Professions Books

Roth's research into the Rabbinic status from 67AD to present is an undertaking that no one had considered, and I was one of the multitude. It's well written, concise, and fascinating.

This book tells the story of rabbis and the way their profession developed from ancient to modern times.
Well written, very clear and easy to read, it reflecta contains much interesting and useful information about rabbis, Jewish history and Jewish law.
Few authors take the time to do the quality of research apparent in this wonderful book. I highly recommend it.

I purchased this book with some initial reservation as it is often the case that books dealing with forensic psychology require perseverance to read.

It was a relief to find that my money was well spent on this book as the writing style makes the subject matter not only fascinating but easy to read.

The insanity defense is rarely attempted and even more rarely successful. Even when someone is floridly psychotic with an unequivocal history of severe mental illness, proving that he or she did not know the difference between right and wrong is extremely difficult. One study found that the defense was used in less than 1% of cases, and was successful only about one-fourth of the time. Another public misconception is that successful use of the insanity defense allows people to "get off" for the crime. In reality, most insanity acquittees go to locked state hospitals, often for the rest of their lives.

In this book, Charles Patrick Ewing attempts to correct the many public and professional misperceptions through case studies of 10 high-profile insanity cases, including those of Jack Ruby, David "Son of Sam" Berkowitz, John Wayne Gacy, and Andrea Yates.

Each case is fascinating, and demonstrates the disconnect between public perceptions and the real world of law. In some cases, the defense is attempted as a last resort, when a killer is caught red-handed and has no other plausible explanation. In others, the defendant is crazy as a bedbug but still not found insane.

Whatever the factual circumstances, most insanity trials come down to a battle between competing experts. Ewing vividly portrays these battles, some involving luminaries in the fields of forensic psychiatry and psychology, bringing us lengthy excerpts from the actual trial transcripts of the expert testimony. Don't miss, for example, the epic WWF Smackdown-style confrontation between prominent forensic psychiatrists Park Dietz and Dorothy Otnow Lewis in the trial of Arthur Shawcross.

Tracing the cases from pretrial competency motions to postconviction appeals, Ewing demonstrates the unpredictable influences of state laws, attorney acumen, jury composition, and judicial opinion on real-world outcomes.

Several of these chapters could stand alone as excellent teaching tools for forensic psychologists and psychiatrists or criminal attorneys. One of these is the torturous case of Scott Panetti of Texas, who represented himself while floridly psychotic and was convicted and sentenced to death before undergoing several rounds of high-level appeals. I do wish Ewing had included more geographic breadth; eight of the ten cases are from New York and Texas. But that is a minor quibble with an outstanding volume.

Ewing is a master writer, having brought us the equally engrossing case study volume, Minds on Trial: Great Cases in Law and Psychology, as well as other forensic psychology texts on family violence, battered women, children who kill, and several others. I highly recommend this latest offering.

I Just finished reading this book and Love it! I like how the author used fictional stories to take us through the criminal justice system. There are many aspects of the courts that most people don't learn unless they have experienced them, this way you learn like you have beed there. I will recommend it to everyone!

This is an excellent and innovative textbook. Instead of just teaching you about concepts, the author has actually incorporated the concepts into entertaining stories. So, instead of just reading about the courtroom work group or challenges in court, you get to see these concepts in action as you read stories about key courtroom players (lawyers, judges, defendants, etc...). Each key vocabulary word is put in bold so that you can recognize it when you read it. In addition the words, not the definitions, are listed again at the end of the chapter, just in case you missed one. I am graduating this summer, so this is one of my final classes. I have never enjoyed a textbook so much. I wish all textbooks were written in this manner. It has been a tremendous way for me to learn and has helped me to retain information. I highly recommend this book to any criminal justice teacher who is looking for a refreshing change or interesting addition to their classroom or to anyone who has an interest in just exactly what goes on inside the criminal courts.

I used this book as a resource for my LLM thesis and it proved very useful. It provides good background knowledge on the evolution of environmental law in international law. I wish it had some case summaries though.

This is simply an outstanding addition to the field. There are other good resources out there but I found Birnie & Boyle's work one of the best. It continues to be one of my basic references - despite having become slightly dated. I recommend it with only one reservation: the authors use of endnotes rather than footnotes is aggravating. Perhaps the next edition will address this irksome problem?

I was referred to Mr. Benvenisti's book by a fellow researcher and was not disappointed. His concise, yet accurate, explanations of intenational law has been a wonderful resource for my work.

I thought this book was well-written and took into consideration of all of the major occupations that occurred throughout history. My particular interest was his explanation of the Turkish invasion of Cyprus and the territorial dispute of Kashmir between India and Pakistan. I would more than welcome and purchase more of Mr. Benvenisti's point of views concerning international law.

This book provides a well organised and carefully edited introduction to international law. Exerpts from relevant cases, international agreements and juristic writings are interwoven with insightful commentary and questions. Each topic is introduced and explained in the text. As an earlier reviewer noted, some aspects of the book are now outdated, and it is to be hoped that a revised edition will eventually be published. Also, the chapters on jurisdiction and immunity therefrom, concentrate, in large part though not entirely, on the legislation enacted in the United States, which may not be of interest to readers who reside elsewhere. I read this book while studying a basic course in international law, which covered the sources of international law, the law of treaties, the United Nations system, jurisdiction, immunity from jurisdiction, the use of force and state responsibility. I found that the level of detail presented in the book corresponded closely to that of the course itself. I also found the text to be an excellent starting point for research, although as I turned to more specific areas of international law it became necessary, as one would expect, to consult more specialized references. In conclusion, this book, though out of date in some respects, still provides an outstanding introduction to the subject which I would definitely recommend.

If Akerhurst's Modern Introduction to International Law can be said to be a quick overview for students beginning to study international law, Henkin's International Law is for those who already have some study behind them and are ready to delve more deeply into specific issues. At first the format of the book may seem confusing, for unlike introductory works like Akehurst in which the author writes the entire text in his own words, Henkin is filled with actual case judgements, tribunal decisions, articles of law, and the opionions of other journalists (although less so than Harris's International Law : Cases and Materials). At times, the actual text of the book seem little more than footnotes to the the above. However, unlike Akehurst, which tends to stick to one viewpoint, this vast amount of material enables Henkin to illuminate the areas of controversy in international law and helps the reader to build his own opinions. One problem with this book, however, is that the third edition came out in 1993 and is therefore rather dated, especially in terms of international economic law. For instance, it fails to take into account the WTO and EU. However, the traditional areas of international law are well documented, and even the dated parts of the book still have relevance to the issues important today. This is definitely a book to have at hand when making a study of international law in general or dealing with a specific issue that involves international law.

As many of us are realizing, democracy itself is under attack. The example of China is touted to undermine our commitment to democracy as a guarantor of both prosperity and a rising quality of life. It is a short leap from there to accepting the notion that authoritarian regimes might be even better at creating prosperity for certain (presumably, backward) populations. On another front, in his recent book Supercapitalism, Robert Reich makes the case that democracy is under attack at the individual level, in that we have traded in our roles as citizens in for roles as mere consumers and investors, obsessed with hunting for bargains on every front, without ever noticing that we are disempowering ourselves to the point of helplessness. Thomas Zweifel's book expands our sights in yet another direction, and puts to us the notion of democracy as the framework for the planet. He makes this unwieldy issue accessible by examining those places where the "rubber meets the road" -- in the international and transnational arena populated by the institutions we created to help us survive and prosper together in a resources-contrained world. How can we live, if the sturdiest threads that bind us across our boundaries are those of global profit-making enterprises, beholden only to their investors? Through Thomas Zweifel's eyes, this becomes unthinkable.

A clear and insightful view into today's globalization, international relations and Democracy in this new, small world. Read this book to understand where we are but more importantly, where we need to go concerning global accountability, power, communication, corporate governance and international relations.

This book really is for the true beginner in international taxation. If you are a professional, it is probably not the source you are looking for. However, for a person who does not have knowledge in this field or has never practiced, I think it will be a brilliant book to read.

The book in itself is very well structured and very clearly written. I use it a primer for my young associates when they join my firm and have been very pleased with what they learn from it. Once they have read and "metabolized" this book, they are ready to get started, and as far as I know, there is no other work to pick up where this primer leaves the subject.

In other words, this is "only" a primer, but as far as primers go, it is a brilliant one. Buy it if you are a beginner or if you have lots of beginners in your firm.

This is the only book I found that actually explained everything in its table of contents in a way that I could understand. This is an excellent book for a total beginner just trying to understand the basic issues of thin capitalization rules, deductions vs. exemptions vs. credits, double taxation, tax sparing, tax havens, etcetera.

Anyone involved in law enforcement or Crimial Law will cherish this informative, well written text. It takes a very complicated, mind numbing subject and pilots the reader in an organized, comprehensible manner to a well rounded understanding of the subject. This one should be required reading for all law students and Criminal Law practitioners. A Masterpiece!!!

This is one of the finest reference books I have had the pleasure to read. It is easy to understand, no far out explanations. I believe this book should be on the shelf of any and all investigators, new or old. The table of contents was very informative. You are taken from the history of this disipline, all the way to case study. Nothing is missed and you can carry the book by yourself!! Credit was properly given to those that were first, there was no attempt to make one believe the editors were the "first" to discover this disipline. Photos often assisted text. I believe this is necessary for those investigators who do not see this as much as others. There was even a glossary !! EXCELLENT WORK ! I look forward to treating my eyes to the next book by James & Eckert

The book description sounds pretty good but I only got half way through it before my head hurt. Sounds like Gibson knows his stuff and has researched it thoroughly. He has a pretty good tennis serve but his overheads are weak. I am sure the founding fathers will forgive him for that.

Alan Gibson's new book is incredibly useful for anyone who reads a lot about the founding of the American republic. What Gibson wants to do and succeeds in doing is to provide an overview of the different post-WWII schools of interpretation about the founding that is both nuanced and balance. It is by any standard a remarkable work of synthetic scholarship. It should be read by all majors in American history- not necessarily to agree with but as an exemplar of how to organize an overview of a field.
Gibson examines in 101 very tightly written pages (plus fourty pages of meaty footnotes) the "fundamental assumptions" and the "deeper ideological and methodological differences between schools...of interpretation that on the surface differ only about the interpretation of the facts" (p.xi). I have read deeply in this area continuously for the last fourteen or so years and I am in awe of Gibson's achievement.
Any story of the post WWII historigraphy about the founding has to really start with what that historigraphy is reacting against- the work of Charles Beard and the Progressive school. Gibson sees their work as based on two basic precepts: 1. the motives of the Founders cannot be ascertained by their writings and 2. that economic determinism was the key to understanding American history (p.7). Basing his empirical research on these precepts, Beard argued that the Constitution was an anti-democratic document that was motivated by the property interests of incipient capitalists. Beard supported his arguments with empirical research about the property holdings of those people who wrote and ratified the Constitution.
The post war period saw the reemergence of a consensus history that can be broadly categorized as liberal. Instead of emphasizing the class structure of the Founding period, this schools emphasizes "the continuity throughout American history of the middle-class structure of American society and the hegemony of liberal values such as the sanctity of property, economic individualism and democracy" (p.15). The methodology of this school of thought understands the motives of historical actors based on their own self-understanding. Gibson sees three major variants of the contemporary liberal school- 1. a triumverate of "Neo-Lockeans" (Joyce Appleby, Isaac Kramnick and John Patrick Diggins), 2. students of Leo Strauss (such as Paul Rahe) and 3. those who see liberalism as the core of a multi-tradition approach (p. 16). Gibson goes on to explore the work of each variant in a series of perfect short book reviews of the major works of these schools. Really many of us who review books on Amazon would do well to read Gibson's book as an object lesson in writing book reviews. His review of Rahe's Republics: Ancient and Modern on pp.18-21 almost makes me want to disown the one I wrote on Amazon.
Gibson next delineates the basic precepts of the republican synthesis. This group of scholars draws heavily on the work of Clifford Geertz and rely on a theory of ideology in their understanding of the founders. This theory allow them to mediate critically against both the idealist of the Liberal school and the Progressives. Ideologies are socially conditioned means of organizing the otherwise buzzing confusion of experience. They place a structure on our thought that is both confining and conditioning(p.23). Gibson nicely quotes Lance Banning on this: "...Sometimes this intellectual universe is so well structured and has so strong a hold that it can virtually determine not only the ways in which a society will express its hopes and discontents but also the central problems with which it will be concerned." (p. 23 of Gibson quoting Banning)
As such, ideologies make possible the self-understanding of historical actors. So what the writings of the Founders may reveal is not their musings on transhistorical truths or their rationalizations of their economic interests but the structure of the ideologies that were available to the actors. This school has focused on the civic humanist tradition as being the dominant language of discourse for the Founders. This chapter includes superb readings of Pocock, Wood, Banning and Bailyn all within 14 pages. Do you begin to see why I am so impressed?
Next, Gibson tackles a group of writers (Wills, Adair, McDonald, Yarbrough) who want to emphasize the influence of the Scottish Enlightenment (SE)on the Founding. Gibson notes that the SE provided the Founders with many of the preachers and educators who formed their thought. Madison, Monroe, Jefferson, Hamilton, Wilson, Rush all studied with Scots either here or in Scotland (p.38) The SE provided the founders with the idea of the 'invisible hand', the 'division of labor', the stadial theory of social and economic development along with moral-sense and common-sense philosophy.
Gibson goes on to examine those who try to combine some or all of the above schools in a multiple-traditions approach. Again, there are some here who do so with liberalism as the core approach to which the others are seen as supports. Gibson sees Michael Zuckert as the most sophisticated of these scholars. Gibson's review of the work of Rogers Smith and his book Civic Ideals was the part of this chapter that I found the most provocative. Smith is willing to posit that there are parts of our intellectual traditions that are inherently irrational and based on ascription. I have to wait until I read Smith's book for myself but I think his approach could be usefully applied to the states rights tradition of constitutional interpretation.
Finally, Gibson examines recent works of social history especially those that focus on feminist contributions to our understanding of the Founding, on the contribution of native americans and on how recent understanding of the issues surrounding slavery have transformed our understanding of the Founders. The last section is particularly strong.
In his final chapter, Gibson tries to examine what he feels each approach has to offer a synthetic historigraphy. In general, I find his arguments convincing. He, of course, is for a hybrid approach that would allow individual historians to mix and match these different approaches to the body of historical facts. He definitely feels there needs to be a further mixing of the social historical approach with the others. I would offer Sean Wilentz' recent The Rise of American Democracy as an exemplar.
I would also comment that I think a lot of the controversy that Gibson so brilliantly delineates was caused by the fact that none of the historians took seriously enough the basic datum that the actors in this period were working politicians, lawyers, merchants, farmers, etc. Yes, people like Madison, Jefferson, and Wilson read a lot. Really a lot. But I doubt if more then a couple of them were systematic philosophers who took the time to study (say) Locke, Hume and Harrington enough to note all the incompatibilities and to decide which one they agreed with. They were absorbed by the everyday details of governance more than by philosophical distinctions. I may be wrong. In his final chapter, Gibson mentions a few historians, like Peter Onuf, who have made this point. I would also like to mention the fine recent book by Max Edling on The Federalist that drives home this point.
I hope I have given an impression of the scope and compression of this book. I have read about 90% of the works that Gibson refers to but I learned something about all of them that I missed. I have mentioned in my music reviews my respect for those artists who devote themselves to the music of another. This fine historical work is impressive in that same way. It has taken Alan Gibson years to understand the work of scores of other historians so well that he can explicate their achievements with such concision. I found myself frequently marveling at what I was reading as I was reading this book. Isn't that why we read history?
I cannot recommend this book highly enough.