Search All

Articles

1. Notable Books List 2015 2015

   https://ncsu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwlV3dT9swED8N9sILYwxt3Qqy0FSeUmLXiZPHUvFRqYNJgITEg-WPuC-ohbb8_7tzUrYIJLSXk6ycHMt39p3tu98B_AxSCeelTKwJNpE-8KRUqUlcLix610WFjfZlDhyvc2EorDLGBcZXfHSQ7ANVRwt4ZEeRPPUz2Zf9-riDphT19y5_gYsioIQyvm6WMinTiPBfb7N1qOGr7TbakLNPcL_-ewwdoYIF_8bQH0fcwghWscZo_I-R7sB241qyYa0Ln-FDNduF_SYxgfVYk3lEkmDNkv4CXy_nsU9GSQ9LNkGpM7TW2R7cnp3ejC6SplhCMhWKi6RSJrUK3SePDoPlohImFBlOuMg9l9xwh45KKbhzmRG5Et4VXCq05iVV3rDF4BswYYMfBJtXBZ7KitSXyuRW2SLnIRNe-g70aD414UbMKDDF1ZcbGgcyutJDQrsfED5NBw7bjFPzvFzq4nzyPtP4-rLFdNQwhflqYZxpsgbms4qAq1qcvRbntIbtfoux22LE9eRan1kUq36s4T70X5nqTGqpc449rBVJN0t-qQl1aECnRfH9_R5-wBbJkmLOhOjC5mrxXO3DJqncAWyou5MD-DicXE_G2Do5HSH9lf4myq-ICqKo-X8AcmsAyA

   Phenix, Katharine; Kirchhoff, Liz; Caplinger, Victoria; Hayman, Stacey...

   Reference And User Services Quarterly, Vol. 54, Issue 4, pp. 61 - 62.

   The Notable Books Council, a group of readers' advisory experts within the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), a division of the American Library Association, has announced its selectio... Read more

   The Notable Books Council, a group of readers' advisory experts within the Reference and User Services Association (RUSA), a division of the American Library Association, has announced its selections for the 2015 Notable Books List. Since 1944, the goal of the Notable Books Council has been to make available to the nation's readers a list of about twenty-five very good, very readable, and at times very important fiction, nonfiction, and poetry books for the adult reader. A book may be selected for inclusion on the Notable Books List if it possesses exceptional literary merit, expands the horizons of human knowledge, makes a specialized body of knowledge accessible to the nonspecialist, has the potential to contribute significantly to the solution of a contemporary problem, or presents a unique concept. Navigating the dark of World War II, a German boy and a French girl survive using senses other than sight. Australian beaches, Burmese jungles, love and death permeate a story of World War II POWs. German spies collaborate to unleash a campaign of terror in the United States at the start of World War I. Bragg, Rick. Read less

   Journal Article  |  Full Text Online

2. Juries and the Death Penalty 1980

   https://ncsu.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwvV07T8MwED7RsrDwKEgUAvKAEBIyjZ00cUZeFSAGJECMkR3bC7RUfQj1v_BjOSex2gqQmBjjRHZyvpw_-767AziyccoLHcdUSatorC2jWRpKWiRcIboWBi-WD3Ng6GNhagmOzxytCt-oNNbu73an0Z3aydgpK6Qj1hdlSizUQ9zTT_p5dd7ty2q4Fuegnvadb7twjMgZ9fFtDVjFxU04Etjjxe3cdkd1jT1H9MIBfJjNj2MuL2VzfOopYbxepXob8Om_rySnuJIIiyz9TpkZsUyH4bNA_qcsNmG9Rr_kvFLXLVgxgxY07uVHC4IqUJi8mDcrR4YcE9_wPnrdhuDO1dYbEznQBDEruXLQlTwY7G4y24Hn3vXT5Q2tKzvQAk3EhMpYGqYL1ARbIP6LstAkTEdGZV1lUm1cmrjYRkkYpdwiwGNKMc0Lq9EmJsKm0S4QrqyOrEqMwC2kCHWWykSlSiTMdrmOdRtO_ezkwypzR858cvNvMmtD4Ccw93J3rj7B0YDFrA0nbhIWbv3a097fH92HNZaJsOIGBtCcjKbmAJpOLQ5LvfwC6HfzMg

   Haney, Craig

   Crime And Delinquency, Vol. 26, Issue 4, pp. 512 - 527.

   Logically, it would seem that capital juries must be at least as fair, im partial, and representative as juries that sit in ordinary criminal prose cutions. But there is much evidence to suggest th... Read more

   Logically, it would seem that capital juries must be at least as fair, im partial, and representative as juries that sit in ordinary criminal prose cutions. But there is much evidence to suggest that this is not the case. In Witherspoon v. Illinois, the Supreme Court examined the process of "death qualification" used to impanel capital juries. The Court approved the exclusion of prospective jurors whose opposition to the death penalty would make it impossible for them to decide upon guilt fairly and im partially, but left open the question of whether the exclusion of others who would not consider imposing the death penalty under any circum stances violated the defendant's constitutional rights. Since Witherspoon, death qualification has been extensively studied. It has been found to affect both the composition of the jury panel that re sults and, through the process itself, jurors who are exposed to the pro cedure. The exclusion of characteristics or attitudes linked with opposi tion to the death penalty has meant that capital juries are unrepresentative of the community at large, predisposed to support the prosecution, and predisposed to convict persons brought before the court. The process of death qualification creates a second source of bias: Prolonged exposure to discussion of the penalty at the outset of jury qualification suggests that the defendant's guilt is presumed by the attorneys and judge, increases the acceptability of pro-death penalty attitudes, and has been shown to in crease both the likelihood that jurors will convict and their willingness to vote for the death penalty in hypothetical cases. A number of recommendations are. discussed as means of creating fairness in capital juries. 1. Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78 (1970); and Apodaca v. Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972). 2. Duncan v. Louisiana, 391 U.S. 145, 149 (1968), the case that extended Sixth Amendment rights to a jury trial in state courts. 3. Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128, 130 (1940). 4. Taylor v. Louisiana, 419 U.S. 522, 530 (1975). 5. Chief Judge David Bazelon, dissenting in United States v. Dougherty, 473 F.2d 1113 (D.C. Cir. 1972). 6. Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 156 (1878). 7. Duncan v. Louisiana, at 156. 8. Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U.S. 217, 277 (1946) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 9. Williams v. Florida, at 100. 10. Gardner v. Florida, 97 S. Ct. 1197, 1207 (1977). 11. Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968). 12. Ibid., at 522, note 21. 13. Three distinct groups of people can be identified whose death penalty opposition might have very different implications for their role as jurors: (1) persons whose opposition would allow them to consider imposing the death penalty under certain circumstances, (2) persons who could not consider imposing it under any circumstances, and (3) persons whose opposition to the death penalty would make it impossible for them to decide upon guilt fairly and impartially. Witherspoon definitely excluded the third group, included the first, and reached no definite and final conclusion about how to handle the second group. 14. Witherspoon v. Illinois, at 520, note 18. 15. Two of those studies were subsequently published: Faye Goldberg, "Toward Expansion of Witherspoon: Capital Scruples, Jury Bias, and the Use of Psychological Data to Raise Presump tions in the Law," Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Review, vol. 5 (1970), pp. 53-69; Hans Zeisel, Some Data on Juror Attitudes toward Capital Punishment (Chicago: Center for Studies of Criminal Justice, University of Chicago Law School, 1968). Cody Wilson's "Belief in Capital Punishment and Jury Performance," written in 1964, has not been published. 16. Witherspoon v. Illinois, at 518, note 11. See also Michael Meltsner, Cruel and Unusual: The Supreme Court and Capital Punishment (New York: William Morrow, 1973), pp. 118-25. 17. Witherspoon v. Illinois, at 517. 18. The existing research on this topic was presented and discussed in elaborate detail in an evidentiary hearing to limit death qualification in People v. David Moore and Kenneth Moore (Alameda County Superior Court No. 67113) in August and September, 1979. The evidentiary record in that case was incorporated into the record of Hovey v. Superior Court (Alameda County Superior Court No. H-1440), and argued before the California Supreme Court on May 8, 1980). [The case was decided by the California Supreme Court on August 28, 1980. Because we were going to press, Professor Haney was unable to consider the California decision in the present article.-Ed.] 19. A series of extremely sophisticated and as yet unpublished studies on this topic have been conducted by Professor Phoebe Ellsworth and her colleagues: Claudia Cowan, Robert Fitzgerald, and William Thompson. The definitive presentation of these studies is, of course, best left to Professor Ellsworth herself. I will refer to them only in passing in the pages that follow, but note here that the results of her studies are consistent in all important respects with the earlier pub lished research. 20. Procedures for selecting a jury-called voir dire (from the French: "to speak truthfully")— vary widely. Typically, after some preliminary remarks by the judge, questions are asked of the jury panel members, either by the attorneys for both sides or by the judge. The answers given by prospective jurors, or "venirepersons," form the basis for challenges by either side to exclude different persons; through this process of elimination a jury is selected. "Peremptory challenges," for which attorneys need give no justification, are limited in number. "Cause challenges," un limited in quantity, must be based upon specified legal grounds, and tend to be raised successfully only rarely. (Death qualification creates an additional category for cause challenges in capital cases, one whose size will vary as a function of death penalty opposition in a given jurisdiction.) For an excellent discussion of voir dire practices and techniques, see Beth Bonora and Elissa Krause, eds., Jurywork: Systematic Techniques (Berkeley, Calif.: National Jury Project, 1979). 21. Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 503-04 (1972). 22. For a partial summary of these data, see Tom Smith, "A Trend Analysis of Attitudes toward Capital Punishment," in Studies of Social Change since 1948, James David, ed. (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center Report 127B, 1976). 23. Concern for the presence of blacks and women in jury panels, as part of the cross-section of the community, predates even more contemporary concern for the representation of these groups in other contexts. See, for example, Smith v. Texas, 311 U.S. 128 (1940) (racial groups), and Ballard v. United States, 329 U.S. 187 (1946) (women). 24. See, for example, Hayward Alker, Carl Hosticka, and Michael Mitchell, "Jury Selection as a Biased Social Process," Law and Society Review, Fall 1976, pp. 9-41. 25. Lord Edward Coke, Commentary upon Littlejohn. Revised by F. Hargrave and C. Butler (Philadelphia: Robert Small, 1853), vol. I, L.Z.C. 12, sec. 234, 155b. 26. Murphy v. Florida, 421 U.S. 794, 800, n. 4 (1975). 27. Edward Bronson, "On the Conviction Proneness and Representativeness of the Death- Qualified Jury: A Study of Colorado Veniremen," University of Colorado Law Review, vol. 42 (1970), pp. 1-32. 28. The Harris surveys were conducted in the two years following Witherspoon (Louis Harris & Associates Study No. 2016), and are discussed in part in Welsh White, "The Constitutional Invalidity of Convictions Imposed by Death-Qualified Juries," Cornell Law Review, July 1973, pp. 1176-220. 29. Bronson's follow-ups were done with a total of 1,462 respondents sampled from jury panels in several different California counties. 30. For example, Robert Fitzgerald and Phoebe Ellsworth, "Due Process v. Crime Control: The Impact of Death Qualification on Jury Attitudes" (unpub., 1979). See also Robert Buckhout and E. Baker, "Juror Attitudes and the Death Penalty," Social Action and the Law, vol. 3 (1977), pp. 80-81. 31. Duncan v. Louisiana, at 156. 32. For a demonstration of the relationship between juror attitudes and verdict, see Virginia Boehm, "Mr. Prejudice, Miss Sympathy, and the Authoritarian Personality: An Application of Psychological Measuring Techniques to the Problem of Jury Bias," Wisconsin Law Review, 1968, pp. 734-00. 33. See, for example, Jerome Bruner, "On Perceptual Readiness," Psychological Review, vol. 64 (1957), pp. 123-52; and Hans Toch and Richard Schulte, "Readiness to Perceive Violence as a Result of Police Training," British Journal of Psychology, vol. 52 (1961), pp. 389-93. 34. In addition to the Goldberg, Zeisel, and Wilson studies referred to above (see note 15), the following reach the same conclusion with respect to the conviction proneness of juries that have been death qualified: George Jurow, "New Data on the Effects of a 'Death-Qualified' Jury on the Guilt Determination Process," Harvard Law Review, January 1971, pp.'567-611; Louis Harris Study No. 2016; and Claudia Cowan, William Thompson, and Phoebe Ellsworth, "Juror At titudes and Conviction Proneness: The Relationship between Attitudes toward the Death Penalty and Predisposition to Convict" (unpub., 1979). 35. For example, Jurow found that persons most in favor of the death penalty convicted at a rate of upwards of 80 percent on both cases, while persons excludable under Witherspoon (i.e., who could never vote for the death penalty regardless of the facts and circumstances of the case) convicted at rates of 33 percent and 43 percent (in the first and second cases, respectively). The overall relationship between death penalty attitude and conviction proneness found by Jurow was statistically significant in the first case but not in the second (although it was in the predicted direction). This pattern should not be surprising. We would not expect verdict always to be a clear function of death penalty attitudes; for example, where the evidence i Read less

   Journal Article  |  Full Text Online

See 2 article results