Get 20M+ Full-Text Papers For Less Than $1.50/day. Start a 14-Day Trial for You or Your Team.

Learn More →

Epilogue: Evolving Standards and the Capital Jury

Epilogue: Evolving Standards and the Capital Jury Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 8, Nos. 1/2, t984 Epilogue Evolving Standards and the Capital Jury Craig Haney* It is always risky to speculate about the causes of legal change. In much the same way that all behavior is said to be '~ changes in legal doctrine and procedures have multiple causes associated with them. In this brief Epilogue, however, I want speculate about recent changes in legal doctrines concerning death qualification. As the articles in this special issue have suggested, this pro- cess appears to be undergoing constitutional reexamination and critical scrutiny by the courts. 1 Some final words about the possible reasons for this reexamination may help to put the preceding articles in a broader context and perhaps provide a few general lessons about the role of social science in legal change. Social Fact Finding Social science provides no neat formula for the definitive resolution of legal conflict or dispute. But it can add clear and convincing evidence that, in any given case, might make all the difference. Just as judges do not function com- pletely apart from their own values and preferences, they cannot decide legal issues in an empirical vacuum either. Changes in relevant social-fact http://www.deepdyve.com/assets/images/DeepDyve-Logo-lg.png Law and Human Behavior American Psychological Association

Epilogue: Evolving Standards and the Capital Jury

Haney, Craig
Law and Human Behavior , Volume 8 (1-2): 6 – Jun 1, 1984
Download PDF
6 pages

Loading next page...
 
/lp/american-psychological-association/epilogue-evolving-standards-and-the-capital-jury-02yjy0H5MZ

References

References for this paper are not available at this time. We will be adding them shortly, thank you for your patience.

Publisher
American Psychological Association
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 American Psychological Association
ISSN
0147-7307
eISSN
1573-661X
DOI
10.1007/BF01044357
Publisher site
See Article on Publisher Site

Abstract

Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 8, Nos. 1/2, t984 Epilogue Evolving Standards and the Capital Jury Craig Haney* It is always risky to speculate about the causes of legal change. In much the same way that all behavior is said to be '~ changes in legal doctrine and procedures have multiple causes associated with them. In this brief Epilogue, however, I want speculate about recent changes in legal doctrines concerning death qualification. As the articles in this special issue have suggested, this pro- cess appears to be undergoing constitutional reexamination and critical scrutiny by the courts. 1 Some final words about the possible reasons for this reexamination may help to put the preceding articles in a broader context and perhaps provide a few general lessons about the role of social science in legal change. Social Fact Finding Social science provides no neat formula for the definitive resolution of legal conflict or dispute. But it can add clear and convincing evidence that, in any given case, might make all the difference. Just as judges do not function com- pletely apart from their own values and preferences, they cannot decide legal issues in an empirical vacuum either. Changes in relevant social-fact

Journal

Law and Human Behavior – American Psychological Association

Published: Jun 1, 1984

There are no references for this article.