741 research outputs found
Three Objections to the Use of Empiricism in Criminal Law and Procedure—And Three Answers
No full textRecent studies show that, over the past decade, judges and lawyers have begun to cite to empirical studies in their work with increasing regularity. However, the use of empiricism is still not common in many areas of the law. In this article, Tracey L. Meares draws on her background in criminal justice to highlight three major objections to the use of empiricism in criminal law and procedure: (1) much of the empirical evidence used by courts is flawed and courts are not equipped to deal with complicated social scientific data; (2) the use of empiricism decreases public acceptance in the criminal justice system, which in turn, prevents an individual from internalizing legal rules (“less information is better”); and (3) empirical information is irrelevant to the normative goals of criminal law and procedure. After fully analyzing these objections, the author presents various counterarguments that underscore the importance of using empiricism in the creation and interpretation of criminal law and procedure. Professor Meares dismisses the first critique as merely an objection to bad social science and argues for the use of critical review as one of the mechanisms by which courts could screen social science research. The author responds to the “less information is better” objection by attacking it on moral grounds and by demonstrating how the use of empirical evidence can lead to higher levels of legitimacy and to greater compliance with the law. Finally, the author disposes of the third objection by arguing that the use of empirical studies makes criminal justice decisions more transparent and allows us to hold decision makers accountable for their actions
Three Objections to the Use of Empiricism in Criminal Law and Procedure—And Three Answers
No full textRecent studies show that, over the past decade, judges and lawyers have begun to cite to empirical studies in their work with increasing regularity. However, the use of empiricism is still not common in many areas of the law. In this article, Tracey L. Meares draws on her background in criminal justice to highlight three major objections to the use of empiricism in criminal law and procedure: (1) much of the empirical evidence used by courts is flawed and courts are not equipped to deal with complicated social scientific data; (2) the use of empiricism decreases public acceptance in the criminal justice system, which in turn, prevents an individual from internalizing legal rules (“less information is better”); and (3) empirical information is irrelevant to the normative goals of criminal law and procedure. After fully analyzing these objections, the author presents various counterarguments that underscore the importance of using empiricism in the creation and interpretation of criminal law and procedure.
Professor Meares dismisses the first critique as merely an objection to bad social science and argues for the use of critical review as one of the mechanisms by which courts could screen social science research. The author responds to the “less information is better” objection by attacking it on moral grounds and by demonstrating how the use of empirical evidence can lead to higher levels of legitimacy and to greater compliance with the law. Finally, the author disposes of the third objection by arguing that the use of empirical studies makes criminal justice decisions more transparent and allows us to hold decision makers accountable for their actions
The Legitimacy of Police Among Young African-American Men
No full textIt is a privilege for me to introduce the George and Margaret Barrock Lecture. Permit me to begin by saying a few words about the individuals in whose memory this lecture stands. While I would do this in any event, it is especially appropriate to do so this year, for this is the inaugural Barrock Lecture. George Barrock was a Marquette lawyer, from our class of 1931. George’s parents were from Lebanon, coming over to the United States on a cattle boat. Like so many immigrants, they both modeled a strong work ethic and stressed to their children the importance of education. Upon George’s graduation from law school, he started his own firm in his native Milwaukee. He was primarily a family-law lawyer, although he is said to have always tried to help his client reconcile with his or her spouse rather than divorce, if possible. In all events, George Barrock was fortunate in his own marriage: his wife, Margaret, was not only his partner for life but also worked with him at the firm, on administrative matters. A bequest to support an occasional distinguished lecture in George and Margaret Barrock’s memory was provided by their daughter, Mary Bonfield. This is that lecture, which we have determined to associate with the area of criminal law. While this was not George Barrock’s specialty, it is consistent not only with his daughter’s bequest (to be sure) but with his own practice, which served individual citizens with their everyday legal problems. Moreover, criminal law is an historic strength of Marquette University Law School, certainly insofar as our teaching and our graduates’ practices are concerned. I am thus very pleased that this lecture series will occur in the area of criminal law. And how fortunate we are that Tracey Meares, the Walton Hale Hamilton Professor at Yale Law School, has accepted the invitation, which Associate Dean Michael O’Hear extended on our behalf, to join us to deliver this inaugural Barrock Lecture. Professor Meares is among the nation’s most innovative and influential criminal law scholars. Her work focuses on the immensely difficult and important problem of high crime rates in poor, urban, minority neighborhoods. Professor Meares’s writings on this topic exemplify the very best of interdisciplinary legal scholarship, bringing to bear a deep understanding of sociological theory in an effort to help develop constructive, practical proposals for improving both legal doctrine and police practices. In particular, Professor Meares has called for a more flexible approach to constitutional rights that would give local communities more power to address their own crime problems, and she has called for police to develop different ways of engaging with the communities they serve. Her work thus defies categorization based on the simplistic, partisan labels that mark much of the public discourse on criminal procedure, such as “pro-defendant” or “pro-police.” Indeed, it does nothing less than invite us to rethink our positions about crime and policing in the inner-city and to be open to innovative crime-control strategies that move beyond traditional deterrence-based approaches. Please join me in welcoming, to Marquette University Law School and Milwaukee, Professor Tracey Meares
Appendix-Annals-687-SAGE – Supplemental material for Reconciling Police and Communities with Apologies, Acknowledgements, or Both: A Controlled Experiment
No full textSupplemental material, Appendix-Annals-687-SAGE for Reconciling Police and Communities with Apologies, Acknowledgements, or Both: A Controlled Experiment by Thomas C. O’Brien, Tracey L. Meares and Tom R. Tyler in The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science</p
Justice Sotomayor and the Jurisprudence of Procedural Justice
No full textIn this Essay, Professors Tyler and Meares highlight the ways in which recent social science research supports the model of jurisprudence articulated by Justice Sotomayor. Her model defines building identification with political and legal institutions as an important goal for the Court. It further suggests that this goal is best achieved when the Court exercises its authority using just procedures. That perspective is consistent with research on the foundations of popular legitimacy demonstrating that perceived procedural justice of the Court most strongly shapes it. Social science findings further reveal the factors shaping popular conceptions of procedural justice
\u3ci\u3eTerry\u3c/i\u3e and the Relevance of Politics
No full textMy commentary will be congenial with those of Judge Weinstein and Randy Kennedy insofar as I would characterize myself as a Terry supporter rather than a Terry opponent. Therefore, I\u27ll be arguing against some of the points that Tracey Maclin has made—with a caveat. The caveat is that Tracey Maclin has made incredibly good points for the case that Terry was wrongly decided when it was decided. The question we must answer today, however, is whether Terry is right for today.
Professor Maclin argues that the Terry Court should have followed the Miranda Court model—a model in which the Court takes a more interventionist approach to law enforcement practice to insure that liberty interests are protected. Professor Maclin might also find the Court\u27s approach in Papachristou to be supportive of his argument. Papachristou, as I will argue in a moment, shares similarities with Terry, although the cases came out differently.
In both Miranda and Papachristou the Supreme Court adopted an approach that I believe was obviously right for the time in which those cases were decided. What is not so clear, however, is whether those principles are readily applicable to the current political and social context. Professor Maclin is concerned about the protection of rights of Black people today. So am I. However, I am more confident than Professor Maclin is, about the contemporary relevance of the principles embodied in Terry
Gangs & Gang-Related Crime
No full textSeveral years ago, Dan Kahan and I wrote a piece about addressing crime in the inner city (Meares and Kahan, 1998). Our goal in the piece was to enrich criminal law policy analysis by explaining the ways in which social science could helpfully inform policy strategies. At that time, the dominant approach to inner-city crime was to focus on increasing the prevalence and severity of prison sentences. While noting that the public demand for "get tough" law enforcement strategies stemmed from deep-seated political, ideological, and even psychological dynamics (Beale, 1997), we urged scholars to do more than simply criticize the existing policies. Pragmatic scholarship was necessary to influence crime policy, particularly scholarship that took seriously the possibility of shaping "norms" that influenced criminal behavior. The journal Criminology & Public Policy is committed to the presentation of high-quality, pragmatic scholarship. And in that spirit we present here a sort of "mini-symposium" on gangs and gang-related crime. Readers will see that the scholarly agenda overarching the pieces is intensely pragmatic. The two major pieces, one by Maxson et al. and the other by McGloin, are about better describing the thing called a "gang" and how to address the problems that such groups can create
Justice Sotomayor and the Jurisprudence of Procedural Justice
No full textIn this Essay, Professors Tyler and Meares highlight the ways in which recent social science research supports the model of jurisprudence articulated by Justice Sotomayor. Her model defines building identification with political and legal institutions as an important goal for the Court. It further suggests that this goal is best achieved when the Court exercises its authority using just procedures. That perspective is consistent with research on the foundations of popular legitimacy demonstrating that perceived procedural justice of the Court most strongly shapes it. Social science findings further reveal the factors shaping popular conceptions of procedural justice
Gangs \u26 Gang-Related Crime
No full textSeveral years ago, Dan Kahan and I wrote a piece about addressing crime in the inner city (Meares and Kahan, 1998). Our goal in the piece was to enrich criminal law policy analysis by explaining the ways in which social science could helpfully inform policy strategies. At that time, the dominant approach to inner-city crime was to focus on increasing the prevalence and severity of prison sentences. While noting that the public demand for get tough law enforcement strategies stemmed from deep-seated political, ideological, and even psychological dynamics (Beale, 1997), we urged scholars to do more than simply criticize the existing policies. Pragmatic scholarship was necessary to influence crime policy, particularly scholarship that took seriously the possibility of shaping norms that influenced criminal behavior.
The journal Criminology \u26 Public Policy is committed to the presentation of high-quality, pragmatic scholarship. And in that spirit we present here a sort of mini-symposium on gangs and gang-related crime. Readers will see that the scholarly agenda overarching the pieces is intensely pragmatic. The two major pieces, one by Maxson et al. and the other by McGloin, are about better describing the thing called a gang and how to address the problems that such groups can create
Father‘s first car
No full textEpisodes 1-3 of 'Father‘s first car' by Hugh Tracey, read by the author from the book published by Routledge & Kegan PaulThe book is based on extracts from the motoring diary of Hugh Tracey's father, Dr Eugene Tracey, who owned the first motor car in their village of Willand near Cullompton, Devon, in 1907For further details refer to the ILAM Document Collection: Hugh Tracey Broadcast
- …
