing, and the meaning of torture. The result is a remarkable volume that stimulates us to reconsider connections that we too often leave unexplored. In addition to the editor, the contributors are Marianne Constable, Peter Fitzpatrick, Thomas R. Kearns, Peter Rush, Jonathan Simon, Shaun McVeigh, and Alison Young.

Domestic Violence and International Law argues that certain forms of domestic violence are a violation of international human rights law. The argument is based on the international law principle that, where a state fails to protect a vulnerable group of people from harm, whether perpetrated by the state or private actors, it has breached its obligations to protect against human rights violation. This book provides a comprehensive legal analysis for why a state should be accountable in international law for allowing women to suffer extreme forms of domestic violence and how this can help individual victims. It is irrelevant that the violence is perpetrated by individuals and not state actors such as soldiers or the police. The state's breach of its responsibility is in its failure to act effectively in domestic violence cases; and in its silent endorsement of the violence, it becomes complicit. The book seeks to reformulate academic and political debate on domestic violence and the responsibility of states under international law. It is based on empirical data combined with an honest assessment of whether or not domestic violence is recognised by the international community as a human rights violation. 'Domestic Violence in International Law [...] provides an original, provocative, and much needed legal framework for the coherent development of a norm against domestic violence in international human rights law...Dr. Meyersfeld has developed a thoroughgoing analysis that asks and answers the most difficult questions often neglected by academics, lawyers and activists who dismiss the possibility that systemic violence against women could violate international law...Most fundamentally, this book is memorable for the hope and optimism it expresses about the transformative possibilities of international law. For without compromising such intensely human values as privacy, autonomy and cultural identity, Dr. Meyersfeld moves her reader with an abiding conviction: that international law, fueled with the power of transnational actors, can propel public actors to protect abused and vulnerable people in their most private worlds.' From the Foreword by Harold Koh, The Legal Adviser, United States Department of State (2009-).

This remarkable and thoughtful book examines some of the most shattering events in recent history, from the annihilation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki to mass murder in Sabra and Shatila, from the hijacking of the "Achille Lauro" to torture and murder by officials of the state. In each case Cassese tries to understand why states--Nietzsche's "cold-hearted monsters"--acted as they did, and what this bodes for the future. Cassese also raises questions of a more general legal and political kind: why do states use force with impunity? Is the first use of nuclear weapons prohibited by international law? Should one obey superior orders and perform a criminal act, as Abraham was prepared to do, or should one respect the moral laws of one's people, as Antigone did? The picture of world events presented here is vivid, and Cassese's analysis is clear and provocative. This is a book not only for students of politics, law, and international affairs, but also for general readers who wish to observe the actions of the state with as much objectivity as possible.

Elizabeth M. Schneider (Brooklyn Law School) and Clare Dalton (Northeastern University School of Law) are joined by two new authors, Judith G. Greenberg (New England School of Law) and Cheryl Hanna (Vermont Law School) in this exciting new Second Edition. The casebook maintains its rich focus on examining domestic violence through a variety of theoretical, practical, and interdisciplinary lenses and remains the most comprehensive casebook on domestic violence. This book is widely used in law school courses and clinics on domestic violence, heavily adopted in undergraduate and graduate courses, and routinely relied upon by judges, attorneys, and other professionals who work in the field. The Second Edition captures the tremendous growth in domestic violence law and includes the many recent Supreme Court cases implicating domestic violence, including Crawford v. Washington, Davis v. Washington, Dixon v. United States, Georgia v. Randolph, Ayotte v. Planned Parenthood of Northern New England, and Castle Rock v. Gonzales. The new edition emphasizes the current expansion of case law and contains updated notes with practical problems. It adds three new chapters: sexual autonomy, reproductive rights and domestic violence; evidence in domestic violence cases and immigration, asylum and domestic violence. It streamlines the family law materials, highlights the most pressing issues in criminal law, and broadens the already significant integration of issues of diversity throughout the book including more materials on the impact of domestic violence on Native Americans, Muslims, teens, and the elderly.