What do you think?
Rate this book
Contributions in Political Science #56
The Kent State Incident: Impact of Judicial Process on Public Attitudes
281 pages, Hardcover
First published June 26, 1981
3 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 of 1 review
October 21, 2022
In their book, Thomas R. Hensley and James J. Best record their research into the influence of legal decisions on people's attitudes toward the court system. As the basis for their study, Hensley, Best, and the graduate students working with them used the Kent State Massacre, a controversial episode in American history.
On May 4, 1970, at Kent State University, a group of Ohio State National Guardsmen, who were harassed by an unruly mob made up largely of students, suddenly fired their pistols and rifles at the crowd, killing four and wounding six. The authors have sorted through the various and often conflicting accounts of precisely what happened at Kent State to find out what the attitudes of the university's students toward the shootings was both before and after the federal grand jury investigation and the two trials.
Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of students shortly before and soon after three highly visible court decisions surrounding the shootings: the 1974 federal grand jury investigation, which resulted in the indictment of eight Ohio National Guardsmen, the 1975 federal civil trial in which a jury found the defendant Ohio officials and Guardsmen not liable for damages, and the 1979 retrial which resulted in an out-of-court settlement. The authors hoped that they could find the answers to three questions. They wanted to know if the students, and people in general, changed their minds to concur with judicial decisions. They also wanted to see if when a court decided opposite to a student's belief, the student's opinion of the particular court would decline, and if, whether they agreed with the decision or not, they would continue to believe in the American legal system. Their conclusions were not surprising. The answers were, in order, "no," "yes," "yes."
Although the data analysis is presented well, I think that the authors generalize too much, which results in incorrect conclusions. For instance, they studied only the students of Kent State University and not the people of Kent, Ohio, and treat these results as representative of the American people as a whole. However, students, because of their youth and education, probably had different views from many other Americans.
The study is not just an explanation of the methods the authors used or a dry, statistical summary of the results of their analyses of the questionnaires. There is a great chapter by Best detailing the events of the shooting. The volume also includes a good description of the most important of the numerous investigations and trials that dealt with the events of May 4. Both these chapters and the introduction contain useful lists of the literature that the shooting and subsequent trials produced.
The main drawback of the authors' analysis is that they do not put what they learned from their research at Kent State into the big picture of the protest movement. Furthermore, the most significant contribution of the book is different from what Hensley and Best wanted it to be. It is good political history of a painful moment in the American memory. The authors subtly portray the political nature of the American justice system by chronicling the great influence of personal views and political ideology on the actions of legal decision-makers.
THE KENT STATE INCIDENT is worth reading if you are really interested in the legal side of the Kent State Massacre. This book underscores that what happened at that protest was inexcusable even if it was for the sake of national security.
On May 4, 1970, at Kent State University, a group of Ohio State National Guardsmen, who were harassed by an unruly mob made up largely of students, suddenly fired their pistols and rifles at the crowd, killing four and wounding six. The authors have sorted through the various and often conflicting accounts of precisely what happened at Kent State to find out what the attitudes of the university's students toward the shootings was both before and after the federal grand jury investigation and the two trials.
Questionnaires were mailed to a random sample of students shortly before and soon after three highly visible court decisions surrounding the shootings: the 1974 federal grand jury investigation, which resulted in the indictment of eight Ohio National Guardsmen, the 1975 federal civil trial in which a jury found the defendant Ohio officials and Guardsmen not liable for damages, and the 1979 retrial which resulted in an out-of-court settlement. The authors hoped that they could find the answers to three questions. They wanted to know if the students, and people in general, changed their minds to concur with judicial decisions. They also wanted to see if when a court decided opposite to a student's belief, the student's opinion of the particular court would decline, and if, whether they agreed with the decision or not, they would continue to believe in the American legal system. Their conclusions were not surprising. The answers were, in order, "no," "yes," "yes."
Although the data analysis is presented well, I think that the authors generalize too much, which results in incorrect conclusions. For instance, they studied only the students of Kent State University and not the people of Kent, Ohio, and treat these results as representative of the American people as a whole. However, students, because of their youth and education, probably had different views from many other Americans.
The study is not just an explanation of the methods the authors used or a dry, statistical summary of the results of their analyses of the questionnaires. There is a great chapter by Best detailing the events of the shooting. The volume also includes a good description of the most important of the numerous investigations and trials that dealt with the events of May 4. Both these chapters and the introduction contain useful lists of the literature that the shooting and subsequent trials produced.
The main drawback of the authors' analysis is that they do not put what they learned from their research at Kent State into the big picture of the protest movement. Furthermore, the most significant contribution of the book is different from what Hensley and Best wanted it to be. It is good political history of a painful moment in the American memory. The authors subtly portray the political nature of the American justice system by chronicling the great influence of personal views and political ideology on the actions of legal decision-makers.
THE KENT STATE INCIDENT is worth reading if you are really interested in the legal side of the Kent State Massacre. This book underscores that what happened at that protest was inexcusable even if it was for the sake of national security.
Displaying 1 of 1 review