SENTENCING IN CONTEXT: A MULTILEVEL ANALYSIS

Criminal sentencing is, along with arresting and prosecuting, among the most important of formal social control decisions. In this study we use hierarchical modeling to test hypotheses about contextual level influences and cross level interaction effects on local court decisions. Most of the explanatory "action," our analysis shows, is at the individual case level in criminal sentencing. We also find evidence that local contextual features–such as court organizational culture, court caseload pressure, and racial and ethnic composition–affect sentencing outcomes, either directly or in interaction with individual factors. We conclude by discussing theoretical implications of our findings, and how our study points out some dilemmas among civil rights, local autonomy and organizational realities of criminal courts.     

Citizen assessment of local criminal courts: Does fairness matter?

Public opinion about local court systems is an important area of scholarly inquiry that has received little empirical attention. This study utilized a survey implemented by the National Center for State Courts to examine the effect of perceptions of fairness (egalitarian and discriminatory) on respondent satisfaction with local court handling of criminal cases (violent criminal, drug, and juvenile delinquency). Findings from OLS regression analyses indicated that perception of both egalitarian and discriminatory fairness had an impact on respondent reported satisfaction with local court handling of criminal cases. The results of the analyses also suggested that instrumental concerns, in the context of perceptions that courts resolve cases in a timely manner, had a significant impact on public assessment of local criminal courts. By contrast, prior experiences with local courts and respondent demographic factors had little direct influence on respondent satisfaction with local criminal court handling of cases. Direction for future research and implications of the findings are discussed.     

A systematic review of drug court effects on recidivism

Drug courts have been proposed as a solution to the increasing numbers of drug involved offenders entering our criminal justice system, and they have become widespread since their introduction in 1989. Evaluations of these programs have led to mixed results. Using meta-analytic methods, we systematically reviewed the extant evidence on the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing future criminal offending. Fifty studies representing 55 evaluations were identified, including both experimental and quasi-experimental comparison group designs. The overall findings tentatively suggest that drug offenders participating in a drug court are less likely to reoffend than similar offenders sentenced to traditional correctional options. The equivocation of this conclusion stems from the generally weak methodological nature of the research in this area, although higher quality studies also observed positive results. Furthermore, the evidence tentatively suggests that drug courts using a single model (pre- or post-plea) may be more effective than those not employing these methods. These courts have a clear incentive for completion of the drug court program.

Exporting Court Innovation from the United States to Continental Europe: Compatibility between the Drug Court Model and Inquisitorial Justice Systems

This paper explores the viability of the adoption of the American drug court model by European countries relying on inquisitorial justice systems, by focusing on the compatibility between key features of each. Discussion of the key features of the European inquisitorial systems focuses on their underlying ideologies and values. Discussion of the key features of the American drug courts is informed by data from a comprehensive nationwide survey of drug courts (the National Drug Court Survey).

The preference for rehabilitative goals, the very active judicial role of the judge, and the collaboration between defense and prosecution in inquisitorial systems are identified as elements highly conducive to the importation of drug courts. Treatment integration and the relative (in) flexibility to establish a legal framework for the operation of drug courts are identified as challenges to potential importation. Overall, there is a great deal of compatibility between key features of the drug courts in the US and key features of the inquisitorial systems of most European countries. This makes the adoption of drug courts in Europe a potentially viable response to illegal drug use and drug‐related crime.     

An Examination of the Denver Drug Court: The Impact of a Treatment‐Oriented Drug‐Offender System

This paper reports on a retrospective study of the Denver Drug Court that was conducted to assess the court's impact on court processing, treatment matching, and offender recidivism. A sample of 300 offenders from the Denver Drug Court and drug offenders from two previous years prior to the drug court was obtained. Quasi‐experimental procedures were used to examine differences in measured variables across each offender cohort. Data for this study were collected from court records as well as through on‐line arrest records. This paper begins with an exploration of the organizational framework of the Denver Drug Court and the court's related treatment options. It also examines the extant literature on the effectiveness of drug courts. Analysis of the data indicates that the Denver Drug Court has reduced case processing time and it has slightly reduced the amount of time offenders spend in presentence confinement. Unlike previous studies of drug courts, this study attempted to examine the court's ability to match offenders to treatment needs. Analysis of the available data, although limited, suggests that offenders are being matched to appropriate levels of treatment. Finally, data analysis indicates no significant differences in revocation or rearrest rates. This article concludes with a discussion of the controversial nature of drug courts. Directions for future research are offered.     

Drug Court through the Lenses of African American Women: Improving Graduation Rates with Gender-Responsive Interventions

Drug courts began in the United States in 1989, and nearly three decades of evidence has shown that drug courts are more effective than other criminal justice interventions at reducing criminal recidivism. There has, however, been a trend in some drug courts where African Americans are less likely to graduate than their White counterparts, which is concerning because evidence has also shown that graduating the program reduces the odds of recidivating. Little is known about African Americans’ experiences in drug court, and this is the first known qualitative study to ask African American women (N?=?8) about the most helpful aspects of drug court that support them in graduating and how the drug court could be more helpful in supporting them to graduate. The women felt that the drug court judge was their advocate and understood the unique challenges they faced with balancing the demands of drug court with motherhood. Conversely, the women felt that they were not receiving effective, gender-responsive treatment for their substance use disorders, which was a barrier to them graduating drug court. The findings are discussed in reference to drug court practice and future research.     

An experimental trial of adaptive programming in drug court: outcomes at 6, 12 and 18 months

Objectives

To test whether an adaptive program improves outcomes in drug court by adjusting the schedule of court hearings and clinical case-management sessions pursuant to a priori performance criteria.

Methods

Consenting participants in a misdemeanor drug court were randomly assigned to the adaptive program (n?=?62) or to a baseline-matching condition (n?=?63) in which they attended court hearings based on the results of a criminal risk assessment. Outcome measures were re-arrest rates at 18 months post-entry to the drug court, and urine drug test results and structured interview results at 6 and 12 months post-entry.

Results

Although previously published analyses revealed significantly fewer positive drug tests for participants in the adaptive condition during the first 18 weeks of drug court, current analyses indicate the effects converged during the ensuing year. Between-group differences in new arrest rates, urine drug test results and self-reported psychosocial problems were small and non-statistically significant at 6, 12, and 18 months post-entry. A non-significant trend (p?=?.10) suggests there may have been a small residual impact (Cramer’s v?=?.15) on new misdemeanor arrests after 18 months.

Conclusions

Adaptive programming shows promise for enhancing short-term outcomes in drug courts; however, additional efforts are needed to extend the effects beyond the first 4 to 6 months of enrollment.     

The Drug Court as Postmodern Justice

The drug court is far more than a new version of the old drug-diversion idea. It is a fundamental embodiment of postmodern justice and represents a paradigm shift from criminal court practices. This article compares the drug court to the criminal court in terms of the dimensions of the modernism-postmodernism debate as specified in legal research and public policy scholarship. First, the courts are differentiated in terms of their worldviews, ideas on the nature of society, definitions of truth, and conceptions of the foundation of law. Next, the drug court and criminal court jurisprudence are juxtaposed. Specific dimensions include their collaborative versus adversarial systems and the individualized versus the due process framework. Finally, the two courts are considered in terms of their divergent visions of the drug user. Upon analysis, it appears that the two courts are in an intractable ideological disagreement framed by competing modern versus postmodern intellectual dispositions.     

Implementing the Key Components of Specialized Drug Treatment Courts: Practice and Policy Considerations

The perceived need for specialized drug courts emerged from the most recent "war on drugs." Courts were no longer able to handle such cases effectively because of an overwhelming volume of drug arrests and prosecutions. The increased emphasis on drug enforcement also revealed that many of the most serious criminally involved drug‐using offenders were undeterred by threats of incarceration, but were amenable to substance abuse treatment. Drug court professionals have identified several "key components" that must be in place for these courts to achieve their goals of reducing drug use and crime. Through the lens of these key drug court components, we examine the development and initiation of specialized drug treatment courts in Cook County (Chicago), Illinois. By exploring and documenting Cook County's experiences, we elucidate several of the basic policy and organizational issues surrounding the implementation and operations of specialized drug treatment courts in the United States.     

Achieving justice for children: public defenders in Israel's juvenile courts

In 1999, public defender (PD) representation of defendants appearing before Israel's juvenile courts began to be phased in. This article reports some of the major findings of a study that examined the impacts of the introduction of PDs. Analysis of interviews with 14 PDs yielded four major themes concerning the impact of the "arrival" of PDs, nature of the court, PDs' role, and PDs' interactions with other court actors. Analysis of interviews with eight prosecutors yielded seven themes concerning the need for PDs, PD as state agent, PDs' role, harms of legalization, disruption of the court, compromising the therapeutic value of the court hearing, and changes in court process. More generally, both PDs and prosecutors placed uncritical store in the value of rehabilitation alternatives. Indeed, the welfare model continues to shape their roles. The findings can largely be explained in terms of Eisenstein and Jacob's courtroom workgroup model.     

Mental health, gender, and drug court completion

Drug-involved offenders report high rates of mental health problems that can negatively impact criminal justice outcomes. Yet, relatively little attention has been given to the mental health issues of drug court offenders. Therefore, this study examined 449 participants in a Delaware drug court and investigated relationships between mental health, gender, and program completion. Bivariate results indicated that gender was related to both mental health status and completion status. Multivariate findings revealed that two indicators of mental health, depression and being prescribed drugs for a psychological or emotional problem, were significant predictors of drug court completion. Policy implications include assessing the mental health status of all drug court participants at program entry so that services can be provided which aim to improve offender health and increase the likelihood of successful program outcomes. Drug courts must better meet the needs of participants with co-occurring disorders if they are to remain an effective and viable criminal justice intervention. This research was supported by grant RO1 DA12424 “Drug Court Offenders in Outpatient Treatment,” by the National Institute on Drug Abuse.     

ROMANCING THE COURT

Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.     

Matching Judicial Supervision to Clients' Risk Status in Drug Court

This article reports outcomes from a program of experimental research evaluating the risk principle in drug courts. Prior studies revealed that participants who were high risk and had (a) antisocial personality disorder or (b) a prior history of drug abuse treatment performed better in drug court when scheduled to attend biweekly judicial status hearings in court. In contrast, participants who were low risk performed equivalently regardless of the court hearings schedule. This study prospectively matches drug court clients to the optimal schedule of court hearings based on an assessment of their risk status and compares outcomes to clients randomly assigned to the standard hearings schedule. Results confirmed that participants who were high risk and matched to biweekly hearings had better during-treatment outcomes than participants assigned to status hearings as usual. These findings provide confirmation of the risk principle in drug courts and yield practical information for enhancing the efficacy and cost-efficiency of drug courts.     

Sustained Outcomes? an Exploratory Study of Juvenile Drug Courts and Long-Term Recidivism

This exploratory study examined juvenile drug courts’ effect on adulthood recidivism. Utilizing a twelve-year average follow up time, adult recidivism rates were compared between previous juvenile drug court participants and a comparison group of juveniles who participated in traditional probation. Linear regression models indicated limited recidivism effects of drug court on arrests or convictions into adulthood. The findings suggest that gender and race may play a role in how justice-involved juveniles interact and experience juvenile drug court, highlighting the need for gender-responsive and culturally responsive policies, practices, and programs within juvenile drug courts. Recommendations are made regarding future research areas and ways to potentially improve long-term juvenile drug court outcomes.     

Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts

Purpose

The objective of this research was to systematically review quasi-experimental and experimental evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing offending.

Methods

Our search identified 154 independent evaluations: 92 evaluations of adult drug courts, 34 of juvenile drug courts, and 28 of DWI drug courts. The findings of these studies were synthesized using meta-analysis.

Results

The vast majority of adult drug court evaluations, even the most rigorous evaluations, find that participants have lower recidivism than non-participants. The average effect of participation is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% to 38%; and, these effects last up to three years. Evaluations of DWI drug courts find effects similar in magnitude to those of adult drug courts, but the most rigorous evaluations do not uniformly find reductions in recidivism. Juvenile drug courts have substantially smaller effects on recidivism. Larger reductions in recidivism were found in adult drug courts that had high graduation rates, and those that accepted only non-violent offenders.

Conclusions

These findings support the effectiveness of adult drug courts in reducing recidivism. The evidence assessing DWI courts' effectiveness is very promising but more experimental evaluations are needed. Juvenile drug courts typically produce small reductions in recidivism.     

THE BEST SEAT IN THE HOUSE: THE COURT ASSIGNMENT AND JUDICIAL SATISFACTION

A survey of 355 judges examined the differences in judicial satisfaction between those assigned to problem-solving courts—such as drug treatment and unified family—and judges in other more traditional assignments such as family law and criminal courts. The unified family court systems, like drug treatment courts, have generally adopted the principles of therapeutic jurisprudence. Significant differences were found on each of the three survey scales: (1) helpfulness, (2) attitude toward litigants, and (3) positive effects of assignment. The judges who were in the problem-solving courts (drug treatment and unified family court) scored higher on all three scales than those who were not (traditional family and criminal court). The group of problem-solving court judges consistently scored higher than the other group of judges, with the drug treatment court judges scoring the highest. The group of traditional criminal court and family court judges scored less positively, with the criminal court judges having the lowest scores. The problem-solving court judges were more likely to report believing that the role of the court should include helping litigants address the problems that brought them there and were more likely to observe positive changes in the litigants. They were also more likely to believe that litigants are motivated to change and are able to do so. They felt more respected by the litigants and were more likely to think that the litigants were grateful for help they received. The problem-solving court judges were also more likely to report being happy in their assignments and to believe that these assignments have a positive emotional effect on them.     

德国法院体系探析

德国特色法院体系的形成与演变有其深刻的社会历史背景,首先是文化传统,其次是经济体制,第三是工人运动。德国的法院系统由宪法法院、普通法院和专门法院三类组成。宪法法院专门审理违宪案件;普通法院只审理刑事案件和民事案件;专门法院包括(普通)行政法院、财政法院、劳动法院、社会法院、专利法院、军事法院和惩戒法院等。除了(普通)法院和宪法法院具有独立地位外,其他法院均隶属于政府有关部门。德国行政审判权由各级行政法院与劳动法院、社会法院、财政法院等共同行使。专门法院的性质介于行政机关与司法机关之间,但行政机关的性质更多(本质上属于行政司法)。     

Employment preservation vs. creditors’ repayment under bankruptcy law: The French dilemma?

The paper investigates the French dilemma associated with court administered resolution of corporate financial distress. In such a legal system, the courts seek a double objective: maintaining job positions through continuation, and determining the best outcome for the claimants. We discuss this dilemma empirically, using a unique sample of bankruptcy files on French SMEs. We address successively three critical questions. First, we highlight the determinants of the final bankruptcy outcome (continuation through reorganization or sale, or piecemeal liquidation): does continuation (the most employment-friendly outcome) depend on the firm's characteristics, and/or on the way the procedure is managed? Second, we study the determinants of the creditors’ recovery rates: do the courts play an active role in increasing recoveries? Third, we address the dilemma directly by focusing on sales as a going concern. We model the court administered selection process between rival buyout offers: do the courts balance the social content against the financial content of each offer? Is there an explicit arbitrage between employment preservation and creditor recoveries? Our main results are: (1) the French courts actively work to facilitate continuation against liquidation, and thus play a role in employment preservation. Besides, we find continuation is more likely to prevail when default is an outcome of specific difficulties (outlets, finance, and production). (2) We confirm the Radulovic (2008) findings: the global recovery rate mainly depends on the firm's ex ante characteristics at the time of triggering, while the way the procedure is managed by the court has little impact. Similarly to LoPucki and Doherty (2007), continuation via reorganization does not generate lower recovery rates on average than the other outcomes. (3) Last, the courts’ choice between rival buyout offers confirms that social considerations prevail in the arbitration. Yet, the courts still consider financial issues as well (a higher sale price increases the chances that an offer is selected), but without clear connection with the amount of due claims (one direct consequence is a moderate recovery rate on sales).     

The Organization and Operation of Teen Courts in the United States: A Comparative Analysis of Legislation

Teen courts are juvenile justice diversion programs found in most states. Programs vary significantly between, and even within, states, making regulation cumbersome. Their grass roots nature requires legislative latitude so each program can meet the specific needs of the communities they serve. States have passed both specific and broad legislation acknowledging their existence and providing referral sources. This article examines teen court legislation from every state, analyzes each, and draws conclusions about teen courts from a legislative perspective.