Abstract

http://ssrn.com/abstract=1081227
 
 

Citations (10)



 
 

Footnotes (220)



 


 



Whose Eyes are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism


Dan M. Kahan


Yale University - Law School; Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics

David A. Hoffman


Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law; Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School

Donald Braman


George Washington University - Law School; Cultural Cognition Project

2009

Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, 2009
Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 08-18
Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 159
3rd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Papers

Abstract:     
This paper accepts the unusual invitation to see for yourself issued by the Supreme Court in Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769 (2007). Scott held that a police officer did not violate the Fourth Amendment when he deliberately rammed his car into that of a fleeing motorist who refused to pull over for speeding and instead attempted to evade the police in a high-speed chase. The majority did not attempt to rebut the arguments of the single Justice who disagreed with its conclusion that no reasonable juror could find the fleeing driver did not pose a deadly risk to the public. Instead, the Court uploaded to its website a video of the chase, filmed from inside the pursuing police cruisers, and invited members of the public to make up their own minds after viewing it. We showed the video to a diverse sample of 1,350 Americans. Overall a majority agreed with the Court's resolution of the key issues, but within the sample there were sharp differences of opinion along cultural, ideological, and other lines. We attribute these divisions to the psychological disposition of individuals to resolve disputed facts in a manner supportive of their group identities. The paper also addresses the normative significance of these findings. The result in the case, we argue, might be defensible, but the Court's reasoning was not. Its insistence that there was only one reasonable view of facts itself displayed a characteristic of a form of bias - cognitive illiberalism - that consists in the failure to recognize the connection between perceptions of societal risk and contested visions of the ideal society. When courts fail to take steps to counteract that bias, they needlessly invest the law with culturally partisan overtones that detract from the law's legitimacy.

Number of Pages in PDF File: 67

Keywords: cultural cognition, risk perception, Fourth Amendment, jury

Accepted Paper Series





Download This Paper

Date posted: March 25, 2008 ; Last revised: April 16, 2013

Suggested Citation

Kahan, Dan M. and Hoffman, David A. and Braman, Donald, Whose Eyes are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism (2009). Harvard Law Review, Vol. 122, 2009; Harvard Law School Program on Risk Regulation Research Paper No. 08-18; Yale Law School, Public Law Working Paper No. 159; 3rd Annual Conference on Empirical Legal Studies Papers. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1081227

Contact Information

Dan M. Kahan (Contact Author)
Yale University - Law School ( email )
P.O. Box 208215
New Haven, CT 06520-8215
United States
HOME PAGE: http://www.culturalcognition.net/kahan
Harvard University - Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics ( email )
124 Mount Auburn Street
Suite 520N
Cambridge, MA 02138
United States

David A. Hoffman
Temple University - James E. Beasley School of Law ( email )
1719 N. Broad Street
Philadelphia, PA 19122
United States
215-204-0612 (Phone)
Cultural Cognition Project at Yale Law School
127 Wall St
New Haven, CT 06520
United States
Donald Braman
George Washington University - Law School ( email )
2000 H Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20052
United States
Cultural Cognition Project ( email )
2000 H St NW
2000 H Street
Washington, DC 20052 20052
United States
202-491-8843 (Phone)
202 491-8843 (Fax)
HOME PAGE: http://www.culturalcognition.net/braman
Feedback to SSRN


Paper statistics
Abstract Views: 12,835
Downloads: 1,852
Download Rank: 4,086
Citations:  10
Footnotes:  220
Paper comments
No comments have been made on this paper

© 2014 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.  FAQ   Terms of Use   Privacy Policy   Copyright   Contact Us
This page was processed by apollo8 in 0.250 seconds