Expressive Law & Social Norms
In: Research Handbook in Law and Psychology (2023 Forthcoming)
20 Ergebnisse
Sortierung:
In: Research Handbook in Law and Psychology (2023 Forthcoming)
SSRN
In: Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 22-04
SSRN
In: 118 Michigan Law Review 1205 (2020)
SSRN
In: Law and Social Inquiry, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: The Constitution and the Future of Criminal Justice in America, Cambridge University Press, Forthcoming
SSRN
In: Albrecht, Kat & Nadler, Janice, Assigning Punishment: Reader Responses to Crime News 13 FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY 1 (2022)
SSRN
In this study we test how the composition of crime news articles contributes to reader perceptions of the moral blameworthiness of vehicular homicide offenders. After employing a rigorous process to develop realistic experimental vignettes about vehicular homicide in Minnesota, we deploy a survey to test differential assignments of suggested punishment. We find that readers respond to having very little information by choosing neutral or mid-point levels of punishment, but increase recommended punishment based on information about morally charged conduct. By contrast, information about the perpetrator's immigration status caused respondents to split into two groups on whether the offense deserves neutral or increased punishment. We find that political ideology strongly influences recommendations for more severe punishment when the immigration status of the perpetrator is revealed. We argue that this difference represents a moral dimension to punishment and blameworthiness that incorporates factors outside the active offense and therefore reveals the social influence of differential reporting in shaping public perception.
BASE
In: Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, Band 16, Heft 1, S. 69-93
SSRN
In: Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 18-07
SSRN
Working paper
In: Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 18-07
SSRN
Working paper
In: Northwestern Journal of Law and Social Policy, Forthcoming
SSRN
Working paper
In: Forthcoming in Francesco Parisi (Ed.). The Oxford Handbook of Law and Economics, Volume 1 (2017)
SSRN
Working paper
In a democratic society, law is an important means to express, manipulate, and enforce moral codes. Demonstrating empirically that law can achieve moral goals is difficult. Nevertheless, public interest groups spend considerable energy and resources to change the law with the goal of changing not only morally-laden behaviors, but also morally-laden cognitions and emotions. Additionally, even when there is little reason to believe that a change in law will lead to changes in behavior or attitudes, groups see the law as a form of moral capital that they wish to own, to make a statement about society. Examples include gay sodomy laws, abortion laws, and Prohibition. In this Chapter, we explore the possible mechanisms by which law can influence attitudes and behavior. To this end, we consider informational and group influence of law on attitudes, as well as the effects of salience, coordination, and social meaning on behavior, and the behavioral backlash that can result from a mismatch between law and community attitudes. Finally, we describe two lines of psychological research—symbolic politics and group identity— that can help explain how people use the law, or the legal system, to effect expressive goals.
BASE
The U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Kelo v. City of New London, allowing governments to force the sale of private property to promote economic development, provoked bipartisan and widespread public outrage. Given that the decision in Kelo was rendered virtually inevitable by the Court's earlier public use decisions, what accounts for the dread and dismay that the decision provoked among ordinary citizens? We conducted two experiments that represent an early effort at addressing a few of the many possible causes underlying the Kelo backlash. Together, these studies suggest that the constitutional focus on public purpose in Kelo does not fully, or even principally, explain the public outrage that followed it. Our experiments suggest that subjective attachment to property looms far larger in determining the perceived justice of a taking. We have only begun to map out the contours of this response, but these initial findings show promise in helping to build a more democratic model for the law and policies dealing with takings.
BASE
In: Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 19-02
SSRN
Working paper