Introduction -- John T. PARRY: Pain, Interrogation, and the Body: State Violence and the Law of Torture -- Fernando PURCELL: "Too Many Foreigners for My Taste": Law, Race and Ethnicity in California, 1848-1852 -- Shani D'CRUZE: Protection, Harm and Social Evil: The Age of Consent, c. 1885-c. 1940 -- Ruth A. MILLER: Sin, Scandal, and Disaster: Politics and Crime in Contemporary Turkey -- İştar GÖZAYD1N: Adding Injury To Injury: The Case of Rape and Prostitution in Turkey -- Dani FILC and Hadas ZIV: Exception as the Norm and the Fiction of Sovereignty: The Lack of the Right to Health Care in the Occupied Territories -- Alban BURKE: Mental Health Care During Apartheid in South Africa: An Illustration of How "Science" Can be Abused -- Rui ZHU: Schistosomiasis and Capital Marxism -- Elena A. BAYLIS: The Inevitable Impunity of Suicide Terrorists -- Douglas J. SYLVESTER: The Lessons of Nuremberg and the Trial of Saddam Hussein -- Kirsten AINLEY: Responsibility for Atrocity: Individual Criminal Agency and the International Criminal Court -- Roberto BUONAMANO: Humanity and Inhumanity: State Power and the Force of Law in the Prescription of Juridical Norms -- Vincent LUIZZI: New Balance, Evil, and the Scales of Justice -- Jody LYNEÉ MADEIRA: The Execution as Sacrifice -- Bram IEVEN: Legitimacy and Violence: On the Relation between Law and Justice According to Rawls and Derrida -- Notes on Contributors.

State Power and the Legal Regulation of Evil engages with the responses of lawmakers and state officials to acts of evil as performed in different locations. The essays in this volume offer a range of perspectives on the relationship between law, state and evil calling on us to reflect upon the role of law and state in the commission of evil deeds.

This volume is a collection of the chapter presentations contributed by participants in the 4th Global Conference on Evil, Law & the State: Issues in State Power and Violence. The conference drew together a number of scholars from different backgrounds: law, politics, philosophy, religious studies, literature and cinema.

A leading political scientist identifies "political evil" as wrongdoing perpetrated by individuals with specific political goals, cites specific examples throughout the world and explains that important changes can be initiated through adjustments in how political evil is treated.

Must we fight terrorism with terror, match assassination with assassination, and torture with torture? Must we sacrifice civil liberty to protect public safety? In the age of terrorism, the temptations of ruthlessness can be overwhelming. But we are pulled in the other direction too by the anxiety that a violent response to violence makes us morally indistinguishable from our enemies. There is perhaps no greater political challenge today than trying to win the war against terror without losing our democratic souls. Michael Ignatieff confronts this challenge head-on, with the combination of hard-headed idealism, historical sensitivity, and political judgment that has made him one of the most influential voices in international affairs today. Ignatieff argues that we must not shrink from the use of violence--that far from undermining liberal democracy, force can be necessary for its survival. But its use must be measured, not a program of torture and revenge. And we must not fool ourselves that whatever we do in the name of freedom and democracy is good. We may need to kill to fight the greater evil of terrorism, but we must never pretend that doing so is anything better than a lesser evil. In making this case, Ignatieff traces the modern history of terrorism and counter-terrorism, from the nihilists of Czarist Russia and the militias of Weimar Germany to the IRA and the unprecedented menace of Al Qaeda, with its suicidal agents bent on mass destruction. He shows how the most potent response to terror has been force, decisive and direct, but--just as important--restrained. The public scrutiny and political ethics that motivate restraint also give democracy its strongest weapon: the moral power to endure when the furies of vengeance and hatred are spent. The book is based on the Gifford Lectures delivered at the University of Edinburgh in 2003.

Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil , first published in 2006, concerns what is entailed by pledging allegiance to a constitutional text and tradition saturated with concessions to evil. The Constitution of the United States was originally understood as an effort to mediate controversies between persons who disputed fundamental values, and did not offer a vision of the good society. In order to form a 'more perfect union' with slaveholders, late-eighteenth-century citizens fashioned a constitution that plainly compelled some injustices and was silent or ambiguous on other questions of fundamental right. This constitutional relationship could survive only as long as a bisectional consensus was required to resolve all constitutional questions not settled in 1787. Dred Scott challenges persons committed to human freedom to determine whether antislavery northerners should have provided more accommodations for slavery than were constitutionally strictly necessary or risked the enormous destruction of life and property that preceded Lincoln's new birth of freedom.