Accountability, quantification, and law

Annual Review of Law and Social Science

Volumn 3, Issue , 2007, Pages 21-43

  Espeland, Wendy Nelson ^a   Vannebo, Berit Irene ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Law school rankings; Professional discretion; Quantitative authority; Regulatory impact assessment; Sentensing guidelines

Indexed keywords

EID: 38149108473     PISSN: 15503585     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.2.081805.105908     Document Type: Review

References (66)

1. Ackerman F, Heinzerling L. 2002. Pricing the priceless: cost-benefit analysis of environmental protection. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 150(5):1553-84
2. Albonetti CA. 1997. Sentencing under the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: effects of defendant characteristics, guilty pleas, and departures on sentence outcomes for drug offenses, 1991-1992. Law Soc. Rev. 31(4):789-822
3. Anderson JM, Kling JR, Stith K. 1999. Measuring interjudge sentencing disparity: before and after the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. J. Law Econ. 42(1):271-307
4. Bagley N, Revesz RL. 2006. Centralized oversight of the regulatory state. Columbia Law Rev. 106(6):1260-329
5. Blackwell K, Schanzenbach M, Yaeger M, Kesler C, Gleeson J, Stith K. 2003. Panel I: Disparity in sentencing - race and gender. Fed. Sentencing Report. 15(3):160-64
6. Blumstein A, Beck AJ. 1999. Population growth in the U.S. prisons, 1980-1996. Crime Justice 26:17-61
7. Bowman FO. 1996. The quality of mercy must be restrained, and other lessons in learning to love the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. Wis. Law Rev. 1996(4):679-749
8. Bowman FO. 2005. The failure of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines: a structural analysis. Columbia Law Rev. 105(4):1315-50
9. Bowman FO, Heise M. 2001. Quiet rebellion? Explaining nearly a decade of declining federal drug sentences. Iowa Law Rev. 86(4):1043-136
10. Cohen PC. 1984. A Calculating People: The Spread of Numeracy in Early America. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
11. Donohue JJ. 1999. Why we should discount the views of those who discount discounting. Yale Law J. 108(7):1901-10
12. Emanuel EJ, Emanuel LL. 1996. What is accountability in health care? Ann. Intern. Med. 124(2):229-39
13. Epstein AJ. 2006. Do cardiac surgery report cards reduce mortality; Assessing the evidence. Med. Care Res. Rev. 63(4):403-26
14. Espeland WN. 1998. The Struggle for Water: Politics, Rationality and Identity in the American Southwest. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
15. Espeland WN, Stevens ML. 1998. Commensuration as a social process. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 24:313-43
16. Etienne M. 2004. The declining utility of the right to counsel in federal criminal courts: an empirical study on the diminished role of defense attorney advocacy under the sentencing guidelines. Calif. Law Rev. 92:427-85
17. Frankel ME. 1973. Criminal Sentences: Law Without Order. New York: Hill & Wang
18. Freed DJ. 1992. Federal sentencing in the wake of guidelines: unacceptable limits on the discretion of sentencers. Yale Law J. 101(8):1681-754
19. Fuchs EP, Anderson JE. 1987. The institutionalization of cost-benefit analysis. Public Product. Rev. 10(4):25-33
20. Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244 (2003)
21. Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003)
22. Hahn RW, Sunstein CR. 2002. A new executive order for improving federal regulation? Deeper and wider cost-benefit analysis. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 150(5):1489-552
23. Heimer CA, Staffen LR. 1998. For the Sake of the Children. The Social Organization of Responsibility in the Hospital and the Home. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
24. Heinzerling L. 2000. The rights of statistical people. Harvard Environ. Law Rev. 24(1):189-207
25. Hofer PJ, Blackwell KR, Ruback RB. 1999. The effect of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 90(1):239-322
26. Hoffer TB. 2000. Accountability in education. In Handbook of the Sociology of Education, ed. MT Hallinan, pp. 529-43. New York: Kluwer Acad./Plenum
27. Hutchins E. 1995. Cognition in the Wild. Boston: MIT Press
28. Koh SY. 1992. Reestablishing the federal judge's role in sentencing. Yale Law J. 101(5):1109-34
29. Light P. 1988. Reagan's regulatory reform. Pub. Administ. Rev. 48(6):1012-13
30. Lutter R. 2000. Valuing children's health: a reassessment of the benefits of lower lead levels. Work. Pap. No. 00-2, AEI Brookings Joint Cent. Regul. Stud.
31. Margolick D. 1992. Justice by the numbers: a special report. NY Times, April 12. Sect. 1, Part 1, p. 1
32. McGarity TO. 1991. Reinventing Rationality. The Role of Regulatory Analysis in the Federal Bureaucracy. New York. Cambridge Univ. Press
33. Miller ML. 2004. Domination and dissatisfaction: prosecutors as sentencers. Stanford Law Rev. 56(5):1211-69
34. Miller P, Rose N. 1990. Governing economic life. Econ. Soc. 19(1):1-31
35. Mustard DB. 2001. Racial, ethnic, and gender disparities in sentencing: evidence from the U.S. Federal Courts. J. Law Econ. 44(1):285-314
36. Nagel IH. 1990. Foreword: structuring sentencing discretion: the new Federal Sentencing Guidelines. J. Crim. Law Criminol. 80(4):883-943
37. Narins CR, Dozier AM, Ling FS, Zareba W. 2005. The influence of public reporting of outcome data on medical decision making by physicians. Arch. Internal Med. 165(1):83-87
38. Natl. Comm. Excellence Educ. 1983. A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform. Washington, DC: USGPO
39. Natl. Res. Counc. Comm. Rev. OMB Risk Assess. Bull. 2007. Scientific Review of the Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin from the Office of Management and Budget, Executive Summary. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press
40. Ohmann R. 2000. Historical reflections on accountability. Academe 86(1):24-29
41. Porter TM. 1995. Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objectivity in Science and Public Life. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press
42. Posner EA. 2002. Using net benefit accounts to discipline agencies: a thought experiment. Univ. Penn. Law Rev. 150(5):1473-88
43. Power M. 1997. The Audit Society: Rituals of Verification. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
44. Power M. 2003. Evaluating the audit explosion. Law Policy 25(3):185-202
45. Ranson S. 2003. Public accountability in the age of neo-liberal governance. J. Educ. Policy 18(5):459-80
46. Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, 438 U.S. 265 (1978)
47. Rose N, O'Malley P, Valverde M. 2006. Governmentality. Annu. Rev. Law Soc. Sci. 2:83-104
48. Rosga A, Satterthwaite M. 2003. Trust in indicators: trying to measure human rights. Presented at Annu. Law Soc. Assoc. Meet., Pittsburgh, June 5-8
49. Sauder M, Espeland WN. 2006. Strength in numbers? The advantages of multiple rankings. Indiana Law J. 81:205-27
50. Shore C, Wright S. 1999. Audit culture and anthropology: neo-liberalism in British higher education. J. R. Anthropol. Inst. 5(4):557-75
51. Shore C, Wright S. 2000. Coercive accountability: the rise of audit culture in higher education. See Strathern 2000, pp. 57-89
52. Silbey S. 2003. Governing green laboratories: differential responses to legal regulation. Presented at Annu. Law Soc. Assoc. Meet., Pittsburgh, June 5-8
53. Stith K, Cabranes JA. 1998. Fear of Judging: Sentencing Guidelines in the Federal Courts. Chicago: Univ. Chicago Press
54. Strathern M. 1996. From improvement to enhancement: an anthropological comment on the audit culture. Cambridge Anthropol. 19(3):1-21
55. Strathern M, ed. 2000. Audit Cultures. Anthropological Studies in Accountability, Ethics and the Academy. London: Routledge
56. Sunstein CR. 1996. Congress, constitutional moments, and the cost-benefit state. Stanford Law Rev. 48(2):247-309
57. Sunstein CR. 2000. Cognition and cost-benefit analysis. J. Legal Stud. 29(2):1059-103
58. Tonry M. 1996. Sentencing Matters. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press
59. Tonry M. 2005. The functions of sentencing and sentencing reform. Stanford Law Rev. 58(1):37-66
60. Trott S. 1995. Letter to Richard Conaboy, Chairman of the U.S. Sentencing Commission, November 9, 1994. Fed. Sentencing Report. 8(3):199
61. U.S. Sentencing Commission. 2006. Guidelines Manual, §3E1.1 (Nov.). Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission. http:// www.ussc.gov/2006guid/gl2006.pdf
62. U.S. Sentencing Commission. 2004. Fifteen Years of Guidelines Sentencing: An Assessment of How Well the Federal Criminal Justice System Is Achieving the Goals of Sentencing Reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Sentencing Commission. http://www.ussc.gov/15_year/ 15_year_study_full.pdf
63. United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. 220 (2005)
64. Von Dornum DD. 1997. The straight and the crooked: legal accountability in ancient Greece. Columbia Law Rev. 97(5):1483-518
65. Weidenbaum M. 1997. Regulatory process reform: from Ford to Clinton. Regulation 20(1):20-26
66. Williams R. 1976. Keywords: A Vocabulary of Culture and Society. New York: Oxford Univ. Press