DOCSLIB.ORG

Interview with Jeremy Horder, the New Head of LSE Law LSE Law Ranked

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interview with Jeremy Horder, the New Head of LSE Law LSE Law Ranked 2015/16 Interview with Jeremy Horder, the new Head of LSE Law LSE Law ranked first among UK law schools Damian Chalmers on An Open Europe Contents 2 3 FACULTY INSIGHTS 3 LLM Graduate Laila Hamzi Selected for Coveted ICJ Traineeship Lunch with the Editor 37 3 Interview with Jeremy Horder, LSE Wins Jessup Cup 2015 Head of Department, LSE Law 38 Number 1, Again! Taylor Wessing 8 LSE Law’s REF results 40 Commercial Challenge An Open Europe: interview LLB and LLM Prizes 10 with Damian Chalmers 42 One minute in the mind of... 16 Veerle Heyvaert PHD PROFILES 44 Lewina Coote: On Secret Justice 18 Finance Officer... and the 44 Department’s “Butterfly” Constituent power and social Obituary: 46 justice in postcolonial India: 20 Mike Redmayne my intellectual journey so far Appointments, Tackling Your Topic 24 Awards and Staff Changes 50 and Yourself New books The Lake Home 27 52 LSE Ratio is published by LSE Law at the London School of Economics and Political Science, Houghton Street, London WC2A 2AE. Tel: +44 (0)20 7955 7688. PhD Completions Email: [email protected] STUDENT NEWS 28 56 Executive Editor: Bradley Barlow. General Editor: Tom Poole. Let Us Learn: campaigning Contributing Editors: Devika Hovell, Jo Murkens, Chris Thomas, Emmanuel Voyiakis. EVENTS 58 Art and design: Jonathan Ing, LSE Design Unit. 28 for equal access Photography: Guy Jordan and Nigel Stead, LSE School Photographer. Illustrations: Jonathan Ing, Elizabeth Mosley, Ailsa Drake. LSE Design Unit. Leaving the EU? A Year in the Sun LSE holds the dual status of an exempt charity under Section 2 of the Charities Act 30 58 1993 (as a constituent part of the University of London), and a company limited by guarantee under the Companies Act 1985 (Registration no. 70527). Human Shield Pro Bono Matters – Copyright in editorial matter and in the magazine as a whole belongs to LSE ©2015. Copyright in individual articles belongs to the authors who have asserted a new Postgraduate 61 32 their moral rights ©2015. Group at LSE Law We Are The Guerrillas All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission Access to Justice after the 64 in writing of the publisher, nor be issued to the public or circulated in any form of Lunch with the Editor Legal Aid Cuts binding or cover other than that in which it is published. 34 Greece: The Future of Europe? Requests for permission to reproduce any article or part of the magazine should be Professor Jeremy Horder, Head of Department, LSE Law sent to the editor at the above address. New Centre for Women, Peace 68 In the interests of providing a free flow of debate, views expressed in this magazine In Conversation with Professor Thomas Poole, Ratio Editor are not necessarily those of the editor, LSE Law or LSE. and Security launched at LSE 36 Legal Biography Project Although every effort is made to ensure the accuracy and reliability of material 71 published in this magazine, LSE Law or LSE accepts no responsibility for the veracity Welcome to “Lunch with the Editor”. And congratulations, first of all, on of claims or accuracy of information provided by contributors. Freedom of thought and expression is essential to the pursuit, advancement and Forthcoming Events dissemination of knowledge. LSE Law seeks to ensure that intellectual freedom and becoming Head of LSE Law. You’re joining a distinguished line of predecessors – 72 freedom of expression within the law is secured for all our members and those we invite to the School. Hugh Collins, Martin Loughlin and Emily Jackson – who have among other things led LSE Law twice to RAE/REF success. Are you ready for the job? Jeremy Horder: One of the things you them, for instance, whereas those on learn about scholarly life is that whatever benefit are hardly likely to do that. you do you always have to negotiate with “One of the things you learn I am also doing, for the first time on people far smarter than yourself. If you my own, a new edition of Ashworth about scholarly life is that have any pretentions to being better or 4 and Horder’s Principles of Criminal 5 better informed or superior then you whatever you do you always Law, adding a historical chapter as well are doomed to failure. I’ve become as redoing the existing chapters. This have to negotiate with people accustomed to this over a period of time. needs to be done by the end of the So that in itself won’t be a problem. But far smarter than yourself.” summer – so I had better get my in a broader sense it is fantastic to be skates on! working with such great scholars. The quality of the place is such that it almost Your scholarship is somewhat unusual deterred me from a applying for the in that it combines research into be guilty of murder whether or not position of a Law Professor here! contemporary English criminal law – you intended the death. That rule I including law reform, about which more attributed to a mistake, basically, made We’ll talk in more detail later about your in a moment – with a real interest in the by Lord Coke in his Institutes, where new role. But before that, I’d like to history of the subject. he confused two different cases and concentrate on your background came up with the rule. As a result of and interests, starting with your JH: Yes, that’s right. In fact, I’ve just this error, not only were hundreds of research. What are you working on completed something on corruption people executed in this country on the at the moment? and misconduct in the public office in back of the rule, but of course the rule the late eighteenth century. Most of was also exported to the United States JH: I’ve just given a Current Legal it is purely historical, but it includes where they continue to execute people Problems lecture at University College a final section which compares and under it. London on the subject of benefit contrasts attitudes towards state assets, offending – basically about how the so to speak, that were common in Speaking of your time as a Law state treats people on benefits who the eighteenth century compared to Commissioner, you were there for are trying to make their way through the attitudes on display in the recent five years, I believe. I’m interested in lots of different claims. The problem Parliamentary expenses scandal. hearing about your experience in that is that there are a lot of offences now, Essentially the difference is that role. What major projects did you work applying to all walks of life, concerned modern politicians are very aware about on while you were at the Commission? with the failure to provide the proper what they are meant to say in public. So And what did you achieve while you information. A very large bulk of English when they behave in an inappropriate were there? criminal law is comprised of these kinds way, there is then a kind of hypocrisy JH: What you achieve is very often of offences. The theory that I tested – a difference between their words a matter of chance at the Law out – it’s commonsense in a way – is and their behaviour – whereas in Commission. Sometimes your projects that the less well-educated you are, or the eighteenth century there wasn’t only come through long after you if you’ve got problems with disability or really that gap because people were leave. There’s the example of the other problems, it is going to be harder less concerned about pretending to Commissioners who recommended for you to fill in these forms and to be one thing and being another; they in 1975 that blasphemy should be get the information right. This will be essentially just did and said what abolished as a crime, a proposal that particularly true in the area of benefit they thought. didn’t come through for about 30 offences, where Government has been years. While I was there, the main Do you find generally that your cracking down very hard on what they task we had was to work on the law of historical work impacts on or influences take to be benefit abuse. So the lecture homicide, murder in particular, and your study of the criminal law today? was really about whether we need a defences to murder, which is an area different type of regulatory approach JH: It can do, certainly. When I was at I had previously written about. Here depending on what the target audience the Law Commission we did a historical we were partially successful, in the is, if you like. Taxpayers, for example: study of what was called the “felony sense that there was some revision of perhaps we can expect a bit more of murder rule”, whereby if you kill the defences, some of it based on Law them in terms of what they can put into someone in the course of any crime of Commission recommendations. But this. They can employ advisers to help any seriousness you would automatically probably the most successful project arose as a result of political changes of Do you think it is important for law I was going to ask you more directly You were Chair of the Oxford Law have gone fully down this road. They They also know that universities game circumstance, and that was our work academics to take part in public debate about your experience at other Faculty for some time.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Keynote Speakers Cvs
    Keynote Speakers CVs H.E. Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. LL.M. Susanne Baer, Justice of the Federal Con- stitutional Court, Germany Professor Baer serves as Justice of the Federal Constitutional Court in Germany, elected by the Bundestag in 2011 to the First Senate, for a 12 years term. She is the Professor of Public Law and Gender Studies at Humboldt University Berlin and a James W. Cook Global Law Professor at the University of Michigan Law School, where she received an honorary doctorate in 2014, as she did from the University of Hasselt (2017) and from the University of Lucerne (2018). She is a Corresponding Fellow at the British Academy of Arts and Sciences, where she gave the Maccabean Lecture in 2019. She has taught at CEU Budapest, in Austria, Switzerland and Canada. Prof. Baer studied law and political science and was active in movements against dis- crimination, including pornography, sexual harassment and domestic violence; from 2003 until 2010, she directed the Gender Competence Centre to advise the German federal government on gender mainstreaming. At Humboldt University, she served as Vice-President for International and Student Affairs, as Director of Gender Studies and Vice Dean of the Faculty of Law, and she founded the Law and Society Institute Berlin and a Law Clinic in Human Rights. Publications in English include: Comparative Constitutionalism. 3rd edition, Thomson/West 2016 (with N Dorsen, M Rosenfeld, A Sajó, S Mancini); The Rule of—and not by any—Law. On Constitutionalism, Current Legal Problems 71 (2018) 335; The Difference a Justice May Make: Remarks at the Symposium for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Columbia J of Gender & Law 25 (2013), Equality, in: Rosenfeld/ Sajo, The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitu- tional Law, OUP 2012, 982; Dignity, Liberty, Equality: A Fundamental Rights Triangle of Con- stitutionalism, Toronto LJ 4 (2009) 417.
    [Show full text]
  • Crime and Punishment in the US: Political Systems and Technology Regime Change
    Crime and Punishment in the US: Political Systems and Technology Regime Change Nicola Lacey and David Soskice LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers 22/2019 London School of Economics and Political Science Law Department This paper can be downloaded without charge from LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers at: www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/wps.htm and the Social Sciences Research Network electronic library at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3492701 © Nicola Lacey and David Soskice. Users may download and/or print one copy to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. Users may not engage in further distribution of this material or use it for any profit-making activities or any other form of commercial gain. This paper can be downloaded without charge from LSE Law, Society and Economy Working Papers at: www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/wps.htm and the Social Sciences Research Network electronic library at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=[number]. Crime and Punishment in the US: Political Systems and Technology Regime Change Nicola Lacey and David Soskice* Abstract: One of the most extraordinary social science phenomena of the postwar period has been the rise in violent crime in large American cities from the 1970s to the mid 1990s and the consequent rise in incarceration; and then its subsequent dramatic decline in most of those cities and the correspondingly decisive decline in the increase in imprisonment. An echo of these ‘waves’ occurred in almost all advanced economies; but their amplitude in the US case is quite exceptional. We seek to explain: why the waves, and why the exceptional American amplitude? Comparative political economy has had little to say in recent decades about American exceptionalism in general and about American crime and punishment in particular.
    [Show full text]
  • Why Are the Truly Disadvantaged American, When the UK Is Bad Enough?
    Why are the Truly Disadvantaged American, when the UK is Bad Enough? A political economy analysis of local autonomy in criminal justice, education, residential zoning Nicola Lacey* and David Soskice** Abstract In terms of key criminal justice indices such as the rate of the most serious violent crime and the imprisonment rate, the United States not only performs worse than other advanced democracies, but does so to a startling degree. Moreover these differences have become more extreme over the last half century. For example, the imprisonment rate, which was double that in England and Wales in 1970, is today five times higher, notwithstanding the fact that the rate in England and Wales has itself more than doubled during that period. And while, at between 4 and 5 times the English level, the American homicide rate is broadly comparable today with that in 1950 (when it was nearly 6 times the English level) it reached ten times that level in the late 1970s . These differences are widely recognised. What is less often recognised in comparative criminal justice scholarship is that these differences in criminal justice variables sit alongside stark differences in other key social indicators, notably in inequality of educational outcomes and in residential socio- economic and racial segregation, where the United States also does worse than other liberal market countries with similar economic and welfare systems. The comparison with other Liberal Market Economies such as the UK and New Zealand is even more striking in the light of their own poor performance on all these variables as compared to the Co-ordinated Market Economies of Northern Europe and Japan.
    [Show full text]
  • Understanding the Determinants of Penal Policy: Crime, Culture and Comparative Political Economy
    Understanding the Determinants of Penal Policy: crime, culture and comparative political economy Nicola Lacey, David Soskice and David Hope Working paper 13 July 2017 III Working paper 13 Nicola Lacey, David Soskice and David Hope LSE International Inequalities Institute The International Inequalities Institute (III) based at the London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) aims to be the world’s leading centre for interdisciplinary research on inequalities and create real impact through policy solutions that tackle the issue. The Institute provides a genuinely interdisciplinary forum unlike any other, bringing together expertise from across the School and drawing on the thinking of experts from every continent across the globe to produce high quality research and innovation in the field of inequalities. For further information on the work of the Institute, please contact the Institute Manager, Liza Ryan at [email protected]. International Inequalities Institute The London School of Economics and Political Science Houghton Street London WC2A 2AE Email: [email protected] Web site: www.lse.ac.uk/III @LSEInequalities LSE Inequalities © Nicola Lacey, David Soskice, David Hope. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including notice, is given to the source. 2 III Working paper 13 Nicola Lacey, David Soskice and David Hope Abstract This review sets out four main explanatory paradigms of penal policy—focusing on, in turn, crime, cultural dynamics, economic structures and interests, and institutional differences in the organisation of different political economies as the key determinants of penal policy.
    [Show full text]
  • Book Review Humanizing the Criminal Justice Machine: Re-Animated Justice Or Frankenstein’S Monster?
    BOOK REVIEW HUMANIZING THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE MACHINE: RE-ANIMATED JUSTICE OR FRANKENSTEIN’S MONSTER? THE MACHINERY OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE. By Stephanos Bibas. New York, N.Y.: Oxford University Press. 2012. Pp. xxxii, 285. $75.00. Reviewed by Nicola Lacey∗ The American criminal justice system is broken. This claim, in one form or another, commands wide support among those who study criminal justice.1 But the view that the system is in urgent need of re- form marks the limit of scholarly consensus. As soon as one moves to specifics — to analysis of the particular ways in which the system is defective or problematic; to interpretation of why these defects or problems have arisen; and perhaps above all, to elaboration of possible solutions and institutional reforms — one encounters not only the sort of variety that is to be expected in any vibrant field of scholarship, but also fundamental differences of diagnosis and prescription. Some scholars see the “collapse” of criminal justice in terms of mac- ro forces beyond the criminal justice system itself. Among these schol- ars, some point to the politically opportunistic “federalization” of crim- inal policy and counsel a renewed focus on local democratic control.2 Other scholars diagnose an excess rather than a deficit of democracy, pointing to the ways in which the diffusion of elected positions in not only the design but also the delivery of criminal justice policy has en- couraged pragmatic, unprincipled policymaking and executive deci- sionmaking in the pursuit of electoral gain.3 These scholars according- ly counsel the construction of policymaking structures that operate at ––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––– * Senior Research Fellow, All Souls College, Oxford; Professor of Criminal Law and Legal Theory, University of Oxford.
    [Show full text]
  • Institutionalising Limits on Punishment in Contemporary Social and Political Systems
    Nicola Lacey and Hanna Pickard The chimera of proportionality: institutionalising limits on punishment in contemporary social and political systems Article (Accepted version) (Refereed) Original citation: Lacey, Nicola and Pickard, Hanna (2015) The chimera of proportionality: institutionalising limits on punishment in contemporary social and political systems. The Modern Law Review. 78 (2). pp. 216-240. ISSN 0026-7961 © 2015 The Authors. The Modern Law Review © 2015 The Modern Law Review Limited This version available at: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/60380/ Available in LSE Research Online: April 2015 LSE has developed LSE Research Online so that users may access research output of the School. Copyright © and Moral Rights for the papers on this site are retained by the individual authors and/or other copyright owners. Users may download and/or print one copy of any article(s) in LSE Research Online to facilitate their private study or for non-commercial research. You may not engage in further distribution of the material or use it for any profit-making activities or any commercial gain. You may freely distribute the URL (http://eprints.lse.ac.uk) of the LSE Research Online website. This document is the author’s final accepted version of the journal article. There may be differences between this version and the published version. You are advised to consult the publisher’s version if you wish to cite from it. The chimera of proportionality: institutionalising limits on punishment in contemporary social and political systems Nicola Lacey* and Hanna Pickard**1 Key words: Proportionality; punishment; desert theory; retributivism; comparative political economy; evolutionary psychology Abstract: The concept of proportionality has been central to the retributive revival in penal theory, and is the main idea underlying desert theory’s normative and practical commitment to limiting punishment.
    [Show full text]
  • Center for European Studies
    Center for European Studies Working Paper Series #148 (2007) Criminal Justice and Democratic Systems: Inclusionary and Exclusionary Dynamics in the Institutional Structure of Late Modern Societies by Nicola Lacey* Professor of Criminal Law and Legal Theory London School of Economics [email protected] Abstract It is generally agreed that the humanity, fairness and effectiveness with which a governments manages its criminal justice system is a key index of the state of a democracy. But the constraints on realization of democratic values and aspirations in criminal justice are markedly variable. In the last two decades, in the wake of both increases in recorded crime and a cluster of cultural and economic changes, criminal justice policy in both Britain and the U.S. has become increasingly *A developed and expanded version of this paper will be delivered as the Hamlyn Lectures 2007 and published by Cambridge University Press under the title, The Prisoners’ Dilemma: Political Economy and Penal Populism in Contemporary Democracies in 2008. My warm thanks go to David Soskice for stimulating my original interest in comparative issues, and for discussion of the argu- ments of this paper, comments on a draft, and Figure 4; to Arlie Loughnan for research assis- tance; to the participants at the conference on Punishment and Democracy at the University of Warsaw (October 2006) and at a meeting of the LSE Criminal Law and Social Theory Group (December 2006) for their comments, and to Torben Iversen and David Soskice for permission to reproduce Figures 5-8. I am also grateful to colleagues at the Center for European Studies who gave me feedback both informally and at a seminar presentation, and whose advice will be in- valuable in preparing the final version of the argument.
    [Show full text]
  • Out of the 'Witches' Cauldron'
    Out of the ‘Witches’ Cauldron’?: Reinterpreting the context and re-assessing the significance of the Hart-Fuller Debate Nicola Lacey* Just over half a century ago, perhaps the premier law school in the English-speaking world1 provided the setting for a debate between the two most influential British and American legal theorists. H.L.A. Hart, Professor of Jurisprudence at Oxford since 1953, and visiting Harvard for the academic year 1956-7, was invited to give the Law School’s annual Holmes Lecture. Hart took this opportunity to enunciate, in economical and trenchant form, the kernel of his emerging theory of legal positivism, staking out his claim to be the 20th Century successor to Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Lon L. Fuller, Carter Professor of General Jurisprudence at Harvard, and a man who had long ploughed a rather lonely jurisprudential furrow as a scholar and teacher committed to exploring the morality of law, and hence not infrequently accused of stirring the ‘witches’ cauldron’2 of irrationalist natural law theory, paced up and down at the back of the room ‘like a hungry lion’, and later demanded a right to reply.3 As the sponsor of Hart’s visit, and as a man of keen sensitivities and no little degree of amour propre, it seems likely that Fuller felt a whiff of personal hurt as well as intellectual frustration in the face of Hart’s insouciant dismissal of the natural law tradition. Whatever the origins of his feelings, there is plenty of evidence that Fuller did feel very strongly about Hart’s lecture; and it stimulated him to produce a correspondingly trenchant formulation of the distinctive natural law position for which he was to become famous.
    [Show full text]
  • Professor Nicola Lacey (Academic Expert)
    Professor Nicola Lacey (Academic Expert) Email: [email protected] Profile Nicola Lacey is a Professor of Criminal Law and Legal Theory at the University of Oxford and is a Senior Research Fellow at All Souls College, Oxford. She is a Fellow of the British Academy. Her publications include A Life of HLA Hart: The Nightmare and the Noble Dream (2004, OUP), Unspeakable Subjects (1998, Hart Publishing), with Celia Wells Reconstructing Criminal Law (1990, Butterworths; 2nd edition 1998; 3rd edition 2003 with Oliver Quick), A Reader on Criminal Justice (1994, OUP), with Elizabeth Frazer, The Politics of Community Harvester Wheatsheaf (1993, monograph), and State Punishment: Political Principles and Community Values (1988, Routledge). Other publications range across criminal law, criminal justice studies, legal and social theory. Professor Lacey is on the editorial board of a number of journals including Punishment and Society and has been articles co-editor of the Modern Law Review. She is engaged in a long term project analysing the development of ideas of responsibility for crime since the mid-18th Century, for which she was awarded a Leverhulme Major Research Fellowship. Women Crime and Character and The Resurgence of Character formed parts of this project. From 1990 to 1991 Professor Lacey was a member of the Institute of Public Policy Research's Committee working on a draft Bill of Rights for the UK (published 1991, reissued 1998). More recently, she was a member of the Committee of Inquiry into Women's Imprisonment, set up by the Prison Reform Trust:its report, Justice for Women: The Case for Reform, was published in April 2000..
    [Show full text]
  • Detention on a Global Scale: Punishment and Beyond Robert L
    Detention on a Global Scale: Punishment and Beyond Robert L. Bernstein International Human Rights Fellowship Symposium Arthur Liman Public Interest Colloquium April 9-10, 2015 Yale Law School 127 Wall Street, New Haven, Connecticut Sponsored by the Arthur Liman Public Interest Program and the Orville H. Schell, Jr. Center for International Human Rights Thursday, April 9th 3:00-4 pm Registration Room 122 4:10-5:30 pm Democracy and Detention Room 127 Political and social theorists have long posited a close relationship between how a state punishes and how it governs. One puzzle is the variation among contemporary democracies in the incidence of incarceration and the forms incarceration takes. By examining different penal regimes in the context of larger political economic dynamics, is it possible to posit preconditions for a more tolerant criminal justice system? What effects do detention practices have on a state’s governance, and who participates in government and how? Presenter: Nicola Lacey, School Professor of Law, Gender and Social Policy, London School of Economics Comments: Lukas Muntingh, Co-Founder, Civil Society Prison Reform Initiative, Community Law Centre at the University of the Western Cape Vesla Weaver, Assistant Professor Political Science and African American Studies, Yale University James Q. Whitman, Ford Foundation Professor of Comparative and Foreign Law, Yale Law School Moderator: Judith Resnik, Arthur Liman Professor of Law, Yale Law School 5:45- 7:00 pm Detaining Outsiders: Migrants, Borders, and Security Room 127
    [Show full text]
  • Oxford Law News 2013
    2013 o. OXFORD LAW OXFORD LAW NEWS N 17 NEWS Benefactors 2012–2013 Chancellor’s Court of Benefactors Senior Foundation Benefactors Allen & Overy LLP Sir Frank Berman KCMG QC Barclays Bank PLC The Brunsfield Foundation Frau Anneliese Brost Open Society Institute Youth Initiative Clifford Chance LLP Volkswagen Foundation Deutscher Akademischer Austauschdienst (DAAD) Andrew W. Mellon Foundation Foundation Benefactors Norton Rose Fulbright LLP Travers Smith LLP 3 Verulam Buildings John Collis Vice Chancellor’s Circle Fountain Court Chambers The Morris Trust John Adams Planethood Foundation Baker & McKenzie LLP Ragnar Söderbergs Stiftelse CMS Cameron McKenna LLP Torsten Söderbergs Stiftelse Paul Dodyk Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP The European Justice Forum St Petersburg Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP GOLDs Herbert Smith Freehills LLP Hogan Lovells LLP 4 New Square International Sir David Lewis DL, Alderman 8 New Square Linklaters LLP Amarchand & Mangaldas & Suresh A. Shroff & Co Legal Forum Allan Myers AO QC Banking & Financial Services Law Association Pinsent Masons LLP Kofi Adjepong-Boateng Shell International BV The Crescent Trust Shearman & Sterling LLP Essex Court Chambers Breakthroughs Slaughter and May Foundation for Excellence in Higher Education Daniel Slifkin Gide Loyrette Nouel LLP White & Case LLP Professor Sir Roy Goode CBE QC in support of Stephen Leonard Mayer Brown LLP Oxford Law Genevieve Muinzer and Nick Segal • 2013 The David and Jayne Paterson Educational Trust Paul Hastings LLP Pump Court Tax Chambers N o. Focus on Public Sidley Austin LLP 17 The Sigrid Rausing Trust South Square International FACULTY OF UK Foundation for International Uniform Law LAW Volterra Fietta Law at Oxford www.law.ox.ac.uk Editor: Kate Whetter Design: Steve Allen Printing: Oxuniprint Editorial enquiries: [email protected] Alumni enquiries: For further information on Oxford Law alumni events and to discuss ways to support Oxford Law please contact the Law Faculty’s Director of Development, Maureen O’Neill.
    [Show full text]
  • Tracing the Relationship Between Inequality, Crime and Punishment: Space, Time and Politics
    Tracing the Relationship between Inequality, Crime and Punishment: Space, Time and Politics Venue: The British Academy, 10‐11 Carlton House Terrace, London SW1Y 5AH 7 & 8 December 2017 Convenors: Dr Leonidas Cheliotis, London School of Economics and Political Science Professor Nicola Lacey CBE, FBA, London School of Economics and Political Science Professor David Soskice FBA, London School of Economics and Political Science Dr Sappho Xenakis, Birkbeck, University of London Thursday, 7 December 2017 9.00 Registration and refreshments SESSION I: Culture CHAIR: Zelia Gallo (King’s College London) 9.30 David Garland FBA (New York University) “Penal Controls and Social Controls: On the Social Roots of Mass Incarceration” Discussion 10.15 Susanne Karstedt (Griffith University) “Inequalities and punishment: Exploring the faces of inequality across space and time ” Discussion 11.00 Refreshments 11.30 Dario Melossi (University of Bologna) “Turning Rusche and Kirchheimer on Their Heads? Reflections (moving from the recent crisis) on penality, inequality and the ‘middle‐class sentiment” Discussion 12.30 Lunch SESSION II: Politics and Political Systems CHAIR: Conor Gearty FBA (London School of Economics and Political Science) 13.30 Vanessa Barker (Stockholm University) “Democracy and the Politics of Punishment and Inequality in Sweden and the US” Discussion 14.15 Leonidas Cheliotis (London School of Economics and Political Science) and Sappho Xenakis (Birkbeck, University of London) “Inequality, Crime and the Imprisonment Boom in the US: Interest
    [Show full text]