The plasticity of harm in the service of criminalization goals

California Law Review

Volumn 100, Issue 5, 2012, Pages 1313-1358

  Sood, Avani Mehta ^a   Darley, John M ^a  

^a PRINCETON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84867774015     PISSN: 00081221     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. CAL. CONST, art. I, § 7.5.
2. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 990 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
3. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d. 1052 (9th Cir. 2012)
4. Secretary of State Debra bowen, Statement of Vote: November 4,2008, General ELECTION 13 (2008), available at hrtpV/www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/ 2008-general/sov-complete.pdf.
5. Strauss v. Horton, 207 P.3d 48,122 (Cal. 2009).
6. Peny v. Brown, 671 F.3d 1052,1095 (9th Cir. 2012).
7. Ethan Bronner, Same-Sex Marriage Issue Moves Closer to Justices, N. Y. TIMES, June 6, 2012,atA17.
8. U.S. CONST, amends. I, XIV; infra Part IV.C (discussing constitutional implications of present research).
9. Newton v. Nat'l Broad Co., 677 F. Supp. 1066 (D. Nev. 1987), rev'd, 930 F.2d 662 (9th Cir. 1990).
10. Perry, 104 F. Supp. 2d 921.
11. John Stuart Mill, On Liberty (1859).
12. Jeffrie G. Murphy, Legal Moralism and Liberalism, 37 ARIZ. L. REV. 73, 74 (1995).
13. Compare H.L.A. HART, LAW, LIBERTY AND MORALITY (1963), with PATRICK DEVLIN, THE Enforcement of morals (1965).
14. Steven D. Smith, Is the Harm Principle Illiberal?, 51 AM. J. JURIS. 1, 1 (2006).
15. PAUL H. ROBINSON, CRIMINAL LAW 131-37(1997).
16. Bernard E. Harcourt, The Collapse of the Harm Principle, 90 J. CRIM. L. & CRIMINOLOGY 109,131(1999).
17. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558,571 (2003).
18. Bowers v. Hardwick, 478 U.S. 186, 196 (1986).
19. Milner v. Apfel, 148 F.3d 812, 814 (7th Cir. 1998).
20. Claire Finkelstein, Positivism and the Notion of an Offense, 88 CALIF. L. REV. 335, 380 (2000).
21. 539 U.S. 558.
22. Dan M. Kahan, The Supreme Court 2010 Term- Foreword: Neutral Principles, Motivated Cognition, and Some Problems for Constitutional Law, 125 HARV. L. REV. 1, 50 (2011)
23. George L. Kelling & James Q. Wilson, Broken Windows, ATLANTIC MONTHLY, Mar. 1983, at 4
24. Bernard E. Harcourt & Jens Ludwig, Broken Windows: New Evidence from New York City and a Five-City Social Experiment, 73 U. Cffl. L. REV. 271, 272 (2006)
25. GEORGE L. KELLING & Catherine m. Coles, Fixing Broken Windows: restoring order and Reducing Crime in OUR COMMUNITIES 137, 149 (1996)
26. Jonathan Haidt, The Emotional Dog and Its Rational Tail: A Social Intuitionist Approach to Moral Judgment, 108 PSYCHOL. REV. 814 (2001).
27. Ziva Kunda, The Case for Motivated Reasoning, 108 PSYCHOL. BULL. 480 (1990).
28. Charles S. Taber et aL, The Motivated Processing of Political Arguments, 31 POL. BEHAV. 137 (2009)
29. Eileen Braman & Thomas E. Nelson, Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes, 51 AM. J. POL. SCI. 940 (2007)
30. Eileen Braman, Reasoning on the Threshold: Testing the Separability of Preferences in Legal Decision Making, 68 J. POL. 308 (2006)
31. Charles S. Taber & Milton Lodge, Motivated Skepticism in the Evaluation of Political Beliefs, 50 AM. J. POL. Sci. 755 (2006)
32. David P. Redlawsk, Hot Cognition or Cool Consideration? Testing the Effects of Motivated Reasoning on Political Decision Making, 64 J. POL. 1021 (2002)
33. Mark Fischle, Mass Response to the Lewinsky Scandal: Motivated Reasoning or Bayesian Updating? 21 POL. PSYCHOL. 135 (2000)
34. Richard E. Redding & N. Dickon Reppucci, Effects of Lawyers' Socio-Political Attitudes on Their Judgments of Social Science in Legal Decision Making, 23 LAW & HUM. BEHAV. 31 (1999)
35. Lindsley G. Boiney et al., Instrumental Bias in Motivated Reasoning: More When More Is Needed, 72 ORGANIZATIONAL BEHAV. & HUM. DECISION PROCESSES 1 (1997).
36. Tom Pyszczynski & Jeff Greenberg, Toward an Integration of Cognitive and Motivational Perspectives on Social Inference: A Biased Hypothesis-Testing Model, in 20 ADVANCES IN EXPERIMENTAL SOC. PSYCHOL. 297, 310-11 (L. Berkowitz ed., 1987).
37. Jonathan Haidt & Matthew A. Hersh, Sexual Morality: The Cultures and Emotions of Conservatives and Liberals, 31 J. APPLIED Soc. PSYCHOL. 191,212,214-15 (2001).
38. Mark D. Alicke, Culpable Control and the Psychology of Blame, 126 PSYCHOL. BULL. 556, 556 (2000)
39. Mark D. Alicke, Culpable Causation, 63 J. PERSONALITY & Soc. PSYCHOL. 368 (1992).
40. Janice Nadler & Mary-Hunter McDonnell, Moral Character, Motive, and the Psychology of Blame, 97 CORNELL L. REV. 255,291, 302 (2012)
41. Dan M. Kahan et al., "They Saw a Protest": Cognitive Illiberalism and the Speech-Conduct Distinction, 64 STAN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2012) [hereinafter Kahan, They Saw a Protest]
42. Dan M. Kahan, Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in Acquaintance-Rape Cases, 158 U. PA. L. REV. 729 (2010)
43. Dan M. Kahan et al., Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism, 122 HARV. L. Rev. 837, 852, 861 (2009) [hereinafter Kahan, Whose Eyes]
44. Dan M. Kahan, The Cognitively Illiberal State, 60 STAN. L. Rev. 115,116 (2007) [hereinafter Kahan, Cognitively Illiberal].
45. Barnes v. Glen Theater, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 560 (1991)
46. United States v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990)
47. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989)
48. Tom R. Tyler, Why People Obey the Law 46 (1990)
49. U.S. CONST, amend. I; infra Part IV.C
50. John M. Darley et al., Doing Wrong Without Creating Harm, 7 J. EMPIRICAL LEGAL STUD. 30, 53 (2010).
51. Exxon Shipping Co. v. Baker, 554 U.S. 471, 492 (2008)
52. Cass R. Sunstein, Moral Heuristics, 28 BEHAV. & BRAIN SCI. 531 (2005)
53. Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397,414 (1989)
54. U.S. CONST, amend. I.
55. U.S. CONST, amends. I, IV.
56. TOM R. TYLER, WHY PEOPLE OBEY THE Law (1990)
57. John M. Darley et al., The Ex Ante Function of the Criminal Law, 35 L. & SOC'Y REV. 165 (2001)
58. Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, The Utility of Desert, 91 Nw. U. L. REV. 453,454,477-78 (1997)
59. Paul H. Robinson & John M. Darley, justice, Liability and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law 202 (1995).
60. Joshua D. Greene, Dual-Process Morality and the Personal/Impersonal Distinction: A Reply to McGuire, Langdon, Coltheart, and MacKenzie, 45 J. EXPERIMENTAL SOC. PSYCHOL. 581,581 (2009).
61. Joshua D. Greene et al., The Neural Bases of Cognitive Conflict and Control in Moral Judgment, 44 NEURON 389, 397 (2004)
62. Brittany Liu & Peter H. Ditto, What Dilemma? Moral Intuitions Shape Factual Beliefs, 13-14 (June 28,2011) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=1829825.
63. Vicki L. Smith, When Prior Knowledge and Law Collide: Helping Jurors Use the Law, 17 L. & HUM. BEHAV. 507,508 (1993).
64. Amiram Elwork & Bruce D. Sales, Jury Instructions, in THE PSYCHOLOGY OF EVIDENCE AND Trial Procedure 280 (S.M. Kaplan & L.S. Wrightsman eds., 1985).
65. Richard L. Wiener et al., The Psychology of Jury Nullification: Predicting When Jurors Disobey the Law, 21 J. APPLIED SOC. PSYCHOL. 1379,1383 (1991).
66. Kurt A. Carlson & J. Edward Russo, Biased Interpretation of Evidence by Mock Jurors, 1 J. Experimental Psychol.: Applied 91,99 (2001).
67. 677 F. Supp. 1066 (D. Nev. 1987).
68. Newton v. Nafl Broad. Co., 930 F.2d 662,671 (9th Cir. 1991).
69. David G. Myers & Martin F. Kaplan, Group-Induced Polarization in Simulated Juries, 2 PERSONALITY & SOC. PSYCH. BULL. 63 (1976)
70. Norbert L. Kerr et al., Bias in Judgment: Comparing Individuals and Groups, 103 PSYCHOL. Rev. 687 (1996)
71. Perry v. Schwarzenegger, 704 F. Supp. 2d 921, 938 (N.D. Cal. 2010)
72. Perry, 704 F. Supp. 2d at 1002
73. Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558,571 (2003)
74. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d at 1094
75. Kahan, They Saw a Protest, 51, at 33.
76. Perry v. Brown, 671 F.3d at 1095.
77. MacDraw v. CIT Grp. Equip. Fin., 138 F.3d 33, 37 (2d Cir. 1998)
78. Blank v. Sullivan & Cromwell, 418 F. Supp. 1,4 (S.D.N. Y. 1975)
79. Pennsylvania v. Local Union 542, Int'l Union of Operating Eng'rs, 388 F. Supp. 155,163 (E.D. Pa. 1974).
80. Blank, 418 F. Supp. at 4.
81. Eileen Braman & Thomas E. Nelson, Mechanism of Motivated Reasoning? Analogical Perception in Discrimination Disputes, 51 AM. J. POL. SCI. 940,952 (2007).
82. Andrew J. Wistrich et al., Can Judges Ignore Inadmissible Information? The Difficulty of Deliberately Disregarding, 153 U.Pa.L.Rev. 1251,1259 (2005)
83. Chris Guthrie et al., Inside the Judicial Mind, 86 CORNELL L. REV. 777 (2001)
84. Jeffrey J. Rachlinski et al., Context Effects in Judicial Decision Making 18, 31 (Aug. 3, 2009).
85. Richard E. Redding & N. Dickon Reppucci, Effects of Lawyers' Socio-Political Attitudes on Their Judgments of Social Science in Legal Decision Making, 23 L. & HUM. BEHAV. 31,48 (1999).
86. Avani Mehta Sood & Joel Cooper, Debiasing the Motivated Reasoner (unpublished manuscript in preparation) (on file with author)
87. Richard E. Petty et al., Flexible Correction Processes in SocialJudgment: Implications for Persuasion, 16 SOC. COGNITION 93 (1998).