Library News & Events
You can browse for events by using the links below, or search our entire calendar by clicking here http://morris.law.yale.edu/iii/calendar/month.
In Backlash Politics: How Constitutional Litigation Has Advanced Marriage Equality in the United States, Professor William Eskridge, Jr. offers an account of marriage equality's constitutional success that includes an analysis of the risk that backlash politics poses to successful litigation-driven social movements. As Prof. Eskridge uses the term, the politics of backlash is a politics in which "people invest their identities and often their feelings of disgust into particular preferences." Eskridge warns that when a minority group triggers a politics of disgust, "the polity needs to move slowly and incrementally as it recognizes the just claims of the minority." Prof. Eskridge concludes that although constitutional litigation significantly advanced the cause of marriage equality, such success depends on the ability of litigators to minimize the risk of backlash.
Gerald N. Rosenberg, The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring About Social Change? (2d ed. 2008).
Linda Greenhouse & Reva B. Siegel, Before (and After) Roe v. Wade: New Questions about Backlash, 120 Yale L.J. 2028 (2011).
Scott L. Cummings & Douglas NeJaime, Lawyering for Marriage Equality, 57 UCLA L. Rev. 1235 (2010).
William N. Eskridge Jr., Channeling: Identity-Based Social Movements and Public Law, 150 U. Pa. L. Rev. 419 (2001).
Apologies for the inconvenience, but the reference desk will be closing early today, Tuesday 4/23/2013 and no reference services will be available.
Thanks for your understanding and Happy Researching!
Meet the author, Jonathan Macey, and listen to a conversation about his new book. Why did the financial scandals really happen? Why are they continuing to happen? In The Death of Corporate Reputation, Jonathan Macey reveals the real, non-intuitive reason, and offers a new path forward.
For over a century law firms, investment banks, accounting firms, credit rating agencies and companies seeking regular access to U.S. capital markets made large investments in their reputations. They treated customers well and sometimesendured losses in transactions or business deals in order to sustain and nurturetheir reputations as faithful brokers and “gate-keepers.” This has changed completely. The existing business model among leading participants in today’s capital markets no longer treats customers as valued clients whose trust must be earned and nurtured, but as one-off“counter-parties” to whom no duties areowed and no loyalty is required. The rough and tumble norms of the market-place have replaced the long-standingreputationalmodel in U.S. finance.
This book describes the transformation inAmerican financefrom the old reputational model to the existinglaissez fairemodel and argues that the change came as a result of threefactors: (1) the growth of reliance on regulation rather than reputation as the primary mechanism for protecting customers and (2) the increasing complexity of regulation, which made technical expertise rather than reputation the primary criterion on which customers choose who to do business with in today’s markets; and (3) the rise of the “cult of personality” on Wall Street, which has led to a secular demise in the relevance of companies’ reputations and the concomitant rise of individual “rain-makers” reputation as the basis for premium pricing of financial services. This compelling book will drive the debate about the financial crisis and financial regulation for years to come--both inside and outside the industry.
In his recent article in the Cornell Law Review Professor Jonathan Macey examines the process of "regulation by assimilation", arguing that assimilation is common in the financial world and has negative, unanticipated consequences.
"Regulation by assimilation" refers to the process by which government regulators mandate the use of certain market- and financial sector-generated devices and institutions. Examples of assimilated devices and institutions include credit ratings generated by credit ratings agencies (a.k.a. by regulators as Nationally Recognized Statistical Rating Organizations), Value at Risk (VaR) models, advisory and fairness opinions and audits of corporations' financial results by independent auditors.
Prof. Macey explains how regulation by assimilation weakens and corrupts the efficacy of the very devices and institutions that have been assimilated. His analysis indicates that the process of assimilation "was a major cause of the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008 because it distorted the ability of firms and markets to measure and assess the riskiness of their activities."
Frank Partnoy, Infectious Greed: How Deceit and Risk Corrupted the Financial Markets (2009).
Helen M. Bowers, Fairness Opinions and the Business Judgment Rule: An Empirical Investigation of Target Firms' Use of Fairness Opinions, 96 Nw. U. L. Rev. 567 (2002).
Jonathan R. Macey, The Death of Corporate Reputation: How Overregulation Has Destroyed Integrity on Wall Street (2013).
Theodore Eisenberg & Jonathan R. Macey, Was Arthur Anderson Different? An Empirical Examination of Major Accounting Firm Audits of Large Clients, 1 J. Empirical Legal Stud. 263 (2004).
Summer Access to Westlaw, LexisNexis, and Bloomberg
LEXISNEXIS & LEXIS ADVANCE
No registration for summer access is required if you already have a registered Lexis Advance ID.
Students will have unlimited access to be used for your academic, as well as any Summer Associate, Internship and Clerkship purposes. If you aren't a registered Lexis Advance user yet, please be reminded that you will need to be a registered Lexis Advance user to be able to access Lexis.com as well as Lexis Advance to conduct your legal research. Graduating 3Ls will have the same unlimited access to Lexis Advance through July 31st, 2013.
For questions and assistance, please contact Meredith Shuman, LexisNexis Representative.
WESTLAW & WESTLAWNEXT
Students may register for full Westlaw and WestlawNext summer access as long as you are requesting access for one of the following:
- Law Review and Journal Work
- Summer course work
- Project for a Professor
- Moot Court
- Unpaid Non-Profit Public Interest Internship/Externship or Pro Bono Work Required for Graduation
Graduating student passwords will expire end of May 2013. Graduating students can extend their passwords for bar preparation by registering for extended summer access here . If you have questions about Westlaw summer access, please contact Holly Rush, Westlaw representative.
All registered students will have unlimited Bloomberg access during summer. Graduating students will have unlimited and unrestricted Bloomberg access for 6 months following graduation. If you have a questions about Bloomberg summer access or need need to activate your Bloomberg law password, please contact our Bloomberg representative, Pamela Haahr.
For further information, please see the law library Summer Survival Skills 2013 page.
Meet the author, Logan Beirne and listen to a conversation about his new book. With commentary by William N. Eskridge, Jr.
'Blood of Tyrants' reveals the surprising details of our Founding Fathers' approach to government and this history's impact on today. Delving into the forgotten-and often lurid-facts of the Revolutionary War, Logan Beirne focuses on the nation's first commander in chief, George Washington, as he shaped the very meaning of the United States Constitution in the heat of battle.Key episodes illustrate how the Founders dealt with thorny wartime issues: Who decides war strategy? When should we use military tribunals over civilian trials? Should we inflict harsh treatment on enemy captives if it means saving American lives? How do we protect citizens' rights when the nation is struggling to defend itself? Beirne finds evidence in previously-unexplored documents such as General Washington's letters debating torture, an eyewitness account of the military tribunal that executed a British prisoner, Founders' letters warning against government debt, and communications pointing to a power struggle between Washington and the Continental Congress.Vivid stories from the Revolution frame Washington's pivotal role in the drafting of the Constitution. The Founders saw the first American commander in chief as the template for all future presidents: a leader who would fiercely defend Americans' rights and liberties against all forms of aggression. 'Blood of Tyrants' pulls the reader directly into the scenes, filling the void in our understanding of the presidency and our ingenious Founders' pragmatic approach to issues we still face today.
Apologies for the inconvenience, but the reference desk will be closed on Friday 3/29/2013 and no reference services will be available. Regular reference hours will resume Saturday 3/30/2013.
Enjoy your weekend and happy researching!
Library access hours remain the same during Spring Break. However, the Reference Desk has modified service hours (see detailed message below), and the Circulation Desk will be open from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. on Sundays during the break.
Reference Desk Hours: Spring Break
Monday - Friday: 9 am - 1 pm; 2 pm - 6 pm
Saturdays: 1 pm - 5 pm
Sunday: 12 pm - 8 pm
Weekday Reference Services
The Reference Desk will be staffed by a Law Librarian during Spring Break, Monday through Friday from 9 am - 1 pm and 2 pm - 6pm. Librarians will conduct reference from their offices, so please consult the sign at the Reference Desk or consult the Circulation Desk for directions. There will be no evening Reference Desk coverage during the week of Spring Break.
Weekend Reference Services
The Reference Desk will be staffed from 1 - 5 pm on Saturday, March 16 and from 12 pm - 8 pm on Sunday, March 17. Likewise, the Reference Desk will be staffed from 1 - 5 pm on Saturday, March 23 and from 12 pm - 8 pm Sunday, March 24.
IM (Instant Message) Reference
Monday - Friday: 9 am - 1pm; 2 pm - 6 pm
Saturdays: 1 pm - 5 pm
Sundays: 12 pm - 8 pm
Schedule a Reference Consultation with a Law Librarian
For More Information on our Services: See the Reference Department.
“Can neuroscience enhance justice?” The question posed by Judith G. Edersheim, JD, MD, was the resounding theme of New England Law School Library’s recent LLNE conference. As Edersheim* explained, advances in functional brain imaging (e.g., “being able to ask a question and watch parts of the brain light up”) have vastly expanded the field of neuroscience. Interactive brain measurement could enhance legal fact-finding and sentencing. As presenter Amanda Pustilnik, JD (Yale Law School),** explained, “the law depends, in some part, on models of the mind...” That attachment is the driving force behind this new area of legal practice and scholarship.
We can trace this trend back to the 1770s, according to Pustilnik. In the dwindling days of the French enlightenment, Pierre Cabanis, Baron d'Holbach, and others (see Martin) proposed material bases for thought and action. Since then, brain science has ebbed and flowed. Pustilnik suggested that “we are again in a materialist moment.” But she also cautioned that if jurists simply layer social categories (e.g., “terrorist”) onto natural brain structures, they will fall short like their Parisian forefathers. “Culturally constructed crimes cannot be mapped onto neural substrates,” she explained. Neural jurisprudence faces further limitations, according to Edersheim.
The use of brain images in court cases –particularly to abrogate criminal intent– is rarely advisable, according to Edersheim, because: scanners are indirect measures of how millions of neurons are firing; ‘average’ brains are statistically generated not anthropologically ‘discovered’; the colors used in scan output are artificially derived and can be misinterpreted (e.g., red doesn’t mean the tumor is malignant); we don’t yet know how much healthy parts of the brain can compensate for injured parts; neuroscience testimony can be more prejudicial than probative; compulsory brain scans might violate the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments; and more. Despite these cautions, she described a case in which neuroscience helped keep a relatively innocent man out of jail. But before we get to Mr. C. (that client), a revisionist history(-iography) of Julius Caesar might be the best case for the use of neuroscience in legal fact-finding.
The Ides of March might actually be lucky. At least that is what Harold J. Bursztajn, MD,*** would have us believe. For millennia, scholars have contended that Caesar fell prey to his enemies on that long-ago cursed day. But the full record undercuts that hypothesis. “A complete (patient) history always involves medical, legal, financial, physical, etc. evidence,” Bursztajn explained. In Caesar’s case, the record shows a man suffering from a degenerative form of epilepsy, embarrassed by his public incontinence, and well aware of the planned attack. That same ruler re-wrote his will shortly before the Ides, sent for his successor, cast off his guards, and walked to his death alone. “The Senate chamber was the worst place to assassinate anyone,” Bursztajn added. “It delegitimized the conspirators, it got Caesar his one last wish: immortality.” The revised story of Caesar, a passion of Bursztajn’s, is meant to drive home the larger point that neuroscience should be a constituent part of comprehensive bio-psycho-social fact-finding in medicine and the law. Edersheim concurs.
The case of Mr. C. takes up where Julius Caesar leaves off. Mr. C. was a well-regarded financial administrator who suddenly started hoarding his clients’ checks in a desk drawer. He neither spent nor bragged about the checks; he simply squirreled them away. Simultaneously, his squash buddy, a physician, noticed that Mr. C. could not return any ball hit to the northeast corner of the squash court. A brain scan revealed a tumor. It was removed and the strange behaviors stopped. Mr. C. could never explain why he kept those checks. The SEC suspended his license anyway, but prosecutors did not pursue the criminal case against him. “This was a good use of neuroscience,” Edersheim explained. “There was a focal neurological impairment, a known behavioral correlate, a clear before and after change, and the stakes were relatively low.” She contrasted this use of neuroscience evidence with “my brain made me do it” defenses of criminal behavior. Those defenses oversimplify the link between genes, proteins, brains, and behaviors. “Risk factors don’t cause behavior,” she emphasized. She added that juries and judges do not always know that: behavioral genetics research findings speak broadly about populations (i.e., not about individuals); that single genes do not explain/cause complex human social behaviors; that one’s environment affects and can alter one’s genes; that there is no linear pathway between genes and environmental stimuli; and more. Admitting those issues, the use of neuroscience in the law is still likely to grow, according to David Siegel**** and Wendy Wolf*****. In the case of juveniles, that might not be such a bad development.
If Julius Caesar and Mr. C.’s brains influenced their decision-making, wouldn’t we want to assess that evidence? In a series of recent decisions, the Supreme Court posed a similar (rhetorical) question. In Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005), Graham v. Florida (2010), J.D.B. v. North Carolina (2011), and Miller v. Alabama (2012), the court leveraged neuroscience to carve out exceptions for violent and non-violent juvenile criminal offenders (e.g., restrictions on life without parole and the death penalty). Recognizing that certain bio-cognitive processes are still in development during adolescence, the court concluded that “kids are different,” as some legal observers have summarized. Siegel regarded this application of neuroscience as promising because it: “focused on the culpability of a specific class of offenders (i.e., rather than all criminal defendants), recognized the societal goals of punishment (i.e., for youth), and reflected the practices of other states and countries.” Wolf agreed. She and Siegel posited that young people are less likely to understand the criminal process and effectively weigh plea bargains and other penalties. Of course, this is only partly due to neural development, they acknowledged. But there seems to be enough evidence to convince the high court that youth sentencing should take brain science into account.
Whether the convicted are juveniles or adults, Pustilnik explained, “this doesn’t mean that they are going to get off the hook. But their sentences could be mitigated by their diminished capacity…” Further, she and the other presenters explained, neuroscience could inform tort liability, evaluation of intent to execute a legal document, and more. “Can a 15-year old refuse cancer treatment? Get an abortion? Keep her child? Get a tattoo…?” Pustilnik offered. These determinations require a careful balancing of scientific evidence, legal precedent, the facts at hand, and liberty interests. In the nexus of these concerns lies one of the most fascinating frontiers in contemporary legal practice and scholarship. To learn more about neuroscience and the law, check out the library resources below and in the NESL Library neuroscience guide.
Neuroscience Conference Presenters:
*Co-director of the Center for Law, Brain and Behavior at Massachusetts General Hospital and Psychiatry professor at Harvard Medical School; **Associate Professor of Law at the University of Maryland School of Law and alumna of Yale Law School; ***Physician, senior clinical faculty at Harvard Medical School and co-Founder of the Program in Psychiatry and the Law at the Massachusetts Mental Health Center in the Department of Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School; ****Professor of Law and co-Director, Center for Law and Social Responsibility at New England Law School; *****Trial Attorney and Director of Training for the Youth Advocacy Division of the Committee for Public Counsel Services
Yale Law Library Resources, a selected bibliography
Freeman, Michael. (2011). Law and neuroscience: Current legal issues 2010. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Gideon, Yaffe. (2010). Attempts: In the philosophy of action and the criminal law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Martin, Xavier. (2001). Human nature and the French revolution: From the enlightenment to the Napoleonic code (trans. Patrick Corcoran). New York, NY: Berghahn Books.
Morse, Stephen J. & Roskies, Adina L. (2013). A primer on criminal law and neuroscience: A contribution of the law and neuroscience project. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nadel, Lynn (et al., Eds.). (2012). Memory and law. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Nadelhoffer, Thomas A. (2013). The future of punishment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Tancredi, Lawrence. (2005). Hardwired behavior: What neuroscience reveals about morality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Tyler, Tom. (2011). Why people cooperate: The role of social motivations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
----- (2007). Psychology and the design of legal institutions. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers.
van den Berg, Bibi & Klaming, Laura. (2011). Technologies on the stand: Legal and ethical questions in neuroscience and robotics. Nijmegen, Netherlands: Wolf Legal Publishers.
Vincent, Nicole A. (2013). Neuroscience and legal responsibility. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Image: Hieronymus Bosch [ca 1450-1516], "Removing the stone from the brain." Courtesy of Yale Image Collection.
Please join us for pizza and a panel discussion intended to provide practical tips to consider when submitting your article to scholarly journals. Our panel will include:
-Andrew Verstein, YLS '09, Associate Research Scholar and John R. Raben/Sullivan & Cromwell Executive Director for the Yale Law School Center for the Study of Corporate Law. Andrew will speak from a legal author's perspective about strategically submitting your law review article for publication, taking into consideration factors such as submission timing, journal selection, and managing offers;
-Sarah Ryan, Empirical Research Librarian, Lillian Goldman Law Library. Sarah will discuss issues unique to submission to non-legal journals. Sarah has published more than 25 scholarly articles in various empirical and social science journals;
-Ben Eidelson, YLS '13, Editor with the Yale Law Journal, who will speak about the factors YLJ considers when selecting articles for publication; and
-Fred Shapiro, Associate Librarian for Collections and Access Services, who will offer insight on journal ranking and ExpressO.
For further information about using the ExpressO subsmission service, please follow this link: http://library.law.yale.edu/instructions-submitting-articles-law-journals-expresso
*Today's workshop is co-sponsored by the Lillian Goldman Law Library and the Law Teaching Series at Yale Law School.