Search results

Frontmatter -- Acknowledgments -- Contents -- Introduction -- 1. In Search of Community Sentiment -- 2. Understanding Nullification -- 3. Revealing Jurors' Sentiments -- 4. How Jurors Construct Reality -- 5. Objectivity versus Subjectivity in the Law -- 6. The Sacred Precinct of the Bedroom -- 7. The Right to Die -- 8. Cruel and Unusual Punishment -- 9. Murther Most Foul -- 10. Death Is Different -- 11. The Juvenile Death Penalty -- 12. On Self-Defense Justice -- 13. The Self-Defense Drama -- 14. The Maddening Changes in Insanity Law -- 15. How Jurors Construe Insanity -- 16. Murderous Passions, Mitigating Sentiments -- 17. The Path of Commonsense Justice -- Notes -- Index

"This cross-disciplinary book investigates how morality translates into action by presenting original psychological research on our understanding of human rights and duties. This topical focus is especially timely in our post-9/11 world where the relative rights and duties of citizens and our government are foremost in our minds. One of the book's goals is to explore the general public's ideas (both in the United States and abroad) about rights versus duties so that legislative and policy changes can be based on solid support, not assumptions. Two strategies are used to lead readers toward a better understanding of human rights and duties. Chapters by empirical researchers present findings on citizens' commonsense understandings of rights and duties, whereas normative chapters by leading social theorists conceptualize rights and duties from many perspectives. By contrasting present-day circumstances of life in many social spheres with the world of ideas, the editors expose the debate between what human rights and duties are and what they ought to be"--Jacket.

Politicians, armed with opinion polls for support, rush to enact crime bills where sentences grow steeper, where higher minimum sentences are made mandatory, and where the death sentence is applied in more cases. Despite apparent support from suspect polls, the empirical question remains: Does community sentiment favor "steeper-firmer-deadlier" punishments that are disproportionate to the act and invariate to the actors, or does sentiment favor individualized and proportionate punishment? In experiments dealing with recidivist, accessory felony-murder, and perpetrator-by-means cases—where the law asks for excessive or invariate punishment—subjects favor proportional and individualized punishment and judge defendants based on perceived culpability.