Law & Society Review最新文献_第8页

Shari'a, Inshallah: Finding god in Somali legal politics. By Mark F. Massoud. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 250 pp. $34.99 paperback 伊斯兰教法，伊斯兰安拉:在索马里法律政治中寻找上帝。马克·f·马苏德著。剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2021。250页，平装本34.99美元

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-08-04 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12626

Reviewed by Nafay Choudhury

引用次数: 0

Against progress: Intellectual property and fundamental values in the internet age. By Jessica Silbey. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2022. 448 pages, $90.00 hardcover/$30.00 paperback. 反对进步:互联网时代的知识产权和基本价值观。杰西卡·西尔贝著。斯坦福:斯坦福大学出版社，2022。448页，精装版$90 /平装版$30。

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-08-04 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12627

Reviewed by Or Cohen-Sasson

引用次数: 0

Industry unbound: The inside story of privacy, data, and corporate power. By Ari EzraWaldman Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2021. 364 pp. $24.95 hardback 行业自由:隐私、数据和企业权力的内幕故事。作者:阿里·伊兹拉·沃尔德曼剑桥:剑桥大学出版社，2021年。364页，精装本24.95美元

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12610

Reviewed by Erika M. Douglas

引用次数: 19

Sorting sexuality: Expertise and the politics of legal classification. By Stefan Vogler. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2021. 280 pp. $30.00 paper 性别分类:法律分类的专业知识和政治。Stefan Vogler著。芝加哥:芝加哥大学出版社，2021。280页，30美元纸

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12609

Edward Stein

引用次数: 0

Privilege and punishment: How race and class matter in criminal court. By Matthew Clair. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2020. 320 pp. $19.95 paperback 特权与惩罚:种族与阶级在刑事法庭上的重要性。马修·克莱尔著。普林斯顿:普林斯顿大学出版社，2020。320页。19.95美元的平装书

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12614

Reviewed by Malcolm M. Feeley

引用次数: 0

How parole boards judge remorse: Relational legal consciousness and the reproduction of carceral logic 假释委员会如何判断忏悔:关系法律意识和监禁逻辑的再现

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12601

Kathryne M. Young, Hannah Chimowitz

{"title":"How parole boards judge remorse: Relational legal consciousness and the reproduction of carceral logic","authors":"Kathryne M. Young, Hannah Chimowitz","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12601","DOIUrl":"10.1111/lasr.12601","url":null,"abstract":"<p>One in seven people in prison in the US is serving a life sentence, and most of these “lifers” will someday be eligible for discretionary parole. But little is known about a key aspect of parole decision-making: remorse assessments. Because remorse is a complex emotion that arises from past wrongdoing and unfolds over time, assessing the sincerity of another person's remorse is neither a simple task of lie detection, nor of determining emotional authenticity. Instead, remorse involves numerous elements, including the relationship between a person's past and present motivations, beliefs, and affective states. To understand how parole board members make sense of remorse, we draw on in-depth interviews with parole commissioners in California, the state with the largest proportion of parole-eligible lifers. We find that commissioners' remorse assessments hinge on their perceptions of lifers' relationships to law and carceral logic. In this way, relational legal consciousness—specifically, second-order legal consciousness—functions as a stand-in for the impossible task of knowing another person's heart or mind. We distinguish relational from second-order legal consciousness and argue that understanding how they operate at parole hearings reveals the larger import of relational legal consciousness as a mechanism via which existing power relations are produced and reproduced, bridging the legal consciousness and law and emotion literatures.</p>","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"121210913","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 5

Identity capitalists: The powerful insiders who exploit diversity to maintain inequality. By Nancy Leong. Palo Alto: Stanford University Press, 2021. 240 pp. $28.00 paperback 身份资本家:利用多样性维持不平等的有权势的内部人士。南希·梁著。帕洛阿尔托:斯坦福大学出版社，2021年。240页，平装本28.00美元

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12608

Reviewed by Meera E. Deo

引用次数: 1

Living apart together: Legal protections for a new form of family. By Cynthia Grant Bowman. New York: New York University Press, 2020. 312 pp. $40.00 hardcover 分居同居:对新型家庭形式的法律保护。辛西娅·格兰特·鲍曼著。纽约:纽约大学出版社，2020。312页，精装版40美元

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12613

Reviewed by Kaiponanea T. Matsumura

引用次数: 0

Conviction: The making and unmaking of the violent brain. By Oliver Rollins. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2021. 248 pp. $25.00 paperback 信念:暴力大脑的形成和瓦解。奥利弗·罗林斯著。斯坦福:斯坦福大学出版社，2021。248页，平装本25.00美元

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12612

Reviewed by Ernest K. Chavez

引用次数: 0

The focal concerns of jurors evaluating mitigation: Evidence from federal capital jury forms 陪审员评估减刑的焦点问题:来自联邦死刑陪审团表格的证据

IF 2.9 2区社会学

Law & Society Review Pub Date : 2022-05-19 DOI: 10.1111/lasr.12602

Mary R. Rose, Meredith Martin Rountree

{"title":"The focal concerns of jurors evaluating mitigation: Evidence from federal capital jury forms","authors":"Mary R. Rose, Meredith Martin Rountree","doi":"10.1111/lasr.12602","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12602","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Mitigating evidence in capital trials provides reasons for a life, rather than death, sentence. Research suggests that mitigation challenges jurors. We contribute to this area by analyzing federal verdict forms in capital cases, which allow jurors to write in their own mitigating factors, providing a direct, rare window onto their mitigation considerations. We use 205 forms from 171 juries to examine the frequency and content of these “write-ins,” using a sentencing theory typically applied to judges, Focal Concerns Theory. We find that four of every 10 juries prompted to offer their own mitigation do so, producing 149 unique write-ins, the majority of which introduces mitigation topics that differ from those listed on the verdict form. Surprisingly, jurors are less likely to offer write-in mitigators in cases involving White defendants than others, even after controlling for support for other mitigating factors and for aggravating factors, which also predict write-ins. Jurors' write-ins reflect a traditional sentencing concern for blameworthiness, and consistent with Focal Concerns Theory, attention to the practical consequences of punishment. Jurors also offered concerns we term “procedural fairness.” Results indicate that juries' views are patterned in ways that are similar, but not identical, to judges' sentencing concerns.</p>","PeriodicalId":48100,"journal":{"name":"Law & Society Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"137862120","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0