The Reproducibility of Evolving Social Science Evidence and How It Shapes Equal Protection Jurisprudence

In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws establishing segregation in schools were unconstitutional, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. In its decision, the Court discussed and cited to social science evidence, which garnered criticism from many legal scholars and ignited...

Descripción completa

Guardado en:  
Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Azizi, Penney P. (Autor)
Tipo de documento: Electrónico Libro
Lenguaje:Inglés
Publicado: 2017
En:Año: 2017
Acceso en línea: Volltext (kostenfrei)
Verificar disponibilidad: HBZ Gateway

MARC

LEADER 00000cam a22000002c 4500
001 1866121014
003 DE-627
005 20250115054901.0
007 cr uuu---uuuuu
008 231018s2017 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c
035 |a (DE-627)1866121014 
035 |a (DE-599)KXP1866121014 
040 |a DE-627  |b ger  |c DE-627  |e rda 
041 |a eng 
084 |a 2,1  |2 ssgn 
100 1 |a Azizi, Penney P.  |e VerfasserIn  |4 aut 
245 1 4 |a The Reproducibility of Evolving Social Science Evidence and How It Shapes Equal Protection Jurisprudence 
264 1 |c 2017 
336 |a Text  |b txt  |2 rdacontent 
337 |a Computermedien  |b c  |2 rdamedia 
338 |a Online-Ressource  |b cr  |2 rdacarrier 
520 |a In Brown v. Board of Education, the Supreme Court ruled that state laws establishing segregation in schools were unconstitutional, overturning Plessy v. Ferguson. In its decision, the Court discussed and cited to social science evidence, which garnered criticism from many legal scholars and ignited a debate as to whether the use of such evidence had a place in Equal Protection jurisprudence. Over thirty years later, in McClesky v. Kemp, the Court rejected the incorporation of social science data in its decision and, instead, applied the Intent Doctrine. Since McClesky, the Court has consistently upheld the use of the Intent Doctrine in Equal Protection cases. Although the Court still continues to use the Intent Doctrine, newer findings suggest that implicit biases within the human mind may also factor into discriminatory effect and should be taken into consideration without opening up the floodgates and disrupting the courts. While the Court has nevertheless been apprehensive about incorporating such studies into their rulings because these studies are not easily replicated, social science data still has its merits. This Note will argue that as of now, the Intent Doctrine does not provide a fair and equitable court system. This Note will advocate that the Court should consider alternatives to the Intent Doctrine that takes into consideration social science evidence, which may serve as a springboard to help the Court avoid unintended discrimination in its Equal Protection jurisprudence 
856 4 0 |u https://core.ac.uk/download/230130440.pdf  |x Verlag  |z kostenfrei  |3 Volltext 
935 |a mkri 
951 |a BO 
ELC |a 1 
LOK |0 000 xxxxxcx a22 zn 4500 
LOK |0 001 4391801779 
LOK |0 003 DE-627 
LOK |0 004 1866121014 
LOK |0 005 20231018043630 
LOK |0 008 231018||||||||||||||||ger||||||| 
LOK |0 035   |a (DE-2619)CORE68246419 
LOK |0 040   |a DE-2619  |c DE-627  |d DE-2619 
LOK |0 092   |o n 
LOK |0 852   |a DE-2619 
LOK |0 852 1  |9 00 
LOK |0 935   |a core 
OAS |a 1 
ORI |a SA-MARC-krimdoka001.raw