Showing papers on "Supreme court published in 1992"

The Etiology of Public Support for the Supreme Court

Abstract: The Supreme Court, like all political institutions, requires some minimal level of support because, as the high bench performs its political and constitutional roles, the justices must on occasion stand against the winds of public opinion. With data from a recent national survey, we reexamine the levels, sources, and explanations of public support for the Supreme Court. Since racial differences in attitudes toward the Court are so great, we focus here only on the attitudes of white U.S. citizens. Our purposes are both substantive and methodological. On the substantive front, we examine changes in the etiology of support. We investigate the traditional explanations of diffuse support, but, more important, we introduce and evaluate the power of a new set of variables, political values. These political values do an uncommonly good job of predicting attitudes toward the Court. In addition, we devote particular attention to the important role of "opinion leaders" as supporters of the Court. These leaders relate to the Court in a fashion very different from that of the mass public. On the methodological front, we offer an alternative means of thinking about and capturing diffuse support for the Court among the mass public. We close with speculations about the process by which diffuse support for the Court changes over time and, more generally, the implications of attitudes among the mass public and opinion leaders for the functioning of the Supreme Court.

Deciding to Decide: Agenda Setting in the United States Supreme Court

Abstract: Jurisdiction and procedure the internal process special situations indices and signals bargaining, negotiation and accommodation strategy certworthiness a decision model. Appendix: an extended discussion of jurisdiction.

Copyright Protection of Letters, Diaries, and Other Unpublished Works: An Economic Approach

Abstract: ONE Of the more controversial questions in copyright law today concerns the proper scope of protection for unpublished works, such as letters, diaries, journals, reports, or drafts that the copyright owner may publish in the future. The question is not whether such works are copyrightable, for they surely are. Rather, it is whether such works should be given, as they are today, stronger copyright protection than published or widely disseminated works. Interest in this area of copyright law is the result of several recent and widely discussed cases. In Harper & Row v. Nation Interprises,' an unnamed source provided the Nation magazine with galleys of the soon-to-be published memoirs of Gerald Ford. Paraphrasing and quoting from the memoirs, the Nation rushed into print what it believed to be a "hot" article on Ford's decision to pardon Richard Nixon. Harper & Row had earlier sold prepublication rights to Time magazine for $25,000, but, after the Nation's article appeared, Time canceled its contract to publish excerpts from the forthcoming memoirs. In ruling against the Nation, the Supreme Court held that the unpublished nature of the work was a key factor negating a defense of fair use. Two more recent cases involved the rights of biographers to quote

On the nature of supreme court decision making

Abstract: How does the U.S. Supreme Court reach decisions? Since the 1940s, scholars have focused on two distinct explanations. The legal model suggests that the rule of law (stare decisis) is the key determinant. The extralegal model posits that an array of sociological, psychological, and political factors produce judicial outcomes. To determine which model better accounted for judicial decisions, we used Supreme Court cases involving the imposition of the death penalty since 1972 and estimated and evaluated the models' success in accounting for decisional outcomes. Although both models performed quite satisfactorily, they possessed disturbing weaknesses. The legal perspective overpredicted liberal outcomes, the extralegal model conservative ones. Given these results, we tested another proposition, namely that extralegal and legal frameworks present codependent, not mutually exclusive, explanations of decision making. Based on these results, we offer an integrated model of Supreme Court decision making that contemplates a range of political and environmental forces and doctrinal constraints.

Congressional control or judicial independence : the determinants of U.S. Supreme Court labor relations decisions, 1949-1988 / 1637

Abstract: Extending the approach to congressional and regulatory institutions developed by Shepsle and Weingast, this article introduces an ideologically motivated judiciary. The model yields empirically refutable implications which are then tested in the framework of modelling the Court's decisions on industrial labor relations. Using information on politicians' ADA scores, the composition of the Court, and the decisions of the Court, we obtain estimates of (a) the position of the Court in relation to the relevant members of Congress, and (b) the determinants of labor policy through the years. We find, first, that the Court was constrained by Congress over at least half of the period. Second, a 10-point increase in the ADA rating of the relevant member of Congress, or in the imputed ADA rating of the Supreme Court, increases the probability of a pro-union decision by approximately eight percentage points. Third, the imputed political preferences of the Court seem to be well explained simply by its political composition. Fourth, the Court does not seem to defer to the NLRB. Finally, though parsimonious, our model is a relatively good predictor of the Court's decisions, and superior to both a simple political bargaining model without institutional content and a nonsophisticated or purely legalistic judicial decision-making model. Our results, then, suggest that the Court responds, albeit indirectly, to interest group pressures.

A Spatial Model of Roll Call Voting: Senators, Constituents, Presidents, and Interest Groups in Supreme Court Confirmations

Abstract: We test a spatial model of Supreme Court confirmation votes that examines the effects of (1) the ideological distance between senators' constituents and nominees, (2) the personal ideologies of senators, (3) the qualifications of the nominee, (4) the strength of the president, and (5) the mobilization for and against nominees by interest groups. The data consist of the 1,475 individual confirmation votes from the 1955 nomination of John Harlan until the 1987-88 nomination of Anthony Kennedy (voice votes excluded). All of the above factors significantly affect confirmation voting. The model explains 78% of the variance in senators' decisions, predicts 92% of the individual votes correctly, and predicts all of the aggregate outcomes correctly.

Ideology, Status, and The Differential Success of Direct Parties Before the Supreme Court

Abstract: A substantial literature on lower federal courts and state courts suggests that the "haves" usually come out ahead in litigation because they possess superior resources for it and they reap advantages from their repeat player status. We investigate the success of 10 categories of litigants before the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts to determine whether the resources or experience of litigants has effects on Supreme Court outcomes paralleling those found in the courts below. While different categories of litigants are found to have very different rates of success, those differences do not consistently favor litigants with greater resources. A time series analysis of the success of different categories of litigants over the 36 years studied suggests that the changing ideological complexion of the Court has a greater impact on the success of litigants than differences among litigants in resources and experience. W e examine the impact of litigant status and the changing ideology of the U.S. Supreme Court on differences in the success rates of direct parties before the Court. Simply, we seek to explain why some categories of litigants win more frequently than others when appearing before the Court. Previous explanations have attributed differential success rates in lower federal courts to, inter alia, disparities between litigants of different status in judicial experience and resources. We argue, however, that differential success rates in Supreme Court decisions have more to do with the ideological composition of the Court and the Court's receptivity to the different types of legal claims made by litigants of different status. Previous research indicates that the status of litigants before American courts has substantial influence on judicial outcomes. Higher-status parties enjoy significant advantages in appellate courts and usually win. This has been demonstrated in the U.S. courts of appeals (Sheehan and Songer 1989) and, to a lesser degree, in state supreme courts (Wheeler et al. 1987). Curiously, the impact of litigant status on

The Supreme Court and Legal Change : Abortion and the Death Penalty

Abstract: The authors analyze abortion and death penalty decisions by the Supreme Court and argue that they provide prime examples of abrupt legal change. After proposing that the strength of legal arguments has at least as much impact on Court decisions as do public opinion and justices' political beliefs, they focus on the way litigators propel certain issues onto the Court's agenda and seek to persuade the justices to affect legal change.

Integrating Alternative Approaches to the Study of Judicial Voting: Obscenity Cases in the U.S. Courts of Appeals

Abstract: This analysis explored the relative impact of various influences on judges' votes in obscenity decisions of the United States Courts of Appeals. It builds upon previous studies that have examined separately the effects of political attitudes, case characteristics, nature of the parties, changing Supreme Court precedent, and defenses raised by litigants. When examined individually, 18 variables from these five approaches were related to a statistically significant extent to judicial votes, but each variable still left much of the variance unexplained. To assess the relative contributions of each of the previously used approaches, an integrated multivariate model was created that combined the five approaches. This overall model correctly predicted close to 80% of the judges' votes with a reduction in error of 46%.

Judicial Independence and the Reality of Political Power

Abstract: Defining judicial independence as the ability of courts to make decisions in the short term without regard for the preferences of officeholders, this article empirically examines the conditions under which judicial independence is and is not likely to be found. Nine periods of intense congressional hostility to the Supreme Court are identified and Court reactions are chartered along a continuum from pure independence to total subservience. Examination of the historical record highlights five key factors related to independence and shows that judicial independence existed in only three of the periods. In the remaining six periods, the Court either refrained from hearing certain cases, issued opinions more in line with congressional preferences, or reversed itself. The article rejects the hypothesis of judicial independence, concluding that in times of congressional opposition to the Court, only under special conditions identified in the analysis will it retain its independence.

Blacks and the United States Supreme Court: Models of Diffuse Support

Abstract: Diffuse support is a central concept in efforts to explain institutional stability. Supportive attitudes constitute a reservoir of good will especially useful for institutional maintenance when political authorities make policies with which many disagree. Here we focus on diffuse support for the Supreme Court, an institution for which popular esteem is especially important, and direct our attention toward African Americans, one of the most important minorities in American politics. Using data from an unusually large national sample of blacks in 1987, we describe the attitudes of this group toward the Supreme Court and compare them to those of whites, and we also offer and test two competing theoretical accounts of support in this segment of the population. In contrast to earlier eras, blacks are on balance fairly positive toward the Court but they are decidedly less positive than are whites. We can explain a significant portion of the persistent support among blacks for the Court as a residue of positive ...

Protestant fundamentalism and the retributive doctrine of punishment

Abstract: In Gregg v. Georgia in 1976, the U.S. Supreme Court declared that public opinion, including the public's presumed desire for retribution, can be a legitimate basis for penal policy. Subsequently, the retributive doctrine has guided sentencing reform across the nation. But variation among the public in support for retribution as the goal of punishment and the effects of religion in shaping public sentiments about punishment have received little attention from researchers. Drawing from recent work on attribution theory and religion, this paper proposes and reports evidence that public support for the retributive doctrine is closely linked to affiliation with fundamentalist Protestant denominations and fundamentalist religious beliefs. The normative implications of such a connection are addressed.

The Oxford companion to the Supreme Court of the United States

Abstract: Offering a comprehensive and accessible guide to the most important judicial body in America, The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States is an indispensable resource for understanding the workings of American law. This new edition is the first substantial revision to the best-selling work first published back in 1992. The Court has continued to write constitutional history over the eleven years since publication of the first edition. Two new justices have joined the high court, more than 800 cases have been decided and a good deal of new scholarship has appeared on many of the topics central to the volume. In many cases, moreover, even though most of the new decisions themselves would not warrant a separate entry, the holdings associated with them have further defined crucial areas of constitutional law, such as abortion, freedom of religion, school desegregation, freedom of speech, voting rights, and the rights of the accused. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist presided over the impeachment trial of President Bill Clinton, and the Court as a whole played a decisive and controversial role in the outcome of the 2000 presidential election. Under Rehnquistss leadership, a bare majority of the justices have rewritten significant areas of the law dealing with federalism, sovereign immunity, and the commerce power. In total, nearly 100 new articles have been added to the companion, bringing the total to over 1200, ensuring the Oxford Companion remains the most authoritative and comprehensive guide available, and an ideal companion to Kermit Hall's The Oxford Companion to American Law.

Institutional Legitimacy, Policy Legitimacy, and the Supreme Court

Abstract: As they relate to the Supreme Court, institutional legitimacy and policy legitimacy have most frequently been studied in isolation. In this article, a holistic framework is proposed and examined. The political capital hypothesis holds that the Supreme Court can introduce institutional support in its efforts to generate legitimacy for particular policies, but that the Court risks its institutional backing by advancing controversial edicts. Therefore, institutional legitimacy functions as an expendable political capital with which the Supreme Court can confer some increment of policy legitimacy. Two experiments are conducted to test this dynamic, with results providing strong support for the hypothesized process of legitimation.

Dispute Resolution: Negotiation, Mediation, and Other Processes

Abstract: This edition retains the great features that have always made it a dependable source for students: - provides thorough, systematic coverage, moving from overviews to critical analysis to application to evaluation and practice - includes a wealth of simulations (both classic and new) and questions throughout; simulations allow students to evaluate, prepare for, and practice the various dispute resolution techniques - offers strong coverage of mediation, a growing area of ADR study - provides an ADR Research Guide in the Appendix - includes an updated Teacher's Manual with responses to every question posed in the text The Fifth Edition has been thoroughly updated to provide students with all the latest information, including: - a new Chapter 11 on importing and exporting mediation and dispute resolution techniques from/to other countries - important new Supreme Court and federal circuit court cases in arbitration, including the two newest Supreme Court cases in this area: Bazzle v. Green Tree Financial Corp. and Buckeye Check Cashing v. Cardegna - excerpts from and references to recent publications in ADR - new teaching questions to help emphasize important points in the material - new material on pressing issues in mediation, including whether lawyers engage in the unauthorized practice of law when representing clients outside the jurisdiction where they are licensed and whether mediators should be certified

The Solicitor General: The Politics of Law

Abstract: Acknowledgments Introduction: The Government's Lawyer 1. An Overview of the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States 2. The Cream of the Crop: The Fifth Floor of Justice 3. Untangling the Bramblebush: External Demands and Influences 4. Vested Interests: The Government as a Party Before the Supreme Court 5. Friend of the Court: The Government as Amicus 6. The Dilemma of Serving Two Masters: Strategies for Individual Rights Cases Conclusion: The Balancing Act: The Solicitor General and American Politics Appendix A: Solicitors General of the United States Appendix B: Organizational Charts Appendix C: Data Collection Notes Bibliography Index

Membership Change and Collective Voting Change in the United States Supreme Court

Abstract: Scholars and other observers of the Supreme Court generally perceive that change in the Court's membership is the primary source of change in its policies and decisional patterns. This article is an effort to test that perception by examining the sources of collective voting change in civil liberties decisions during the 1946-1985 terms of the Court. Focusing on periods of significant change in collective voting behavior during this era, the analysis shows that membership change was the primary source of voting change overall but that change in the voting behavior of continuing members played a major role in producing collective voting change during some periods.

Courting Constituents? An Analysis of the Senate Confirmation Vote on Justice Clarence Thomas

Abstract: The increasing public attention paid to Supreme Court nominations has elevated the salience of Senate confirmation battles, raising interesting questions about the impact of constituency preferences on senators' voting behavior. In this article, we explore this relationship using a logistical regression model to examine the impacts of African-American constituency size and the proximity of reelection on the roll call behavior of senators on the Clarence Thomas confirmation vote. Our analyses indicate that these factors were both statistically and substantively significant in the Thomas case. We conclude by discussing the theoretical and practical implications of such findings.

Sex, Lies, and the Public Sphere: Some Reflections on the Confirmation of Clarence Thomas

Abstract: The recent struggle over the confirmation of Clarence Thomas and the credibility of Anita Hill raises in a dramatic and pointed way many of the issues at stake in theorizing the public sphere in contemporary society. At one level, the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Hill's claim that Thomas sexually harassed her constituted an exercise in democratic publicity as it has been understood in the classical liberal theory of the public sphere. The hearings opened to public scrutiny a function of government, namely, the nomination and confirmation of a Supreme Court justice. They thus subjected a decision of state officials to the force of public opinion. Through the hearings, in fact, public opinion was constituted and brought to bear directly on the decision itself, affecting the process by which the decision was made as well as its substantive outcome. As a result, state officials were held accountable to the public by means of a discursive process of opinion and will formation. Yet that classical liberal view of the public sphere does not tell the

The legal consensus about foregoing life-sustaining treatment: its status and its prospects.

Abstract: The legal consensus that has evolved through adjudication and legislation since the Karen Quinlan case in 1976 is founded on the premise that there is a bright line between passive euthanasia and active euthanasia. Indeed, the term passive euthanasia is often eschewed in favor of less emotionally-laden terminology such as "forgoing life-sustaining treatment" or "terminating life support" so as to further sever any possible connection with active euthanasia. Legal approval has been bestowed upon passive euthanasia under certain circumstances while active euthanasia is routinely condemned. This consensus was put to a test in 1990 when the United States Supreme Court ruled on the Cruzan case. However, the Court's narrow decision did not upset the consensus, and in the most significant appellate decisions handed down by state courts since Cruzan, there has been a reaffirmation--and possibly even an extension--of the consensus. Two other threats to the legal consensus about forgoing life-sustaining treatment have begun to manifest themselves: the increasing pressure for mercy killing and "futility" cases. Both of these challenge the fundamental premises on which the consensus is grounded.

Making the Deal Stick: Enforcing the Original Constitutional Structure of Lawmaking in the Modern Regulatory State

Abstract: Today, most national public policy is made by administrative agency regulations and not by direct statutory enactment. The lawmaking role of agencies has complicated American constitutional law generally, presenting issues not anticipated by the framers of the Constitution. Two decisions of the Supreme Court in the 1980s significantly changed prior constitutional assumptions about the role of Congress and the judiciary in monitoring the lawmaking functions of agencies. In Immigration & Naturalization Service v. Chadha [462 U.S. 919 (1983)] and subsequent summary decisions, the Court effectively invalidated all statutory provisions that allow either house of Congress, or both acting in concert, to veto agency action without presentment to the president. The Court conceded that the "legislative veto" might serve useful purposes but argued that the original intent of the framers of the Constitution left it no other choice than to strike it down. In Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. [467 U.S. 837 (1984)], the Court held that agency interpretations of statutes they are charged with enforcing are binding on courts, unless inconsistent with the plain meaning of the statutory text. The Court invoked the original intent of the framers to argue that judges should defer to agency interpretations (unless clearly inconsistent with the statutory text enacted by Congress), because the popular accountability of the executive branch makes it a more appropriate forum for making policy choices than the courtroom.

Policy, Precedent, and Power: A Positive Theory of Supreme Court Decision-making

Abstract: Although it can be argued that legislative and judicial decision-makers preside over similar issue areas, the effects of the rules emanating from the two types of policy-makers can differ dramatically. The absence of consideration of this difference represents a major shortcoming in the literature. When Congress passes a law, that law affects everyone in the same way. That is, any individual engaged in an activity regulated by the law is constrained in the same way. Any law that discriminates arbitrarily among individuals is considered to be unconstitutional. Judicial policy decisions, however, need not demonstrate this universalistic quality. The actual decision handed down in a particular case is binding only on the participants in the case. The effect that the ruling will have on other

Leadership and Consensus on the U.S. Supreme Court

Abstract: For more than a century the members of the U.S. Supreme Court refrained from disagreeing with their brethren through written opinions. The Court exhibited a norm, or behavioral expectation, that limited the formal expression of conflict. Danelski's (1960) classic work on Court leadership suggests that high levels of consensus were due in large part to effective task and social leadership on the part of the chief justice. While Danelski and others have held Chief Justice Stone responsible for the transformation of the consensus norm in the twentieth century, the results of this analysis suggest that the leadership style of Chief Justice Hughes is critical to understanding the shift. Chief Justice Hughes precipitated a shift in the behavioral expectations among the justices, but the change was consolidated under the leadership of Chief Justice Stone. Other variables are explored to validate the prominent role of leadership in the decline of consensus.

Myths, Stereotypes, and Realities of Black Women: A Personal Reflection

Abstract: It is well over a year since the appointment of Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court. His appointment and the aftermath of the hearings remain controversial in the public's eye. The event is credited by feminists for energizing the women's movement. It was a catalyst for significant changes in the 1992 political arena. There has also been a substantial increase in the number of sexual harassment incidents reported. However, Anita Hill `s story represents more than sexual harassment for many Black women. The event serves as a painful reminder of how vulnerable they are especially when it comes to having their stories of sexual abuse heard and taken seriously. This article speaks to that pain and the complexity of understanding racism when entangled with sexism within the Black community.

Religion and Liberal Democracy

Abstract: It has been a while since Catholics were tarred and feathered or Mormons dispatched by militias and mobs on forced marches to Utah. True, hostility to minority religions has not disappeared entirely: Reverend Sun Myung Moon did time in federal prison for tax crimes, Shree Bhagwan Rashneesh left the country one step ahead of the law, and the International Society for Krishna Consciousness lies largely bankrupt, to name a few examples. But contemporary claims of religious oppression -are typically subtler than claims of outright persecution. For example, Professor Michael McConnell, my opponent in this debate, laments what he depicts as a relentless pattern of "secularization" in which "serious religion-religion understood as more than ceremony, as the guiding principle of life"-has been "shoved to the margins of public life."' This secularization, he suggests, is a result of the increasing displacement of religious functions by an expanding welfare state, coupled with two kinds of error by the Supreme Court: (1) it has granted too few religious exemptions from public laws under the Free Exercise Clause; and (2) it has too often excluded religion from public programs in the name of preventing establishment. Professor McConnell would read both Religion Clauses as requiring government to respect a single "baseline": "the hypothetical world in which individuals make decisions about religion on the basis of their own religious conscience, without the influence of government."2 On this view, the Court should mandate more exemptions and find fewer establishments in order to maintain religious pluralism. I disagree with both the diagnosis and the cure. To begin, I find any picture of rampant secularization difficult to square with numerous indicators of religion's lively role in contemporary Amer-

J. Edgar Hoover : the man and the secrets

Abstract: Shocking, grim, frightening, Curt Gentry's masterful portrait of America's top policeman is a unique political biography. From more than 300 interviews and over 100,000 pages of previously classified documents, Gentry reveals exactly how a paranoid director created the fraudulent myth of an invincible, incorruptible FBI. For almost fifty years, Hoover held virtually unchecked public power, manipulating every president from Franklin D. Roosevelt to Richard Nixon. He kept extensive blackmail files and used illegal wiretaps and hidden microphones to destroy anyone who opposed him. The book reveals how Hoover helped create McCarthyism, blackmailed the Kennedy brothers, and influenced the Supreme Court; how he retarded the civil rights movement and forged connections with mobsters; and what part he played in the investigations of President John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King Jr.

Supreme Court Decision Making: The Impact of Court Composition on State and Local Government Litigation

Abstract: This article examines the participation and success rates of state and local governments before the U.S. Supreme Court during 1953-1989. We find that they have experienced greater access to the Court over time, and that they have been winning an increasingly higher proportion of cases when appearing as direct parties, with some interesting variations depending on the type of case and litigants. Time-series analysis indicates that the most important factor in state and local success is the increasingly conservative ideology of the Court from the Warren years to the Rehnquist Court. An exception to improved performance is federalism cases. The findings have implications for the future character of American federalism and the development of a general model of judicial decision making.

Invention of Anthropology in British Columbia's Supreme Court: Oral Tradition as Evidence in Delgamuukw v. B.C.

Abstract: In the case of Delgamuukw v. 5.C., three anthropologists were among the witnesses asked to provide expert testimony. One purpose of their evidence was to provide the court with a minimal context for understanding how indigenous oral traditions demonstrate Aboriginal land ownership in north­ western British Columbia. Chief Justice Allan McEachern overwhelmingly rejected the evidence from anthropology. Then he went on to invent his own anthropology, proposing it as a framework for assessing evidence pre­ sented by Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en hereditary chiefs.1 Richard Daly, Antonia Mills, and Hugh Brody were the anthropologists who individually prepared detailed testimony. Each was cross-examined at length in court. The judge provided no serious discussion of either their written evidence or their sworn testimony; in fact, only Daly's evidence receives more than a sentence in the final judgment. The judge offers two complaints about Daly's evidence: first, that he shows bias because he cites the Statement of Ethics of the American Anthropological Association2 and, secondly, that his evidence is "exceedingly difficult to understand" ( McEachern : 51). Mills is likewise dismissed as being too closely identified with the plaintiffs and, for no apparent reason, Brody seems to have dropped out of the judgment entirely. In this way, more than 1,000 pages of written evidence and of three weeks' cross-examination are dismissed without further reference.

Law, social science and the “brainwashing” exception to the first amendment

Abstract: Litigation in the "cult wars" has shifted from "deprograming" cases to civil suits by ex-converts based on "brainwashing" claims, and to criminal defenses claiming incapacity due to cultic brainwashing. Early cases were decided on the basis of first amendment derivations barring judicial inquiries into conversion processes and religious authenticity. In 1988 the California Supreme Court carved out a narrow exception to this doctrine to be applied to circumstances where "coercive persuasion" is combined with concealment of a group's identity. The Court's opinion entailed characterizations of the process and consequences of brainwashing which are problematic from the standpoint of social science. Several key questions must be resolved before brainwashing theories can make a constructive contribution to litigation involving religious groups. These questions relate to broader issues involving the nature, causes and indicators of involuntariness, and the closely related problem of drawing the line or identifying the exact point on a continuum beyond which the means or intensity of indoctrination becomes incapacitating. Although the 1988 California decision did not resolve these issues, they were considered from 1988-91 by several courts making procedural rulings on the admissibility of "expert" testimony on brainwashing/psychologicd coercion. A concluding section relates this legal to the duality of 'soft' vs. 'hard' determinism in social science. Language: en