Allocating specific benefits and burdens

Conclusion The foregoing is an example of how the rich accounts presented in Local Justice in America can inspire reflections on related issues. I am sure that others who do not share my utilitarian beliefs (some would call them “biases”) would find other ways of looking at these chapters. Whatever the perspective taken, the book raises important questions, and its emphasis on describing intentional rules is a useful approach for the social sciences. A single book cannot do everything, but I wish that this one had also taken a more evaluative point of view, telling us not just how decisions are made but also where they are going wrong according to some explicit standard, and how to improve them. I am sure that even that is considered arrogant by some, but to me it is the ultimate purpose of social science.     

Death notification

Death notification--informing the deceased's family of an unexpected death--is a singularly stressful task common to medical personnel, clergy, and police. We surveyed by questionnaire a group of 50 Los Angeles Police Department homicide detectives, 21 of whom were subsequently interviewed by telephone. The detectives stated that their initial apprehension stemmed from feeling unprepared. Identification with victims' families was common and compounded the stress. One prevalent worry concerned the possible reactions of the family upon hearing the news, especially the risk of a violent attack on the police officer. Several coping styles were recognized. Our findings suggest that the repetitive performance of this continuously stressful task may be a prominent and underappreciated contribution to occupational burnout.     

Excuses, excuses

Justifications and excuses are defenses that exculpate. They are therefore much more like each other than like such defenses as diplomatic immunity, which does not exculpate. But they exculpate in different ways, and it has proven difficult to agree on just what that difference consists in. In this paper I take a step back from justification and excuse as concepts in criminal law, and look at the concepts as they arise in everyday life. To keep the task manageable, I focus primarily on excuses and excusing activities, distinguishing them from justifications as well as from other close relatives, in particular, forgiving and pardoning. I draw upon J.L. Austin’s classic “A Plea for Excuses,” but expand on his account, suggesting that we offer excuses for reasons besides those he mentions. My hope is that my examination of excuses and excusing activities will help us rethink our views on just how justifications and excuses differ, views which often are worked out without much attention to how these concepts function in everyday life and to the connection between offers of excuses and justifications and the “rules of civility.”

The Preference for Indirect Harm

We presented subjects pairs of hypothetical scenarios. The action in each scenario harmed some people in order to aid others. In one member of the pair, the harm was a direct result of the action. In the other member, it was an indirect byproduct. Subjects preferred the indirect harm to the direct harm. This result could not be fully explained in terms of differences in judgments about which option was more active, more intentional, more likely to cause harm, or more subject to the disapproval of others. Taken together, these findings provide evidence for a new bias in judgment, a tendency to favor indirectly harmful options over directly harmful alternatives, irrespective of the associated outcomes, intentions, or self-presentational concerns. We speculate that this bias could originate from the use of a typical but somewhat unreliable property of harmful acts, their directness, as a cue to moral evaluation. We discuss the implications of the bias for a range of social issues, including the distinction between passive and active euthanasia, legal deterrence, and the rhetoric of affirmative action.