Showing papers in "Justice System Journal in 2014"
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors report data from a primarily qualitative study of Baltimore City's Specialized Diversion Program (SPD), an alternative criminal justice response to prostitution grounded in problem-solving models of justice.
Abstract: This article reports data from a primarily qualitative study of Baltimore City's Specialized Diversion Program (SPD), an alternative criminal justice response to prostitution grounded in problem-solving models of justice. Data were drawn from observations of interactions between participants and SPD staff and semistructured interviews with twenty-one SPD clients. These were supplemented with data on prostitution arrestees’ demographics (N = 616) over a thirteen-month period and SPD eligibility, program uptake, and completion (N = 431) over a nine-month period. All respondents exhibited a dire need for assistance with concerns such as severe mental health problems, health conditions, addiction, poverty, and limited educational and employment opportunities. They expressed the importance of compassionate and dignified service delivery and a sense of meaningful accomplishment upon completion, all of which support a problem-solving model. Despite the assistance they received and their strong support for the pr...
22 citations
TL;DR: This paper examined the dissenting behavior of U.S. court of appeals judges from 1970 to 2002 and found that they strategically dissent for the purpose of inviting en banc and/or Supreme Court review.
Abstract: Though there has been a substantial amount of research on the strategic behavior of legal actors, the literature is rife with conflicting findings. We contribute to this debate by examining whether U.S. court of appeals judges dissent for the purpose of inviting en banc and/or Supreme Court review. We consider key challenges associated with the empirical modeling of strategic behavior related to the selection of an appropriate unit of analysis for study and the consequences of introducing multicollinearity into statistical models. We explore these issues by examining the dissenting behavior of court of appeals judges from 1970–2002. Our findings indicate that court of appeals judges strategically dissent, and that this behavior is seldom captured by traditional quantitative analyses of judicial behavior. Though our focus is on court of appeals judges, we are confident our conclusions inform studies of strategic behavior in a variety of contexts.
17 citations
TL;DR: The authors investigated the validity of the common practice of differentiating between "high" and "low frequency" periods of congressional attacks on the Supreme Court and found that modern attacks may be a way for partisan and regional coalition managers to "signal" others (including those outside the Court) in efforts to maintain, build, or assert their party's dominance.
Abstract: This study investigates the validity of the common practice of differentiating between “high” and “low frequency” periods of congressional attacks on the Supreme Court. In-depth examination of the Congressional Record from 1955–1984 reveals 1,497 previously uncounted constitutional amendment attacks. Rather than starting and stopping, the never-ending court curbing efforts of this era evolved in four phases, differentiated by shifts in an unexamined dimension—leadership of attacks. This suggests that modern attacks may be a way for partisan and regional coalition managers to “signal” others (including those outside the Court) in efforts to maintain, build, or assert their party's dominance. Court curbing may therefore play a greater role than realized in party system development, making congressional attacks an overlooked “mechanism” through which coalitional change may be both opposed and wrought.
17 citations
TL;DR: The United States federal criminal justice system is changing. as discussed by the authors proposes a number of structural, structural, and procedural modifications to reorganize a continuum of fragmented bureaucracies into a cohesive federal reentry-centered system.
Abstract: The United States federal criminal justice system is changing. Actuarial risk assessment instruments and evidence-based practices play increasingly important roles; federal reentry court programs have been implemented across the country. Yet, while promising, these developments may not be enough to stem the growth and costs of federal criminal justice. The highly politicized nature of crime and punishment may limit the potential for change. Even within the federal criminal justice system, the decoupled nature of bureaucracies, in which stakeholders make decisions for which they are not financially responsible, makes meaningful change problematic. States, however, have demonstrated that structural changes can foster efficient use of resources and improve fiscal stewardship. A number of statutory, structural, and procedural modifications could help to reorganize a continuum of fragmented bureaucracies into a cohesive federal reentry-centered system.
15 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, an analysis of federal district court decisions in USA PATRIOT Act cases after September 11 shows that while district courts exhibit great deference to the executive during times of war, especially in terrorism threat and immigration cases, they are not inclined to protect civil rights and liberties during domestic or international conflict.
Abstract: Our analysis of federal district court decisions in USA PATRIOT Act cases after September 11 shows that while district courts exhibit great deference to the executive during times of war, especially in terrorism threat and immigration cases, they are not inclined to protect civil rights and liberties during times of domestic or international conflict. While judicial ideology does not influence case outcomes, the presence of a civil-libertarian interest group decreases the chance of a deferential decision, and a more conservative Senate and president increases the chance of judicial deference.
14 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that the Supreme Court's expressed and latent demand for information on the availability and implications of legal policy alternatives will affect the supply of information provided to the Court by organized interests.
Abstract: We argue that the Supreme Court's expressed and latent demand for information on the availability and implications of legal policy alternatives will affect the supply of information provided to the Court by organized interests. An analysis of the annual growth in amicus filings at the Court during the 1949 through 2008 terms largely supports our specific hypotheses. The rate at which the Court cites amicus briefs and shifts in the Court's ideological location or agenda exert a positive effect on the growth of amicus filings, while the evidence for the effect of dissensus is mixed. We further show that the supply of briefs does not affect the Court's expressed or latent demand for information.
13 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the influence of extralegal factors, particularly interactions among victim/offender relationship, sex, and race/ethnicity, on prosecutors' decisions to dismiss criminal charges, plea, or proceed to trial for violent crimes was examined.
Abstract: The research considers the influence of extralegal factors, particularly interactions among victim/offender relationship, sex, and race/ethnicity, on prosecutors’ decisions to dismiss criminal charges, plea, or proceed to trial for violent crimes. Minority males, particularly black males, were less likely to receive a plea (versus a trial) regardless of the victim's sex or race/ethnicity. Minority males were also less likely to receive a plea if the victim was white. Alternatively, in prosecutorial dismissals, black and Hispanic males were treated no more harshly than were any of the race/ethnicity–sex categories examined. The findings suggest that failure to consider the sex and race/ethnicity of both defendants and victims may result in inaccurate conclusions about how these variables affect prosecutorial decisions.
13 citations
TL;DR: Research suggests that sexual abuse by females is viewed as less harmful than male-perpetrated abuse, and that females are treated more leniently by the justice system as mentioned in this paper.
Abstract: Research suggests that sexual abuse by females is viewed as less harmful than male-perpetrated abuse, and that females are treated more leniently by the justice system The authors tested two hypotheses: female sex offenders would receive shorter incarceration sentences than their male counterparts because of their gender (H1), and female sex offenders would be charged less harshly than male sex offenders because of their caretaking role with victims (H2) Little support for H1, and only partial support for H2, was found Results showed that female sex offenders who victimized adolescents for whom they were not caretakers were charged less severely
13 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that gender and race bias still exist in attorney surveys conducted in accordance with the ABA's Guidelines, which results in predictable problems with the reliability and validity of the information obtained through these survey instruments.
Abstract: Judicial performance evaluations (JPEs) are a critical part of selecting judges, especially in states using merit-based selection systems. This article shows empirical evidence that gender and race bias still exist in attorney surveys conducted in accordance with the ABA's Guidelines. This systematic bias is related to a more general problem with the design and implementation of JPE surveys, which results in predictable problems with the reliability and validity of the information obtained through these survey instruments. This analysis raises questions about the validity and reliability of the JPE. This is a particularly poor outcome, as it means that we are subjecting many judges to state-sponsored evaluations that are systematically biased against women and minorities.
13 citations
TL;DR: In this paper, the authors investigate the interaction between rules of appropriateness, popular support for judicial decisions, and policy preferences in assessments of the legitimacy of court decisions and find that the influence of other variables is conditioned on compliance with rules of appropriate judicial behavior.
Abstract: This study investigates the interaction between rules of appropriateness, popular support for judicial decisions, and policy preferences in assessments of the legitimacy of court decisions. We conduct two 3 × 2 × 2 experiments examining participants’ perceptions of legitimacy in cases involving the tort liability of gun manufacturers (Experiment 1) and same-sex marriage (Experiment 2). By manipulating the explanation for the judge's decision (bribe, political contribution, ideology, and law), we examine how participants assess the legitimacy of motivations suggesting compliance with, and deviations from, rules of appropriate judicial behavior in relation to one another. We also analyze how such rules interact with other factors theorized to influence assessments of legitimacy. Our findings demonstrate that rules of appropriateness matter most in participants’ assessments of the legitimacy of court decisions. Moreover, as hypothesized, the influence of other variables is conditioned on compliance with deci...
13 citations
TL;DR: In this article, the authors argue that a court's decision on whether to defer to an administrative agency is more complex and is conditional on the political salience of the substantive issue in the case, and they test this theory in the context of the U.S. Courts of Appeals using a sample of cases decided between 1961 and 2002.
Abstract: Judicial deference to administrative agencies is often viewed as a dichotomous choice between full deference and no deference, ignoring considerations of institutional and political context. I argue that a court's decision on whether to defer to an administrative agency is more complex and is conditional on the political salience of the substantive issue in the case. I test this theory in the context of the U.S. Courts of Appeals using a sample of cases decided between 1961 and 2002. The results show that when dealing with non-salient cases, the level of deference to agencies is static, but in salient cases the level of deference is strongly related to the ideological congruence between the court and the agency.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors trace the reaction of lower courts to GVR orders, culling information about the meaning of the GVR to those lower courts from their responses and from interviews with several unnamed circuit court judges.
Abstract: We seek to understand the Supreme Court's “Grant, Vacate, and Remand” (GVR) dispositions and the reaction to those dispositions by the U.S. Court of Appeals. Drawing on data from four Court terms, we trace the reaction of the lower courts to GVR orders, culling information about the meaning of the GVR to those lower courts from their responses and from our interviews with several unnamed circuit court judges. We then code the lower-court decisions to systematically detail how circuit courts react to GVRs.
TL;DR: This paper found that the influence of attitudes on Supreme Court decisions varies by the level of case saliency, when the case before the Court raises important questions of politics or policy, and therefore attracts a disproportionate amount of attention, the attitudinal model performs admirably: the justices are more likely to split into ideologically coherent blocs and less likely to produce unanimous opinions.
Abstract: How can we explain when ideology is more likely, and less likely, to influence Supreme Court decision making? We examine this question by comparing ordered and unanimous votes on the Rehnquist Court between 1994 and 2004. Building on previous research, our results suggest that the influence of attitudes on Supreme Court decisions varies by the level of case salience. When the case before the Court raises important questions of politics or policy, and therefore attracts a disproportionate amount of attention, the attitudinal model performs admirably: the justices are more likely to split into ideologically coherent blocs and less likely to produce unanimous opinions. Yet the explanatory power of the attitudinal model diminishes significantly in non-salient cases with lower political stakes. These findings underscore the utility of a conditional approach to the study of judicial attitudes.
TL;DR: This article examined the use of the courts' most important power, judicial review, on elected and appointed state supreme courts and found that there were very few differences in use of judicial review among courts with different methods of selection and retention.
Abstract: There has long been a debate over how we should select and retain justices on state supreme courts. Many argue that electing the members of these courts challenges the impartiality of the judicial branch. Others highlight that these elected institutions are to be accountable to the public, a condition that is being met. To inform this debate, scholars have long sought to determine if there are significant differences in the composition of, or decision making on these courts. This article continues in that tradition, examining the use of the courts’ most important power, judicial review, on elected and appointed courts. I find very few differences in the use of judicial review among courts with different methods of selection and retention.
TL;DR: In this paper, a comparative study of three appellate courts in Ecuador and through expert surveys and an original database from these courts, the authors argue that the impunity in the judicial system, judicial corruption and the ineffectiveness of punitive mechanisms are the dimensions that best explain the varying levels of quality of justice in unitary states.
Abstract: Although the quality of justice is important in evaluating the state of democracy and performance of judicial branch, the subfield of judicial politics has focused little on the study of this dimension of the courts. To fill this gap, this article identifies some factors that influence the quality of justice in sub-national courts. Drawing on a comparative study of three appellate courts in Ecuador and through expert surveys and an original database from these courts, the article argues that the impunity in the judicial system—judicial corruption and the ineffectiveness of punitive mechanisms—and the deficient training of legal operators—lawyers and judges—are the dimensions that best explain the varying levels of quality of justice in unitary states. The empirical findings suggest both contextual and endogenous factors influence the quality of justice. In theoretical terms, the article proposes a definition of quality of justice as the capacity of judges to apply the legal tools, principles, and jurispru...
TL;DR: The High Performance Court Framework developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) provides theoretical and practical guidance for courts to link their organizational culture, performance results, and management decisions.
Abstract: The High Performance Court Framework developed by the National Center for State Courts (NCSC) provides theoretical and practical guidance for courts to link their organizational culture, performance results, and management decisions. Using the NCSC CourTools Measures 2 (Clearance Rates) and 3 (Time to Disposition), this study describes a Maryland trial court's experiences in understanding these performance measures and using the results to inform the court's management practices and daily operations. The initial analyses often led to more in-depth and focused inquiries of the court's data, procedures, and policies. Insights gained and lessons learned throughout the development and implementation of performance measures, as well as the utilization of performance results are discussed.
TL;DR: The role of dismissal in criminal adjudication has been investigated in the modern criminal court literature as discussed by the authors, and a review of the relevant literature that underscores the prevalence of dismissal as a principal criminal case disposition in American courts is presented.
Abstract: This is an inquiry into the role of dismissal in criminal adjudication, a neglected area of study in the modern criminal court literature The article presents a historical review of the relevant literature that underscores the prevalence of dismissal as a principal criminal case disposition in American courts Moving into an explorative direction, the essay examines the utility for understanding dismissal of several theoretical perspectives that more generally have been proposed to explain criminal adjudication and court operations These are: (a) the public safety perspective, in which dismissals are explained by defendants’ risk attributes; (b) the courtroom-as-workgroup perspective, in which dismissals are the product of the organization of the courtroom workgroups; (c) the process-as-punishment perspective, in which dismissals represent the outcome of a process which itself represents the punishment; (d) and the legal or due process perspective, in which legal, procedural-based explanations account f
TL;DR: The authors examined the potential implications of this proposal using more than 60 years of unique counterfactual data and found that replacement justices could have changed the policy set by the Court in only a small subset of cases and, more importantly, could have helped the Court avoid more than a quarter of their even divisions.
Abstract: The decision to recuse presents Supreme Court justices with a no-win choice between preserving legitimacy and risking the possibility of an evenly divided vote. A recent proposal would allow retired justices to serve when a justice is absent to help alleviate this tension. Here, we examine the potential implications of this proposal using more than 60 years of unique counterfactual data. Our results suggest that replacement justices could have changed the policy set by the Court in only a small subset of cases and, more importantly, could have helped the Court avoid more than a quarter of their even divisions.
TL;DR: In this article, the authors show that a foreign country's prosecution of a family under a law that would be unconstitutional in the United States does not necessarily provide grounds for a claim of asylum upon arrival in the US.
Abstract: Does a foreign country's prosecution of a family under a law that would be unconstitutional in the United States necessarily provide grounds for a claim of asylum upon arrival in the United States?...
TL;DR: This paper examined how state court judges and administrators view their roles and responsibilities in the court system, the current need for court reform, the importance of future trends, and whether they are confident in the performance of their respective court system.
Abstract: The court unification movement has progressed in fits and starts over the decades. Recent proposals have been put forth that attempt to continue the move toward a state court structure that utilizes a more coherent approach to governance. Drawing on a survey of court personnel who were asked about a set of proposed governance principles, this article examines how state court judges and administrators view their roles and responsibilities in the court system, the current need for court reform, the importance of future trends, and whether they are confident in the performance of their respective court system. Three hundred and seventy-five judges and administrators answered sixty-two questions regarding principles governing state court procedures and measures of their confidence in the court system. Participants overwhelmingly agreed that changes in court governance are necessary, although the degree of change for specific principles and trends was moderated by career, age, and time working for the courts. ...