• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Two of a number of hypotheses loosely referred to as the CSI Effect suggest that the television program and its spin-offs, which wildy exaggerate and glorify forensic science, affect the public, and in turn affect trials either by (a) burdening the prosecution by creating greater expectations about forensic science than can be delivered or (b) burden the defense by creating exaggerated faith in the capabilities and reliability of the forensic sciences. Surprisingly, no published empirical research puts these hypotheses to a test. The present study did so by presenting to mock jurors a simulated trial transcript which included the testimony of a forensic scientist. The case for conviction was relatively weak, unless the expert testimony could carry the case across the threshold of reasonable doubt. In addition to reacting to the trial evidence, respondents were asked about their television viewing habits. Findings: Compared to non-CSI viewers, CSI viewers were more critical of the forensic evidence presented at the trial, finding it less believable. Regarding their verdicts, 29% of non-CSI viewers said they would convict, compared to 18% of CSI viewers (not a statistically significant difference). Forensic science viewers expressed more confidence in their verdicts than did non-viewers. Viewers of general crime program, however, did not differ significantly from their non-viewing counterparts on any of the other dependent measures, suggesting that skepticism toward the forensic science testimony was specific to those whose diet consisted of heavy doses of forensic science television programs.

CSI effect, empirical, forensic science

Abstract:
The rule of law is no simple subject; indeed, it is not even an easy task to define what "rule of law" means. Yet people go to great lengths to demonstrate their adherence to the principles of the rule of law. An underlying assumption of those who advocate a formal view of the rule of law is that there is inherent value in adhering to rules. But is that assumption valid? Of what importance are rules, and what consequences do those who violate rules suffer in the eyes of others?

In this Article, we present the findings of a factorial survey exploring questions about the rule of law. Although respondents expressed nearly unanimous support for the general importance of the rule of law, their judgments in response to the case scenarios showed strong sensitivity to the particulars of the situation - especially the purposes that motivated the violations. These findings lend support to the view that whatever the cultural or psychological preference for rules over outcomes, or strict equality over fairness, there may be circumstances in which most people are willing to make situation-specific reassessments of what is just.

Rule of law, survey, legitimacy, justice, procedural justice, psychology

Abstract:
In this paper, we present findings from two experiments that measure individuals’ reactions to rule of law violations by an authority figure, with the goal of assessing which interpretation of the rule of law is naturally invoked. We created a variety of hypothetical scenarios that allowed us to gauge the independent effects of rule adherence, outcome fairness, and the violator’s intentions on the participants’ judgments of the violation. We found that adherence to legitimate rules was considered desirable when those rules worked to produce a fair outcome. But when following legitimate rules would lead to an unfair outcome, our participants paid little attention to the rules and, in some cases, punished an individual for obeying the rules when those rules led to an unjust result. In our second experiment, we focused on studying this conflict within different contexts, finding again that our participants thought it appropriate for a judge to disregard the rules of evidence to ensure a fair verdict, and for a teacher to break a school’s strict blind grading policy to ensure that students received fair grades. However, a third context revealed the formal rule of law at work: Our participants’ responses indicated a clear preference for strict rule adherence by an umpire in a baseball game, even if it meant that one of the teams would unfairly suffer.

rule of law, moral reasoning, procedural justice