Suchergebnisse

Federal courts must decide claims by individual members of the US Armed Forces that they have been mistreated by their superiors. A review of recent court decisions involving questions of morale & discipline shows that government lawyers have begun to justify commanders' actions on the grounds of social science concepts, eg, group cohesion. Those justifications are examined by applying models developed to evaluate the use of social science findings in lawsuits (derived from Monahan's & Walker's "Social Authority: Obtaining, Evaluating and Establishing Social Science in Law," University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1986, 134 [no additional reference information provided]). It is concluded that cohesion arguments have no place in the courtroom. Modified HA

Federal courts are called upon to decide claims by individual members of the armed forces that they have been mistreated by their superiors. A court's decision will often depend on the judge's perception of the necessity of the action in maintaining morale and discipline. Recently, government lawyers have begun to justify commanders' actions on the grounds of unit cohesion. This article examines those justifications by applying models developed to evaluate the use of social science findings in law suits and concludes that cohesion arguments have no place in the courtroom.