Use LEFT and RIGHT arrow keys to navigate between flashcards;
Use UP and DOWN arrow keys to flip the card;
H to show hint;
A reads text to speech;
51 Cards in this Set
- Front
- Back
|
Basic choices in the study of law |
1. Rights of the individual vs the common good 2. Equality vs. discretion 3. To discover the truth v. to resolve conflicts 4. Science vs. the law as a source of decisions (precedents vs. the scientific method) 5. Justice v. Revenge |
|
|
Rights of the individual vs the common good |
Heart of the debates about seat belt laws (add a helmet law & insurance goes down, hospitals say its common good, patriot act) Due processes (individual rights) Miranda rights (common good) Ex: Individual rights don't tell neighbors that you murdered someone Common good tells neighbors about sexual assault (some states of different tear levels of this) |
|
|
Miranda rights |
|
|
|
Due Processes |
it places the primary value on the protection of citizens, including criminal suspects, from possible abuses by the police and the law enforcement system |
|
|
Equality vs. discretion |
Want to be equal in the eyes of the law Sensitive to each individual case We all want both of these Code Law ( if you do A, you face B) Code law tends to be unsuccessful or unfair Jury's have discretion, can refuse to convict Judges follow laws District attorney has discretion (CO) Discretion is everywhere in the LS Consequences of discretion is in racial profiling (use someones appearance to evaluate likelihood of GUILT) Not just one is more likely to get stopped Sometimes discretion is unwritten Severity of crime & who have threatened a police officer has more intense interrogation
|
|
|
Discretion |
it involves considering the circumstance of certain offenders and offenses to determine consequences |
|
|
Discover Truth v. Resolve Conflict |
Appeal to God or Gods judgment God will not allow the inocent to suffer Trial by combat (another method-win if your right & lose if your wrong) God speaks through jury Discovering truth in law is really difficult (proof) -burden proof -standard proof Beyond reasonable doubt Preponderance of evidence Clear & convincing Evidence Plea bargain Settlement-civil side |
|
|
Burden proof |
Responsibility to convince the trier of fact Ex: convince jury that defendant is guilty |
|
|
Standard proof |
The degree to which the trier of fact must be convinced Ex: beyond reasonable doubt |
|
|
Beyond reasonable doubt |
Doubt beyond reason -Strengths & weaknesses of the law -91% certain |
|
|
Preponderance of evidence |
the standard of proof required in civil litigation in which the evidence for one side must out weigh that on the other side by even a slight margin -common in civil law -71% is fault
|
|
|
Clear & convincing Evidence |
the proof presented by a party during the trial must be highly & substantially more probable to be true than not & the trier of fact must have a firm belief or conviction in it factality
-51% 1. Why do we have standards? (error & manage error) 2. Notice it & understand it & use them 3. ...
|
|
|
Plea bargain |
95% -96% take them Make our system work in current for, But they are problematic Fast, Cheap, & done Highly efficient but not guaranteed to get us the truth |
|
|
Settlement-civil side |
Includes payment, admitted or admission of guilt |
|
|
Science v. Law |
They have different methods & outcomes Different ways of getting the truth Science: data, new frontiers ( more data will always emerge), nobody gets to be right, not wrong yet, routed in probability, nomothetic (general population of people), no such thing as scientifically proven, & inductive fallacy. Law: precedent, yes or no, Guilty or not, liable or not, & Ideographic (this can't get us to nomothetic) (indvl/indvls) |
|
|
Justice v. Revenge |
Fairness/ proving outcome in line w/ each part deserves To get back @ someone Motivations for revenge( right a wrong, deter bad behavior, & restore self-worth) Revenge tends to escalate People will do things to dramatically injurer themselves to seek revenge (massive legal risk & crimes) 1. tremendous motivation 2. Regional differences (accepted in some places v. others) The state is weak or non existent to run herds Tremendous risk if lose of herds |
|
|
Honor: is it real? |
Behavior, think, feelings, & experiences of the world ( if it changes then its real) It regulates our interactions Projects power Find strong endorsement of revenge in cultures of honor Rigid norms Tools to defend our honor See this in the south( former confederate) Herding economies Experiment: Narrow Hallway |
|
|
Gender Differences & revenge |
Vengeance Scale Claimed that women are more vengeful than men Men have access to the courts & duels Women may choice more illegal avenues Violence & aggression are more of male resources Biological? Yes men are more violence orientated & aggressive Men are more accepting of vengeful attitudes Men score higher on a vengeance scale Gender 1% difference Men & women are getting similar Boys know what the rules are |
|
|
Basic Science |
pursues knowledge for its own sake; little to no care about its application to the real world (we want to know more) |
|
|
Applied Science |
dedicated to applying knowledge to solve real life problems (address practical problems) |
|
|
Expert Witness |
Someone who possesses specialized knowledge about a subject, knowledge that the average person does not have -Educates the courts, judges, attorney, jury -Court is a broad term - financially rewarding -Value of the education be bigger than the risk of bias (must outweigh bias) -W/ out prejudice -MUST NOT GIVE ULTIMATE OPINION TESTIMONY -Remains impartial while talking about the science while getting paid by one side |
|
|
Judges |
Decides who comes into courts & what sciences Have tremendous power Manage all aspects of the court Expected to be expert in the law |
|
|
Daubert (1993) |
Sued pharmaceutical A) Tested? Have the experts tested theory (need data B) Reliability/errorate- tested, errorate of the study, ready to discuss it C) Peer reviewed? have the experts ideas been reviewed, does it meet standards, highly variable D) acceptance by the relevant scientific community |
|
|
Policy Evaluator |
assess or evaluate how well an intervention/policy change worked -changes made effective? (Ex: noise laws, drinking laws, etc) - Cost & consequences? -LOTS of questions & data |
|
|
Advocate |
When a psychologists is here to help someone win (Trial consulting) -Juveniles, children, victims, etc -Lots of places that need advocate in the LS Select Jury Prepare & stratigizes w/ Attorney Work in communities Lots of money on the table Very hard questioning |
|
|
Bands |
The way people lived Few 100 people (small & kin) Everybody knows everybody Ex: small high school principle No need for a written laws to know everybody & everything about anything Ex: siblings Strong norms & taboos ( what we do & don't do) Still have disputes ( resolution has to be personal, widely perceived as fair, & long lasting) Resolved disputes |
|
|
Tribes |
Collection of bands (100 to 1,000 of people) Don't know everyone, know a lot about some (families) Common traditions, taboos (powerful), tools, & stories (brings them together) Ex: certain thing cultures just don't do. Division of labor Hierarchy emerges (Band leaders) More stability (food) Interact personally & know each other generally & use norms/traditions Find a common language & find if they are outliers or not Resolutions must be personal, widely perceived as fair, & long lasting or violence occurred. |
|
|
Chiefdom |
1,000 of people or 10,000 of people Professional rulers, leaders Professional administrators & bureaucracies Kleptocracy (society based on theft) Leaders Convinced them that everybody will benefits Ex: taxes in U.S. Professional soldiers (powerful asset & tremendous benefits (war)) War are always uncertain expensive & tragic Tribal Warfare are personal (fought together come back together, nose to nose, always personal & know each other) 3 general categories: Known friends, enemies, & strangers Most danger is strangers Need laws to have interaction w/ strangers Different traditions, taboos, & norms Need laws (justifies us & rulers) Through religion (complex no mater what & used to justify rulers Shows up in our pledge of allegiance |
|
|
Utilitarianism |
Bentham Think about this different Greatest good for greatest # Argued the cost of hanging Hedonk Calculus What is the good & bad of punishment? Crime? Wanted to punishment to fit the crime Value of theft? Length of sentence? |
|
|
Where do we call laws in our history? Sources? |
Religious text: -Women are property -Really hard place to go (challenging) -Still powerful & prevalent Intuition -Innate sense of right & wrong -Foundation for law in 1700 -Augustine: more influence on Christianity (Fully consenting adult volunteer) -Devaluing of women & sex |
|
|
What are some concerns about right & wrong? |
Intuitions is shaped by culture/value Values change radically across cultures |
|
|
Why do we need laws? |
Law is new Applied highly Highly diverse |
|
|
Material-Cause determinism |
Stuff from which something is made |
|
|
Efficient-Cause determinism |
Immediately preceding event |
|
|
Formal-Cause determinism |
Cause related to the shape/form of something |
|
|
Final-Cause Determinism |
The purpose for which a thing exist (Teleology) |
|
|
Free Will |
Is the belief that all things are entirely caused (@ least somethings are not completely causes) *can compromise |
|
|
Scientific & Cause determinism |
All things must be entirely caused *can't compromise |
|
|
Prescience |
Lots of stuff people knew before science Have not faded & still prevalent 1. Evil 2. Predestination 3. Free will |
|
|
Evil |
Causes crime Ideas of effects behavior, cognition's, emotions, & experiences As a word it is overwhelmingly about other people Rarely imbraced Socially & historically defined Things that use to be not evil are now seen as evil (ex: slavory) Changed dramatically over time What you think of evil depends on where & how you live Powerful idea and explanation Justifies things: leaders, goals, & methods How we perceive others Evil can stop our questions ( give the illusion of an answer) This is in our law: maybe restaurant nature of the crime & doesn't justify Insanity defense
|
|
|
Predestination |
Your fate is established somewhere Why are there people who are predestined to be there? Because of fate Judges claim they are predestined sentence them |
|
|
Free will |
Nobody takes responsibility for themselves Very robust and Free Will and law Overwhelmingly where we go overwhelming Not testable by science or it's tough |
|
|
Biological theories and genetics |
Race is not about genes ( where you live and how) Their genetics, linguistics & culture differences btwn people who ancestors come from ecology's but the differences are not race Used to say race was given by God 1) genealogy 2) twin studies |
|
|
Genealogy |
H. H. Cogar ( studied Royal New Jersey) Feeble mind (thought alcohol addiction & physiological problems were one gene) Thought you could see feeble mindedness Train women b/c they are more intuitive Doctored photos of the families Bogus methods |
|
|
Twin studies |
Identical twins raised together & apart Fraternal twins race together & apart Very compelling |
|
|
Forensic evaluator |
Evaluate individuals and civil and criminal cases to report their findings to a judge and sometimes testify |
|
|
Negotiation |
Compromise; back and forth conversation Need a lawyer usually law is settled this way very informal and straightforward usually both sides give something up in exchange for getting something from other side |
|
|
Abritiation |
Dispute resolution method where by the disputing parties submit their disagreement two mutually agreed upon neutral decision-maker |
|
|
Mediation |
Select a neutral party two help disputant parties reconcile differences by facilitating communication and suggesting ways to solve their problems ( more formal |
|
|
Attributions Theory |
Allows us to understand how people explain others intentions 3 dimensions: internality- due to something internal or exist in environment. Stability- behavioral as enduring and merely temporary. Globalness- limited to situation or applicable temporary. Globalness- limited to situation or applicable |
|
|
How judges come to be |
The governor makes an initial appointment and retained in a popular election If retained, the judge serves for a number of years, after which he runs again for retention. |
