LEADER 03709nam 22006974a 450 001 9910777510003321 005 20230124182604.0 010 $a1-283-59870-1 010 $a9786613911155 010 $a0-8135-3931-5 024 7 $a10.36019/9780813539317 035 $a(CKB)1000000000466573 035 $a(EBL)1021849 035 $a(OCoLC)811505210 035 $a(SSID)ssj0000242348 035 $a(PQKBManifestationID)11221605 035 $a(PQKBTitleCode)TC0000242348 035 $a(PQKBWorkID)10301514 035 $a(PQKB)10394496 035 $a(MiAaPQ)EBC1021849 035 $a(OCoLC)76874611 035 $a(MdBmJHUP)muse23296 035 $a(DE-B1597)529734 035 $a(DE-B1597)9780813539317 035 $a(Au-PeEL)EBL1021849 035 $a(CaPaEBR)ebr10146782 035 $a(CaONFJC)MIL391115 035 $a(EXLCZ)991000000000466573 100 $a20050419d2006 uy 0 101 0 $aeng 135 $aur|n|---||||| 181 $ctxt 182 $cc 183 $acr 200 10$aScientific evidence and equal protection of the law$b[electronic resource] /$fAngelo N. Ancheta 210 $aNew Brunswick, N.J. $cRutgers University Press$dc2006 215 $a1 online resource (208 p.) 300 $aDescription based upon print version of record. 311 $a0-8135-3734-7 320 $aIncludes bibliographical references (p. 179-183) and index. 327 $aScience and law, ideology, and inequality -- Desegregation and "modern authority" -- Science and equal protection -- Proving discrimination -- Science, advocacy, and fact finding -- Directions and conclusions. 330 $aScientific and social scientific evidence has informed judicial decisions and the making of constitutional law for decades, but for much of U.S. history it has also served as a rhetorical device to justify inequality. It is only in recent years that scientific and statistical research has helped redress discrimination?but not without controversy. Scientific Evidence and Equal Protection of the Law provides unique insights into the judicial process and scientific inquiry by examining major decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court, civil rights advocacy, and the nature of science itself. Angelo Ancheta discusses leading equal protection cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and recent litigation involving race-related affirmative action, gender inequality, and discrimination based on sexual orientation. He also examines less prominent, but equally compelling cases, including McCleskey v. Kemp, which involved statistical evidence that a state?s death penalty was disproportionately used when victims were white and defendants were black, and Castaneda v. Partida, which established key standards of evidence in addressing the exclusion of Latinos from grand jury service. For each case, Ancheta explores the tensions between scientific findings and constitutional values. 606 $aDiscrimination$xLaw and legislation$zUnited States 606 $aEquality before the law$zUnited States 606 $aDiscrimination$xResearch$zUnited States 606 $aEquality before the law$xResearch$zUnited States 606 $aScience and law 615 0$aDiscrimination$xLaw and legislation 615 0$aEquality before the law 615 0$aDiscrimination$xResearch 615 0$aEquality before the law$xResearch 615 0$aScience and law. 676 $a342.7308/7 700 $aAncheta$b Angelo N.$f1960-$01144629 801 0$bMiAaPQ 801 1$bMiAaPQ 801 2$bMiAaPQ 906 $aBOOK 912 $a9910777510003321 996 $aScientific evidence and equal protection of the law$93678152 997 $aUNINA