1932

Abstract

This article begins by tracing the aspirations and training that led to Lempert's commitment to the field of law and social science and includes comments on prominent figures in the field, the emergence of empirical legal studies, and other matters. It may interest scholars who seek to understand the history of the field's revival, and those who were among the first generation of Law and Society Association members may see some of their own experience in Lempert's account. The article then discusses policy uses of law and social science research and cautions against the possibility that a study's policy appeal may exceed the weight that can fairly be put on it. Five studies are used as examples: Wilson and Kelling's essay on “broken windows,” Sherman and Berk's work on arrest for spouse abuse, Ehrlich's article on the deterrent effects of the death penalty, Lott and Mustard's work on right-to-carry laws, and Sander's mismatch critique of affirmative action. The article concludes by emphasizing the importance to policy of understanding mechanism and the need for sophistication in the soft methods of study design, along with a good understanding of formal statistics.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134032
2013-11-03
2024-03-28
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

/deliver/fulltext/lawsocsci/9/1/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134032.html?itemId=/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134032&mimeType=html&fmt=ahah

Literature Cited

  1. Abel RL. 1974. A comparative theory of dispute institutions in society. Law Soc. Rev. 8:217–347 [Google Scholar]
  2. Ayres I. 1991. Fair driving: gender and race discrimination in retail car negotiations. Harvard Law Rev. 104:4817–72 [Google Scholar]
  3. Ayres I, Brooks RRW. 2005. Does affirmative action reduce the number of black lawyers?. Stanford Law Rev. 57:1807–54 [Google Scholar]
  4. Ayres I, Donohue JJ III. 2003. Shooting down the more guns, less crime hypothesis. Stanford Law Rev. 55:1193–312 [Google Scholar]
  5. Ballew v. Georgia 435 U.S. 223 1978.
  6. Beny LN. 2008. Do investors in controlled firms value insider trading laws? International evidence. J. Law Econ. Policy 4:2267–310 [Google Scholar]
  7. Black D. 1979. The Behavior of Law New York: Academic
  8. Boruch R, Snyder B, DeMoya D. 2000. The importance of randomized field trials. Crime Delinq. 46:156–80 [Google Scholar]
  9. Brady HE, Collier D. 2010. Rethinking Social Inquiry: Diverse Tools, Shared Standards Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2nd ed..
  10. Braga AA, Weisburd DL. 2010. Policing Problem Places: Crime Hot Spots and Effective Prevention New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  11. Braga AA, Weisburd DL, Waring EJ, Green Mazerolle L, Spelman W, Gajewski F. 1999. Problem-oriented policing in violent crime places: a randomized controlled experiment. Criminology 37:3541–80 [Google Scholar]
  12. Brief Empir. Schol (Empirical Scholars as Amici Curiae in Support of Respondents) 2012. See Fisher v. Texas. http://www.utexas.edu/vp/irla/Documents/ACR%20Empirical%20Scholars.pdf
  13. Calavita K. 1992. Inside the State: The Bracero Program, Immigration, and the I.N.S. New York: Routledge
  14. Camilli G, Jackson D, Chiu C-Y, Gallagher A. 2011. The mismatch hypotheses in law school admissions. Widener J. Law Econ. Race 2:165–209 [Google Scholar]
  15. Campbell DT, Ross HL. 1968. The Connecticut crackdown on speeding: time-series data in quasi-experimental analysis. Law Soc. Rev. 3:33–53 [Google Scholar]
  16. Chambers DL, Clydesdale TT, Kidder WC, Lempert R. 2005. The real impact of eliminating affirmative action in American law schools: an empirical critique of Richard Sander's study. Stanford Law Rev. 57:1855–98 [Google Scholar]
  17. Danziger S, Gottschalk P. 1985. Social programs—a partial solution to, but not a cause of poverty: an alternative to Charles Murray's view. Losing Ground: A Critique S McLanahan, G Cain, M Olneck, I Piliavin, S Danziger, P Gottschalk 73–91 Madison, WI: Inst. Poverty Res. [Google Scholar]
  18. Davis RC, Weisburd D, Taylor B. 2008. Effects of second responder programs on repeat incidents of family abuse: a systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 4:15 [Google Scholar]
  19. Diamond SS, Vidmar N, Rose M, Ellis L, Murphy B. 2003. Jury discussions during civil trials: studying an Arizona innovation. Univ. Ariz. Law Rev. 45:1–81 [Google Scholar]
  20. Ehrlich I. 1975. The deterrent effect of capital punishment: a question of life and death. Am. Econ. Rev. 65:397–417 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ellickson RC. 1991. Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  22. Felstiner WLF. 1974. Influences of social organization on dispute processing. Law Soc. Rev. 9:63–94 [Google Scholar]
  23. Fisher v. Texas No. 11–345, slip op. (U.S. June 24 2013.
  24. Gendreau P, Ross R. 1987. Revivification of rehabilitation: evidence from the 1980s. Justice Q. 4:349–408 [Google Scholar]
  25. Gregg v. Georgia 428 U.S. 153 1976.
  26. Grutter v. Bollinger 539 U.S. 306 2003.
  27. Ho DE. 2005. Why affirmative action does not cause black students to fail the bar: a reply to Sander. Yale Law J. 114:1997–2004 [Google Scholar]
  28. Jencks C. 1985. How Poor Are the Poor? New York: Rev. Books
  29. Kalven H. 1968. The quest for the middle range: empirical inquiry and legal policy. Law in a Changing America GC Hazard Jr 56–74 Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall [Google Scholar]
  30. Kalven H Jr, Zeisel H. 1966. The American Jury Boston: Little, Brown
  31. Katz J. 1988. Seductions Of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil New York: Basic Books
  32. Kornstein D. 1976. A Bayesian model of harmless error. J. Legal Stud. 5:121 [Google Scholar]
  33. Kronman A. 1983. Max Weber Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press
  34. Lempert R. 1966. Strategies of research design in the legal impact study: the control of plausible rival hypotheses. Law Soc. Rev. 1:1111–32 [Google Scholar]
  35. Lempert R. 1972a. Norm-making in social exchange: a contract law model. Law Soc. Rev. 7:1–32 [Google Scholar]
  36. Lempert R. 1972b. Law school grading: an experiment with pass-fail. J. Legal Educ. 24:251–308 [Google Scholar]
  37. Lempert R. 1975. Uncovering “non-discernible” differences: empirical research and the jury-size case. Mich. Law Rev. 73:643–708 [Google Scholar]
  38. Lempert R. 1977. Modeling relevance. Mich. Law Rev. 75:1021–57 [Google Scholar]
  39. Lempert R. 1981. Desert and deterrence: an assessment of the moral bases of the case for capital punishment. Mich. Law Rev. 79:1177–231 [Google Scholar]
  40. Lempert R. 1989. Humility is a virtue: on the publicization of policy-relevant research. Law Soc. Rev. 23:145–61 [Google Scholar]
  41. Lempert R. 2010. The inevitability of theory. Calif. Law Rev. 98:877–906 [Google Scholar]
  42. Lempert R, Chambers DL, Adams TK. 2000. Michigan's minority graduates in practice: the river runs through law school. Law Soc. Inq. 25:395–505 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lempert R, Ikeda K. 1970. Evictions from public housing: effects of independent review. Am. Sociol. Rev. 35:852–59 [Google Scholar]
  44. Lempert R, Kidder WC, Clydesdale TT, Chambers DL. 2006. Affirmative action in American law schools: a critical response to Richard Sander's “A Reply to Critics.” Work. Pap. 60 Prog. Law Econ. Arch.: 2003–2009, Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor http://law.bepress.com/umichlwps-olin/art60
  45. Lempert R, Monsma K. 1994. Cultural differences and discrimination: Samoans before a public housing eviction board. Am. Sociol. Rev. 59:890–910 [Google Scholar]
  46. Lempert R, Saltzburg SA. 1977. A Modern Approach to Evidence St. Paul, MN: West
  47. Lott JR, Mustard DB. 1997. Crime, deterrence, and right-to-carry concealed handguns. J. Legal Stud. 26:1–68 [Google Scholar]
  48. Martinson R. 1974. What works?—Questions and answers about prison reform. Public Interest3522–54
  49. Martinson R. 1979. New findings, new views: a note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law Rev. 7:242–58 [Google Scholar]
  50. Maxwell CD, Garner JH, Fagin JA. 2001. The effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: new evidence from the Spousal Assault Replication Program Res. Brief, Natl. Inst. Justice, Washington, DC
  51. Maxwell CD, Garner JH, Fagin JA. 2002. The preventive effects of arrest on intimate partner violence: research, policy and theory. Criminol. Public Policy 2:51–80 [Google Scholar]
  52. Mayhew L. 1968. Law and Equal Opportunity: A Study of the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press
  53. Mazerolle L, Bennett S, Davis J, Sargeant E, Manning M. 2013. Legitimacy in policing: a systematic review. Campbell Syst. Rev. 9:1 [Google Scholar]
  54. McCann M. 1994. Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
  55. Mitchell O, Wilson D, Eggers A, MacKenzie D. 2012. Drug courts' effects on criminal offending for juveniles and adults. Campbell Syst. Rev. 8:4 [Google Scholar]
  56. Murray C. 1984. Losing Ground: American Social Policy, 1950–1980 New York: Basic Books
  57. Nagin DS, Pepper JV. 2012. Deterrence and the Death Penalty Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  58. Normand J, Lempert R, O'Brien CP. 1994. Under the Influence? Drugs and the American Work Force Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  59. O'Gorman HJ. 1963. Lawyers and Matrimonial Cases: A Study of Informal Pressures in Private Professional Practice Glencoe, IL: Free Press
  60. Pager D, Western B, Bonikowski B. 2009. Discrimination in a low-wage labor market: a field experiment. Am. Sociol. Rev. 74:777–99 [Google Scholar]
  61. Regents of University of California v. Bakke 438 U.S. 265 1978.
  62. Rehavi MM, Starr SB. 2012. Racial disparity in federal criminal charging and its sentencing consequences Pap. 12–002, Law & Econ., Empir. Legal Stud. Cent., Univ. Mich., Ann Arbor. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1985377
  63. Rothstein J, Yoon AH. 2008. Affirmative action in law school admissions: What do racial preferences do?. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 75:649–714 [Google Scholar]
  64. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW. 1999. Systematic social observation of public spaces: a new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. Am. J. Sociol. 105:603–51 [Google Scholar]
  65. Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW. 2004. Seeing disorder: neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows.”. Soc. Psychol. Q. 67:4319–42 [Google Scholar]
  66. Sander RH. 2004. A systemic analysis of affirmative action in American law schools. Stanford Law Rev. 57:367–483 [Google Scholar]
  67. Sander RH. 2005. A reply to critics. Stanford Law Rev. 57:1963–2016 [Google Scholar]
  68. Sander RH. 2011. Listening to the debate on reforming law school admissions preferences. Denver Law Rev. 88:889–953 [Google Scholar]
  69. Sander RH, Taylor S. 2012. Mismatch: How Affirmative Action Hurts Students It's Intended to Help, and Why Universities Won't Admit It New York: Basic Books
  70. Sarat A, Felstiner WL. 1995. Divorce Lawyers and Their Clients: Power and Meaning in the Legal Process New York: Oxford Univ. Press
  71. Scheingold SA. 1974. The Politics of Rights: Lawyers, Public Policy, and Political Change New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press
  72. Schweinhart LJ, Montie J, Xiang Z, Barnett WS, Belfield CR, Nores M. 2004. Lifetime Effects: The High|Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40 Ypsilanti, MI: High|Scope Press
  73. Sherman LW, Berk RA. 1984. The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. Am. Sociol. Rev. 49:261–72 [Google Scholar]
  74. Sherman LW, Cohn EG. 1989. The impact of research on legal policy: the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment. Law Soc. Rev. 23:117–44 [Google Scholar]
  75. Sherman LW, Schmidt JD, Rogan DP, Smith DA, Gartin PR. et al. 1992a. The variable effects of arrest on crime control: the Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 83:137–69 [Google Scholar]
  76. Sherman LW, Smith DA, Schmidt JD, Rogan DP. 1992b. Crime, punishment, and stake in conformity: legal and informal control of domestic violence. Am. Sociol. Rev. 57:680–90 [Google Scholar]
  77. Stinchcombe A. 1968. Constructing Social Theories New York: Harcourt, Brace & World
  78. Thomas WH Jr. 1976. Bail Reform in America Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press
  79. Tribe L. 1971. Trial by mathematics: precision and ritual in the legal process. Harvard Law Rev. 84:1329–93 [Google Scholar]
  80. Trubek D. 1972. Max Weber on law and the rise of capitalism. Wis. Law Rev.720–53
  81. US Congress 1955. Recording of Jury Deliberations: Hearings Before the Subcommittee to Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 63–81
  82. US Dep. Health Hum. Serv 2010. Head Start impact study. Final Rep., Adm. Child. Fam., Washington, DC
  83. Vidmar N, Hans VP. 2007. American Juries: The Verdict Amherst: , NY: Prometheus
  84. Wellford CF, Pepper JV, Petrie CV. 2004. Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
  85. Wells G, Penrod S. 2011. Eyewitness identification research: strengths and weaknesses of alternative methods. Research Methods in Forensic Psychology B Rosenfeld, SD Penrod 237–56 Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons [Google Scholar]
  86. Wightman L. 1998. LSAC National Longitudinal Bar Passage Study Newtown, PA: Law Sch. Admiss. Counc.
  87. Williams D. 2013. Do racial preferences affect minority learning in law schools?. J. Empir. Legal Stud. 10:171–95 [Google Scholar]
  88. Williams v. Florida 399 U.S. 78 1970.
  89. Wilson JQ, Kelling GL. 1982. Broken windows: the police and neighborhood safety. Atl. Mon. 249:29–38 [Google Scholar]
  90. Zeisel H, Diamond SS. 1974. “Convincing empirical evidence” on the six member jury. Univ. Chicago Law Rev. 41:281–95 [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134032
Loading
/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-lawsocsci-102612-134032
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Review Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error