Posts
To me the most interesting thing about Ewick and Silbey's research was the fact that they made a very conscious effort to study how they average resident of New Jersey is influenced by the law, and furthermore, how those individuls believe they are influenced by the law. I italicize average because it would seem that most studies of this type look at people who are somehow already involved in the legal system, whether that be through their occupation or being brought into the courts, and then they simply attempt to acknowledge their biased sample in order to justify it. This instead involved a very in depth look at a decent-sized random sample of citizens. Also, the inclusion of their summarized interviews was a very nice break from the academic writing that existed as the meat of the book. It gave a welcome respite from the difficult reading, and gave me a chance to just relax a little as if reading a story.
The one weakness that stood out to me most in the book however, was the fact that outside of the introduction they shyed away from the fact that study took place strictly in New Jersey. They failed to acknowledge that their conclusions could very possibly be geographically focused, especially in a field that varies so much state to state.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I agree that focusing on "average" was an interesting departure from what we have been thinking about/talking about so far in this class. I wonder, though, if their findings are limited by their focus on problems. To get people to talk about law, they asked them about problems they have encountered. Are there other ways that we interact with/experience law that are not problem-based? I'm thinking specifically of how law is used to create things - like marriages or companies? Does the experience of law look different in some fundamental way in these kinds of situations? I'm not sure...
ReplyDeleteI liked the idea of relaxing between the academic passages, too. But to be honest with you - I felt jipped. The people didn't have unbelievably exciting stories to tell, and while they did illustrate a point, I think that the point could have been made with fewer interviews. I'd rather an academic article that is broken up into sections with interesting quotes and anecdotes, like the rest of the book, instead of droning interviews that, especially because of the geography factor, just don't say too much...
ReplyDelete1. Let me say how much I appreciate the OCD factor in you name labeling everyone's blog.
ReplyDeleteI also liked the stories as a break, it kept the topic very human, very person oriented. The stories however, were not all compelling and I felt like they might have done a better job "sampling" people. I also believe that they could have done a better job in terms of finding people with different sorts of opinions, although they clearly made an attempt to make a "fair/average" representation I feel as though they fell a little short, again this could be attributed to the Jersey only factor.
I guess I was more forgiving towards the monotony of some of the stories because it demonstrated the fact that they didn't simply go out and find the most interesting people with the most intriguing stories to tell about their dealings with the law. Millie's story was obviously a nice opener because it was very engaging and frustrating, but at the same time maybe E&S raised the reader's expectations of those anecdotes in the rest of the book, and none of the others had the intrigue of Millie's.
ReplyDeleteI thought they should have branched into younger people. Were Ewick and Sibley unable to get any respondents under the age of 30, 35, or did they simply not seek any out? I wonder how people in their twenties would have responded about their interactions with the law. Based on some blogs and sharing in class (on speeding tickets and various other lawful offenses) , I gather it might not differ too much from what we read. Still - it would've been nice to read on.
ReplyDeleteI think It would be great to hear from a younger generation as well. I would say that maybe no younger that 20 or so though because...well kids hate the system, and there responses might not be all that,I guess, based in facts and more on opinions. But I do agree with Luy, about the tickets and ordinance-type stuff that people in this class have talked about. Youth tend to be labeled ever so easily into the good and the bad, college kids get the bad, or really bad distinction more often than not...which is BS. It is the few really bad eggs that rot the whole carton when it comes to the "not quite adult, not quite kid" age range. I have some sympathy for those families that leave near colleges though, I grew up in a sorta-college town suburb, and we had to deal with some local community college kids shooting up on my front porch...not nearly the same as having loud parties, I know, but I can understand the frustration that the small minority of demon college kids can cause. Then again I would expect some tom-foolery if I lived near a college, it ought to come with the territory. I also recall the folks who lived by my high school complaining constantly about all the high school kids walking by there houses every morning..."Uh you live by a high School" was my thought, but it was the small group of bad kids who sold drugs, or knocked down little Timmy's snowman, that led to a parking ban within a three block radius of the school for non-residents, and a whole heap of laws that ticked me off. I had probably 20 tickets from parking close to the school so that I could leave rehearsals at midnight, and not worry about the skectchy folk who would follow me when I parked on the busiest road in my town, the closest place to park near the school. I understand the messed up laws, but didn't really enjoy them. So I guess, after rambling on, it might have been a good idea to talk wit younger people in the common place of law.
ReplyDeleteI may be the only one, but I enjoyed their academic writing! I thought it was smart and refreshing. They mentioned many ideas I did not know, or had not thought about, and also, gave new insights from things I think I have read so far. I really liked their dissection of law and how that relates, or does not, relate to society. Law encompasses society in a very interesting way and the different interactions had with the law by different people is so unbelievably fascinating and seemingly endless!
ReplyDelete