Search results

When someone’s actions deviate from the social norms of the majority, those actions may be used as the basis for criminal charges against the person, even when the person’s actions are considered innocent within his or her culture. This chapter examines the evidence that can be presented on behalf of a person wishing to invoke a cultural defense, and the author also shares her own experiences in utilizing the defense as an attorney. Cultural defenses can be effective; however, there are arguments both for and against its use. Also explained are processes of pretrial litigation, qualifying an expert witness, trial, sentencing, and appeals.

The very contextual nature of most mitigating evidence runs counter to America’s individualistic culture. Prior research has found that capital jurors are unreceptive to most mitigating circumstances, but no research has examined the capital sentencing decisions of trial judges. This study fills that gap through a content analysis of eight judicial sentencing opinions from Delaware. The findings indicate that judges typically dismiss contextualizing evidence in their sentencing opinions and instead focus predominately on the defendant’s culpability. This finding calls into question the ability of guided discretion statutes to ensure the consideration of mitigation and limit arbitrariness in the death penalty.

In this chapter, I address a number of the difficult questions surrounding the current decline of the American trial. I begin with a compressed and evaluative account of what the contemporary trial is for us. This involves both an account of what we do at trial and a more global account of its significance. I discuss some of the theoretical issues that such an account poses. I then provide a short account of how we have gotten to where we are (“the past”). I provide a summary of recent social scientific findings that suggest that the trial is in current decline and some preliminary speculations as to the explanations for that decline (“the future”). Finally, I suggest the happy possibility that explanation of the future may be quite limited in this matter.

This chapter examines jury nullification, through which American juries refuse to convict criminal defendants in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt to express disapproval of specific criminal laws or of their application to particular defendants, through the political theory of Carl Schmitt. It distinguishes liberal components of American jurisprudence, especially the rule of law, from democratic sovereignty, and shows how the two are in deep tension with one another. In light of this tension it argues that jury nullification amounts to democratic sovereignty applied counter to the liberal state in a way that paradoxically upholds individual liberty.

This chapter offers a reading of the inclusion of Susan Glaspell's short story, A Jury of Her Peers, in the casebook, Procedure. What does it mean that the editors turn to a secular, literary narrative to ground a consideration of “The Problem of Judgment?” How should we read the irony of the reading instructions they provide, which reproduce the blindness to form – to the significance of “trifles” – that the text describes? How do we read literature in the context of law? More specifically, what does attention to the form of the story yield for an understanding of legal judgment?

Building on sociological research that examines the allocation of rewards in peer evaluations, we argue that the recognition of cultural producers’ work varies with their status and social distance from the audience members who evaluate them. We study the influence of these two mechanisms within the context of the Norwegian advertising industry. Specifically, we looked at how cultural producers’ status and social distance from jury members affect their chances of being honored in “The Silver Tag” – one of the main digital advertising award contests in Norway – during the period 2003–2010. While our findings provide support for status-based rewards allocation, the positive effects of status may be more circumscribed than previously thought. When accounting for the existence of previous connections between audience members and cultural producers, we find that cultural producers are more or less likely to receive an accolade depending on their degree of separation from the audience members. By exposing network-based determinants of consecrating decisions, and suggesting that the positive effects of status may be more circumscribed than previously thought, our findings shed important light on the social foundations of evaluation and, more broadly, the mechanisms of reward allocation in cultural fields.

Who is ultimately responsible for the harms that befall us? Corporations who make dangerous products, or the consumers who use them? The answer to this question has a profound impact on how personal injury lawyers screen products liability cases. In this chapter, I analyze results from an experimental vignette study in which 83 lawyers were asked to evaluate a hypothetical products liability case. Half of the lawyers practice in states considered to be difficult jurisdictions for the practice of personal injury law due to tort reform and conservative political climates (Texas and Colorado), while the other half work in states that have been relatively unaffected by tort reform and are considered to be more “plaintiff friendly” (Pennsylvania and Massachusetts). While lawyers in reform states and non-reform states were equally likely to accept the hypothetical case with which they were presented, they approached the case in different ways, used different theories, and made different arguments in order to justify their acceptance of the case. Lawyers in states with tort reform were most likely to accept the case when they focused on the issue of corporate social responsibility – that is, what the defendant did wrong, how they violated the rules, and how they could have prevented the injury in question. Lawyers in non-reform states, however, were most likely to accept the case when they believed that jurors would feel sorry for the injured child and not find their client at fault for the injury.

Purpose: The purpose of this chapter is to identify innovative talent management strategies, programmes, and practices that hospitality companies use in order to identify, develop, and retain their talent. For this purpose, awardees of the Hospitality HR Award were analysed. The award is an established prize in the German-speaking area. General success factors for innovative talent management are identified and the results are compared to international research of talent management in hospitality organisations.

Methodology: The chapter uses a qualitative content analysis approach. All award winners of the Hospitality HR Award since its launch in 2013 (N=60) are analysed.

Findings: The award winners followed different talent management strategies (e.g. cultural and leadership development), programmes (e.g. apprenticeship development programmes), and practices (e.g. fast and digital recruiting processes). Reported outcomes ranged from higher job satisfaction and lower staff turnover to a better work–life balance. General success factors included, among others, the importance of alignment of owners’ and managers’ interests and an integrated view on talent management.

Practical implications: Many talent management strategies, programmes, and practices are specified that may inspire hospitality organisations to employ more innovative approaches to talent management.

Originality: This chapter provides systematic qualitative evidence for and adds to the limited body of knowledge on innovative talent management strategies, programmes, and practices of hospitality companies. Furthermore, the chapter considers both strategic and operational views on talent management.