Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-24T16:03:25.139Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Is Justice Blind: An Empirical Investigaton of a Normative Ideal

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Harold J. Spaeth ,
David B. Meltz ,
Gregory J. Rathjen  and
Michael V. Haselswerdt
Harold J. Spaeth
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
David B. Meltz
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Gregory J. Rathjen
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Michael V. Haselswerdt
Affiliation:
Michigan State University
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

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.

Of the many enduring myths which serve as the foundation for American democracy, none is as pervasive as that of judicial objectivity. While the assertion that justice is blind is probably met with understandable cynicism, most Americans still believe that their judges, especially those in the appellate courts, should approach their responsibilities with a certain myopia. The rules and customs that are the foundation of Anglo-American legal practices may be considered the basis upon which judicial objectivity rests.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 7 , Issue 1: Special Issue on European Sociology of Law , Fall 1972 , pp. 119 - 137
Copyright
Copyright © The Law and Society Association, 1972.

Footnotes

AUTHORS' NOTE: We wish to thank our colleague, David W. Rhode, for his helpful comments and suggestions. This research was supported in part by PHS Research Grant No. MH 15365-01 to Harold J. Spaeth from the National Institute of Mental Health. We also acknowledge the valuable assistance provided by the Computer Institute for Social Science Research and the Department of Political Science of Michigan State University.

References

Cases

Bailey v. Central Vermont R. Co. 319 U.S. 350 (1943).Google Scholar
McAlister v. United States 348 U.S. 19 (1954).Google Scholar
Rogers v. Mo. Pacific R. Co. 352 U.S. 500 (1957).Google Scholar
Stone v. N.Y.C. & St. L. R. Co. 344 U.S. 407 (1953).Google Scholar
Street v. New York 394 U.S. 576 (1969).Google Scholar

References

CONNER, James C. (1958) “Supreme Court Certiorari Policy and the Federal Employers' Liability Act,” 43 Cornell Law Quarterly 451–468.Google Scholar
COOMBS, Clyde H. (1964) A Theory of Data. N.Y.: Wiley.Google Scholar
GUTTMAN, Louis (1950a) “The Basis for Scalogram Analysis,” in S.A., STOUFFER et al. (eds.) Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
S.A., STOUFFER (1950b) “Problems of Reliability,” in S. A., STOUFFER et al. (eds.) Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
KENDALL, Morris G. (1955) Rank Correlation Methods. N.Y.: Hafner.Google Scholar
MORRIS, John (1967) Rank Correlation Programs. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Computer Institute for Social Science Research.Google Scholar
MURPHY, Walter F. (1962) Congress and the Court. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
ROKEACH, Milton (1968a) Beliefs, Attitudes and Values. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
ROKEACH, Milton (1968b) “The Nature of Attitudes” in I International Encyclopedia of the Social Sciences 449–457.Google Scholar
SCHUBERT, Glendon (1962) “Policy Without Law: An Extension of the Certiorari Game,” 14 Stanford Law Review 284–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPAETH, Harold J. (1965) “Unidimensionality and Item Invariance in Judicial Scaling,” 10 Behavioral Science 290–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPAETH, Harold J. (1969) “Effects of Attitude toward Situation Upon Attitude toward Object,” 73 Journal of Psychology 173–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SPAETH, Harold J. (1971) “The Analysis and Interpretation of Dimensionality: The Case of Civil Liberties Decision Making,” 15 Midwest Journal of Political Science 415–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
SUCHMAN, Edward A. (1950a) “The Scalogram Board Technique for Scale Analysis,” in S. A., STOUFFER et al. (eds.) Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
S. A., STOUFFER (1950b) “The Utility of Scalogram Analysis,” in S. A., STOUFFER et al. (eds.) Measurement and Prediction. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar