Increasingly in America s courtrooms lawyers, litigants, and expert witnesses attempt to recreate what it s like to be inside the litigant s mind. But is it really possible to claim this perception as evidence? Is seeing really believing? Can anyone really know what it s like to have another person s perceptual experiences, when only that person has direct access to them? And why should courts ever admit visual or auditory evidence that purports to convey what another person s consciousness is like? How might these simulations affect the ways that judges and jurors do justice? Experiencing Other Minds thoughtful explores this evidentiary and cognitive terrain. Whether a simulation actually provides reliable knowledge about the other person s inner experience, depends on the strength of our grounds for believing in it. And that depends largely on how the simulation was made. Primarily a descriptive and analytic work, Experiencing Other Minds conducts a legal anthropological inquiry into a novel and distinctive evidentiary practice, situating each example of digitally simulated subjective perception in its case context and drawing on cognitive psychology, media studies, science and technology studies, and other disciplines to understand how each simulation produces specific epistemological and rhetorical effects. By paying closer attention to the different kinds of simulation and the different knowledge claims they offer, we can develop best practices for responsibly incorporating such evidence in the courtroom, and thereby improve the quality of justice as well. "

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.

This book has been a long time in the making. Other issues have taken me away from it from time to extended time. But I kept coming back to the problem of other minds. It has remained a great issue, it is much contested still, and it is, after all, elose to us all. I like believing that the time taken has deepened my understanding of the problem and how it is to be handled. Other people, some by disagreeing vehemently, have helped greatly. I mention in particular, Brian Ellis, Robert Fox, Graeme Marshali, Tim Oakley, Ray Pinkerton and Robert Young. Robert Pargetter argued with me, and kept insisting that I write this book. John Bigelow, Michael Bradley, Keith Campbell, Frank Jackson, and William Lycan assisted by reading an earlier version and providing valued comments. Frank Jackson has been specially helpful, not just on this topic. He can be blamed for initially causing me to take the analogical inference seriously. Tbe La Trobe Philosophy Department has been a good place to do philosophy. I am grateful to Suzanne Hayster, Sandra Paul, and Betty Pritchard for struggling at various times with various recalcitrant manuscripts. Most particularly I thank Gai Larkin. She has seen the project through, with considerably more than efficiency.

The new edition of this bestselling textbook comes completely revised and updated to take students on a guided tour of criminological research. As a trusted companion, this book brings together a range of experts in the field to provide key perspectives on how to prepare, do and present research. Each chapter comes with a range of learning features and contextualised case studies, giving an in-depth review on conducting research projects. The book: Includes fascinating case studies on transnational crime and policing, victims, male offenders, institutional abuse and more Comes with study questions, activities, key terms and a glossary Includes visual material which highlights and illustrates key points Contains new chapters on mixed methods; web based criminological research; experimental criminological research and quantitative criminological research This is the go-to for any student studying criminology, essential to those conducting their own research in the field.

Terrorism has become an everyday reality in most contemporary societies. In a context of heightened fear can juries be trusted to remain impartial when confronted by defendants charged with terrorism? Do they scrutinize prosecution cases carefully, or does emotion trump reason once the spectre of terrorism is invoked? This book examines these questions from a range of disciplinary perspectives. The authors look at the how jurors in terrorism trials are likely to respond to gruesome evidence, including beheading videos. The 'CSI effect' is examined as a possible response to forensic evidence, and jurors with different learning preferences are compared. Virtual interactive environments, built like computer games, may be created to provide animated reconstructions of the prosecution or defence case. This book reports on how to create such presentations, culminating in the analysis of a live simulated trial using interactive visual displays followed by jury deliberations. divThe team of international, transdisciplinary experts draw conclusions of global legal and political significance, and contribute to the growing scholarship on comparative counter-terrorism law. The book will be of great interest to scholars, students and practitioners of law, criminal justice, forensic science and psychology.

Contemporary legal reasoning has more in common with fictional discourse than we tend to realize. Through an examination of the U.S. Supreme Court’s written output during a recent landmark term, this book exposes many of the parallels between these two special kinds of language use. Focusing on linguistic and rhetorical patterns in the dozens of reasoned opinions issued by the Court between October 2014 and June 2015, the book takes nonlawyer readers on a lively tour of contemporary American legal reasoning and acquaints legal readers with some surprising features of their own thinking and writing habits. It analyzes cases addressing a huge variety of issues, ranging from the rights of drivers stopped by the police to the decision-making processes of the Environmental Protection Agency—as well as the term’s best-known case, which recognized a constitutional right to marriage for same-sex as well as different-sex couples. Fiction and the Languages of Law reframes a number of long-running legal debates, identifies other related paradoxes within legal discourse, and traces them all to common sources: judges’ and lawyers’ habit of alternating unselfconsciously between two different attitudes toward the language they use, and a set of professional biases that tends to prevent scrutiny of that habit.