{"id":{"repo_id":"uiuc","oai_identifier":"oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82570"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/uiuc/oai:www.ideals.illinois.edu:2142/82570","repository":{"repo_id":"uiuc","name":"University of Illinois - Urbana-Champaign","base_url":"https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/oai-pmh"},"display":{"title":"Gatekeeping and the Judicial Processing of Scientific Information","abstract":"Judicial gatekeeping decisions validate science for legal (political) purposes. Differential treatment by state jurisdictions has created an empirical puzzle whereby state jurisdictions vary in their validation of scientific information. The goal of this investigation is to explain the legal and political conditions under which novel scientific evidence is accepted or rejected. Variance in validation patterns for DNA, polygraphs, and syndrome evidence among state supreme courts is analyzed for the purpose of measuring the role of legal, attitudinal, institutional, and organizational variables in judicial gatekeeping decisions.","abstract_html":"Judicial gatekeeping decisions validate science for legal (political) purposes. Differential treatment by state jurisdictions has created an empirical puzzle whereby state jurisdictions vary in their validation of scientific information. The goal of this investigation is to explain the legal and political conditions under which novel scientific evidence is accepted or rejected. Variance in validation patterns for DNA, polygraphs, and syndrome evidence among state supreme courts is analyzed for the purpose of measuring the role of legal, attitudinal, institutional, and organizational variables in judicial gatekeeping decisions.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Harris, Rebecca C."],"institution":"University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign","degree_name":"Ph.D.","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Political Science","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Ira Carmen"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2015,"date_issued":"2015-09-25T20:49:24Z","date_published":"2015-09-25T20:49:24Z","updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:18Z","subjects":["Law"],"languages":["eng"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["(MiAaPQ)AAI3223612"],"render_values":[{"text":"(MiAaPQ)AAI3223612","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82570","outbound_label":"Handle","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Ira Carmen"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Harris, Rebecca C."]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date","label":"Dc Date","values":["2015-09-25T20:49:24Z","10000-01-01","2006"]},{"key":"dc:type","label":"Dc Type","values":["text"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Political Science"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Ph.D."]},{"key":"thesis:institution_name","label":"Thesis Institution Name","values":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Law"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["eng"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82570","(MiAaPQ)AAI3223612"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description","label":"Description","values":["Judicial gatekeeping decisions validate science for legal (political) purposes. Differential treatment by state jurisdictions has created an empirical puzzle whereby state jurisdictions vary in their validation of scientific information. The goal of this investigation is to explain the legal and political conditions under which novel scientific evidence is accepted or rejected. Variance in validation patterns for DNA, polygraphs, and syndrome evidence among state supreme courts is analyzed for the purpose of measuring the role of legal, attitudinal, institutional, and organizational variables in judicial gatekeeping decisions.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:49:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3223612.pdf: 5639096 bytes, checksum: 782dbd61b65632412179ac105606b62b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83851 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","225 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Gatekeeping and the Judicial Processing of Scientific Information"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Ira Carmen"],"dc:creator":["Harris, Rebecca C."],"dc:date":["2015-09-25T20:49:24Z","10000-01-01","2006"],"dc:description":["Judicial gatekeeping decisions validate science for legal (political) purposes. Differential treatment by state jurisdictions has created an empirical puzzle whereby state jurisdictions vary in their validation of scientific information. The goal of this investigation is to explain the legal and political conditions under which novel scientific evidence is accepted or rejected. Variance in validation patterns for DNA, polygraphs, and syndrome evidence among state supreme courts is analyzed for the purpose of measuring the role of legal, attitudinal, institutional, and organizational variables in judicial gatekeeping decisions.","Made available in DSpace on 2015-09-25T20:49:24Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 2 license.txt: 4848 bytes, checksum: 96035ab3f5e1c23cc7138a224ce498bd (MD5) 3223612.pdf: 5639096 bytes, checksum: 782dbd61b65632412179ac105606b62b (MD5) Previous issue date: 2006","Embargo set by: Seth Robbins for item 83851 Lift date: Forever Reason: Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","Restricted to the U of I community idenfinitely during batch ingest of legacy ETDs","U of I Only","225 p.","Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2006."],"dc:identifier":["http://hdl.handle.net/2142/82570","(MiAaPQ)AAI3223612"],"dc:language":["eng"],"dc:subject":["Law"],"dc:title":["Gatekeeping and the Judicial Processing of Scientific Information"],"dc:type":["text"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Political Science"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Ph.D."],"thesis:institution_name":["University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-22T22:26:18Z"}