Judicial discretion and sentencing disparity in adult felony courts in Israel

This study focuses on a series of legal, extralegal, and systemic variables presumed to affect the workings of criminal-justice systems. These variables are employed first to analyze the decision of the court to refer defendants for presentence investigation when such a referral is not mandatory, then to examine how these referrals, once made, influence disposition. The relationship of legal representation to disposition is also explored.The findings contradict conventional wisdom regarding the advantages to defendants of legal representation and of presentence reports. Lawyers do not appear to influence either referral or sentencing. The presentence reports are requested by judges seeking to individualize their sentencing decisions, but this process of individualization is as likely to result in harsher sentences as in greater leniency.     

Analysis of Dental Case Reports in the Context of Court Decisions: Causal Nexus and Aspects of Fault

The purpose of expert reports is to support the judge in his decisions, by providing technical information. However, it remains uncertain as to what extent the content of these reports is used, and if they are effectively associated with judicial decisions. The aim of this study was to perform a qualitative analysis of case reports in relation to the judicial decisions rendered in association with these reports, by determining the connection between causal nexus and aspects of fault. The case reports included lawsuits against dentists, issued by the Medical Justice Department of the State Court of Appeals of Rio Grande do Sul, Brazil, between 2010 and 2013. Comparing the percentage of agreement between case report and judicial decision, causal nexus was 79.9% and fault was 86.7%. The high percentages of agreement found in relation to fault and causal nexus highlight the relevance of expert reports in weighing the judge's decision.     

SOCIOECONOMIC DISPARITIES UNDER DETERMINATE SENTENCING SYSTEMS: A COMPARISON OF PREGUIDELINE AND POSTGUIDELINE PRACTICES IN MINNESOTA*

After a brief review of determinate sentencing systems, this study examines the impact of Minnesota's determinate sentencing law on various presentence and sentencing outcomes. Using comparable pre- and postguideline measures, the results of this study suggest that Minnesota's reform effort was largely successful in reducing disparity within the scope of the new guidelines. However, although the direct impact of socioeconomic attributes of the offender diminished, these characteristics continued to influence sentencing decisions indirectly through various presentence decisions and case attributes not governed by the guidelines Different models of charge bargaining and sentence negotiations are also observed when pre- and postguideline models are compared. Yet, the determinants of these time-specific models are not consistent with the assumptions of a circumvention argument. The paper concludes with suggestions for further research evaluating the impact of determinate sentencing systems on achieving social neutrality in the application of criminal sanctions.     

Associations between Parent and Child Reports Of Interparental Conflict/Violence And Child Difficulties in A Family Mediation Setting*

We examined the association between parents’ (N = 52 mothers and 52 fathers) and children's (N = 27) reports of interparental conflict and child difficulties in a family mediation setting. Parents’ reports of conflict were moderately associated with children's reports of exposure to parental conflict, but only fathers’ reports of conflict were associated with children's reports of negative responses to parent conflict. While mothers and fathers agreed on their child's difficulties, only mothers’, not fathers’, report of child difficulties were moderately related to child reports of child difficulties. Mothers’ and fathers’ reports of conflict generally were not strongly associated with reports of child difficulties. In contrast to parent reports, children's reports of exposure to parents’ conflict were moderately and significantly related to self‐reported child difficulties and moderately related to parents’ reports of child academic difficulties. The magnitude of the association between the child's report of interparental conflict and self‐report of difficulties was stronger than the association between parent report of conflict and parent report of child difficulties, suggesting that parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parent conflict/violence or the problems their child is experiencing.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Family law stakeholders prioritize the creation of parenting arrangements that are in the best interest of the child; however, it is unclear how to gather information about the child and the child's perspective in order to inform such arrangements.
• The study results suggest that parents may not agree with each other or with the child about important family issues, such as parent conflict and child difficulties. For example, parents may not fully understand their child's exposure to parental conflict/violence when in the midst of custody negotiations.
• More research is needed to determine the best method for gathering information about the child during custody proceedings. In the meantime, it is important to gather information from multiple sources and to consider the agreement and differences across such sources of information.

     

Juvenile Court Judges' Perceptions of What Factors Affect Juvenile Offenders' Likelihood of Rehabilitation

An instrument was developed to measure whether judges perceive the likelihood of rehabilitation to be influenced by extra‐legal factors. A self‐administered questionnaire was sent to 1,040 juvenile court judges across the United States. Two indices‐extra‐legal and legal‐were created to measure the relationship between judges' perceptions and the factors they consider in their transfer decisions. Primary analysis used frequencies, cross‐tabulations, and measures of association. The factors that judges may consider in their transfer decisions are specified and vary according to state statutes. Extra‐legal factors are never included in the statutes as factors that may be considered. Nonetheless, the findings suggest that judges consider extra‐legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. The results suggest that both male and non‐minority judges' perceive that extra‐legal characteristics affect an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation. All judges seem to believe that family structure and prior record are almost equally important factors in determining offenders' likelihood of rehabilitation. Thus, although judges consider legal factors in determining an offender's likelihood of rehabilitation, they also include criteria not explicitly permitted by law.     

THE “EYE OF THE BEHOLDER”: PROFESSIONAL OPINIONS ABOUT THE BEST INTERESTS OF A CHILD

Child custody evaluations (CCEs) are a central feature of parenting litigation in many North American jurisdictions. However, there has been little recent research comparing CCE decisions about children's interests with decisions made by judges. This article presents empirical research about the extent to which Ontario judges accept custody and access recommendations from CCEs employed by Ontario's Office of the Children's Lawyer. The central finding was that the judges fully agreed with the CCEs only about half of the time. Possible explanations for this finding are explored, the most salient of which is the effect of delay in Ontario family litigation. In conclusion, the article suggests that a more efficient synthesis of the judicial and CCE decision‐making processes might be more consonant with the best interests of children involved in these disputes.     

Street-Level Bureaucracy, Interprofessional Relations, and Coping Mechanisms: A Study of Criminal Justice Social Workers in the Sentencing Process

This article builds on the work of Michael Lipsky and develops an argument about the significance of interprofessional working for street-level bureaucracy. It presents an ethnographic analysis of criminal justice social workers writing presentence reports for the Scottish courts. Social workers' report writing for judges brought into relief issues of relative professional status. Social workers were uncertain of their place within the legal domain and concerned about their credibility as criminal justice professionals. Reports were written, in part at least, as a way of seeking esteem and credibility in the eyes of judges—a motivation that undermined the policy objectives of social enquiry in sentencing. Applying the conceptual tools of Bourdieu to our findings, we argue that street-level bureaucrats who have to work across bureaucratic "fields" may find, or fear, that the cultural and symbolic "capital" they retained within their own field is undervalued in the symbolic economy of new fields, putting them in a position of relative inferiority. This issue of relative professional status, and how officials respond to it, is significant for our understanding of street-level bureaucracy.     

DECISION-MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS:

This article attempts an analysis of the relationship between the guilty-plea bargaining process and presentence investigation reports. It is argued that because plea-bargaining has increasingly come to involve bargaining over sentence. probation officers, as a consequence, have increasingly come to experience encroachment upon their decision-making autonomy. In this predicament they have found little support from judges, who, committed to norms of managerial efficiency will reassert the primacy of the plea-bargain when probation officers refuse to ratify previously negotiated sentence agreements. The policy implications of this for the criminal justice system are discussed.     

Faith in the Court: Religious Out‐Groups and the Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Decisions

The question of whether judges’ personal characteristics and values bias their decision making has long been debated, yet far less attention has been given to how personal characteristics affect public perceptions of bias in their decision making. Even genuinely objective judges may be perceived as procedurally biased by the public. We hypothesize that membership in a religious out‐group will elicit stronger public perceptions of biased decision making. Using a survey experiment that varies a judge's religious orientation and ruling in a hypothetical Establishment Clause case, we find strong evidence that judges’ religious characteristics affect the perceived legitimacy of their decisions. Identifying a judge as an atheist (a religious out‐group) decreases trust in the court, while identifying the judge as a committed Christian has no bearing on legitimacy. These results are even stronger among respondents who report attending church more often. Thus, we argue that perceptions of bias are conditioned on judges’ in‐group/out‐group status.     

Judge-versus attorney-conducted voir dire

Broeder (1965) found that potential jurors frequently distort their replies to questions posed during the voir dire. Considerable controversy has arisen over whether more honest, accurate information is elecited by a judge or by an attorney. The experiment manipulated two target (judge-versus attorney-conducted voir dire) and two interpersonal style variables (personal versus formal). The dependent measure was the consistency of subjects' attitude reports given at pretest and again verbally in court. One-hundred-and-sixteen jury-eligible community residents participated. The results provide support for the hypothesis that attorneys are more effective than judges in eliciting candid self-disclosure from potential jurors. Subjects changed their answers almost twice as much when questioned by a judge as when interviewed by an attorney. It was suggested that the judge's presence evokes considerable pressure toward conformity to a set of perceived judicial standards among jurors, which is minimized during an attorney voir dire.     

INITIAL DEVELOPMENT OF A PSYCHOLOGICAL MODEL FOR JUDICIAL DECISION MAKING IN CONTINUING RESTRAINING ORDERS

Probate and family court judges are increasingly called upon to make rapid decisions regarding the continuance of restraining orders. These decisions are often made without the benefit of adequate background information or an awareness of which psychological and behavioral factors are most relevant. This action‐oriented research project develops a model that brings psychosocial factors to consideration for judges making decisions regarding the continuance of restraining orders. While further evaluation of the model is needed, the project's unique methodology highlights the value of interdisciplinary collaboration, multiple methods of inquiry, and the consideration of real‐world needs and constraints in developing decision‐making tools.     

Detained: A Study of Immigration Bond Hearings

Immigration judges make consequential decisions that fundamentally affect the basic life chances of thousands of noncitizens and their family members every year. Yet, we know very little about how immigration judges make their decisions, including decisions about whether to release or detain noncitizens pending the completion of their immigration cases. Using original data on long‐term immigrant detainees, I examine for the first time judicial decision making in immigration bond hearings. I find that there are extremely wide variations in the average bond grant rates and bond amount decisions among judges in the study sample. What are the determinants of these bond decisions? My analysis shows that the odds of being granted bond are more than 3.5 times higher for detainees represented by attorneys than those who appeared pro se, net of other relevant factors. My analysis also shows that the detainees' prior criminal history is the only significant legally relevant factor in both the grant/deny and bond amount decisions, net of other relevant factors. This finding points to the need for further research on whether and how immigration courts might be exercising crime control through administrative proceedings.     

Individualization,criminalization, or problem resolution: A factorial survey of juvenile court judges' decisions to incarcerate youthful felony offenders

Existing research on the criteria used by juvenile court judges in choosing dispositions is limited in two respects. First, the predictor variables included in most investigations have been limited either in number or in the quality of their measurement. Second, research has not focused on sentencing decisions for serious offenders. Using a factorial survey of juvenile court judges, the present study seeks to determine what factors shape disposition decisions for juvenile felony offenders. The results suggest that judges focus primarily on offense characteristics, and are influenced only marginally by the offender's social characteristics. These findings are more consistent with the view that juvenile courts are becoming “criminalized” than with the view that individualized treatment is the goal. An alternative interpretation—that judges may be problem solvers, trying to dispose of cases efficiently—also is proposed.     

The Various Relations between Law and Morality in Contemporary Legal Philosophy

This paper is intended to be a summary of the author's views on the relationship between law and morality worked out over the past three decades in jurisprudence. The paper preliminarily clarifies the matter by isolating some lines of cleavage separating different questions askable about this relationship. With this done, the author argues for two theses. One, that judges are obligated to use morality in their decisions in particular cases; and two, that the morality judges are obligated to use in their judicial reasonings, is best seen as the natural lawyer sees it, namely, as being part of the law that obligates judges in their role as judges. The author not only believes these theses to be true; he also thinks that these theses are practically important, in that their acceptance by judges (and by the legal culture that reinforces judges) makes for better judging.     

Reflections on the Exercise of Prosecutorial Discretion 50 Years After Publication of The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society

In The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 acknowledged the influential role that prosecutors play but lamented the fact that their highly discretionary charging and plea bargaining decisions were often made haphazardly and inconsistently. The Commission called for more transparency and accountability in charging and plea bargaining processes. I examine the exercise of prosecutorial discretion in the 50 years since the publication of the Commission's report, with a focus on the results of research and changes in policy and practice. Although the charging and plea bargaining processes have not been subject to the type of scholarly scrutiny directed at judges’ sentencing decisions, the research that has been published in the past several decades has become more theoretically grounded, methodologically sophisticated, and transdisciplinary. In terms of policy, decisions handed down by the Supreme Court since the 1960s have provided some minimal regulation of charging and plea bargaining, and the reforms embraced by state and federal prosecutors have affected the exercise of prosecutorial discretion.     

Dangerous decisions: A theoretical framework for understanding how judges assess credibility in the courtroom

Purpose. Numerous wrongful convictions have brought into question the ability of judges and juries to accurately evaluate the credibility of witnesses, including defendants. Dangerous decisions theory (DDT) offers a theoretical framework to build our understanding of the decision‐making process that can culminate in such injustices. Arguments. According to DDT, the reading of a defendant's face and emotional expressions play a major role in initiating a series of ‘dangerous’ decisions concerning his/her credibility. Specifically, potent judgments of trustworthiness occur rapidly upon seeing a defendant's face, subjectively experienced as intuition. Originally evolved to reduce the danger to the observer, the initial judgment – which may be unreliable – will be enduring and have a powerful influence on the interpretation and assimilation of incoming evidence concerning the defendant. Ensuing inferences will be irrational, but rationalized by the decision maker through his/her subjective schemas about trustworthiness and heuristics for identifying deceptive behaviour. Facilitated by a high level of motivation, a non‐critical, tunnel vision assimilation of potentially disconfirming or ambiguous target information can culminate in a mistaken evaluation of guilt or innocence. Conclusions. Empirically based education and responsible expert testimony could serve to reduce such biases and improve legal decision‐making.     

Power,National Security and Transparency: Judicial Decision Making and Social Architecture in the Federal Courts

Even in a democratic society, the need for transparency must be balanced with an important countervailing interest: the occasional, legitimate need for government secrecy. This article, based on an examination of opinions in federal cases dealing with national security and transparency, explores how judges identified the main legal issues presented by a case and the legal factors or mode of legal interpretation used to reach or justify their conclusions. The article concludes that many of these opinions are as much about judges’ attempts to balance the judicial branch's power with the powers of the executive and legislative branches as they are about national security and transparency. Furthermore, the article contends these opinions have created an “architecture of power” that determines how national security information is controlled. The final section also suggests that judges should be mindful of the original architecture of power established by the Constitution and the First Amendment when writing their opinions.     

The Views of Psychologists,Lawyers, and Judges on Key Components and the Quality of Child Custody Evaluations in Australia

This study aimed to understand the expectations of and the agreement between professional groups regarding the quality of single‐expert reports written by psychologists (known as child custody evaluations in the United States). 13 psychologists, 18 family lawyers, 26 children's lawyers, and 8 judges (N = 65) in New South Wales, Australia, rated the overall quality of reports and the quality of various components of them. Interprofessional congruence on importance ratings allowed key components to be derived. The results revealed that the overall quality of reports was rated positively, however, significant discrepancies were found between importance and quality ratings on the various components, indicating that reports fall short of expectations in many areas.     

Family judges in the city of Buenos Aires: a view from within

This paper summarises the main findings of a study of gender differences in the values and attitudes of family judges carried out in Buenos Aires, Argentina. The study explored how men and women judges understood their profession and its requirements, their representation of the ideal family judge, their motivation to become family judges, the way they experienced the power they wield, and their opinion on the supposed contributions women judges might bring to the family judiciary. The study's findings were analysed in terms of Gilligan's ethic of justice/ethic of care approach. Two key results emerged. Firstly, there were no clear-cut differences between men and women in terms of their adherence to an ethic of justice or of care respectively. Secondly, distinct gender differences were apparent in the way women judges approached decision-making.     

To object or not to object: The question of women judges in Egypt

Developing countries where women have not been permitted into the judiciary are excluded from feminist scholarship on women and the law. Such exclusion limits comparative views to a specific cultural‐historical domain. This paper explores the case of Egypt, where women have not entered the judiciary, in an attempt to extend the cross‐cultural discussion. A premise of the paper is that a theological vision of women's gender roles, which is qualitatively different from the prevailing one in the West, is a strong influencing factor on women's access to the judiciary in Egypt. After presenting a brief overview of women's status in Islam, this paper explores perspectives on women's role as judges within Islamic Shari'a. Building on the brief exploration of Islam's views regarding women's access to the judiciary, this paper then presents contemporary debates regarding women as judges in the Egyptian case. A recommendation for a more careful examination of the theological influences on the Egyptian debate regarding women's access to the judiciary concludes the paper.