The trials and tribulations of court reform: A review essay

This study examines the impact of religious programs on institutional adjustment and recidivism rates in two matched groups of inmates from four adult male prisons in New York State. One group had participated in programs sponsored by Prison Fellowship (PF); the other had no involvement with PF. PF and non-PF inmates are similar on measures of institutional adjustment, as measured by both general and serious prison infractions, and recidivism, as measured by arrests during a one-year follow-up period. However, after controlling for level of involvement in PF-sponsored programs, inmates who were most active in Bible studies were significantly less likely to be rearrested during the follow-up period.     

JUDGING WITHOUT CONSENSUS: The Diplock Courts in Northern Ireland

This article examines nonjury trials for political/terrorist offenses in Northern Ireland. It traces the origins of the current troubles; the breakdown of the jury system; the work of the royal commission, chaired by Lord Justice Diplock; and the establishment of courts, known as Diplock Courts, in which a single judge tries cases using modified rules of evidence and lowered standards for the admission of confessions. Finally, the article evaluates the work of the Diplock Courts, and suggests their wider relevance to future policy-making. In doing so, it touches upon a fundamental role of governing through courts—the maintenance of the ability to govern, particularly in a society that has neither political nor judicial consensus.     

Demand for civil trials and court congestion

This paper examines interactions between how congested courts are, whether potential plaintiffs decide to sue, and whether potential defendants choose to engage in actions that harm potential plaintiffs. We conclude that in the presence of congestion standard delay reduction efforts (higher filing costs, lower damage awards, out-of-court settlement, greater court capacity) may not be effective.     

The experimental psychologist in court

This special issue comprises articles by psychologists, legal scholars, and ethicists on the ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists. In it the major ethical questions facing the prospective expert witness are clarified, and alternative positions on these issues are defined and debated. Fundamentals of moral reasoning are discussed, and the realities of interaction with a judicial system that subjects the psychologist to a variety of pressures and limitations are made apparent. The aim is not to offer final answers to complex ethical questions, but rather to provide a framework within which the questions can be considered by the individual psychologist.The conference on ethics of expert testimony by experimental psychologists was supported by National Science Foundation grant No. ISP-8209940. We thank Rachelle Hollander of the Ethics and Values in Science and Technology Program, Joe Young of the Memory and Cognitive Processes Program, and Eric Juengst of the National Endowment for the Humanities for their help in bringing about the conference.     

Lessons learned from the implementation of two randomized trials in a criminal court setting

Randomized trials represent the most rigorous type of research design to measure the impact of a social policy intervention. However, such designs are difficult to implement and require the consent of multiple parties, including researchers and non-researchers. Unique challenges arise when seeking to implement such a design in a criminal court setting, due to the need to revise legal procedures, uphold due process for defendants, and obtain the direct, ongoing participation of judges and attorneys, among other stakeholders. The current principals recently conducted two randomized trials concerning the court response to intimate partner violence: one testing the impact of court-ordered batterer programs in the Bronx, New York, and a second testing the impact of intensive judicial monitoring in Rochester, New York. Key lessons involved forging collaborative stakeholder relationships, critically assessing the experimental intervention and its contrast with the control condition, ensuring legal due process for defendants, addressing victim safety, setting realistic timetables, adopting a skeptical view towards estimates of study volume, and anticipating substantial variation from original design to final plan, especially in regards to randomization protocols and defendant eligibility criteria. These lessons may prove invaluable in informing future research in court-based and other social settings where random assignment is pursued.     

Female recidivists speak about their experience in drug court while engaging in appreciative inquiry

Eleven female drug-court participants looked at current and past experiences to assess their program and envision future program innovations. From these women's perspective, the strongest component of drug court was being surrounded by staff dedicated to their progress and recovery. Graduated supervision and accurate drug testing were appreciated rather than resented when the participants were not humiliated and were treated with respect. Wraparound services, resources, and referral; treatment facilities that accepted children; and individualized treatment plans and therapy with offenders who are ex-addicts, and preferably females, allowed for greater involvement and active participation in recovery. Progressing through three phases, acquiring skills, a job, and visitation rights to see their children or regaining custody, increased these women's sense of self-efficacy perception and confidence in their ability to lead a drug-free, meaningful life. Findings show the importance of qualitative criteria in evaluating drug-court participants' progress and the process of recovery.     

The right to counsel in juvenile court

Research Summary The U.S. Supreme Court in In re Gault granted delinquents the right to counsel in juvenile courts. Decades after Gault, efforts to provide adequate defense representation in juvenile courts have failed in most states. Moreover, juvenile justice administration varies with structural context and produces justice-by-geography. In 1995, Minnesota enacted juvenile law reforms, which include mandatory appointment of counsel. This pre- and post-reform legal impact study compares how juvenile courts processed youths before and after the statutory changes. We assess how legal changes affected the delivery of defense services and how implementation varied with urban, suburban, and rural context. Policy Implications We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel. Despite unambiguous legislative intent, rates of representation improved for only one category of offenders. However, we find a positive reduction in justice by geography, especially in rural courts. Given judicial resistance to procedural reforms, states must find additional strategies to provide counsel in juvenile courts.     

The Tarasoff dilemma in criminal court.

The duty to protect, or Tarasoff duty, has been conceptualized as arising solely in the context of a clinical setting. A recent California Supreme Court ruling in People v. Clark adds legal, clinical, and ethical dilemmas to the oftentimes contentious Tarasoff issue. Though the Tarasoff issue is but a minor legal point in Clark, a possible consequence of Clark is that a Tarasoff warning could be deemed nonconfidential and admissible in a criminal trial. Psychotherapists could therefore be testifying in criminal courts as prosecution witnesses. While the possibility of a chilling effect on patients' disclosure of violent ideation in the context of psychotherapy first caused apprehension after the California Supreme Court's 1976 decision in Tarasoff v. Regents of the University of California, this same Court's ruling in People v. Clark some 14 years later may ensure that this fear finally becomes realized.     

The admissibility of polygraph evidence in court

Polygraph evidence is presently inadmissible in Canada and many jurisdictions of the United States. One of the major reasons for its exclusion lies in the belief (held by members of the judiciary) that jurors would accept such evidence without question due to its technical/scientific nature. The question of such blind acceptance was examined in two experiments on the influence of polygraph evidence on people's judgements of guilt. A second question that was also raised was whether a caution on the limitations of the polygraph would be effective in reducing people's weighting of such evidence. Although polygraph evidence was expected to exert some influence over judgements of guilt, it was not expected to be so great as to result in “blind acceptance”. The results of both experiments supported this hypothesis. The inclusion of a caution was also effective in reducing the influence of such evidence. The implications of these findings are discussed in the context of the need to reexamine the admissibility of polygraph evidence in a court of law.     

论法院书记员管理制度

毋庸置疑,司法审判是法院的首要职责和第一要务,在国家机构体系中,法院的定位是国家的“审判机关”。法官无疑是法院系统最核心的职业角色,而书记员、执行员、司法警察、法医、行政管理人员以及后勤服务人员,都属于为法官的审判活动提供服务的辅助性角色。可以说,在所有上述司法辅助人员中书记员是与法官审判活动最接近的一种职业角色。法院的书记员是法院系统重要的具有独立地位的司法辅助人员,尽管从严格意义上讲,书记员和法院的司法警察、行政管理人员、后勤服务人员一样都不属于司法官的范畴,但书记员是保证法院审判工作顺利进行的不可或缺的重要角色,书记员的工作是专门为法官的审判活动提供服务,以保证诉讼活动顺利、明晰和高效进行。     

The effect of transfer mechanism from juvenile court on conviction on a target offense in criminal court

The question of whether juvenile offenders should be handled in criminal court has been addressed by a number of studies. However, few have examined the effectiveness of the type of transfer mechanism and how it relates to protecting the public. Whether the mechanism used to transfer juvenile offenders to criminal court has any effect on the likelihood of being convicted of a target offense criminal court is examined here. It was found that the juveniles sampled in this study had a greater chance of being convicted on their target offense in criminal court if they were sent there via judicial waiver than if they were excluded from juvenile court jurisdiction by statute.     

Juvenile court intake decision making: The importance of family affiliation

Based on an analysis of official records and systematic observations of intake hearings, this study empirically evaluates the criteria employed in determining whether a juvenile is petitioned to court for a formal hearing and if petitioned, whether he or she is held in preadjudicatory detention. Attention is paid to legal, social, demeanor-related, and demographic variables as they impinge on intake decision making. The major finding of this study is that the farther one goes into the intake decision-making process, the more does family disaffiliation become the prominent independent variable. The article places this area of research within relevant criminological paradigms (positivist, interactionist, neo- Marxist), summarizes the existing empirical findings, and integrates theory and evidence with the goal of producing a statement on this screening stage in the juvenile justice endeavor.