Suchergebnisse

For all the diversity of views within the animal protection movement, there is a surprising consensus about the need for more severe criminal justice interventions against animal abusers. More prosecutions and longer sentences, it is argued, will advance the status of animals in law and society. Breaking from this mold, Professor Justin Marceau demonstrates that a focus on 'carceral animal law' puts the animal rights movement at odds with other social justice movements, and may be bad for humans and animals alike. Animal protection efforts need to move beyond cages and towards systemic solutions if the movement hopes to be true to its own defining ethos of increased empathy and resistance to social oppression. Providing new insights into how the lessons of criminal justice reform should be imported into the animal abuse context, Beyond Cages is a valuable contribution to the literature on animal welfare and animal rights law.

While the animal rights and food justice movements are relatively young, their political unpopularity has generated a steady onslaught of legislation designed to curtail their effectiveness. At each stage of their nascent development, these movements have confronted a new wave of criminal or civil sanctions carefully tailored to combat the previous successes the movements had achieved.

"Truth and transparency are central to an informed democracy. This book explores how undercover investigations, though controversial, can contribute to democracy by exposing wrongdoers. Through original empirical research and doctrinal study, it examines in depth the legality of, and public opinion about, such investigations in the U.S"--

On March 23, 2020, Colorado repealed its death penalty statute for all crimes committed after July 1, 2020. Prior to this repeal, the two of us, along with other researchers, conducted a multi-year empirical investigation of the extent to which Colorado's death penalty statute complied with the Eighth Amendment requirement of statutory narrowing. Litigants introduced our study in support of more than a dozen non-narrowing challenges to the Colorado statute, and we testified regarding what we believe was the failure of Colorado's statute to do the narrowing work required by the Constitution. In this article, we build on this experience to discuss how a Hidalgo claim can best be framed in other state courts for eventual adjudication in the United States Supreme Court. Obviously, what is needed is a robust empirical study demonstrating that the discretion and arbitrariness that concerned the Furman Court remain present in a state's modern capital punishment statute. But more than that, we discuss here how to structure lower court litigation of capital studies so as to foreground legal issues and to keep the focus on the relevant constitutional law rather than the credibility or motivations of the researchers.