In Confirming Justice—Or Injustice?, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—contemplates the past, present, and future of the Supreme Court, from the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the confirmation battle looming over President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on the Constitution and American government, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand the current circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court and the looming partisan battle for its future. Confirming Justice—Or Injustice? is an analysis of every aspect of the possible confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It includes timely commentary on the history and process of confirming justices to the Supreme Court, notes about what might happen if the process is changed—such as by court packing or instituting age or term limits for justices—and discussion of the roles of the various people and groups who might have input on the confirmation, from the president to the senate to the judiciary committee to the Constitution itself. In the end, Confirming Justice—Or Injustice? represents an icon in American law and politics reckoning with an increasingly politicized and polarized nomination-and-confirmation process for judges and what those shifts might mean for the country, both now and in days to come. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and the process of her possible confirmation, the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the future and fate of the Supreme Court—and American democracy itself.

In Confirming Justice—Or Injustice?, Alan Dershowitz—New York Times bestselling author and one of America’s most respected legal scholars—contemplates the past, present, and future of the Supreme Court, from the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg to the confirmation battle looming over President Trump’s nomination of Judge Amy Coney Barrett. Alan Dershowitz has been called “one of the most prominent and consistent defenders of civil liberties in America” by Politico and “the nation’s most peripatetic civil liberties lawyer and one of its most distinguished defenders of individual rights” by Newsweek. He is also a fair-minded and even-handed expert on the Constitution and American government, and in this book offers his knowledge and insight to help readers understand the current circumstances surrounding the Supreme Court and the looming partisan battle for its future. Confirming Justice—Or Injustice? is an analysis of every aspect of the possible confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett to fill the vacant seat left by the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It includes timely commentary on the history and process of confirming justices to the Supreme Court, notes about what might happen if the process is changed—such as by court packing or instituting age or term limits for justices—and discussion of the roles of the various people and groups who might have input on the confirmation, from the president to the senate to the judiciary committee to the Constitution itself. In the end, Confirming Justice—Or Injustice? represents an icon in American law and politics reckoning with an increasingly politicized and polarized nomination-and-confirmation process for judges and what those shifts might mean for the country, both now and in days to come. It is essential reading for anyone interested in or concerned about Trump's nomination of Amy Coney Barrett and the process of her possible confirmation, the legacy of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and the future and fate of the Supreme Court—and American democracy itself.

However rare, some injustices are "objectively" determined, often through DNA evidence, which allows us to squarely establish innocence despite a conviction. But the stories selected for this book represent a cross-section: some are such that (almost) every reader will see and acknowledge the wrong, and some interviews may leave the readers scratching his head, wondering "what was the author thinking?" By speaking with those impacted by injustices that occurred over the last 60 years--during the 1950s at the height of McCarthyism, the 1980s in Louisiana and New York when race played a large a role in how justice was dispensed and how the media portrayed the participants, the aftermath of 9/11 when many were prepared to believe the worst, and the time shortly before the Supreme Court decided that marriage could be granted to same-sex couples--this book requires readers to look at injustice in the context of our times. The stories told by the participants themselves give the reader insight into the challenges of dispensing, and even commenting on, justice. The author asks difficult questions: Is there an injustice when the game seems to have been played fairly, but the System still got it wrong? Is it an injustice when a jury, properly charged with the evidence fairly presented, convicts the wrong man? Or when people, so passionate in their own point of view, use over-the-top tactics to persuade others of their position? These interviews add to the important--and what must be ongoing--conversation about injustice in America

A beautiful commemorative edition of Dr. Martin Luther King's essay "Letter from Birmingham Jail," part of Dr. King's archives published exclusively by HarperCollins. With an afterword by Reginald Dwayne Betts On April 16, 1923, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., responded to an open letter written and published by eight white clergyman admonishing the civil rights demonstrations happening in Birmingham, Alabama. Dr. King drafted his seminal response on scraps of paper smuggled into jail. King criticizes his detractors for caring more about order than justice, defends nonviolent protests, and argues for the moral responsibility to obey just laws while disobeying unjust ones. "Letter from Birmingham Jail" proclaims a message - confronting any injustice is an acceptable and righteous reason for civil disobedience. This beautifully designed edition presents Dr. King's speech in its entirety, paying tribute to this extraordinary leader and his immeasurable contribution, and inspiring a new generation of activists dedicated to carrying on the fight for justice and equality.

Develops a new account of historical injustice and redress, demonstrating why a consideration of history is crucial for gender equality.

"Social (In)Justice and Mental Health introduces readers to the concept of social justice and role that social injustice plays in the identification, diagnosis, and management of mental illnesses and substance use disorders. Unfair and unjust policies and practices, bolstered by deep-seated beliefs about the inferiority of some groups, has led to a small number of people having tremendous advantages, freedoms, and opportunities, while a growing number are denied those liberties and rights. The book provides a framework for thinking about why these inequities exist and persist and provides clinicians with a road map to address these inequalities as they relate to racism, the criminal justice system, and other systems and diagnoses. Social (In)Justice and Mental Health addresses the context in which mental health care is delivered, strategies for raising consciousness in the mental health profession, and ways to improve treatment while redressing injustice"--

American criminal justice is a dysfunctional mess. Cops are too violent, the punishments are too punitive, and the so-called Land of the Free imprisons more people than any other country in the world. Understanding why means focusing on color—not only on black or white (which already has been studied extensively), but also on green. The problem is that nearly everyone involved in criminal justice—including district attorneys, elected judges, the police, voters, and politicians—faces bad incentives. Local towns often would rather send people to prison on someone else’s dime than pay for more effective policing themselves. Local police forces can enrich themselves by turning into warrior cops who steal from innocent civilians. Voters have very little incentive to understand the basic facts about crime or how to fix it—and vote accordingly. And politicians have every incentive to cater to voters’ worst biases. Injustice for All systematically diagnoses why and where American criminal justice goes wrong, and offers functional proposals for reform. By changing who pays for what, how people are appointed, how people are punished, and which things are criminalized, we can make the US a country which guarantees justice for all. Key Features: Shows how bad incentives, not "bad apples," cause the dysfunction in American criminal justice Focuses not only on overincarceration, but on overcriminalization and other failures of the criminal justice system Provides a philosophical and practical defense of reducing the scope of what’s considered criminal activity Crosses ideological lines, highlighting both the weaknesses and strengths of liberal, conservative, and libertarian agendas Fully integrates tools from philosophy and social science, making this stand out from the many philosophy books on punishment, on the one hand, and the solely empirical studies from sociology and criminal science, on the other Avoids disciplinary jargon, broadening the book’s suitability for students and researchers in many different fields and for an interested general readership Offers plausible reforms that realign specific incentives with the public good.