GETTING OFF A SLIPPERY SLOPE - SOCIAL-SCIENCE IN THE JUDICIAL PROCESS

被引：18

作者：

TANKE, ED ^{[1
]}

TANKE, TJ ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] MORRISON & FOERSTER,SAN FRANCISCO,CA

来源：

AMERICAN PSYCHOLOGIST | 1979年 / 34卷 / 12期

关键词：

judicial use; social science research;

D O I：

10.1037/0003-066X.34.12.1130

中图分类号：

B84 [心理学];

学科分类号：

04 ; 0402 ;

摘要：

Discusses the implications of the Ballew v. Georgia decision for social scientists interested in having their research used by the courts. Obstacles to judicial use of social science research are reviewed, including the timing of judicial decisions, the adversary system, and judicial adherence to precedent. It is recommended that social scientists identify empirical issues in the legal process through legal publications and interest groups; consult with legal experts in carrying out research and in criticizing and summarizing research results; and present their research to the courts by publishing in legal journals, working with parties to appellate cases, filing true amicus curiae briefs, and participating as experts at the trial stage of cases. (19 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved). © 1979 American Psychological Association.

引用

页码：1130 / 1138

页数：9

共 19 条

[1]

AUERBACH C, 1961, LEGAL PROCESS

[2]

de Tocqueville A., 1835, DEMOCRACY AM

[3] LOBBYISTS BEFORE THE COURT [J].

Harper, Fowler V. ;

Etherington, Edwin D. .

UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA LAW REVIEW, 1953, 101 (08) :1172-1177

[4]

KALVEN H, 1961, HUMANIST FRAME

[5]

Kalven H., 1966, AM JURY

[6]

Kluger R., 1975, SIMPLE JUSTICE

[7] THE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF - FROM FRIENDSHIP TO ADVOCACY [J].

KRISLOV, S .

YALE LAW JOURNAL, 1963, 72 (04) :694-721

[8]

LEMPERT RO, 1975, MICH LAW REV, V73, P644

[9]

LOH WD, 1979, SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY DI

[10]

NAGEL SS, 1975, WASHINGTON U LAW Q, P933

← 1 2 →