• Selected
• Entire List

Abstract:
Despite reports that homeowners are increasingly “walking away” from their mortgages, most homeowners continue to make their payments even when they are significantly underwater. This article suggests that most homeowners choose not to strategically default as a result of two emotional forces: 1) the desire to avoid the shame and guilt of foreclosure; and 2) exaggerated anxiety over foreclosure’s perceived consequences. Moreover, these emotional constraints are actively cultivated by the government and other social control agents in order to encourage homeowners to follow social and moral norms related to the honoring of financial obligations - and to ignore market and legal norms under which strategic default might be both viable and the wisest financial decision. Norms governing homeowner behavior stand in sharp contrast to norms governing lenders, who seek to maximize profits or minimize losses irrespective of concerns of morality or social responsibility. This norm asymmetry leads to distributional inequalities in which individual homeowners shoulder a disproportionate burden from the housing collapse.

mortgage, housing, law and economics, emotion, foreclosure, fear, guilt, shame, norms, principal

Abstract:
This forthcoming article explores the question of why individuals resist apologizing, even when it is rationally in their best interest to do so - such as when it would significantly reduce a criminal sentence or settle a civil lawsuit at little or no cost. Drawing on a significant body of research by social psychologists on apology, the article posits that individuals primarily resist apology when it poses an intolerable threat to their face - or their claimed identity as competent, intelligent, or moral persons. In light of this research, the article then critiques the failure of recent laws designed to encourage or compel apology to take face into account.

apology, law and psychology, sociology, torts, criminal law

Abstract:
This Article proposes that civil rights plaintiffs pursuing cases against governmental defendants should be entitled to receive court-ordered apologies as an equitable remedy. Part I discusses the importance of apology in American society and concludes that apology is culturally embedded as an essential component of everyday dispute resolution. Part II provides a brief overview of current legal scholarship in the area of apology, including the lack of such scholarship related to court-ordered apologies as a civil remedy. Part III argues that traditional forms of compensation fail to provide adequate relief to civil rights victims because they neglect psychological, emotional, and symbolic injuries. It proposes court-ordered apologies as an effective means of healing psychological wounds, reinforcing norms, restoring social equilibrium, promoting social change, and compelling governmental reform. Part IV anticipates and responds to likely objections to court-ordered apologies, including the misguided notion that public apologies must be sincere to be effective. Finally, Part V provides some guidance in the art of compelled apology.

civil rights law, apology, emotion and the law, psychology, remedies

Abstract:
Scholars have theorized that rule-of-law reform in post-communist Central Asia and Eastern Europe has been thwarted by a Soviet legacy of disrespect for the law. These scholars argue that ingrained practices of nepotism, influence-peddling, and corruption have undermined formal institutions and left little room for the rule of law to grow. Thus, they argue, successful rule of law reform depends as much upon changing the beliefs that people have about the law as it does upon reforming legal institutions. This argument has resonated with rule-of-law aid practitioners, resulting in a proliferation of civic education programs in post-Soviet states designed to "foster a rule of law culture."

Using Mongolia as a primary case study, the article contests the assumptions underlying the civic education approach to rule-of-law reform. It also argues that, given the socio-political realities of many countries in which rule-of-law education programs have been implemented, they are not only likely to fail, but to lead to disillusionment, cynicism, and further disrespect for the law. In some cases, they also risk legitimating unjust laws and authoritarian regimes.

This article proposes an alternative to the rule-of-law project: Juries. Rule-of-law reformers have largely rejected jury systems on the ground that juries often disregard or cannot understand the law. Reformers have also feared that juries would discourage foreign investment by introducing just the type of uncertainty that "rule of law" is meant to prevent. This article responds that, in emerging democracies, certainty is less important than contextualized justice that reflects community values. It also argues that the deliberative process of jury decision-making promotes civic engagement, allows broader democratic participation in the law-making project, and may effectively check judicial corruption. Thus, juries may help restore faith in judicial institutions and lead emerging democracies closer to the rule of law ideal.

juries, rule of law, democracy and development, corruption, post-soviet

Abstract:
Despite claims by international donor agencies that judicial reform efforts in Mongolia have been a great success, this article argues that Mongolian courts continue to grossly lack integrity, transparency, and accountability – and are perceived by the Mongolian public as more corrupt today than when donor-funded judicial reform efforts began almost a decade ago. This article further argues that the failure of judicial reform in Mongolia stems in significant part from the "capture" of donor-funded judicial reform efforts by elites within the Mongolian judicial sector. It concludes that the inherent tendency for project capture in the "institution-building" approach to judicial reform that international donor agencies favor should add to calls to limit the approach in favor of bottom-up efforts to push for meaningful judicial reform.

Law and Development, Judicial reform, corruption, Mongolia, rule of law

Abstract:
Young children across America begin the school day with ritualized expressions of loyalty to the nation-state. Relying upon evidence from the cognitive and neurosciences, this article argues that such patriotic rituals embed patriotic predispositions in children's unconscious at a time when they are especially vulnerable to emotional manipulation. These patriotic predispositions in turn sharply constrain children's future conceptions of political reality and shape their political beliefs. Additionally, by conditioning the same symbolic attachments in the vast majority of Americans, ritualized patriotic education contributes to the manipulation of the public by public officials, legitimizes anti-democratic aspects of the American system, and distorts political discourse. The article concludes by arguing that ritualistic patriotic education violates the First Amendment right to freedom of conscience and has no place in public elementary schools.

Patriotism, Freedom of Conscience, Education, Emotion, Obama