Federal Family Drug Treatment Courts: Providing Positive Possibilities

Due to the lack of family drug treatment courts, families are often torn apart when a parent has a substance abuse problem. Children of substance abusers are often abused and neglected. However, children in these tough living situations fear seeking help because they do not want to be the reason that their family is torn apart and they are placed in the foster care system. This Note proposes a federal statute that requires all states to implement family drug treatment courts. These courts allow families to stay intact while providing the parent with the help that he or she needs.     

Reassessing the Influence of Criminal History in Federal Criminal Courts

Abstract

Prior sentencing research indicates that defendants with more extensive criminal histories receive more punitive dispositions and that criminal history influences sentencing decisions over and above its influence on the guideline recommended sentence. To date, these additional effects of criminal history have almost exclusively been treated as linear effects. However, there are plausible reasons to expect that criminal history could have curvilinear effects on sentencing outcomes that taper off at higher scores. The purpose of this paper is to explore the potential curvilinear effects of defendant criminal history on incarceration, sentence length, and downward departure decisions in federal criminal courts. The findings suggest that criminal history has curvilinear effects on each of these sentencing outcomes. As criminal history category increases, defendants receive more severe sentences, net of other factors, but only up to a certain threshold level, at which point criminal history effects taper off and even reverse.     

Sentencing Native Americans in US Federal Courts: An Examination of Disparity

Existing sentencing literature largely focuses on the study of white, African-American, and to a lesser extent, Hispanic offenders. Unfortunately, very little is known about the sentencing of Native American offenders, especially in the federal courts. To address this shortcoming, the current study employs United States Sentencing Commission data for the fiscal years 2006-2008 to examine the comparative punishment of Native Americans. Consistent with the focal concerns perspective and its reliance on perceptions of race-based threat, findings demonstrate that Native Americans are often sentenced more harshly than white, African-American, and Hispanic offenders. Moreover, race-gender-age interactions indicate that during the incarceration decision, young Native American males receive the most punitive sentences, surpassing the punishment costs associated with being a young African-American or Hispanic male. These findings highlight the importance of directing increased attention toward the sentencing of this understudied offender population.     

Caution in the Classroom: K-12 Teacher In-Class Speech,The Federal Courts and Garcetti

The federal courts’ approach to regulating K-12 public school teacher speech in the classroom has been split during the past twenty years. Some circuit courts use Pickering v. Board of Education, in which speech is examined to see if it touches on a matter of public concern. Others prefer Hazelwood v. Kuhlmeier, which focuses on whether speech is school-sponsored and whether the school had a legitimate reason for restricting it. In 2007, Garcetti v. Ceballos offered a new perspective on public employee speech. In that case, speech was examined to determine whether it was related to an employee's professional duties. An examination of federal court treatment of in-class teacher speech before and after Garcetti shows the case has further complicated the issue because it is being embraced by some federal courts as an appropriate precedent when dealing with classroom speech.     

我国知识产权审判组织专门化问题研究——以德国联邦专利法院为视角

为提高诉讼效率、统一执法尺度,知识产权审判机构的专门化已逐步成为一个国际趋势。德国设立专门的联邦专利法院,由法律法官和技术法官组成合议庭审理专利效力案件,在解决法官对技术问题的司法认知问题方面发挥了重要作用。本文在考察德国联邦专利法院制度历史变迁的基础上,综合分析我国审判组织专门化的利弊,为将来的改革方案提供借鉴。     

What's Gender Got to Do with It? Incivility in the Federal Courts

The current study examines experiences of interpersonal mistreatment in federal litigation among a random sample of 4,608 practicing attorneys. Using both quantitative and qualitative survey data, we documented the nature and interplay of general incivility, gender-related incivility, and unwanted sexual attention. Nearly 75% of female attorneys had experienced some form of this misconduct in the previous five years, compared to half of male attorneys. An in-depth examination of instigators revealed that not only fellow attorneys but also federal judges, court personnel, marshals, and court security officers instigated the inappropriate behavior. We further found that most attorneys responded to this mistreatment with avoidance and denial; few used or trusted existing reporting mechanisms. The current study surpassed simple prevalence estimates to document effects of interpersonal mistreatment on the professional well-being of targeted attorneys. We discuss implications of these results, drawing on theories of social dominance, sex-role spillover, cognitive stress, organizations, and intervention.     

Gender Disparities in Sentencing Departures: An Examination of U.S. Federal Courts

Using data from the United States Sentencing Commission, the present study examines the role of guideline departures in the sentencing of male and female defendants in federal courts. Findings indicate that female defendants continue to have lower odds of incarceration and to receive shorter sentence length terms, even after legal, extralegal, and contextual factors are controlled. The largest gender difference in the odds of incarceration was found for defendants who received substantial assistance departures, while male and female defendants in this same category were given the most similar sentence lengths. When departure status was examined as a dependent variable, it was found that female defendants were more likely to receive a sentencing departure. Finally, for both males and female defendants sentenced on multiple counts, those who went to trial and had prior criminal histories were less likely to receive sentencing departures. But defendants with higher guidelines sentences, those who had committed drug offenses, and those with more education were more likely to receive a sentencing departure.     

Expertise,Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

What roles do prior expertise and accumulated experience play in shaping ideologically consistent voting on a specialized court? Using a dataset of obviousness patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit spanning 1997–2007, we show that prior expertise enhances the influence of ideology on judicial decisionmaking, but that accumulated experience does not. In addition, we build on previous work and show that ideology is a factor in decisionmaking in technical areas of law, contrary to the received wisdom on patent cases.     

Patronage and Rationalization: Reform to Criminal Procedure and the Lower Courts in Chile

This article analyzes how the lower criminal courts in Chile transitioned from an inquisitorial to an adversarial justice system between 2000 and 2005 as part of the Criminal Procedure Reform. Drawing on the frame analysis of the street‐level bureaucracy and judicial ethnography, I examine the transition between two different types of judicial bureaucracy from the perspective of the actors who implemented the reform. The study is based on in‐depth interviews with officials and judges of both inquisitorial and adversarial courts, administrative managers of the new courts, and actors who designed the administrative reorganization of lower criminal courts. The study involved a three‐month, weekly observation in an inquisitorial court in Santiago de Chile. The article emphasizes the specificity of the Chilean judiciary, where both inquisitorial and adversarial criminal courts still coexist.     

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 Joint Effects of Gender and Race/Ethnicity on Sentencing Outcomes in Federal Courts

Using data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission, the present study examines the interaction effects of gender and race/ethnicity on sentencing outcomes of male and female offenders in federal courts. Findings indicate that female offenders in all racial/ethnic categories receive less severe sentence outcomes than male offenders in the same categories, even after legal, extralegal, and contextual factors are controlled. In addition, racial/ethnic differences are found within gender groups, such that Hispanic males are more likely to be incarcerated and Black males receive longer sentence terms compared to White male offenders. However, contrary to expectations, the analysis indicates that White females are more likely to be incarcerated than Black and Hispanic females and receive longer sentence terms than Hispanic females. Gender and racial/ethnic interactions are also explored across offense type (drug vs. non-drug) and type of sentencing departure (no departure, downward, or substantial assistance). Implications for future research are also discussed.     

从认知心理学到认知神经科学:范式检讨与文化自觉

过去40年间,认知心理学对人类信息加工过程进行精细的实验研究,概括出许多心理过程的基本特性,提供了理解心理过程个体差异的科学基础.从当初的认知科学到现如今的认知神经科学,它大体经历了三个主要研究范式:符号范式、联结主义范式和具身认知范式.以库恩范式论来观照,从认知科学到认知神经科学每一种范式的转变,实际上都内在地蕴含了其自身研究理念、研究方式与研究技术的深刻变革.对每一种范式演变历程予以深度反思,一方面可以启发范式检讨,这是加深对其理解与应用,使之走向文化自觉的重要步骤,同时也是引领心理学从认知革命到认知神经科学演变进程更趋合理化、语境化与文化化,从而使人能够获得更为立体、全面的解读.     

Criminal Prosecutions: Examining Prosecutorial Discretion and Charge Reductions in U.S. Federal District Courts

The role of the prosecutor in criminal punishments remains a fervent topic of criminal justice discourse, yet it has received limited empirical attention, particularly for U.S. Attorneys in federal district courts. The present study examines charging and sentencing outcomes in federal courts by combining charging data from the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts with sentencing data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission. The merger of these data sources overcomes limitations of each and provides for an investigation of the causes and consequences of federal prosecutorial charging decisions. Our investigation focuses on the subtle but important influences that extralegal offender characteristics exert in this process. Results indicate that some extralegal characteristics are intricately tied to the likelihood of charge reductions. Moreover, these effects sometimes interact to produce compound disadvantages for some groups of offenders. Our analyses are guided by contemporary theoretical perspectives on courtroom decision‐making.     

SELF-CONSCIOUS INTEREST AND THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS: The Case of Citizens, Regulatory Agencies, and Federal Courts

Federal courts play an increasingly overt role in the American policy process. The implications of this judicial activism have attracted considerable scholarly attention, with recent literature casting doubt on the capacity of courts to be productive in this role. This article draws out some of these concerns as well as posits a few counterpoints.
After raising both sides of the issue, the article focuses on one complex Supreme Court decision, United States v. Students Challenging Regulatory Agency Procedure (SCRAP I, 1973) and its sequel, Aberdeen and Rockfish Railroad v. SCRAP (SCRAP II, 1975), as vehicles for illustrating and evaluating major questions posed by an active judiciary.     

省级统管地方法院法官任用改革审思———基于实证考察的分析

对于地方法院法官的任用,实践中已经发展出一套独特的机制:绝大部分法官任用的实质性决策权主要由法院内部及本级党组掌握,法院外部的权力主体及上级法院仅参与法院领导的任用;任用标准表现为以职业化为主,兼顾领导管理能力;任用程序上则形成多元化、有限竞争的选任格局.从效果层面分析,这套机制具有相当的经济性,通常能够选拔出具有一定业务能力和领导管理能力的法官及法院领导,但其存在的问题也较为明显.这套机制的形成主要与中国整体的干部任用制度以及司法制度建设、改革的进程有关.整体上看,目前着手推进的省级统管地方法院法官任用的改革,会在一定程度上解决以往地方法院法官、院长任用过程中可能存在的“地方主义”甚至“山头主义”、“保护主义”等问题,但也可能存在信息收集能力较差、任用成本过高等不足.“有限集中,分层授权”是既可解决上述问题,又能兼顾地方法院法官任用机制改革基本出发点的有效改革方略.