Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-02T14:21:00.389Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Sociology of Law: Where We Have Been and Where We Might Be Going

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 July 2024

Rita J. Simon  and
James P. Lynch
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This review of work and trends in the sociology of law makes no claims to being exhaustive or comprehensive. If it succeeds in pinpointing and highlighting major work, important problems, and gaps in the field, in showing trends that have developed, and in suggesting ideas for future direction, we shall have accomplished our objectives.

Type
Research Article
Information
Law & Society Review , Volume 23 , Issue 5 , 1989 , pp. 825 - 847
Copyright
Copyright © 1989 The Law and Society Association.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

BALL, Harry (1965) “Preface and Acknowledgment,” Law and Society: A Supplement to the Summer Issue of Social Problems.Google Scholar
BIDERMAN, Albert D., and David, CANTOR (1984) “A Longitudinal Analysis of Bounding, Respondent Conditioning and Mobility as Sources of Panel Bias in the NCS,” Procedures of American Statistical Association, Survey Methods Section. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
BIDERMAN, Albert D., and James P., LYNCH (1981) “Recency Bias in Data on Self-Reported Victimizations,” Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Social Statistics Section. Washington, DC: American Statistical Association.Google Scholar
BLACK, Donald (1976) The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
BLAUSTEIN, Albert, and Charles, PORTER (1954) The American Lawyer. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
BUMILLER, Kristin (1988) The Civil Rights Society: The Social Construction of Victims. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
CARLIN, Jerome E. (1962) Lawyers on Their Own. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.Google Scholar
CURRAN, Barbara A. (1977) The Legal Needs of the Public: The Final Report of a National Survey. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
DIAMOND, Shari Seidman (1982) “Growth and Maturation in Psychology,” 17 Law and Society Review 1.Google Scholar
FELSTINER, William, Richard, ABEL, and Austin, SARAT (1980–81) “The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes: Naming, Blaming and Claiming,” 15 Law and Society Review 631.Google Scholar
FRIEDMAN, Lawrence M. (1986) “The Law and Society Movement,” 38 Stanford Law Review 3.Google Scholar
GOTTFREDSON, Michael, and D. M., GOTTFREDSON (1980) Decisionmaking in Criminal Justice: Toward a Radical Exercise of Discretion. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.Google Scholar
GREENBERG, David F. (1983) “Donald Black's Sociology of Law: A Critique,” 17 Law and Society Review 2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HALLIDAY, Terrence (1987) Beyond Monopoly: Lawyers, State Crisis, and Professional Empowerment. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
HASTIE, R., and S., PENROD and P., PENNINGTON (1983) Inside the Jury. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
HEINZ, John P., and Edward O., LAUMANN (1982) Chicago Lawyers: The Social Structure of the Bar. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
HOROWITZ, Allan V. (1983) “Resistance to Innovation in the Sociology of Law: A Response to Greenberg,” 17 Law and Society Review 2.Google Scholar
KALVEN, Harry, and Hans, ZEISEL (1966) The American Jury. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
LADINSKY, Jack (1963) “Careers of Lawyers, Law Practice and Legal Institutions,” 28 American Sociological Review 1– 6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaVANGE, Lisa, and Ralph E., FOLSOM (1985) Development of NCS Error Adjustment Models. Research Triangle Park, NC: Research Triangle Institute.Google Scholar
LEVINE, Felice, and Deborah, PRESTON (1970) “Community Resource Orientation among Low Income Groups,” 1970 Wisconsin Law Review.Google Scholar
LORTIE, Dan (1959) “Layman to Lawman: Law School Careers and Professional Education,” 29 Harvard Education Review 352.Google Scholar
MARKS, Raymond (1971) The Legal Needs of the Poor: A Critical Analysis. Chicago: American Bar Foundation.Google Scholar
MAYHEW, Leon, and Albert J., REISS Jr. (1969) “The Social Organization of Legal Contacts,” 34 American Sociological Review 3.Google Scholar
MILLER, Richard, and Austin, SARAT (1980–81) “Grievances, Claims, and Disputes: Assessing the Adversary Culture,” 15 Law and Society Review 525.Google Scholar
O'GORMAN, Hubert J. (1963) Lawyers and Matrimonial Cases. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.Google Scholar
REISS, Albert J. (1982) Victimization Productivity in Proxy Interviews. New Haven, CT: Institute for Social and Policy Studies.Google Scholar
SAKS, Michael (1977) Jury Verdicts. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Google Scholar
SCHWARTZ, Richard D. (1966) “From the Editor,” 1 Law and Society Review 1.Google Scholar
SELZNICK, Philip (1959) “Sociology of Law,” in Merton, Robert K., Brown, Leonard, and Cottrell, Leonard (eds.), Sociology Today. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
SIMON, Rita J. (1967) The Jury and the Defense of Insanity. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
SKOLNICK, Jerome H. (1965) “The Sociology of Law in America: Overview and Trends,” Law and Society: A Supplement to the Summer Issue of Social Problems.Google Scholar
SMIGEL, Erwin O. (1964) The Wall Street Lawyer. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
THIELENS, Wagner (1957) “Some Comparisons of Entrants to Medical and Law Schools,” in Merton, Robert K. et al. (eds.), The Student Physician: Introductory Studies in the Sociology of Medical Education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
TREMPER, Charles Robert (1987) “Sanguinity and Disillusionment Where Law Meets Social Science,” 11 Law and Human Behavior 4.Google Scholar
TRUBEK, David (1980–81) “Studying Courts in Context,” 15 Law and Society Review 3–4.Google Scholar