近20年来美国法律社会心理学研究新进展

20世纪80年代以来美国法律社会心理学在陪审团、证人证言、公民对犯罪的态度等方面的研究取得了一些新成果。从这些新成果可以看出,该领域的研究者们更注重将社会心理学与法学的观点和研究视角相结合,使自己的理论成果更符合实践要求。     

Characterization Classes Defined without Equality

In this paper we mainly deal with first-order languages without equality and introduce a weak form of equality predicate, the so-called Leibniz equality. This equality is characterized algebraically by means of a natural concept of congruence; in any structure, it turns out to be the maximum congruence of the structure. We show that first-order logic without equality has two distinct complete semantics (fll semantics and reduced semantics) related by the reduction operator. The last and main part of the paper contains a series of Birkhoff-style theorems characterizing certain classes of structures defined without equality, not only full classes but also reduced ones.     

A Defence of Jury Nullification

In both Great Britain and the United States there has been a growing debate about the modern acceptability of jury nullification. Properly understood, juries do not have any constitutional right to ignore the law, but they do have the power to do so nevertheless. Juries that nullify may be motivated by a variety of concerns: too harsh sentences, improper government action, racism, etc. In this article, I shall attempt to defend jury nullification on a number of grounds. First, I discuss the use of general verdicts and reject their replacement in criminal trials by special verdicts. Second, I examine verdicts based upon mistakes and racial prejudice, turning my attention to perverse verdicts and the question of whether or not juries are guilty of legislating when nullifying the law. Finally, I look at the problem of the awarding of excessive damages by juries. My goal will be to provide a sound theoretical defence of the practice of jury nullification.R. Pound, Law in Books and Law in Action, American Law Review 44 (1910),18.The term jury nullification is synonymous with jury equity. The use of jury nullification has been suspected of playing a role in the infamous trials of O. J. Simpson and Rodney King in the last decade. See People v Simpson, No. BA097211 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1995); People v Powell, No. BA035498 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1991).     

Juror Perceptions in a Rape Trial: Examining the Complainant's Ingestion of Chemical Substances Prior to Sexual Assault

This study examined the impact of a rape complainant's willingness to ingest a chemical substance and the type of ingested substance on the decisions of 229 mock jurors. Jurors were influenced by the type of substance used by the complainant, the complainant's willingness to use a substance, and rape myths. The complainant's ingestion of alcohol (compared to gamma-hydroxybutrate [GHB] and marijuana) led to the highest guilt ratings for the defendant. The complainant who willingly ingested a substance was viewed as less credible and more to blame for the rape compared to one who unwillingly used a substance. The complainant was perceived as the most credible when she unwillingly ingested GHB or marijuana. Jurors high in rape myth acceptance gave lower ratings of guilt to the defendant compared to jurors with lower rape myth acceptance. Overall, the results highlight several juror and case factors that might bias jurors in actual rape trials.