Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T02:26:44.910Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimenting with Justice: The Federal Judicial Center Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 November 2018

Jerry Goldman
Get access

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Review Essay
Information
American Bar Foundation Research Journal , Volume 8 , Issue 3 , Summer 1983 , pp. 733 - 739
Copyright
Copyright © American Bar Foundation, 1983 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Justice Felix Frankfurter to Judge William Denman, May 29, 1943. Box 51 Felix Frankfurter Papers (Manuscript Division, Library of Congress).Google Scholar

2 Experimentation in the Law: Report of the Federal Judicial Center Advisory Committee on Experimentation in the Law (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981) [hereinafter cited as Experimentation].Google Scholar

3 Ronald Aylmer Fisher, The Design of Experiments (7th ed. New York: Hafner Publishing Co., 1960).Google Scholar

4 Donald T. Campbell & Julian C. Stanley, Experimental and Quasi-experimental Designs for Research (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1966).Google Scholar

5 Henry W. Riecken & Robert F. Boruch, eds., Social Experimentation: A Method for Planning and Evaluating Social Intervention (New York: Academic Press, 1974).Google Scholar

6 Donald T. Campbell, Methods for the Experimenting Society (preliminary draft, 1971).Google Scholar

7 There are public harms, too. These require justification, though the kind of justification through the direct weighing of costs and benefits seems less problematic than that required for the imposition of individual harms. Experimentation at 28.Google Scholar

8 Campbell, Donald T., Reforms as Experiments, 24 Am. Psych. 409, 410 (1969).Google Scholar

9 Id. Google Scholar

10 Campbell, supra note 6, at 74.Google Scholar

11 Id. at 15.Google Scholar

12 Final Regulations Amending Basic HHS Policy for Protection of Human Research Subjects, 46 Fed. Reg. 8366–8392 (Jan. 26, 1981).Google Scholar

13 Goldman, J. & Katz, M., Inconsistency and Institutional Review Boards, 248 J. A.M.A. 197 (1982).Google Scholar

14 Botein, Bernard, The Manhattan Bail Project: Its Impact on Criminology and the Criminal Law Processes, 43 Tex. L. Rev. 319, 327 (1965).Google Scholar

15 J. Berrecochea, D. Jaman, & W. Jones, Time Served in Prison and Parole Outcome: An Experimental Study, Report No. 1 (Oct. 1973) (Sacramento, Cal.: Research Division, California Department of Corrections, 1973).Google Scholar

16 Id. at 4.Google Scholar

17 This is inferred from the inadequacy of earlier studies.Google Scholar

18 J. Bearman, R. Loewenson, & W. Gullen, Muench's Postulates, Laws, and Corollaries, Biometrics Note 4 (Washington, D.C.: National Eye Institute, 1974).Google Scholar