What place, if any, ought cultural considerations have when we blame and punish in the criminal law? Bringing together political and legal theorists Criminal Law and Cultural Diversity offers original and diverse discussions that go to the heart of both legal and political debates about multiculturalism, human agency, and responsibility.

This text gives a critical socio-legal discussion, which sets out two sport and leisure disasters (Hillsborough and the Marchioness disasters) and their broader legal/political/economic and policy contexts. It includes a wide range of contemporary legal critiques in the foundation chapters.

How can you settle your dispute for ten cents on the dollar and never set foot in a courtroom? Litigation can't accomplish that for you, but Collaborative Law can.

This illuminating Research Handbook analyses the role that emotions play and ought to play in legal reasoning and practice, rejecting the simplistic distinction between reason and emotion.

The essays in this book explore a wide range of themes of current interest and controversy, with a particular focus on lesbian and gay issues, nationality postcoloniality, sexuality and criminality, and the politics of rights struggles.>

When relationships break down, disputes commonly arise over the parenting arrangements for children, whose living arrangements have to be reorganized at a time of great conflict and turmoil. Most such disputes are resolved without a judicial determination through private agreement, negotiation between lawyers, mediation, or a combination of these methods. This book examines whether and how children should be involved in the process of resolving family law disputes. Although there is widespread acceptance in the Western world that the views of children should be taken into account, and that the weight given to those views should depend on their age and maturity, there is much less agreement about how children's voices should be heard. There are many benefits to giving children a voice in decisions that affect their lives, and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child identifies this as a right for children. However, there are difficulties and dangers in seeking to hear from children, not least because they may be subject to pressure from each parent to express views that support his or her case. Courts dealing with family law issues are constantly faced with a dilemma. Is it better to keep children out of the conflict, or to give them a say, so that the arrangements are as workable for them as possible? This book integrates examinations of these issues with empirical data from interviews which explore the views and experiences of children, parents, counsellors, mediators, lawyers, and judges involved in such disputes in Australia. Drawing on this research, the authors suggest ways in which children can better be heard without placing them at the centre of their parents' conflicts. They argue that the focus should not just be on how children are heard in legal proceedings, but on how they can be better heard in those families who resolve their conflicts without going to court.

American family law makes two key assumptions: first, that the civil state possesses sole authority over marriage and divorce; and second, that the civil law may contain only one regulatory regime for such matters. These assumptions run counter to the multicultural and religiously plural nature of our society. This book elaborates how those assumptions are descriptively incorrect, and it begins an important conversation about whether more pluralism in family law is normatively desirable. For example, may couples rely upon religious tribunals (Jewish, Muslim, or otherwise) to decide family law disputes? May couples opt into stricter divorce rules, either through premarital contracts or 'covenant marriages'? How should the state respond? Intentionally interdisciplinary and international in scope, this volume contains contributions from fourteen leading scholars. The authors address the provocative question of whether the state must consider sharing its jurisdictional authority with other groups in family law.