Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T15:45:18.239Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Ex Ante Function of the Criminal Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 April 2024

John M. Darley ,
Paul H. Robinson  and
Kevin M. Carlsmith
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Criminal legal codes draw clear lines between permissible and illegal conduct, and the criminal justice system counts on people knowing these lines and governing their conduct accordingly. This is the “ex ante” function of the law; lines are drawn, and because citizens fear punishments or believe in the moral validity of the legal codes they do not cross these lines. But do people in fact know the lines that legal codes draw? The fact that several states have adopted laws that deviate from other state laws enables a field experiment to address this question. Residents (N = 203) of states (Wisconsin, Texas, North Dakota, and South Dakota) that had adopted a minority position on some aspect of criminal law reported the relevant law of their state to be no different than did citizens of “majoritarian” states. Path analyses using structural equation modeling suggest that people make guesses about what their state law holds by extrapolating from their personal view of whether or not the act in question ought to be criminalized.

Type
Papers of General Interest
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , 2001 , pp. 165 - 189
Copyright
Copyright © 2000 by the Law and Society Association

Footnotes

The authors wish to express their gratitude to Anne Faranetta for identifying and contacting participants throughout the country. Robyn LeBoeuf, Michael Norton, Benoit Monin, and Leif Nelson commented on and greatly improved an earlier draft of this article.

References

References

Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1992) “Alternative Ways of Assessing Model Fit,” 21 Sociological Methods & Research 230–58.Google Scholar
Carlsmith, K. M., Darley, J. D. & Robinson, P. H. (under review). “Why Do We Punish? Deterrence and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment.”.Google Scholar
Coffee, J. C. (1991) “Does ‘Unlawful’ Mean ‘Criminal‘? Reflections on the Disappearing Tort/Crime Distinction in American Law,” 71 Boston Univ. Law Rev. 193–216.Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1977) Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, rev. ed. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983) Applied Multiple Regression/Correlational Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences, 2d Ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Darley, J. D., Carlsmith, K. M. & Robinson, P. H. (2000) “Incapacitation and Just Deserts as Motives for Punishment,” 24 Law & Human Behavior 659–83.Google Scholar
Darley, J. M., Sanderson, C. A. & LaMantia, P. S. (1996) “Community Standards for Defining Attempt: Inconsistencies with the Model Penal Code,” 39 American Behavioral Scientist 405–20.Google Scholar
Davies, S. (1998) “The Jurisprudence of Willfulness: An Evolving Theory of Excusable Ignorance,” 48 Duke Law J. 341–414.Google Scholar
Finkel, N. J., Maloney, S. T., Valbuena, M. Z. & Groscup, J. (1996) “Recidivism, Proportionalism, and Individualized Punishment,” 39 American Behavioral Scientist 474–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garber, S., & Bower, A. G. (1999) “Newspaper Coverage of Automotive Product Liability Verdicts,” 33 Law & Society Rev. 93–122.Google Scholar
Hamilton, V., & Rytina, S. (1980) “Social Consensus on Norms of Justice: Should the Punishment Fit the Crime?” 85 American J. of Sociology 1117–44.Google Scholar
Krueger, J., & Clement, R. (1994) “The Truly False Consensus Effect: An Ineradicable and Egocentric Bias in Social Perception,” 67 J. of Personality & Social Psychology 596–610.Google Scholar
Nisbett, R. E., & Cohen, D. (1996) Culture of Honor: The Psychology of Violence in the South. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Prentice, D. A., & Miller, D. T. (1992) “When Small Effects Are Impressive,” 112 Psychological Bulletin 160–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1995) Justice, Liability, and Blame: Community Views and the Criminal Law. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Google Scholar
Robinson, P. H., & Darley, J. M. (1997) “The Utility of Desert,” 91 Northwestern Univ. Law Rev. 453–99.Google Scholar
Rosenthal, R., & Rosnow, R. L. (1984) Essentials of Behavioral Research. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
Ross, L., Greene, D. & House, P. (1977) “The False Consensus Effect: An Egocentric Bias in Social Perception and Attribution Processes,” 13 J. of Experimental Social Psychology 279–301.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. H., Berk, R. E. & Campbell, A. (1997) “Just Punishments: Guideline Sentences and Normative Consensus,” 13 J. of Quantitative Criminology 267–90.Google Scholar
Rossi, P. H., Waite, E., Bose, C. E. & Berk, R. E. (1974) “The Seriousness of Crimes: Normative Structure and Individual Differences,” 39 American Sociological Rev. 224–37.Google Scholar

Statutes Cited

North Dakota Century Code § 12.1-05-03 (Allen Smith 1985 & Supp. 1997)..Google Scholar
South Dakota Codified Laws § 22-11-12 (Michie 1988)..Google Scholar
Texas Penal Code Annotated § 9.42 (West 1974 & Supp. 2000)..Google Scholar
Wisconsin Statutes Annotated § 939.48 (West 1982 & Supp. 1999)..Google Scholar
Wisconsin Statutes Annotated §940.34 (West Supp. 1999)..Google Scholar