A copy of this work was available on the public web and has been preserved in the Wayback Machine. The capture dates from 2017; you can also visit the original URL.
The file type is
This paper takes issue with Chambliss and Seidman's thesis that the process of appellate decision-making is primarily value-laden.*** Using Weber's typology of legal thought and his distinction between value and goal-rationality, a theoretical framework is advanced to analyze judicial reasoning. The viability of this framework is demonstrated when it is applied to a particularly strategic capital punishment case. Personal values are not nearly so important as judicial perceptions of formaldoi:10.2307/1143106 fatcat:2gxci24btjhutge6ptv6vx5qxy