Difference between revisions of "Peyrot2001"
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Mark Peyrot; Stacy Lee Burns; |Title=Sociologists on trial: Theoretical competition and juror reasoning |Tag(s)=EMCA; Sociology; Trials...") |
AndreiKorbut (talk | contribs) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{BibEntry | {{BibEntry | ||
|BibType=ARTICLE | |BibType=ARTICLE | ||
| − | |Author(s)=Mark Peyrot; Stacy Lee Burns; | + | |Author(s)=Mark Peyrot; Stacy Lee Burns; |
| − | |Title=Sociologists on trial: | + | |Title=Sociologists on trial: theoretical competition and juror reasoning |
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Sociology; Trials; Reasoning; Witnesses; Crime | |Tag(s)=EMCA; Sociology; Trials; Reasoning; Witnesses; Crime | ||
|Key=Peyrot2001 | |Key=Peyrot2001 | ||
| Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
|Volume=32 | |Volume=32 | ||
|Number=4 | |Number=4 | ||
| − | |Pages= | + | |Pages=42–69 |
| − | |URL= | + | |URL=https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12108-001-1003-x |
| + | |DOI=10.1007/s12108-001-1003-x | ||
| + | |Abstract=This paper examines the work of sociologists as expert witnesses and how sociological theory is used in criminal trials. The study describes how alternative sociological theories were propounded by sociologist expert witnesses and used by competing lawyers to establish the correct understanding of the case. The paper indicates that the sociological testimony was relevant to the deliberations and verdicts and details how the judge’s and jurors’ practical treatment of the law and evidence reconciled the adversaries’ mutually exclusive, partisan positions and the theoretical bases for those positions. | ||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 12:12, 29 October 2019
| Peyrot2001 | |
|---|---|
| BibType | ARTICLE |
| Key | Peyrot2001 |
| Author(s) | Mark Peyrot, Stacy Lee Burns |
| Title | Sociologists on trial: theoretical competition and juror reasoning |
| Editor(s) | |
| Tag(s) | EMCA, Sociology, Trials, Reasoning, Witnesses, Crime |
| Publisher | |
| Year | 2001 |
| Language | English |
| City | |
| Month | |
| Journal | American Sociologist |
| Volume | 32 |
| Number | 4 |
| Pages | 42–69 |
| URL | Link |
| DOI | 10.1007/s12108-001-1003-x |
| ISBN | |
| Organization | |
| Institution | |
| School | |
| Type | |
| Edition | |
| Series | |
| Howpublished | |
| Book title | |
| Chapter | |
Abstract
This paper examines the work of sociologists as expert witnesses and how sociological theory is used in criminal trials. The study describes how alternative sociological theories were propounded by sociologist expert witnesses and used by competing lawyers to establish the correct understanding of the case. The paper indicates that the sociological testimony was relevant to the deliberations and verdicts and details how the judge’s and jurors’ practical treatment of the law and evidence reconciled the adversaries’ mutually exclusive, partisan positions and the theoretical bases for those positions.
Notes
