Considering the consequences of increased reliance on judicial assistants: a study on Dutch courts

Virtually all judicial systems employ judicial staff members to assist judges in their work. However, except for US Supreme Court law clerks the role of these judicial assistants in judicial decision-making is minimally understood. This observation also holds true for the Netherlands, where an increased focus on managerial issues, such as efficiency and effectiveness, seems to have resulted in a growing number of judicial duties being assigned to judicial assistants. This article provides an initial reflection on such reliance on assistants. The context in which this development occurred is clarified, and the manifestation of the role of judicial assistants within the judicial process is described. This article also discusses two factors that require consideration when reliance on assistants increases: (1) the mechanisms for safeguarding the profession of the judge and the judicial assistant; and (2) the position of the judicial assistant in the judicial decision-making process. The consideration demonstrates the advantages of employing judicial assistants and also sheds light on serious risks relating to an increased role of judicial assistants in judicial decision-making.     

The consideration of ecological safety in judicial practice — also on the ecological safety legislation

Ecological safety has been one of the hot issues of environmental law in recent years. The maintenance of ecological safety has become one of the legislative principles, as exemplified by the revision of the Law of Sand Prevention and Sand Management and the Law against Solid Waste Environmental Pollution, and the relevant rules that will be established. However actual cases will still happen, whether the legislators have made the statutory law or not. While scholars and legislators are debating, the judges have to handle cases and render judgments. Through the analysis of a case, this article will discuss the feasibility for judges to make ecological safety considerations in the judicial process by applying the principle of good faith and will also discuss the legislative issues related to ecological safety.     

Judicial Independence, Judicial Promotion and the Enforcement of Legislative Wealth Transfers—An Empirical Study of the New Zealand High Court

This paper investigates the Landes-Posner thesis on judicial independence using data on public law decisions in which the government was the defendant decided in the New Zealand High Court over the period 1958–2001. We use survival analysis to examine whether successive New Zealand governments have promoted judges from the High Court to the Court of Appeal (which stands above the High Court) on the basis of political considerations, the quality of the judge's decision-making or both. Our findings suggest that the quality of decision-making has generally been important. Consistent with the weak form of the Landes-Posner hypothesis we find no evidence that governments have used their powers to punish judges who decided cases against them. On the contrary, we find some support for the strong form of the Landes-Posner thesis that governments positively use their powers to secure judicial independence.     

Prison sentences: last resort or the default sanction?

ABSTRACT

This paper discusses the sentencing purposes for penal penalties, judges’ perceptions of sentencing purposes and prison sentences, and the effects of penal sanctions. We examine judges’ positions towards different penalties, with a focus on imprisonment, since their views on the different penalties are related to their sentencing decision-making. Understanding these views is then critical for several practical and political purposes, including bridging the gap between academic discourse and legal practice. We accessed judges’ views on penal sanctions through a questionnaire and an interview. Our sample is compounded by the judges of the criminal courts from the three major cities in Portugal. Despite the most recent criminological empirical knowledge, judges valued imprisonment as the most adequate sentence, both for different crimes and for different judicial purposes. This result is not consistent with viewing imprisonment as a ‘last resort’ solution. Indeed, we did not find this ‘last resort’ position in our data, and it is not apparent in the judicial statistics on imprisonment rates. Our data highlight the importance of increasing judges’ training on criminological and sociological issues as well as the importance of changing the influence of their personal beliefs regarding penal sanctions into research-based positions.     

A Gramscian Approach to Studying the Judicial Decision-Making Process

This paper applies a Gramscian analytical framework to scrutinise the judicial decision-making process. Based on two distinct research projects, the article explores how, on one hand judges in criminal courts can be identified as part of the bureaucratic machinery of the state, as ‘technicians of repression’; whereas, on the other hand, human rights judges can be distinguished as providing ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ in their production and reproduction of certain values. Some of the key questions this article seeks to answer are: What is the role of hegemony in the judicial decision-making process? To what extent are legal actors both ‘technicians of repression’ and ‘moral and intellectual leaders’? This paper uses examples from empirical research conducted at courts in Argentina and at the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights to identify and explore this dual role of judges as both repressive technicians and moral and intellectual leaders in neo-liberal capitalist societies.     

Women judges who judge women offenders: a Chinese case study on gender and judging

ABSTRACT

Based on an empirical study, this article examines Chinese female judges’ life experiences and worldviews by asking: are women judges feminist or pro-feminism? Given the very nature of feminism, if a large number of women judges are feminist or pro-feminism, they are likely to bring attention to women’s issues in the judiciary and the judicial process. If so, women’s equal participation in courts would make a vital difference in law and judicial production. The article first provides the context of the research on which this article is based. Next, it briefly outlines several key methodological issues. Then, it presents findings on female judges’ perceptions of women’s gender roles, their views about female offending and their awareness of feminism. Finally, it highlights the evidence presented and offers implications of the research.     

Enhancing judicial skills in domestic violence cases: the development,implementation, and preliminary evaluation of a model US programme

ABSTRACT

The overwhelming number and complexity of domestic violence cases in criminal and family courts has resulted in the development of education programmes to assist judges. There is limited research on judicial education in this area. This paper reviews one such initiative entitled ‘Enhancing Judicial Skills in Domestic Violence Cases’ (EJS) that has been developed and implemented over the last 20 years by the National Judicial Institute on Domestic Violence, a partnership of the US Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women, National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges and Futures Without Violence. We present findings of a preliminary evaluation of the programme based on the self-reports of 480 judges who had taken the four-day workshop between 2006 and 2010. Overall, judges reported the programme to be engaging and effective. At a six-month follow‐up, most of the judges identified specific benefits and behavior changes in the areas of access to justice, judicial leadership, victim safety, and abuser accountability as a result of participating in the programme. Critical issues in judicial education are highlighted based on the authors’ experiences in the development and implementation of this programme.     

Dyzenhaus on Positivism and Judicial Obligation

Abstract
The author criticizes the argument in Dyzenhaus (1991) that a study of South African judicial decisions establishes the superiority of Dworkinian anti-positivism over legal positivism. Among the claims criticized are: (1) Positivism and anti-positivism each imply a specific theory of judicial duty, and the decisions of South African judges are explained by their adherence to one or the other of these theories; (2) resistance to South African government policy was morally required of judges; (3) the only theory which supports this resistance (anti-positivism) is therefore the correct one; (4) the cases establish that judges do not have discretion in hard cases; (5) Dworkin's theory does not imply that South African judges are required to apply the wicked principles embedded in their legal system; (6) positivism involves a pragmatic contradiction.     

法律原则适用与程序制度保障——以民事法为中心的分析

法律原则因为没有明确、具体的事实构成要件和法律效果而无法像法律规则那样为当事人提供行为准则,为法官提供裁判根据。适用法律原则处理个案纠纷就是法官以自己所“造”之法进行司法裁判,其适用困境的实质在于,以立法机关制定的(成文)法律规则为中心运行的司法制度(尤其是司法程序)难以为法官行使自由裁量权提供有效的正当性论证。在实体法、法律适用技术的范围内,以构建适用条件、适用规则,完善适用方法等方式来破解此困境,作用极为有限。重构司法程序制度,使当事人、社会能够以恰当的方式参与到具体的裁判过程以制约法官的裁量权,或许是解决此难题的可能途径。     

Are Judicial Performance Evaluations Fair to Women and Minorities? A Cautionary Tale from Clark County,Nevada

Because voters rely on judicial performance evaluations when casting their ballots, policymakers should work diligently to compile valid, reliable, and unbiased information about our sitting judges. Although some claim that judicial performance evaluations are fair, the systematic research needed to establish such a proposition has not been done. By the use of attorney judicial performance survey data from Clark County, Nevada, this analysis shows that objective measures of judicial performance cannot explain away differences in scores based on race and sex. Minority judges and female judges score consistently and significantly lower than do their white and male counterparts, all other things being equal. These results are consistent with the hypothesis that judicial performance evaluation surveys may carry with them unexamined and unconscious gender/race biases. Future research must compare judicial performance evaluation structure, content, and execution across states in order to identify those evaluation mechanisms least susceptible to unconscious gender and race bias.     

Expert testimony in cult-related litigation

The work of forensic psychiatrists has expanded into the controversial area of cases involving new religious movements. Challenges to the expert witness in such cases include new questions and a large body of relevant literature. Published appeals decisions have appeared with judicial comments on the conduct of the involved experts. This article presents the comments about expert witnesses from judges who decided cases involving the major new issues of coercion both in recruitment into and forcible abduction from cults, and competency to join and make donations to these groups. The judicial comments are evaluated using relevant literature from the fields of law, psychiatry, and religion. This provides a basis for general observations and suggestions regarding the involvement of psychiatric experts in cult-related cases.     

Assessing the influence of the Columbine shooting on federal sentencing outcomes

School shootings are not a new phenomenon in the United States or internationally. In comparison to other acts of violence experienced by youth, such tragedies are uncommon but garner extensive media attention. The Columbine High School shooting received more attention across a broader range of issues than any other school shooting, with only the Sandy Hook tragedy rivaling it for media attention. In the aftermath of the Columbine shooting, public sentiment regarding violence in schools became a central point of contention that bred fear and panic. Given the embeddedness of judges within the larger community context and the effects of community characteristics on sentencing outcomes, we wondered if the Columbine shooting – via moral panic and community upheaval – might have had an impact on judges imposing criminal sentences. To assess the effect of the Columbine shooting on judicial decision-making outcomes, the current study uses United States Sentencing Commission data from 1998 through 2001. In doing so, it contributes to the extant literature concerning the embeddedness of judges within communities and answers recent call for more research on the temporal context of sentencing disparities.     

Understanding the Judicial Role in Addressing Gender Bias: A View from the Eighth Circuit Federal Court System

The role of trial judges in the litigation process is frequently debated. Are judges to be dispassionate adjudicators, disengaged referees in a sport in which attorneys compete? Or are they charged with a more active role in promoting the substance, form, and process of justice? In the present paper, we explore the judicial role in addressing gender bias in federal litigation, using data gathered for the Eighth Circuit Gender Fairness Task Force. The federal judges of this circuit were surveyed about their experiences, observations, and opinions of gender-biased conduct. Results indicated that although judges viewed judicial intervention as an appropriate response to gender bias, they had little personal experience with intervention in such a situation. Fur thermore, when specific hypothetical scenarios were presented, they generally agreed that the described conduct was inappropriate but offered little consensus regarding the best course of action for an attorney or judge confronted with such behavior. The Eighth Circuit data thus provide the basis for expanded understanding of the conduct at issue, the options for action in response, and the persistent discrepancy in viewpoints on gender bias and the judicial role.     

Judges as satisficers: a law and economics perspective on judicial liability

If judges are guardians of the law, who is to protect the individual member of society from the occasional corrupt, malicious, or reckless judge? The aim of this paper is to provide an answer to the last part of this question, focusing more heavily on cases of negligently inflicted harm. Departing from Simon’s bounded rationality and influenced by other constructs in behavioral law and economics, we view judges as satisficers who make decisions within real-world constraints, such as imperfect information and uncertainty, cognitive limitations and erroneous information. Judges are limited by the commonly observed barriers to the decision making process. Because their goal is not to optimize but to render opinions that are merely satisfactory, they often act as poor agents of their principals’ interests. In this light, it becomes clearer why judges tend to engage in behavior that is “improper”, especially under the circumstances of the currently overloaded judicial caseloads. We first address the differences in judges’ roles in Anglo-American and Continental legal systems. We then present our simple model for judicial misbehavior based on an understanding of judges as “satisficers”. Next we discuss the particularities of judicial errors and introduce a realistic and viable construct of “inexcusable judicial error”. On this basis we evaluate the impact of various incentive schemes on judicial behavior, focusing on the civil liability of judges. We conclude that civil liability for grave judicial errors is the most adequate remedy.     

Quarantined judicial expansion: The environmental legal entrepreneurship of Chinese courts,procuratorates, and NGOs

Although judicial empowerment has become increasingly common worldwide, the expansion of judicial powers in authoritarian countries faces persistent obstacles, such as institutional dependence, lack of political clout, and the repression of civil society. Through empirically examining three cases of environmental legal entrepreneurship under China's new public interest litigation (PIL) system, this study aims to reevaluate the patterns and limits of judicial expansion under authoritarianism. It finds that Chinese judges, prosecutors, and NGOs have been able to leverage the PIL system and their respective institutional advantages to substantially expand judicial oversight on eco-environmental protection. However, the state has established boundaries for such legal entrepreneurship in terms of subject matter, institutional autonomy, and geographic reach, effectively confining them within political spheres considered unthreatening to the regime. Such quarantined judicial expansion shields relevant actors from authoritarian governments' tendency to suppress legal mobilization and thus may be a more viable form of judicial expansion in nondemocratic settings.     

寻求一种温和的司法能动主义——论疑难案件中法官的司法哲学

在面对疑难案件时,法官的司法哲学是案件的最终裁决者。信奉司法能动主义的法官倾向于通过创造性司法来回应社会需求,而司法消极主义则将自己定位为立法者的代理人,反对通过司法途径来解决重大社会问题。在当下的中国法治建设中,基于社会转型的现实,法官在审理疑难案件时应当秉持一种温和的能动主义的司法理念,通过创造性司法来回应社会变迁,实现社会正义。     

VOTER PARTICIPATION IN MUNICIPAL COURT ELECTIONS IN LOS ANGELES COUNTY

Although significant research has been done on voter participation and the election of executives and legislators, very little literature exists on the election of state judges, and there is virtually no literature on the election of trial court judges. In view of the policy-making activities of judges, this absence of research hampers understanding of the overall public policy-making process. The few studies of the election of state supreme court justices indicate that, compared to other nonpartisan elections, participation in judicial elections is somewhat similar. This study of municipal court elections in Los Angeles county found that voter participation was higher than expected and suggests that changes in the process could have policy implications.     

Withholding and withdrawing of life support: a medicolegal dilemma

The developments in medicine in general and the technology of life support in particular have provided the means of maintaining organ function for prolonged periods of time. However, there are many situations where life-sustaining treatment in an intensive care unit (ICU) may lead to a death with lingering and suffering of the patient, as well as burdening their family. Although often equated, withholding and/or withdrawing life-prolonging treatments that allow the patient to die needs to be differentiated from the physician-assisted suicides and euthanasia that involve the active ending of life. There is a difference between an unintended but accepted consequence of forgoing therapy and an intended result of death from suicide or euthanasia. The present-day physicians view most patient deaths as an inevitable process secondary to disorders unresponsive to treatment and/or multiple organ dysfunction syndromes. The large majority of patients dying in ICUs today succumb not after cardiopulmonary resuscitation, but rather, after the forgoing of life-sustaining treatment. Such approach has frequently caused families, institutions, and conservators of patients to resort to judicial fiat for resolution.     

Risks of Criminal Victimization in Contemporary Urban China: An Application of Lifestyle/Routine Activities Theory

The philosophical underpinnings of youth courts rest on the notion that youths are less culpable and more reformable than adults. Some scholars argue that, ideally, when sentencing youth crime, judges should engage youthful offenders in moral communication to elicit change. But do they? What more generally do judges say to the youths? This paper analyzes the frequency and content of judicial censure and moral communication in the sentencing of youth sex offenders. Drawing on the sentencing remarks for 55 sexual violence cases, we examine the ways in which judges interact with youths and censure the offenses, and what, if any, normative guidance they give concerning gender, sexuality, and violence. We found that in most but not all cases, the judges censured the offending as both a moral and legal wrong. However, they spent more time discussing a youth’s future than past behavior, as they sought to elicit change. The judges did not degrade or exclude the offenders; rather, they addressed them in a spirit of reintegration, as worthy individuals with future potential. Although the judges set norms of appropriate sexual behavior to the youths when the offense victims were children, they did not always do so when victims were female peers. In this Youth Court, “real rape” was sexual offending by a youth against a child under 12 years of age. By contrast, in about one‐fifth of cases, all of which occurred against a female peer, the offending was censured only as a legal wrong (a “pseudo censure”) and less likely subject to judicial norm setting.     

ONE CASE–ONE SPECIALIZED JUDGE: WHY COURTS HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO MANAGE ALIENATION AND OTHER HIGH-CONFLICT CASES

This article challenges the traditional approach to alienation and other high-conflict cases in which many different generalist judges deal with the case. The objectives of the judicial process, dealing with cases in a just, timely, and affordable way that instils confidence in the public and litigants, cannot be met unless high-conflict cases are actively managed by one specialist family law judge. Allowing parents in high-conflict cases to decide when and how often their case should come before the court exacerbates the negative effects of the litigation on children. This article concludes that, unless the litigation is properly managed by specialist judges, the justice system unintentionally causes harm to children.