NCJ Number
84472
Journal
Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology Volume: 73 Issue: 2 Dated: (Summer 1982) Pages: 533-560
Date Published
1982
Length
28 pages
Annotation
This article uses Weber's typology of legal thought and his distinction between value and goal-rationality to provide a theoretical framework for analyzing judicial reasoning; legal thought on capital punishment illustrates this typology.
Abstract
Weber's typology of legal thought is based on two major analytic dimensions: rationality versus irrationality and substantiveness versus formality. To illustrate the utility of Weber's typology as an aid in understanding legal thought, leading cases regarding capital punishment are examined. These cases include Furman v. Georgia, Jackson v. Georgia, and Branch v. Texas. The cases indicate the Supreme Court's willingness to review whether the capital punishment statutes were unconstitutional because the outcomes were cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment. Eight of the nine justices sought to apply law based on reasoning guided by abstract principles that separated the means of analysis from the values inherent in the legal ends reached. Thus, Weber's contention that Western legal thought is characterized by formal rationality was supported. Empirical data were not used as readily as others, such as Chambliss and Seidman suggest, and when they were, distinctions between the means and the ends were maintained. The article provides 97 footnotes.