{"title":"Shari'a, Inshallah: Finding god in Somali legal politics. By Mark F. Massoud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 250 pp. $34.99 paperback","authors":"Reviewed by Nafay Choudhury","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12626","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12626","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91798576","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}
{"title":"Against progress: Intellectual property and fundamental values in the internet age. By Jessica Silbey. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2022. 448 pages, $90.00 hardcover/$30.00 paperback.","authors":"Reviewed by Or Cohen-Sasson","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12627","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12627","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-08-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"91786637","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}
{"title":"Industry unbound: The inside story of privacy, data, and corporate power. By Ari EzraWaldman Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 364 pp. $24.95 hardback","authors":"Reviewed by Erika M. Douglas","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12610","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12610","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"115821737","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}
{"title":"Sorting sexuality: Expertise and the politics of legal classification. By Stefan Vogler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. 280 pp. $30.00 paper","authors":"Edward Stein","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12609","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12609","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"126176864","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}
{"title":"Privilege and punishment: How race and class matter in criminal court. By Matthew Clair. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020. 320 pp. $19.95 paperback","authors":"Reviewed by Malcolm M. Feeley","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12614","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12614","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130561423","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}
One in seven people in prison in the US is serving a life sentence, and most of these “lifers” will someday be eligible for discretionary parole. But little is known about a key aspect of parole decision-making: remorse assessments. Because remorse is a complex emotion that arises from past wrongdoing and unfolds over time, assessing the sincerity of another person's remorse is neither a simple task of lie detection, nor of determining emotional authenticity. Instead, remorse involves numerous elements, including the relationship between a person's past and present motivations, beliefs, and affective states. To understand how parole board members make sense of remorse, we draw on in-depth interviews with parole commissioners in California, the state with the largest proportion of parole-eligible lifers. We find that commissioners' remorse assessments hinge on their perceptions of lifers' relationships to law and carceral logic. In this way, relational legal consciousness—specifically, second-order legal consciousness—functions as a stand-in for the impossible task of knowing another person's heart or mind. We distinguish relational from second-order legal consciousness and argue that understanding how they operate at parole hearings reveals the larger import of relational legal consciousness as a mechanism via which existing power relations are produced and reproduced, bridging the legal consciousness and law and emotion literatures.
{"title":"How parole boards judge remorse: Relational legal consciousness and the reproduction of carceral logic","authors":"Kathryne M. Young, Hannah Chimowitz","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12601","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12601","url":null,"abstract":"<p>One in seven people in prison in the US is serving a life sentence, and most of these “lifers” will someday be eligible for discretionary parole. But little is known about a key aspect of parole decision-making: remorse assessments. Because remorse is a complex emotion that arises from past wrongdoing and unfolds over time, assessing the sincerity of another person's remorse is neither a simple task of lie detection, nor of determining emotional authenticity. Instead, remorse involves numerous elements, including the relationship between a person's past and present motivations, beliefs, and affective states. To understand how parole board members make sense of remorse, we draw on in-depth interviews with parole commissioners in California, the state with the largest proportion of parole-eligible lifers. We find that commissioners' remorse assessments hinge on their perceptions of lifers' relationships to law and carceral logic. In this way, relational legal consciousness—specifically, second-order legal consciousness—functions as a stand-in for the impossible task of knowing another person's heart or mind. We distinguish relational from second-order legal consciousness and argue that understanding how they operate at parole hearings reveals the larger import of relational legal consciousness as a mechanism via which existing power relations are produced and reproduced, bridging the legal consciousness and law and emotion literatures.</p>","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121210913","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}
{"title":"Identity capitalists: The powerful insiders who exploit diversity to maintain inequality. By Nancy Leong. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2021. 240 pp. $28.00 paperback","authors":"Reviewed by Meera E. Deo","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12608","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12608","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121209060","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}
{"title":"Living apart together: Legal protections for a new form of family. By Cynthia Grant Bowman. New York: New York University Press, 2020. 312 pp. $40.00 hardcover","authors":"Reviewed by Kaiponanea T. Matsumura","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12613","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12613","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124944924","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}
{"title":"Conviction: The making and unmaking of the violent brain. By Oliver Rollins. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2021. 248 pp. $25.00 paperback","authors":"Reviewed by Ernest K. Chavez","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12612","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12612","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133839944","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}
Mitigating evidence in capital trials provides reasons for a life, rather than death, sentence. Research suggests that mitigation challenges jurors. We contribute to this area by analyzing federal verdict forms in capital cases, which allow jurors to write in their own mitigating factors, providing a direct, rare window onto their mitigation considerations. We use 205 forms from 171 juries to examine the frequency and content of these “write-ins,” using a sentencing theory typically applied to judges, Focal Concerns Theory. We find that four of every 10 juries prompted to offer their own mitigation do so, producing 149 unique write-ins, the majority of which introduces mitigation topics that differ from those listed on the verdict form. Surprisingly, jurors are less likely to offer write-in mitigators in cases involving White defendants than others, even after controlling for support for other mitigating factors and for aggravating factors, which also predict write-ins. Jurors' write-ins reflect a traditional sentencing concern for blameworthiness, and consistent with Focal Concerns Theory, attention to the practical consequences of punishment. Jurors also offered concerns we term “procedural fairness.” Results indicate that juries' views are patterned in ways that are similar, but not identical, to judges' sentencing concerns.
{"title":"The focal concerns of jurors evaluating mitigation: Evidence from federal capital jury forms","authors":"Mary R. Rose, Meredith Martin Rountree","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12602","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mitigating evidence in capital trials provides reasons for a life, rather than death, sentence. Research suggests that mitigation challenges jurors. We contribute to this area by analyzing federal verdict forms in capital cases, which allow jurors to write in their own mitigating factors, providing a direct, rare window onto their mitigation considerations. We use 205 forms from 171 juries to examine the frequency and content of these “write-ins,” using a sentencing theory typically applied to judges, Focal Concerns Theory. We find that four of every 10 juries prompted to offer their own mitigation do so, producing 149 unique write-ins, the majority of which introduces mitigation topics that differ from those listed on the verdict form. Surprisingly, jurors are less likely to offer write-in mitigators in cases involving White defendants than others, even after controlling for support for other mitigating factors and for aggravating factors, which also predict write-ins. Jurors' write-ins reflect a traditional sentencing concern for blameworthiness, and consistent with Focal Concerns Theory, attention to the practical consequences of punishment. Jurors also offered concerns we term “procedural fairness.” Results indicate that juries' views are patterned in ways that are similar, but not identical, to judges' sentencing concerns.</p>","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137862120","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}
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：
京公网安备 11010802042870号