Posted by The Situationist Staff on October 4, 2009
On Monday, October 5, the HLS Student Association for Law and Mind Sciences (SALMS) is hosting a talk by Professor Andrew Papachristos entitled “Why Do Criminals Obey the Law: The Influence of Law and Social Networks on Active Gun Users.”
* * *
Our findings suggest that while criminals as a whole have negative opinions of the law and legal authority, the sample of gun offenders (just like non-criminals) are more likely to comply with the law when they believe in (a) the substance of the law, and (b) the legitimacy of legal actors, especially the police. Moreover, we find that opinions of compliance to the law are not uniformly distributed across the sample population. In other words, not all criminals are alike in their opinions of the law. Gang members – but especially gang members with social networks saturated with criminal associates – are significantly less likely to view the law and its agents as a legitimate form of authority. However, those individuals (including gang members) with less saturated criminal networks, actually tend to have more positive opinions of the law, albeit these opinions are still overall negative.
* * *
The event will take place in Pound 200 at Harvard Law School, from 12:00 – 1:00 p.m. For more information, e-mail firstname.lastname@example.org.
For a sample of related Situationist posts, see”The Legal Situation of the Underclass,” “The Situation of Criminality – Abstract,” “Clarence Darrow on the Situation of Crime and Criminals,” “Why Criminals Obey the Law – Abstract,” and “Tom Tyler on “Strategies of Social Control” – Video.”
Posted in Events, Law | Tagged: Andrew Papachristos, crime, Criminal Law, Criminals, legitimacy | Leave a Comment »
Posted by The Situationist Staff on November 21, 2008
Below, we’ve posted titles and a brief quotation from some of our favorite non-Situationist situationist blogging during October 2008. (They are listed in alphabetical order by source.)
* * *
“It is now widely believed that people’s moral judgments can affect their causal judgments, but a great deal of confusion remains about precisely why this effect arises. . . . Our hypothesis draws on the idea that people’s causal judgments are based on counterfactual reasoning.” Read more . . .
“New research by the University of Warwick reveals that many credit card customers become fixated on the level of minimum payments given on credit card bills. The mere presence of a minimum payment is enough to reduce the actual amount many people choose to pay on their bills, leading to further interest payments.” Read more . . .
“How do you make sense of Barack Obama and John McCain? The odds are that you judge them mainly on two dimensions: warm/cold and (in)competence. Depending on your experience of them, you may judge one of them as both warm and competent, evoking your admiration and pride; and perhaps the other as neither warm nor competent, which triggers a sense of contempt and disgust. Or perhaps you view one as warm but not competent, which generates pity and sympathy; or finally, you could judge one of them as cold but competent, leading to feelings of resentment and even envy. All the media hoopla boils down to these two dimensions, which determine the outcomes of Presidential campaigns, but also our ordinary perceptions of other people as individuals or as group members.” Read more . . .
“Legitimacy. It’s a word much bandied about by students of the law. “Bush v. Gore was an illegitimate decision.” “The Supreme Court’s implied fundamental rights jurisprudence lacks legitimacy.” “The invasion of Iraq does not have a legitimate basis in international law.” We’ve all heard words like these uttered countless times, but what do they mean? Can we give an account of “legitimacy” that makes that concept meaningful and distinctive? Is “legitimacy” one idea or is it several different notions, united by family resemblance rather than an underlying conceptual structure.” Read more . . .
“Psychology Today journalist Matthew Hutson covers some fascinating experiments just published in this week’s Science that found that reducing participants’ control increase the tendency for magical thinking and the perception of illusory meaning in random or patternless visual scenes.” Read more . . .
* * *
For previous installments of “Situationism on the Blogosphere,” click on the “Blogroll” category in the right margin.
Posted in Abstracts, Blogroll | Tagged: anchoring, causal attributions, competence, counterfactual thinking, credit cards, legitimacy, magical thinking, warmth | Leave a Comment »