Pub Date : 2024-07-26DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-045326
D. Kochenov
A new approach to statelessness has emerged in the literature on the topic. Taking citizenism as a starting point and pioneered by Swider and Bloom, this approach offers a completely fresh paradigm for studying and understanding the statelesseness phenomenon. In the contemporary global context where citizenships are deeply unequal and racialized, the focus on rights invites us to dismiss the baseless presumption that fighting statelessness is always in the interests of the populations concerned, let alone that it is directly connected to the protection of human and citizenship rights. It is the world's inequitable neo-feudal citizenism arrangement that is a problem, not the fact that some people do not fit neatly into the citizenism hierarchy and find themselves in a position of statelessness. Shedding light on the role of citizenship and statelessness in the world today as tools of preservation of racialized hierarchies and inequitable exclusion of most of the world's population from rights at home and abroad, the new scholarship questions the UN High Commissioner for Refugees's mission and actions in this domain and takes issue with the self-serving parochialism of dominant Western citizenship and statelessness literatures.
{"title":"Statelessness: A Radical Rethinking of the Dominant Citizenism Paradigm","authors":"D. Kochenov","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-045326","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-045326","url":null,"abstract":"A new approach to statelessness has emerged in the literature on the topic. Taking citizenism as a starting point and pioneered by Swider and Bloom, this approach offers a completely fresh paradigm for studying and understanding the statelesseness phenomenon. In the contemporary global context where citizenships are deeply unequal and racialized, the focus on rights invites us to dismiss the baseless presumption that fighting statelessness is always in the interests of the populations concerned, let alone that it is directly connected to the protection of human and citizenship rights. It is the world's inequitable neo-feudal citizenism arrangement that is a problem, not the fact that some people do not fit neatly into the citizenism hierarchy and find themselves in a position of statelessness. Shedding light on the role of citizenship and statelessness in the world today as tools of preservation of racialized hierarchies and inequitable exclusion of most of the world's population from rights at home and abroad, the new scholarship questions the UN High Commissioner for Refugees's mission and actions in this domain and takes issue with the self-serving parochialism of dominant Western citizenship and statelessness literatures.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141801605","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-26DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-033138
Doron Dorfman
Disability studies is an interdisciplinary field investigating the nature of disability as a social and cultural phenomenon. Since the mid-2000s, legal scholars have been employing a disability studies lens to explore legal doctrine and the treatment of people with disabilities under the law. This article identifies a nascent scholarly movement I call empirical disability legal studies: utilizing both a disability studies lens and empirical methods associated with the social sciences to study disability law. Legal scholars have used empirical methods, involving an analysis of quantitative or qualitative data, to explore three main themes: the experiences of disabled individuals within the formal legal system, the negotiations of disability rights in everyday life outside of formal legal institutions, and the construction of disability in legal texts. This article calls for more scholars to do work in the empirical disability legal studies tradition and puts forward new unexplored paths to expand such inquiry into the legal treatment of disability.
{"title":"Empirical Disability Legal Studies","authors":"Doron Dorfman","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-033138","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-033138","url":null,"abstract":"Disability studies is an interdisciplinary field investigating the nature of disability as a social and cultural phenomenon. Since the mid-2000s, legal scholars have been employing a disability studies lens to explore legal doctrine and the treatment of people with disabilities under the law. This article identifies a nascent scholarly movement I call empirical disability legal studies: utilizing both a disability studies lens and empirical methods associated with the social sciences to study disability law. Legal scholars have used empirical methods, involving an analysis of quantitative or qualitative data, to explore three main themes: the experiences of disabled individuals within the formal legal system, the negotiations of disability rights in everyday life outside of formal legal institutions, and the construction of disability in legal texts. This article calls for more scholars to do work in the empirical disability legal studies tradition and puts forward new unexplored paths to expand such inquiry into the legal treatment of disability.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141799775","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-22DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-032324
Ivan Ermakoff
Two broad thematic perspectives can be distinguished in the literature that broaches the revolutions–law nexus. One considers how actors’ relations to, and usages of, legal statutes and constitutional provisions affect the dynamics of revolutionary conjunctures (law in revolutions). The other examines how the dynamics and modalities of revolutionary processes affect the content of law and the configuration of the legal order (revolutions in law). Subsumed to the law in revolutions perspective are five main topics: the use of constitutional provisions as instruments of revolutionary subversion, legally framed defensive strategies, constitutional devolutions, legitimation problems, and the courts’ stances. The revolutions in law perspective encompasses reflections on the status of law in revolutionary paradigms, the impacts of revolutionary events as acts of foundation, shifting conceptions of constituent power, and the issue of continuities coexisting with ruptures. Cutting across these two perspectives are challenges and pitfalls that studies of revolutions and law can hardly ignore: the reification of analytical and descriptive categories, the confusion of normative and positive standpoints, and the reliance on unconditional claims. Studies overcome these challenges when they document and analyze the processes whereby actors engage law as they make decisions and pursue courses of action.
{"title":"Revolutions and Law","authors":"Ivan Ermakoff","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-032324","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-032324","url":null,"abstract":"Two broad thematic perspectives can be distinguished in the literature that broaches the revolutions–law nexus. One considers how actors’ relations to, and usages of, legal statutes and constitutional provisions affect the dynamics of revolutionary conjunctures (law in revolutions). The other examines how the dynamics and modalities of revolutionary processes affect the content of law and the configuration of the legal order (revolutions in law). Subsumed to the law in revolutions perspective are five main topics: the use of constitutional provisions as instruments of revolutionary subversion, legally framed defensive strategies, constitutional devolutions, legitimation problems, and the courts’ stances. The revolutions in law perspective encompasses reflections on the status of law in revolutionary paradigms, the impacts of revolutionary events as acts of foundation, shifting conceptions of constituent power, and the issue of continuities coexisting with ruptures. Cutting across these two perspectives are challenges and pitfalls that studies of revolutions and law can hardly ignore: the reification of analytical and descriptive categories, the confusion of normative and positive standpoints, and the reliance on unconditional claims. Studies overcome these challenges when they document and analyze the processes whereby actors engage law as they make decisions and pursue courses of action.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141814491","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-17DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-045654
Ashley T. Rubin, Paige E. Vaughn, Danielle S. Rudes
Since emerging in the late 1970s and early 1980s, neo-institutional theory has been a popular framework for understanding law, legal institutions, and policies on the books and in action. Neo-institutional theory has been particularly useful for explaining diverse criminal justice phenomena, from changes in penal law and policy statements to on-the-ground practices across police departments, courts, carceral facilities, and community corrections. This review describes how scholars of the criminal legal system have used neo-institutional theory and where there is room for further utilization. Additionally, it discusses how and why neo-institutional theory is particularly useful for sociolegal scholars, and not only those studying criminal legal organizations and policies.
{"title":"Neo-Institutional Analyses of Criminal Legal Organizations and Policies","authors":"Ashley T. Rubin, Paige E. Vaughn, Danielle S. Rudes","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-045654","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-045654","url":null,"abstract":"Since emerging in the late 1970s and early 1980s, neo-institutional theory has been a popular framework for understanding law, legal institutions, and policies on the books and in action. Neo-institutional theory has been particularly useful for explaining diverse criminal justice phenomena, from changes in penal law and policy statements to on-the-ground practices across police departments, courts, carceral facilities, and community corrections. This review describes how scholars of the criminal legal system have used neo-institutional theory and where there is room for further utilization. Additionally, it discusses how and why neo-institutional theory is particularly useful for sociolegal scholars, and not only those studying criminal legal organizations and policies.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141828805","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-17DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-030149
Joanna N. Erdman, Paola Bergallo
Since the 1970s, a liberal politics has dominated comparative abortion law, one almost too ubiquitous to name. This article tracks departures from liberal abortion law in Europe and the Americas that have reshaped the field of comparative abortion law. Section 1 examines the repurposing of liberal abortion law for illiberal ends in a conservative moment of authoritarian governments and their anti-gender campaigns. Drawing on larger ideas of autocratic legalism, the article analyzes how governments and courts have used the features of liberal abortion law to revoke or defeat abortion rights. Section 2 examines the counter-emergence of a feminist protest politics that has abandoned liberal abortion law in a democratic remaking of society and state. Today, in abortion lawmaking through democratized institutions and in the unmaking of abortion law through direct action, feminist movements are reclaiming comparative abortion law and its politics.
{"title":"Abortion Law Illiberalism and Feminist Politics in Comparative Perspective","authors":"Joanna N. Erdman, Paola Bergallo","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-030149","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-030149","url":null,"abstract":"Since the 1970s, a liberal politics has dominated comparative abortion law, one almost too ubiquitous to name. This article tracks departures from liberal abortion law in Europe and the Americas that have reshaped the field of comparative abortion law. Section 1 examines the repurposing of liberal abortion law for illiberal ends in a conservative moment of authoritarian governments and their anti-gender campaigns. Drawing on larger ideas of autocratic legalism, the article analyzes how governments and courts have used the features of liberal abortion law to revoke or defeat abortion rights. Section 2 examines the counter-emergence of a feminist protest politics that has abandoned liberal abortion law in a democratic remaking of society and state. Today, in abortion lawmaking through democratized institutions and in the unmaking of abortion law through direct action, feminist movements are reclaiming comparative abortion law and its politics.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141829851","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-16DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-010924-103836
K. Scheppele
The rule of law has become all things to all people, which is precisely why it has been hard to define. Rather than attempt that feat, this article traces how the rule of law has developed as a set of specific governing practices both in the history of comparative law and in recent policy debates. Whereas national legal traditions blended ideas about the constraining effects of law with normative ideas about the organization of politics, the policy conversation has tended to depoliticize law altogether. As a result, it became possible for aspirational autocrats determined to undermine normative legal constraints to game the system and use law for autocratic ends. The rule of law is now beginning a new life, however, through a movement to deparochialize law and re-embed it in transnational norms. This rule of law writ large has become a new touchstone for holding political power accountable through law.
{"title":"The Life of the Rule of Law","authors":"K. Scheppele","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-010924-103836","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-010924-103836","url":null,"abstract":"The rule of law has become all things to all people, which is precisely why it has been hard to define. Rather than attempt that feat, this article traces how the rule of law has developed as a set of specific governing practices both in the history of comparative law and in recent policy debates. Whereas national legal traditions blended ideas about the constraining effects of law with normative ideas about the organization of politics, the policy conversation has tended to depoliticize law altogether. As a result, it became possible for aspirational autocrats determined to undermine normative legal constraints to game the system and use law for autocratic ends. The rule of law is now beginning a new life, however, through a movement to deparochialize law and re-embed it in transnational norms. This rule of law writ large has become a new touchstone for holding political power accountable through law.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141832537","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-03DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-044308
Marc Hertogh
In the past, the rule of law was largely overlooked by sociologists and other social scientists. However, recent years have seen an increasing number of empirical studies of the rule of law. I survey that diverse literature and identify three generations of empirical research, each based on a different approach: (a) the rule of law in action, (b) the rule of law index, and (c) the living rule of law. These studies give us a detailed, but often sobering, view of the rule of law in the real world. I critically review the emerging field and discuss challenges for future research. Developing a more coherent social science of the rule of law is important because it helps us to understand that the rule of law is defined not only by formal institutions and legal documents but also by the place of law in people's everyday lives.
{"title":"Empirical Approaches to the Rule of Law: Contours and Challenges of a Social Science that Does Not Quite Yet Exist","authors":"Marc Hertogh","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-044308","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041822-044308","url":null,"abstract":"In the past, the rule of law was largely overlooked by sociologists and other social scientists. However, recent years have seen an increasing number of empirical studies of the rule of law. I survey that diverse literature and identify three generations of empirical research, each based on a different approach: (a) the rule of law in action, (b) the rule of law index, and (c) the living rule of law. These studies give us a detailed, but often sobering, view of the rule of law in the real world. I critically review the emerging field and discuss challenges for future research. Developing a more coherent social science of the rule of law is important because it helps us to understand that the rule of law is defined not only by formal institutions and legal documents but also by the place of law in people's everyday lives.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141681359","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-02DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-042705
Paul Kaplan
This review focuses on empirical research about contemporary challenges to the death penalty in the United States. Challenges are factors that obstruct capital punishment, including legal or political restrictions; elimination at the federal or state level; or the hindrance of the process at its operational stages of charging, adjudicating, appeals, clemency, or executions. By the best-known measures, the death penalty has been in decline in the United States since the turn of the century. Lethal injection errors—“botches”—are arguably the most important current challenge to the institution. Wrongful capital conviction has made capital punishment less tolerable to the general public. Mitigation remains an important challenge to the death penalty. This review emphasizes botches, innocence, and mitigation but also touches on disparate impact, failure-to-deliver a social benefit, and cost. Along the way, this review proposes a framework for considering challenges as they occur on two continua of impact, a micro/meso/macro axis and a narrow/wide axis.
{"title":"Challenges to the Contemporary Death Penalty in the United States","authors":"Paul Kaplan","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-042705","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-042705","url":null,"abstract":"This review focuses on empirical research about contemporary challenges to the death penalty in the United States. Challenges are factors that obstruct capital punishment, including legal or political restrictions; elimination at the federal or state level; or the hindrance of the process at its operational stages of charging, adjudicating, appeals, clemency, or executions. By the best-known measures, the death penalty has been in decline in the United States since the turn of the century. Lethal injection errors—“botches”—are arguably the most important current challenge to the institution. Wrongful capital conviction has made capital punishment less tolerable to the general public. Mitigation remains an important challenge to the death penalty. This review emphasizes botches, innocence, and mitigation but also touches on disparate impact, failure-to-deliver a social benefit, and cost. Along the way, this review proposes a framework for considering challenges as they occur on two continua of impact, a micro/meso/macro axis and a narrow/wide axis.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141688495","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-01DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113
Bertrall L. Ross
American democracy is in crisis. The emergence of affective polarization and populism has contributed to a divided America in which both sides perceive every election as an existential threat to their ways of life, values, and democracy itself. Central features of liberal democracy, including the right to vote, the system of checks and balances, and presidential transitions of power, appear to be collectively under threat in ways they have not been since the Civil War. Scholars diverge on both the sources of and responses to the crisis. For some, the problem is too much democracy, and the solution is less. For others, the problem is too little democracy, and the solution is more. This review offers a synthesis of the contrasting accounts of American democracy in crisis and advances a third alternative of better democracy as a key to escaping the crisis.
{"title":"Polarization, Populism, and the Crisis of American Democracy","authors":"Bertrall L. Ross","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-035113","url":null,"abstract":"American democracy is in crisis. The emergence of affective polarization and populism has contributed to a divided America in which both sides perceive every election as an existential threat to their ways of life, values, and democracy itself. Central features of liberal democracy, including the right to vote, the system of checks and balances, and presidential transitions of power, appear to be collectively under threat in ways they have not been since the Civil War. Scholars diverge on both the sources of and responses to the crisis. For some, the problem is too much democracy, and the solution is less. For others, the problem is too little democracy, and the solution is more. This review offers a synthesis of the contrasting accounts of American democracy in crisis and advances a third alternative of better democracy as a key to escaping the crisis.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141701595","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2024-07-01DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-033114
Tasseli E. McKay, William A. “Sandy” Darity
A rich empirical literature documents the consequences of mass incarceration for the wealth, health, and safety of Black Americans. Yet it often frames such consequences as a regrettable artifact of racially disproportionate criminal legal system contact, rather than situating the impetus and functioning of the criminal legal system in the wider context of White political and economic domination. Revisiting a quarter century of mass incarceration research through a stratification economics lens, we highlight how mass incarceration shapes Black–White competition for education, employment, and financial resources and contributes to Black–White disparities in well-being. Highlighting persistent research gaps, we propose a research agenda to better understand how mass incarceration contributes to systematic White advantage. To address mass incarceration's consequences and transform the conditions of White political and economic domination under which it arose, we call for legislative and judicial intervention to remedy White hyper-enfranchisement and reparations to eliminate the Black–White wealth gap.
{"title":"Who Benefits from Mass Incarceration? A Stratification Economics Approach to the “Collateral Consequences” of Punishment","authors":"Tasseli E. McKay, William A. “Sandy” Darity","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-033114","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-041922-033114","url":null,"abstract":"A rich empirical literature documents the consequences of mass incarceration for the wealth, health, and safety of Black Americans. Yet it often frames such consequences as a regrettable artifact of racially disproportionate criminal legal system contact, rather than situating the impetus and functioning of the criminal legal system in the wider context of White political and economic domination. Revisiting a quarter century of mass incarceration research through a stratification economics lens, we highlight how mass incarceration shapes Black–White competition for education, employment, and financial resources and contributes to Black–White disparities in well-being. Highlighting persistent research gaps, we propose a research agenda to better understand how mass incarceration contributes to systematic White advantage. To address mass incarceration's consequences and transform the conditions of White political and economic domination under which it arose, we call for legislative and judicial intervention to remedy White hyper-enfranchisement and reparations to eliminate the Black–White wealth gap.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"141714731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：