The Jurisprudence of Interests

Cahn, Edmond; Schoch, M. Magdalena; Siches, Luis Recaséns; Cossio, Carlos; Azevedo, Juan Llambías de; Máynez, Eduardo García; Ireland, Gordon; Konvitz, Milton R.; deCapriles, Miguel A.; Hayzus, Jorge Roberto

doi:10.2307/1118215

Cited by 1 publication

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The prominent jurist Edmond Cahn (1955) was representative of a widespread opinion within law that supported the Brown v. Board o f Education decision but opposed the Court's mixing of law and social science. Their principal argument was that social science data are too inconsistent and undependable and that "shrewd resourceful lawyers can put a Brandeis brief together in support of almost any conceivable exercise of judgment" (Cahn, 1955, p. 154).…”

Section: The Brown Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Their principal argument was that social science data are too inconsistent and undependable and that "shrewd resourceful lawyers can put a Brandeis brief together in support of almost any conceivable exercise of judgment" (Cahn, 1955, p. 154). Both Cahn (1955) and Black (1960) offered compelling arguments that segregation, especially as practiced in the South, was inherently "unequal" and conferring of inferiority and humiliation. Then why did the Court not simply take judicial notice of that fact rather than invoking controversial scientific data?…”

Section: The Brown Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has become clear in the three decades since Brown v. Board of Education that as the power, sophistication, and reliability of many areas of social science research has grown, so has the scope of social scientists' role in judicial and legislative decision making. Like other "traditionalists" opposed to sociological jurisprudence, Cahn (1955) underestimated the legitimacy of modern social science methods and findings while overestimating "the Text" as "the beginning and also the end of [a judge's] process of judging. As he judges by it, he knows he will be judged by it" (p. 35).…”

Section: Post-brown Concerns With the Judicial Use Of Social Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use of social science in public interest litigation: A role for community psychologists

Perkins

1988

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article argues (to the legal community and especially to communityoriented psychologists) that, despite some philosophical and methodological differences between law and the social sciences, research in community psychology is an especially appropriate medium for deriving much of the expert testimony that is central to public interest~social change litigation. Judicial attitudes toward the use of social scientific knowledge throughout this century are discussed, with the landmark Brown v. Board of Education decision viewed as the turning point, not only for civil rights fitigation but also for the judicial recognition of social research. While the courtroom use of social science theories and testimony has generally expanded, community psychologists have yet to play as major a role as their method and field of inquiry warrant. It is concluded that community psychologists and those involved in public interest litigation need to pay closer and more systematic attention to one another's work.

show abstract

Section: The Brown Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Brown Decisionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Post-brown Concerns With the Judicial Use Of Social Sciencementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation