Most Popular Books by Cheryl Hanna

Elizabeth M. Schneider (Brooklyn Law School) Cheryl Hanna (Vermont Law School) and Judith G. Greenberg (New England School of Law) are joined by Emily Sack (Roger Williams School of Law) in this exciting new Third Edition. A new Teacher''s Manual is also available. The casebook maintains its rich focus on examining domestic violence through a variety of theoretical, practical, and interdisciplinary lenses and remains the most comprehensive casebook on domestic violence. This book is widely used in law school courses and clinics on domestic violence, heavily adopted in undergraduate and graduate courses, and routinely relied upon by judges, attorneys, and other professionals who work in the field. The Third Edition captures the continued growth in domestic violence law and expands upon both recent Supreme Court cases and International Human Rights developments, including the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights'' decision in Jessica Lenahan (Gonzales) v. United States. Recent developments in asylum and immigration law, as well as discussion of the impact of the Supreme Court''s latest Second Amendment decisions on domestic violence firearms laws, are also included. There is also increased focus on cyber-stalking and cyber-threats, and the emerging use of technology in domestic violence in both the civil protection order and criminal contexts. The book expands upon new areas of inquiry, including the relationship between domestic violence and women''s health, and the continued concerns about battering and the child welfare system. It also includes more integration of themes of race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation throughout the book. The notes are rich with information, citations, and problems. The material includes excerpts from a variety of sources

Does consent excuse violence against another? Generally, it does not. Recently, however, criminal defendants charged with violence against their sexual partners have asked courts to treat violent sex or sadomasochism (S/M) as a sport, like prize fighting and hockey. While most courts have refused to do so, a recent New York case, People v. Jovanovic, let stand a ruling that effectively permits a defendant to argue consent as a defense. This Article argues that the liberal argument treating S/M as a matter of sexual autonomy fails to account adequately for the history and practical application of the doctrine of violent consent. It concludes that by recognizing consent in the S/M context, the law is evolving in a direction that could lead to the glorification of sexual violence, rather than the sexual liberation of consenting adults.

Throughout the country, prosecutors have begun to mandate victim participation in domestic violence cases. In this Article, Professor Hanna examines the tensions that arise when the state uses its powers to compel women to assist in the prosecution of their batterers. Although feminist theory has been responsible for increased attention to domestic violence, it does not adequately address the tensions between state accountability and victim autonomy. Professor Hanna illustrates these tensions with dilemmas that she confronted while prosecuting domestic violence cases. Using a pragmatist approach to explore these issues more deeply, Professor Hanna argues that prosecutors can decrease the costs associated with mandated participation by reducing their reliance on victim testimony. She also outlines practical steps that prosecutors can take to achieve this goal. Professor Hanna concludes that prosecutors must take the choice of prosecution away from the victim if they are serious about sending a clear message that domestic violence is criminally unacceptable.

In this essay, Professor Hanna explores (and pokes a little fun) at the "greening" of America. She argues that the success of the environmental movement will depend on its ability to transform from a movement that is based on consumerism to a larger political and social agenda.

In responding to Jeannie Suk, Criminal Law Comes Home, 116 Yale L.J. 2 (2006), Professor Hanna argues that concerns about the over-enforcement of domestic violence laws, including court-ordered no-contact orders, are overstated. Rather, she argues that for autonomy to flourish, the criminal law must "come home" to protect the rights of women to live without fear of physical and emotional violence.

In recent years, there has been much media attention and increased law reform efforts to address the phenomenon of the international trafficking of women and children for the purposes of sexual exploitation. In contrast to international trafficking, however, we know very little about, and have done almost nothing to address, domestic trafficking since the passage of the Mann Act in 1910. This article explores the domestic trafficking of girls for the commercial sex industry. It argues that the motives as to why girls end up in the sex industry is often misunderstood. The domestic trafficking of girls is symptomatic of a much larger problem in American life and politics. Much of the feminist-inspired literature on children and the sex industry has been enormously helpful in identifying the many ways in which girls, and increasingly boys, are exploited. But it also has had the tendency to ignore the fact that path leading from bad boyfriend to self-medication, to addiction, to turning tricks, and, in some cases, to death, is paved with hope that she will one day find love in a good man.

Current explanations for girl violence remain incomplete. They fail to explain why three out of four violent female offenders have a female victim - and in fifty percent of the cases, that victim is an acquaintance. Current theories do no explain why girls are attacking girls, nor do they account for the motive behind the violence that these girls themselves articulate. In this Article, I argue that in order to develop a richer understanding of, and therefore address, female juvenile violent crime, we have to examine the phenomenon through the lens of female relationships with other females. My focus here is solely on intra-gender relationships - the battle among the sexes - and what that analysis can tell us about why very good girls can sometimes be awful. There is growing evidence to suggest that violent girls are not fighting back against boys - as "oppression" theorists have suggested, nor are they trying to be boys, as "liberation" theorists have suggested. In far too many cases, girls are trying to attract boys at the expense of other girls. I examine the current status of Title IX and suggest that the rationale behind gender equity in sports can have enormous implications for juvenile justice in the next millennium, particularly if we examine violent behavior through the lens of female competition. No "model" programs currently have any physical or athletic components, nor do they directly address girls'' relationships with other girls. Thus, I argue that we need to take female competition out of the closet. "Model" programs should be far more explicit about the complicated nature of female relationships, and, to that end, incorporate competitive athletics as one means of channeling female aggression into a more productive and healthy arena than a street fight or a bathroom brawl. A review of the current research on female athletics suggests that the earlier girls start to play sports and the longer they stay in the game, the better their lives tend to be.

This article examines the trend of girl violence, particularly in the context of girls in gangs. The emergence of girls, gangs, and violence raises two questions for the criminal justice system. First, why are girls becoming more violent? Second, how should the criminal justice system respond to what is likely to be an ongoing trend? Existing answers to the first question are largely unsatisfactory, falling into the trap of polemic discourse. Current theories posit these girls as either liberated, autonomous beings accessing male power structures through violence, or as oppressed victims trapped in a violent world created and maintained by men. Some still deny that young women are becoming more dangerous. What one thinks the legal system ought to do with these girls depends on where one falls in the liberation-oppression debate described above. Some argue that for girls, like boys, there are no excuses for violence; others argue that for girls, unlike boys, there are many. This article has three criticisms of current research. Most academic discourse about female violence is completely disconnected from popular culture, which strongly influences the lives of young women. [ Much of it is written in such coded language that it is completely inaccessible to anyone outside the academy, let alone those who are the subject of the text. This Article is intentionally written with popular references to break down the wall that insulates those of us in the academy from the rest of the world. Second, most current theories view violence from a social constructionist viewpoint, arguing that it is essentially learned behavior. This viewpoint fails to understand the biological underpinnings of aggression. Aggression is part of human nature for both men and women. It is from this biologically-informed starting point that we ought to analyze the rise of female violence. Third, and most importantly, both liberation and oppression theories fail to recognize that women''s violence is not just about the battles we fight against men, but the battles we fight for them. Most explain female aggression as women fighting back against men, such as when a woman kills her abuser. True? Sometimes. But I argue that it is only part of the picture. It is imperative to distinguish between motives. Granted, some female violence is, at its core, a battle between the sexes, an extreme manifestation of our hatred for men. However, this Article suggests that most female violence is a battle among the sexes, rooted in our hatred of other women, an extreme manifestation of our love for men.

In this essay, Professor Hanna discusses Beecham v. Leahy, the Vermont case which legalized abortion prior to Roe v. Wade. She argues one way to reframe the reproductive rights debate is to examine more deeply the law''s specific treatment of women in the regulation of abortion. If what we really care about is the well-being of women, as those on both sides of this debate claim, then allowing women to make their own decisions within this context is the most crucial aspect to women''s full rights of citizenship. We must acknowledge, however, that some women are harmed within this context and have a right to access legal remedies. For example, restraining orders against intimate partners who sabotage birth control or coerce them into terminating a pregnancy, or the ability to sue doctors who engage in malpractice. And, most important, we must improve the material conditions of women''s lives as to prevent unwanted pregnancies and to ensure that no woman has to make the trade-off between motherhood and education, a career, or basic survival. These two strategies, both promoting autonomy and preventing victimization, can and must be equally pursued as we reproduce women''s rights.

This article explores the phenomenon of girl violence by examining teen dating violence and girls'' experiences with intimate abuse both as victims and as perpetrators. While there is a tendency to view women''s experiences as victims of violence as separate and distinct from their experiences as inflictors of violence, the two phenomena are interrelated. A girl''s violent victimization can lead her to victimize someone else, just as her own violence can lead her to violent victimization. Indeed, recent research suggests that boys and girls who have been victims of violence are more likely to perpetrate adolescent violence. Moreover, any exposure to violence within an intimate relationship puts a girl at risk of finding herself in the criminal justice system. One factor that may fuel the increase in girl violence is girls'' willingness or desire to become sexually involved with boys. While much data suggests that sex and violence coexist in violent dating relationships, the relationship between the two has never been clear. One could assume that boyfriends use violence to initiate a sexual relationship. Recent research on teenage dating violence, however, indicates that violence most often happens after a young couple has consensual sex. Thus, engaging in sexual activity within a dating relationship appears dramatically to increase the risk of physical and sexual violence.