Stages in the Evolution of Holocaust Studies: From the Nuremberg Trials to the Present

Measuring genocide is an effort to treat the Holocaust within the framework of the history of ideas, specifically, how an event of enormous magnitude in terms of life and death issues as such embodied within a political system called National Socialism has an intellectual afterlife of some consequence. The article attempts to develop a four-stage post-Holocaust accounting of events that took place between 1933 and 1945. The first stage is biographical and autobiographical, followed by a second stage of ethnographies of survivors and victimizers. The third stage is dominated by historians and social scientific efforts to examine the “logic” of mass murder. The fourth and current stage is microanalysis, in which sharp and clear distinctions are made between differential treatment of victims in a variety of regions, states, nations, and even concentration camps. It should be understood that these four stages do not negate one another but co-exist in the lasting if uneasy effort to understand the Holocaust.     

Joinder of criminal offenses: A review of the legal and psychological literature

Criminal courts routinely allow a defendant to be tried for multiple charges in a single trial. The practice is known as joinder of offenses. The issue of joinder of offenses is examined from a legal and psychological perspective. Relevant court decisions and their implications are discussed. In addition, the recent research conducted by social scientists concerning the possible reasons for the prejudicial effects of joinder of offenses is critically reviewed. Suggestions are offered, based upon previous joinder research, for the direction of future research into the loci of the effect and into potential remedies.This paper is an elaboration of one presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences, Chicago, March 1984.     

The effect of jury nullification instruction on verdicts and jury functioning in criminal trials

Jury nullification is a mechanism, and a defense, which allows the jury, as representatives of the community, to disregard both the law and the evidence and acquit defendants who have violated the letter, but not the spirit of the law. Should juries simply follow the law as articulated by the trial judge, or should they act as “conscience of the community,” and neglect the strict requirements of the law when it would lead to unjust or inequitable verdicts? The present study was aimed at providing empirical data for the following question: will the jury operate in a manner which is different than its normal functioning if given explicit nullification instructions? Three nullification instructins varying in explicitness as to nullification were combined with three criminal cases to yield a 3×3 factorial design. Forty-five six-person juries (270 subjects), were randomly assigned to the nine experimental groups. The results showed that juries given explicit nullification instructtions were more likely to vote guilty in a drunk driving case, but less likely to do so in a euthanasia case. The third case, which dealt with murder, did not show any differences due to instructions. Juries in receipt of nullification instructions spent less deliberation time on the evidence and more on defendant characteristics, attributions, and personal experiences.     

Chance,choice, civility and Coleman

He is the author of several works that bear upon themes in Coleman’s book, including Professing Sociology(1968); Foundations of Political Sociology(1972); Winners and Losers(1984); and Persuasions and Prejudices(1989).     

The glassis half full and half empty

He is author of Foundations of Political Sociology; Winners and Losers;and Persuasions and Prejudices;and, with Seymour Martin Lipset, Dialogues on American Politics.