I will be examining Tom Tyler and Robert Boeckmann’s article “Three Strikes and You Are Out, but Why? The Psychology of Public Support for Punishing Rule Breakers”, in which Tyler and Boeckmann use a questionnaire to interview their respondents. In their research they are examining the social meaning of rule breaking behavior. The reviewed questions are; “Why do people want to punish rule breakers? Is it creating tangible personal risk and is it dangerous? Are there signs of declining social cohesion a “symbolic” societal level harm?” (225). Through their research the authors findings are that, the sources of support for the punishment of rule-breaking behavior are within the nature of public support for punishing those who break social rules.
…show more content…
But Because most of Nielsen’s respondents who don’t believe in the effectiveness of the courts; the Instrumental model is challenged throughout four paradigms; Freedom of Speech, Autonomy, Impracticality and Cynicism about Law. The Autonomy Paradigm is formed from the idea that women who are sexually harassed on the streets downplay the role of sexual comments and state that it does not affect them, and that there should not be legal regulation on sexual offensive forms of speech. The women she interviewed, defended the opposition of legal regulation by stating women can handle the situation on their own accord. The Freedom of Speech Paradigm is the justification for those who believe they can express themselves in a they see fit. They also believe that if one form of speech is regulated to those who find it offensive then additional forms of speech can be regulated to others whom find another form of speech offensive and then speech starts to become too controlled thus breaking down the Freedoms of Speech. The Impracticality Paradigm is that …show more content…
Her findings were that, “The social locations of subjects, and the experiences that arise from that location, are a vital part of our understanding of legal consciousness.... and being a member of a traditionally disadvantage group has a significant effect on an individual’s orientation to the law” (239). When Nielsen asked her respondents about adopting a legal regulation for offensive speech only 12% of respondents supported regulations, as well as a greater number of white respondents than black respondents perceived “race-related speech between strangers in public places poses a serious social problem” (234). Which is shocking, due to the fact that racial offensive speech targets minorities more than white people. Furthermore, the respondents with lower levels of education tend to have lack of legal consciousness and believe that courts are not as effective. Merging Tyler and Boeckmann theory with Nielsen’s that legal consciousness, social conditions, and social values are key factors within the nature of public support for punishing those who break social rules. Nielson respondent’s social norms and lack of legal consciousness are the reasons why they do not want to regulate offensive forms of speech, however Tyler and Boeckmann theory proves that individuals want to punish rule breakers because of
But Because most of Nielsen’s respondents who don’t believe in the effectiveness of the courts; the Instrumental model is challenged throughout four paradigms; Freedom of Speech, Autonomy, Impracticality and Cynicism about Law. The Autonomy Paradigm is formed from the idea that women who are sexually harassed on the streets downplay the role of sexual comments and state that it does not affect them, and that there should not be legal regulation on sexual offensive forms of speech. The women she interviewed, defended the opposition of legal regulation by stating women can handle the situation on their own accord. The Freedom of Speech Paradigm is the justification for those who believe they can express themselves in a they see fit. They also believe that if one form of speech is regulated to those who find it offensive then additional forms of speech can be regulated to others whom find another form of speech offensive and then speech starts to become too controlled thus breaking down the Freedoms of Speech. The Impracticality Paradigm is that …show more content…
Her findings were that, “The social locations of subjects, and the experiences that arise from that location, are a vital part of our understanding of legal consciousness.... and being a member of a traditionally disadvantage group has a significant effect on an individual’s orientation to the law” (239). When Nielsen asked her respondents about adopting a legal regulation for offensive speech only 12% of respondents supported regulations, as well as a greater number of white respondents than black respondents perceived “race-related speech between strangers in public places poses a serious social problem” (234). Which is shocking, due to the fact that racial offensive speech targets minorities more than white people. Furthermore, the respondents with lower levels of education tend to have lack of legal consciousness and believe that courts are not as effective. Merging Tyler and Boeckmann theory with Nielsen’s that legal consciousness, social conditions, and social values are key factors within the nature of public support for punishing those who break social rules. Nielson respondent’s social norms and lack of legal consciousness are the reasons why they do not want to regulate offensive forms of speech, however Tyler and Boeckmann theory proves that individuals want to punish rule breakers because of