A Kind Of Wild Justice

This study demonstrates not only that the devices of revenge are structurally useful in comedy, but also that there is a consistent conception of revenge as an ethical social instrument in the comedies of Shakespeare.

New York Times Book Review Editor's Choice Drawing on never-before-published original source detail, the epic story of two of the most consequential, and largely forgotten, moments in Supreme Court history. For two hundred years, the constitutionality of capital punishment had been axiomatic. But in 1962, Justice Arthur Goldberg and his clerk Alan Dershowitz dared to suggest otherwise, launching an underfunded band of civil rights attorneys on a quixotic crusade. In 1972, in a most unlikely victory, the Supreme Court struck down Georgia’s death penalty law in Furman v. Georgia. Though the decision had sharply divided the justices, nearly everyone, including the justices themselves, believed Furman would mean the end of executions in America. Instead, states responded with a swift and decisive showing of support for capital punishment. As anxiety about crime rose and public approval of the Supreme Court declined, the stage was set in 1976 for Gregg v. Georgia, in which the Court dramatically reversed direction. A Wild Justice is an extraordinary behind-the-scenes look at the Court, the justices, and the political complexities of one of the most racially charged and morally vexing issues of our time.

Ronnie Webster lives in the East End, in an area under the control of the notorious Bradshaw brothers. When his father is framed by the Bradshaws and sent to jail, and his mother goes off to live with one of the brothers, Ronnie finds himself on his own, struggling to keep out of trouble andlooking for a way to clear his father's name. But he soon finds himself caught up in another of the Bradshaws' plots - this time a scheme to bring illegal immigrants into the country, for cash. Ronnie foils the plan - but we see the other side of his actions too, for one of the immigrants hidden inthe back of the Bradshaws' coach is the father of Ronnie's schoolmate, Manjit.

Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals. Sure to be controversial, Wild Justice offers not just cutting-edge science, but a provocative call to rethink our relationship with—and our responsibilities toward—our fellow animals.

Bullying: hurting, persecuting or intimidating weaker people. Easy to define, difficult to stamp out. A Kind of Wild Justice is a work of fiction about the long-term consequences of probably the single biggest issue facing most young people today. This novel also incorporates a number of curious and esoteric words, the meaning of which is always explained somewhere in the book, and it is hoped that this will stimulate an interest in the incredible diversity of the English lexicon. The year 2000: in the loft of his new house, a boy named Jim stumbles across a hidden notebook. It is a diary from 1970 in which a thirteen-year-old victim of bullying writes comprehensively about the experiences at his new secondary school that make his life a misery and drive him to suicide. The pity Jim feels for the victim and his mother is eclipsed only by his anger towards the three main bullies and a passive observer who could have intervened. Realising that he alone knows what really happened all those years ago, he feels a strong urge to track down the culprits and punish them. A chance encounter not only enables Jim to ascertain what the dead boy's mother feels about her son's death but also provides the first link to a past that is closer to home than he could ever have anticipated. Jim starts his campaign but things soon begin to spiral out of control, and he finds himself questioning his own motives. The more he pieces together the past, the harder it becomes to separate right from wrong, fact from fiction; the more he discovers about himself, the less clear he is about what sort of person he is or would like to be.