Pub Date : 2023-07-12DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120122-092655
J. Carroll
In the past six decades, pretrial detention systems have undergone waves of reform. Despite these efforts, pretrial jail populations across the country continue to swell. The causes of such growth in jail populations are difficult to pinpoint, but some are more readily apparent: Fear over rising crime rates, judicial reluctance to release accused persons, and monetary burdens associated with release have all contributed to increased detention pretrial across criminal legal systems in the United States. This article examines various pretrial detention reform efforts and highlights the need for greater research in the area. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"The Ever-Shifting Ground of Pretrial Detention Reform","authors":"J. Carroll","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120122-092655","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120122-092655","url":null,"abstract":"In the past six decades, pretrial detention systems have undergone waves of reform. Despite these efforts, pretrial jail populations across the country continue to swell. The causes of such growth in jail populations are difficult to pinpoint, but some are more readily apparent: Fear over rising crime rates, judicial reluctance to release accused persons, and monetary burdens associated with release have all contributed to increased detention pretrial across criminal legal systems in the United States. This article examines various pretrial detention reform efforts and highlights the need for greater research in the area. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-07-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48086164","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 : 2023-06-28DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749
Michael Veale, K. Matus, Robert Gorwa
Artificial intelligence (AI) is a salient but polarizing issue of recent times. Actors around the world are engaged in building a governance regime around it. What exactly the “it” is that is being governed, how, by who, and why—these are all less clear. In this review, we attempt to shine some light on those questions, considering literature on AI, the governance of computing, and regulation and governance more broadly. We take critical stock of the different modalities of the global governance of AI that have been emerging, such as ethical councils, industry governance, contracts and licensing, standards, international agreements, and domestic legislation with extraterritorial impact. Considering these, we examine selected rationales and tensions that underpin them, drawing attention to the interests and ideas driving these different modalities. As these regimes become clearer and more stable, we urge those engaging with or studying the global governance of AI to constantly ask the important question of all global governance regimes: Who benefits? Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"AI and Global Governance: Modalities, Rationales, Tensions","authors":"Michael Veale, K. Matus, Robert Gorwa","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020223-040749","url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence (AI) is a salient but polarizing issue of recent times. Actors around the world are engaged in building a governance regime around it. What exactly the “it” is that is being governed, how, by who, and why—these are all less clear. In this review, we attempt to shine some light on those questions, considering literature on AI, the governance of computing, and regulation and governance more broadly. We take critical stock of the different modalities of the global governance of AI that have been emerging, such as ethical councils, industry governance, contracts and licensing, standards, international agreements, and domestic legislation with extraterritorial impact. Considering these, we examine selected rationales and tensions that underpin them, drawing attention to the interests and ideas driving these different modalities. As these regimes become clearer and more stable, we urge those engaging with or studying the global governance of AI to constantly ask the important question of all global governance regimes: Who benefits? Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42327702","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 : 2023-06-20DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-090534
A. Kirkland
Research on vaccines in the law and social sciences skews heavily toward an instrumentalist approach to knowledge in service of vaccine promotion. Overcoming hesitancy and promoting vaccine acceptance have been major goals, but successful levers for behavioral change remain elusive. Research with constructivist approaches to vaccines from feminist sociology and anthropology has uncovered ethnographic richness to describe how vaccine debates illuminate inequalities in parenting and re-entrench patterns of racism and colonialism. There is considerable potential in science and technology studies approaches that take seriously the materiality and movement of vaccines in networks of production, finance, and global politics, though there are considerable methodological challenges for these research designs. This review charts the lopsided bibliography of law and social science research on vaccines, asking why scholars rarely move away from instrumentalist conceptions of law in the service of public health and, when they do, explaining what theoretical tools enable it. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Beyond Law as a Tool of Public Health: Vaccines in Interdisciplinary Sociolegal and Science Studies","authors":"A. Kirkland","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-090534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-090534","url":null,"abstract":"Research on vaccines in the law and social sciences skews heavily toward an instrumentalist approach to knowledge in service of vaccine promotion. Overcoming hesitancy and promoting vaccine acceptance have been major goals, but successful levers for behavioral change remain elusive. Research with constructivist approaches to vaccines from feminist sociology and anthropology has uncovered ethnographic richness to describe how vaccine debates illuminate inequalities in parenting and re-entrench patterns of racism and colonialism. There is considerable potential in science and technology studies approaches that take seriously the materiality and movement of vaccines in networks of production, finance, and global politics, though there are considerable methodological challenges for these research designs. This review charts the lopsided bibliography of law and social science research on vaccines, asking why scholars rarely move away from instrumentalist conceptions of law in the service of public health and, when they do, explaining what theoretical tools enable it. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48332595","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 : 2023-06-20DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236
T. Tyler
My scholarly career has centered around articulating and testing a model of legitimacy-based law and governance. In recent decades, that model has achieved considerable success in shaping the way legal authority is understood and exercised. At the same time the legitimacy of legal, political, and social institutions and authorities has declined, raising questions about the future viability of a legitimacy-based model. In this review, I discuss the ascension and potential decline of legitimacy-based governance and outline alternative models of authority that may emerge in the twenty-first century. Three issues are addressed: whether there are ways to reinvigorate legitimacy-based law and governance; whether social norms, moral values, or ideologies are viable alternative forms of authority; and whether it is better to accept that no single form of authority works best in all situations and theories should focus on identifying the contingencies under which different forms of authority are most desirable. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Whither Legitimacy? Legal Authority in the Twenty-First Century","authors":"T. Tyler","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-110722-074236","url":null,"abstract":"My scholarly career has centered around articulating and testing a model of legitimacy-based law and governance. In recent decades, that model has achieved considerable success in shaping the way legal authority is understood and exercised. At the same time the legitimacy of legal, political, and social institutions and authorities has declined, raising questions about the future viability of a legitimacy-based model. In this review, I discuss the ascension and potential decline of legitimacy-based governance and outline alternative models of authority that may emerge in the twenty-first century. Three issues are addressed: whether there are ways to reinvigorate legitimacy-based law and governance; whether social norms, moral values, or ideologies are viable alternative forms of authority; and whether it is better to accept that no single form of authority works best in all situations and theories should focus on identifying the contingencies under which different forms of authority are most desirable. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47008000","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 : 2023-06-12DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020623-054945
Lisa Hajjar
The military detention facility at the Guantánamo Bay naval base is the most enduring manifestation of the US “war on terror.” It is also materially and symbolically central to US torture, war crimes, and other egregious violations of law in the post-9/11 era. Since the first detainees arrived in 2002, Guantánamo has been the subject of controversy and debate, as well as a key setting for legal challenges to government policies. This article traces the legacy of the prison and the military commissions across four administrations. It demonstrates that the lack of a common understanding or shared narrative about what Guantánamo means or has meant is a product of entrenched partisanship that characterizes contemporary US politics more broadly. Guantánamo's confounding legacy reflects the lack of a national consensus about the role of laws and courts as guarantors of even the most basic rights. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Guantánamo's Legacy","authors":"Lisa Hajjar","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020623-054945","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-020623-054945","url":null,"abstract":"The military detention facility at the Guantánamo Bay naval base is the most enduring manifestation of the US “war on terror.” It is also materially and symbolically central to US torture, war crimes, and other egregious violations of law in the post-9/11 era. Since the first detainees arrived in 2002, Guantánamo has been the subject of controversy and debate, as well as a key setting for legal challenges to government policies. This article traces the legacy of the prison and the military commissions across four administrations. It demonstrates that the lack of a common understanding or shared narrative about what Guantánamo means or has meant is a product of entrenched partisanship that characterizes contemporary US politics more broadly. Guantánamo's confounding legacy reflects the lack of a national consensus about the role of laws and courts as guarantors of even the most basic rights. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45250415","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 : 2023-06-12DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111022-082509
Donna Shestowsky
How do litigants evaluate their experiences with the civil justice system? What we know about this important subject has grown out of foundational academic research in procedural justice and studies of litigant involvement in court programs. The volume of projects dedicated to understanding litigant experiences falls short in relation to the magnitude of civil justice system encounters handled by the legal system. Nevertheless, the extant research converges on some surprising insights into the factors that shape litigants’ perspectives and the contextual variables that affect their experiences. This article synthesizes the major findings, discusses some of their law and policy implications, and highlights areas that beg for further investigation at the intersection of law and psychology. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Civil Litigants’ Evaluations of Their Legal Experiences","authors":"Donna Shestowsky","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111022-082509","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111022-082509","url":null,"abstract":"How do litigants evaluate their experiences with the civil justice system? What we know about this important subject has grown out of foundational academic research in procedural justice and studies of litigant involvement in court programs. The volume of projects dedicated to understanding litigant experiences falls short in relation to the magnitude of civil justice system encounters handled by the legal system. Nevertheless, the extant research converges on some surprising insights into the factors that shape litigants’ perspectives and the contextual variables that affect their experiences. This article synthesizes the major findings, discusses some of their law and policy implications, and highlights areas that beg for further investigation at the intersection of law and psychology. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47405797","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 : 2023-06-07DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-113022-111914
R. Moran
Police officers regularly serve as government witnesses in criminal cases. In recent years, they have also increasingly found themselves as defendants facing criminal charges, civil lawsuits, or both. This article surveys scholarly literature on police officers as both witnesses and defendants, with a focus on sociological and legal barriers to understanding officer deception, assessing officer testimony, and holding officers accountable for misconduct. With respect to officers as witnesses, these barriers include the prevalence of police officer perjury, judicial deference to officers’ testimony, and laws and policies that prevent defendants from learning about or exposing officer misconduct and unreliability. Charging and suing officers present additional logistical and substantive questions. These questions include who should be responsible for investigating and deciding whether to prosecute police, what protocols should guide those investigations, whether police prosecutions meaningfully improve policing or ensure accountability, and what role the civil legal system should play in addressing police misconduct. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Police Go to Court: Police Officers as Witnesses/Defendants","authors":"R. Moran","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-113022-111914","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-113022-111914","url":null,"abstract":"Police officers regularly serve as government witnesses in criminal cases. In recent years, they have also increasingly found themselves as defendants facing criminal charges, civil lawsuits, or both. This article surveys scholarly literature on police officers as both witnesses and defendants, with a focus on sociological and legal barriers to understanding officer deception, assessing officer testimony, and holding officers accountable for misconduct. With respect to officers as witnesses, these barriers include the prevalence of police officer perjury, judicial deference to officers’ testimony, and laws and policies that prevent defendants from learning about or exposing officer misconduct and unreliability. Charging and suing officers present additional logistical and substantive questions. These questions include who should be responsible for investigating and deciding whether to prosecute police, what protocols should guide those investigations, whether police prosecutions meaningfully improve policing or ensure accountability, and what role the civil legal system should play in addressing police misconduct. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47871597","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 : 2023-06-02DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-101947
Lisa M. Austin
The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted many complexities involved in using data and advanced technologies to help resolve public health emergencies. These complexities highlight the need to embrace a broader framework of data governance with three foundational questions: ( a) who decides about data flows, ( b) on what basis, and ( c) with what accountability and oversight. These questions can accommodate the issues that have arisen in the literature regarding new types of data harms. However, these questions also foreground important issues of power, authority, and legitimacy. Data governance can provide an organizing normative framework to address emerging data themes including access to data, collective decision making, data intermediaries, data sovereignty, design and digital infrastructure, regulatory technologies, the rule of law, and social trust and license. The pandemic experience with contact tracing apps, in particular, showed the many unresolved governance challenges. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"COVID-19 and the Data Governance Gap","authors":"Lisa M. Austin","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-101947","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-050520-101947","url":null,"abstract":"The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted many complexities involved in using data and advanced technologies to help resolve public health emergencies. These complexities highlight the need to embrace a broader framework of data governance with three foundational questions: ( a) who decides about data flows, ( b) on what basis, and ( c) with what accountability and oversight. These questions can accommodate the issues that have arisen in the literature regarding new types of data harms. However, these questions also foreground important issues of power, authority, and legitimacy. Data governance can provide an organizing normative framework to address emerging data themes including access to data, collective decision making, data intermediaries, data sovereignty, design and digital infrastructure, regulatory technologies, the rule of law, and social trust and license. The pandemic experience with contact tracing apps, in particular, showed the many unresolved governance challenges. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-06-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41605500","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 : 2023-05-30DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120522-091626
D. Engstrom, Amit Haim
Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how governments work, from distribution of public benefits, to identifying enforcement targets, to meting out sanctions. But, given AI's twin capacity to cause and cure error, bias, and inequity, there is little consensus about how to regulate its use. This review advances debate by lifting up research at the intersection of computer science, organizational behavior, and law. First, pushing past the usual catalogs of algorithmic harms and benefits, we argue that what makes government AI most concerning is its steady advance into discretion-laden policy spaces where we have long tolerated less-than-full legal accountability. The challenge is how, but also whether, to fortify existing public law paradigms without hamstringing government or stymieing useful innovation. Second, we argue that sound regulation must connect emerging knowledge about internal agency practices in designing and implementing AI systems to longer-standing lessons about the limits of external legal constraints in inducing organizations to adopt desired practices. Meaningful accountability requires a more robust understanding of organizational behavior and law as AI permeates bureaucratic routines. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Regulating Government AI and the Challenge of Sociotechnical Design","authors":"D. Engstrom, Amit Haim","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120522-091626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-120522-091626","url":null,"abstract":"Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how governments work, from distribution of public benefits, to identifying enforcement targets, to meting out sanctions. But, given AI's twin capacity to cause and cure error, bias, and inequity, there is little consensus about how to regulate its use. This review advances debate by lifting up research at the intersection of computer science, organizational behavior, and law. First, pushing past the usual catalogs of algorithmic harms and benefits, we argue that what makes government AI most concerning is its steady advance into discretion-laden policy spaces where we have long tolerated less-than-full legal accountability. The challenge is how, but also whether, to fortify existing public law paradigms without hamstringing government or stymieing useful innovation. Second, we argue that sound regulation must connect emerging knowledge about internal agency practices in designing and implementing AI systems to longer-standing lessons about the limits of external legal constraints in inducing organizations to adopt desired practices. Meaningful accountability requires a more robust understanding of organizational behavior and law as AI permeates bureaucratic routines. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46070686","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 : 2023-05-30DOI: 10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074854
Joseph Blocher, J. Charles, Darrell A. H. Miller
Academic work is increasingly important to court rulings on the Second Amendment and firearms law more generally. This article highlights two recent trends in social science research that supplement the traditional focus on guns and physical harm. The first strand of research focuses on the changing ways that gun owners connect with firearms, with personal security, status, identity, and cultural markers being key reasons people offer for possessing firearms. The second strand focuses on broadening our understanding of the impact of guns on the public sphere beyond just physical safety. This research surfaces the ways that guns can create fear, intimidation, and social trauma; deter civic participation and the exercise of constitutional rights; and further entrench racial inequality. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.
{"title":"Firearms Law and Scholarship Beyond Bullets and Bodies","authors":"Joseph Blocher, J. Charles, Darrell A. H. Miller","doi":"10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074854","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-111522-074854","url":null,"abstract":"Academic work is increasingly important to court rulings on the Second Amendment and firearms law more generally. This article highlights two recent trends in social science research that supplement the traditional focus on guns and physical harm. The first strand of research focuses on the changing ways that gun owners connect with firearms, with personal security, status, identity, and cultural markers being key reasons people offer for possessing firearms. The second strand focuses on broadening our understanding of the impact of guns on the public sphere beyond just physical safety. This research surfaces the ways that guns can create fear, intimidation, and social trauma; deter civic participation and the exercise of constitutional rights; and further entrench racial inequality. Expected final online publication date for the Annual Review of Law and Social Science, Volume 19 is October 2023. Please see http://www.annualreviews.org/page/journal/pubdates for revised estimates.","PeriodicalId":47338,"journal":{"name":"Annual Review of Law and Social Science","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2023-05-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42497655","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：