Community Sentiment and the Law: Concluding Thoughts and Future Directions

Abstract

The belief that individuals have little impact on political processes and outcomes seems to be increasingly common in recent years. Indeed, external efficacy in the political system, which taps into the belief that one has a say in government decisions, has sharply declined over the past 50 years in the USA, with the lowest amounts occurring in 1990, 1994, and 2008, (www.electionstudies.org; see Chamberlain, 2013). A recent analysis indicates that these declines have occurred across different political cultures, suggesting a universal shift toward lower external efficacy (Chamberlain, 2013). While it may be easy to identify cases in which one is not heard by governmental officials (e.g., an elected official not voting according to the will of their constituency), there are numerous avenues through which individuals and collectives can impact the political landscape. Serving as a juror is one way in which members of the community can impact legal outcomes in both civil and criminal cases. Individuals can also impact local law and policy voting on referenda, whether they are related to fiscal (e.g., tax increases) or social (e.g., affirmative action) issues. Individuals can also vote for local and national candidates who best represent (and theoretically act on) their interests and values. Empirical (e.g., Oldmixon & Calfano, 2007) and anecdotal (e.g., Supreme Court opinions in Weems v. U.S., 1910 and Furman v. Georgia, 1972) evidence suggests that community sentiment does impact the law through these various avenues, albeit in sometimes indirect and imperfect ways (see Chaps. 1, 2, and 3, this volume, for discussions). Thus, in spite of dropping confidence in one’s ability to impact the legal system, evidence suggests that there are various channels through which community sentiment does impact the law.