Last updated 27/06/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 01 July 2024
A question of interest to political and legal scholars is: Does experience in a judicial role produce political perceptions and attitudes which systematically differ from those produced by the lawyer-advocate (nonjudicial) role? To date, the efforts of the judicial behaviorists have centered on an elicitation of attitudes from either judges or advocates, but few studies have been structured to examine both roles in respect to a common stimuli set. A rare opportunity to make such a comparative survey presented itself to the investigators in conjunction with their participation in a more extensive study of state constitutional conventions. In conjunction with a study of the New York Constitutional Convention of 1966-67, interviews were conducted with 175 of the 186 delegates to that convention. Of these 175 delegates, 22 were judges and 101 were lawyers. This situation was unique, for it allowed a direct comparison
AUTHORS' NOTE: The authors are grateful to the Carnegie Corporation of New York, which is sponsoring a comparative behavioral study of state constitutional conventions. Research is completed in Rhode Island, New York, Maryland, and Kentucky; it is under way or in design for Hawaii, Connecticut, Illinois, and New Mexico. All data are processed at the Brown University Computing Lab; those presented here were analyzed with original crosstab program “Interview” written by Richard Croteau for the IBM 360/50.
