The Psychology and Politics of the Legal Process

MWF 11:15 – 12:05

Fall 2006

Drs. Zeigler and Winslow

This course examines the use of law as an instrument of social regulation and public policy through the use of psychological theory and political philosophy. Through reading, discussion and debate, students will analyze theoretical conceptions of the end and function of law, as well as current controversies in legal scholarship. Active participation by students prepared to engage in rigorous (yet civil) discussion of the texts is a necessary component of the course. Students are encouraged to voice reactions and criticisms freely, regardless of whether their remarks coincide with the views expressed by classmates, text authors, or the instructor.

A required coursepack is available for purchase in the bookstore. Additional readings will be made available through e-reserve and Blackboard.

Student Learning Objectives

This course addresses the following Student Learning Objectives:

Political Science:

Critical Thinking: Students will become more discerning critical thinkers and observers of political events, personalities, messages and processes by applying theories and methodologies of political science and through effective oral and written communication. Students will demonstrate an understanding of the legal reasoning and philosophy. How assessed: successful completion of a term paper and examinations focusing on case law and secondary analyses of legal processes and the applicability of those theories to legal cases and controversies. Students will demonstrate communication skills through competent and skillful writing on all essay assignments.

Substantive Knowledge: Students will acquire political literacy and will understand the institutions process and values that underpin the justice system. How assessed: By successfully responding to essay questions on examinations, students will demonstrate a substantive understanding of judicial processes and case law, thus exhibiting knowledge of political institutions and values.

Psychology:

1. You will be able to apply theories and findings in the area of psychology and law

How assessed: exams, position papers, response papers, research paper, short paper

2. You will be able to critique research in the area of psychology and law

How assessed: first paper

4. You will be able to apply knowledge of the area of psychology and law with your own life experience

How assessed: short papers

Paralegal Science:

Theory and Content of Law: Students will gain knowledge about the foundations, functions, terminology, sources of law and court structure and procedure. How assessed: exams, position papers, response papers.

Honors:

1. Demonstrate the ability to gather, synthesize, and critically analyze information and present it in a well written format. How assessed: research paper.

2.  Demonstrate their understanding of a specific content area of the course and its relationship to other areas of human concern. How assessed: position papers, response papers.

3. Verbally articulate complex information in an interesting format. How assessed: debates.

General Education Goals: HON 312 is a general education course that is designed to help students:

1. Use appropriate methods of critical thinking and quantitative analysis (General Education Goal 2).

2. Use political events, institutions and issues to analyze the social and behavioral influences that explain how people relate to each other, to institutions, and to communities (General Education Goal 4).

3. Understand the methods that underlie the search for knowledge in the social and behavioral sciences (General Education Goal 7).

4. Integrate knowledge that will deepen their understanding of, and will inform their own choices about, issues of personal and public importance (General Education Goal 8).

How assessed: Essay question on exam

Block VB and Block VII General Education Objectives

1. Demonstrating an understanding of methods by which social scientists gather data and make conclusions

 

2. Explaining the major concepts and fundamental processes basic to the social sciences.

3. Applying the principles and theories of social sciences to make reasonable and valid conclusions about matters of personal and public importance.

How assessed: Essay question on exam

Students will learn how political scientists and psychologists use qualitative and quantitative methods to study legal institutions, processes and behavior. Throughout the course students are required to use critical thinking to understand and evaluate legal processes.. Finally, the study of law and legal reasoning requires that students integrate knowledge of legal institutions, processes and behavior throughout the course.

Course structure and requirements:

Class meetings:

     Attendance at all class meetings is required. If you attend all class meetings, you will receive a bonus of 2% added on to your final grade. You are allowed to miss one class meeting (excluding the presentation classes) and still get your 2% if you have a legitimate (documented) excuse. If you miss more than one (or even one without a legitimate excuse) but three or fewer class meetings, you will get 1% added on. If you miss four or five, you get zero bonus points. If you miss more than five, but eight or fewer classes, you lose 1%, and if you miss more than eight, you lose 2%. If you miss more than eight classes, you likely won’t pass the class anyway.

Readings:

     Students are expected to read the assigned material for each class before coming to class. Seriously. Because lectures and discussions will most often be extensions of the reading for that class, we will assume that you are familiar with the reading assignments.

Assignments, Papers and Examinations

1. Participation in class debates: Students will be divided in six groups. On each designated “debate day” (as marked in the schedule, below), one group will present arguments responding to the debate question for that week (see schedule below). Other class members will represent alternative viewpoints, offering criticisms and suggestions on the main argument. Each member of the assigned group will submit a brief (1-2 page) summary of his/her argument via the course Blackboard page by noon on the day prior to the debate. The "others" will then prepare a brief (1-2) response to or criticism of the group members’ arguments which will be posted on Blackboard prior to the class meeting at which the debate is to occur. This is really not as complicated as it sounds. Position papers will be graded, response papers will be credited (full value if competent and submitted by deadline). All grades will be accessible via Blackboard.

Position papers: 1 required at 30 pts

Response papers: 6 required at 5 pts. each

Total points: 60

2. Three in-class examinations, 70 points each

3. One research paper, of approximately 10 pages in length, 100pts

4. Research Presentations

In the last two weeks of the semester, students will have in-class presentations about a topic of their choice from the text or lectures. All topics must be approved both instructors in advance (we will hand out a worksheet to assist with the approval process). It is preferred that students work alone, but group projects will be accepted if there is a very compelling reason for them. Presentations are expected to be 10 – 12 minutes in length. 100 points.

5. Short papers

One of our goals as the instructor for this class is to get you to make connections between what we cover in class and events in the world outside of this class. In order to facilitate this, we require that you find two news stories that have something to do with any topic we cover in this course. The news story can be from a newspaper, (news) magazine, television, the World Wide Web, or any other appropriate news source. For each news story, you will have to turn in the news story itself, and a 1-2 page paper that explains the relationship between the news story and a topic from this course. These will be due at various times throughout the semester, although you can always turn them in early. Each paper will be worth 30 points, for a total of 60 points.

Track your progress…

Grading opportunity	Point value	Graded by	Points you received
Position paper 1	30 points	Zeigler
Response paper 1	5 points	Zeigler
Response paper 2	5 points	Zeigler
Response paper 3	5 points	Zeigler
Response paper 4	5 points	Zeigler
Response paper 5	5 points	Zeigler
Exam 1	70 points	Zeigler & Winslow
Exam 2	70 points	Zeigler & Winslow
Exam 3	70 points	Zeigler & Winslow
Short paper 1	30 points	Winslow
Short paper 2	30 points	Winslow
Research paper	100 points	Zeigler or Winslow
Research presentation	100 points	Zeigler or Winslow
Total points	525 points

 

Students with Disabilities: If you are registered with the Office of Services for Individuals with Disabilities, please make an appointment with the course instructor to discuss any academic accommodations you need. If you need academic accommodations and are not registered with the Office of Services for Individuals with Disabilities, please contact the Office directly either in person on the third floor of the Student Services Building or by telephone at (859) 622-2933 V/TTY. Upon individual request, this syllabus can be made available in alternative forms.

Additional Policies:

Academic Honesty (from the EKU Faculty Handbook):

“Eastern Kentucky University faculty and students are bonded by principles of truth and honesty which are recognized as fundamental for a community of teachers and scholars. The University expects that students will honor and that faculty will honor and enforce these principles which contribute to a foundation upon which a quality education can be built. With this premise, the University affirms that it will not tolerate academic dishonesty.”

Academic dishonesty includes plagiarism, cheating, and co-responsibility (“Anyone who knowingly assists in any form of academic dishonesty shall be considered as guilty as the student who accepts such assistance”).

The instructors reserve the right to examine any source used by the student before giving a grade on a paper and to give an “incomplete” in the course if necessary, to allow time to obtain sources. Students should be prepared to show source material to the instructor for the purpose of verifying information. Academic dishonesty will not be tolerated.

Academic dishonesty includes, but is not limited to, the following offenses:

·      Claiming as your own work a paper written by another person

·      Turning in a paper that contains paraphrases of someone else’s ideas but does not give proper credit to that person for those ideas

·      Turning in a paper that is largely a restatement in your own words of a paper written by someone else, even if you give credit to that person for those ideas. The thesis and organizing principles of a paper must be your own.

·      Turning in a paper that uses the exact words of another author without using quotation marks, even if proper credit is given in a citation, or that changes the words only slightly and claims them to be paraphrases

·      Turning in the same paper, even in a different version, for two different courses without the permission of both professors involved

·      Using any external source (notes, books, other students, etc) for assistance during an exam, unless given permission to do so by the professor

If a student is found to have committed any of the above offenses, s/he will receive a failing grade on the assignment or in the course, depending upon the seriousness of the offense. The case may also be referred to departmental committees or to Student Judicial Affairs.

Student Obligation to Stay Informed

The primary means of communication, outside of classtime, will be via Blackboard and email. Students should check their email and the Blackboard course page at least every other day.

Topics schedule, readings, and due dates

 

Date	Topic	Readings	Grading opportunities
8/21	Introduction and Expectations
8/23	Natural Law Theory and Positivism	Aquinas, Thomas. “What is Law?”
8/25		Hart, H.L.A. Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals Holmes, Oliver Wendell. The Path of the Law Dworkin, R. Natural Law Revisited
8/28	Modern and Postmodern Conceptions of the Law	Tushnet, M. Critical Legal Studies: An Introduction to Its Origins and Underpinnings
8/30		Littleton, C. A. (1987) Reconstructing Sexual Equality.
9/1	Methods Legal research vs. psychological research: stare decisis and science Case study: jury selection	Reinard, J. C., & Arsenault, D. J. (2000). The impact of forms of strategic and non-strategic voir dire questions on jury verdicts. Johnson, C. & Haney, C. (1994). Felony voir dire: An exploratory study of its content and effect. Rose, M. R. (1999). The peremptory challenge accused of race or gender discrimination? Some data from one county.
9/6		Page, A. (2005). Batson’s Blind-Spot: Unconscious Stereotyping and the Preemptory Challenge
9/8		Hartje, R. (2005). A Jury of Your Peers?: How Jury Consulting May Actually Help Trial Lawyers Resolve Constitutional Limitations Imposed on the Selection of Juries.
9/11	Privacy	Griswold v. Connecticut
9/13		Roe v. Wade (abortion)
9/15		Bowers v. Hardwick (sodomy) Lawrence v. Texas (and more sodomy)
9/18		Slobogin, C. & Schumacher, J. E. (1993). Rating the intrusiveness of law enforcement searches and seizures.
9/20		Kagehiro, D. K., Taylor, R. B., & Harland, A. T. (1991). Reasonable expectation of privacy and third-party consent searches.	Short paper due
9/22		Thomson, Judith Jarvis (1971). A Defense of Abortion.	(Group position paper)
9/25	First Debate	Under what circumstances should wiretapping be permitted? –OR– Should Roe v Wade be overturned?	Response paper
9/27	Employment Law: Sex Discrimination	Fiske, S. T., Bersoff, D. N., Borgida, E., Deaux, K., et al. (1991). Social science research on trial: Use of sex stereotyping research in Price Waterhouse v. Hopkins. O'Connor, M. & Vallabhajosula, B. (2004). Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: A Legal and Psychological Framework. Ninth Circuit Holds that Women Can Be Required to Wear Makeup as a Condition of Employment (2005).
9/29		U.S. v. Virginia (the VMI case) Burlington v. Ellerth (sexual harassment, heterosexual) Oncale v. Sundowner (sexual harassment, same sex)
10/2			First exam (Group position paper)
10/4	Second debate	Can legal restrictions effectively limit sex stereotyping in the workplace?	Response paper
10/6	Affirmative Action	Crosby, F. J., Iyer, A., Clayton, S., & Downing, R.A. (2003). Affirmative action: Psychological data and the policy debates. Sherman, D. K., Nelson, L. D., & Ross, L. D. (2003). Naive realism and affirmative action: Adversaries are more similar than they think.
10/11		Bakke Grutter v. Bollinger (Michigan Law School)	(Group position paper)
10/13	Third debate	Is Affirmative Action discriminatory?	Response paper
10/16	Pretrial Publicity	Studebaker & Penrod (2005). Pretial publicity and its influence on juror decision making. Curtner, R. and Kassier, M. (2005). Not in Our Town: Pretrial Publicity, Presumed Prejudice and Change of Venue in Alaska: Public Opinion Surveys as a Tool to Measure the Impact of Prejudicial Pretrial Publicity.
10/18		Reidy, M. (2004). Comment: The Impact of Media Coverage on Rape Shield Laws in High-Profile Cases: Is the Victim Receiving a “Fair Trial?”	(Group position paper)
10/20	Fourth debate	Does pretrial publicity matter?	Response paper
10/23	Eyewitness Testimony	Brewer, Weber, & Semmler (2005)
10/25		Overbeck, J. (2005). Note: Beyond Admissibility: A Practical Look at the Use of Eyewitness Expert Testimony in the Federal Courts.
10/27		Sanchirico, C. (2004). Evidence, Procedure and the Upside of Cognitive Error.	(Group position paper)
10/30	Reading day (no class)
11/1			Second Exam
11/3	Psychological Defenses (Insanity, Battered Woman’s Syndrome, Cultural Defenses)	Borum, R. & Fulero, S. M. (1999). Empirical research on the insanity defense and attempted reforms: Evidence toward informed policy.       Callahan, L. A. & Silver, E. (1998). Factors associated with the conditional release of persons acquitted by reason of insanity: A decision tree approach. Ogloff, J. R., (1991). A comparison of insanity defense standards on juror decision making.
11/6		Silver, E. (1995). Punishment or treatment? Comparing the lengths of confinement of successful and unsuccessful insanity defendants. Silver, E., Cirincione, C., & Steadman, H. J. (1994). Demythologizing inaccurate perceptions of the insanity defense.
11/8		Spanos, N. P., Terrance, C. A., & Peebles, S. (1993). Battered women who kill: Jury simulation and legal defenses. Wheatman, S. R. & Shaffer, D. R. (2001). On finding for defendants who plead insanity: The crucial impact of dispositional instructions and opportunity to deliberate.
11/10	Reading day (no class)		Research paper draft due (Group position paper)
11/13	Fifth debate	Which approach to insanity/cultural defenses is the best?	Response paper
11/15	Punishment	Herman, J. L.. Justice From the Victim's Perspective.	Second short paper due
11/17		Goodman-Delahunty, Forsterlee, & Forsterlee (2005) Clark, M. E.. (2005). Skinner vs the prophets: Human nature & our concepts of justice.	(Group position paper)
11/20	Sixth Debate	Is the suffering of victims relevant to punishment?	Response paper
11/27	The Death Penalty	Haney, C. & Wiener, R. L. (2004). Death is different: An editorial introduction to the theme issue. Ogloff, J. R. P. & Chopra, S. R. (2004). Stuck in the dark ages: Supreme Court decision making and legal developments. O'Neil, K. M., Patry, M. W., & Penrod, S. D. (2004). Exploring the effects of attitudes toward the death penalty on capital sentencing verdicts. Lanier, C. S. & Acker, J. R. (2004). Capital punishment, the moratorium movement, and empirical questions: Looking beyond innocence, race, and bad lawyering in death penalty cases.
11/29			Research paper due, Presentations
12/1			Presentations
12/4			Presentations
12/6			Presentations
12/8			Presentations
12/11 10:30 – 12:30	Finals week		Presentations