MEDIATING JUDICIAL POLICY

Despite the widespread use of mediation to resolve public policy disputes, there is little written on the mediation of judicial rule disputes. A successful mediation of a dispute over proposed court rules to govern mediation of certain family law cases involving domestic violence concerns is reviewed. The authors conclude that the mediation provided (a) a confidential venue for disputing judges to respectfully disagree with one another, (b) an opportunity for collaborative problem solving, (c) an opportunity to reduce conflict among judicial colleagues. (d) a format for dialogue with other stakeholders, and (e) greater degree of influence with regard to the outcome of the dispute. Specific recommendations to encourage the effective use of judicial policy mediation are offered.     

EQUITY MEASUREMENT AND SCHOOL FINANCE LITIGATION

This article examines issues in the presentation of factual evidence in school finance litigation. It focuses specifically on statistical measures of dispersion which have been included in Berne and Steifel's framework for analyzing distributional equity. It identifies the methodological issues that must be recognized when these measures are used in litigation, and the properties/characteristics of individual measures that may lead courts to different determinations about "equity" in school finance.     

WEBER AND THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POLICY-MAKING

In United Steelworkers of America v. Weber (1979), the U. S. Supreme Court engaged in one of the most blatant examples of judicial policymaking to date. This paper explores Weber (and, to a lesser degree, the other major cases that have addressed the question of ameliorative racial preference), and argues that the very attributes of the adjudicative process that make the courts so well-suited for the resolution of particular controversies and grievances also render them most ill-suited for general policy-making.     

宪政转型与中国司法审查制度

<正>导论当宪政作为"世界图像"呈现的时刻,中国是一位缺席者。在通往彼岸的路途中,我们沦落为迟到的异乡人。对于宪政的成败具有决定性意义的两大进程——亦即宪法成为真正的法律和司法审查成为宪法的看护者——的相互辉映,照亮了后来者初看起来近乎迷茫的宪政转型之     

BEHIND MORE LITIGATION: POSITIVE AND NEGATIVE IMPACTS

Since the reform and the opening up to the world of China, there has been increasingly more litigation in China, which has stimulated further development of the legal profession and greater public and private expenditure on the legal practice. Accordingly, legal reform has become an important component of the national scheme of social transformation. On the other hand, the rapid increase in litigation has unexpectedly eroded the traditional means to resolve disputes of both mediation and judicial mediation. More alarming is that judicial credibility is seriously challenged by judicial corruption and poor enforcement of judicial decisions. The increasing number of litigation-related complaints by the public, and the large number of vetoes against the working reports of the Supreme People’s Court and the Supreme People’s Procuratorate by the National People’s Congress, are two indicators of the crisis of judicial credibility. This paper is to analyze the data of litigation, legal profession, mediation, and the phenomena of judicial corruption. Based on this analysis, it suggests that, to overcome the current quandary of judicial development, further reform should not only focus on courts, but also on all functional departments that could collaborate one way or another with the judiciary, should not depend only on governmental organizations but also on NGOs in resolving disputes and social issues, and should explore and develop innovative ways of social management.     

MANDATED CUSTODY EVALUATIONS AND THE LIMITS OF JUDICIAL POWER

Kelly and Ramsey are clearly correct that a shift from a “how to” approach to custody evaluations to one that asks the more fundamental question “why” is long overdue. However, in addition to assessing the efficacy of custody evaluations (which Kelly and Ramsey propose), the legal system must also clarify the justification for imposing this extensive—and often expensive—intrusion into the privacy of parents. Three possible justifications for these intrusions are examined in this article: privilege, harm, and voluntariness. Is divorce a privilege, rather than a right, and can qualifications (including intrusive and expensive ones) be attached to requesting that privilege? Are custody evaluations instead justified as a means of avoiding harm to children? If a harm justification is asserted, exactly what harm do evaluations prevent, and how do they accomplish this harm avoidance? Finally, given the high value placed on parental cooperation by the family courts, is it simply too perilous for a parent to oppose a custody evaluation if one is suggested, either by the other parent or by the court? If so, are consents to custody evaluations truly voluntary?     

LEGAL AND JUDICIAL INTERPRETATION OF COMPETENCY TO STAND TRIAL STATUTES AND PROCEDURES

This study provides an analysis of the views of the legal community with respect to competency to stand trial statutes and procedures. Responses from North Carolina judges and defense attorneys reveal significant areas of disagreement or misunderstanding. While many judges believed that defense attorneys misunderstood or misused the competency procedures, the judges uniformly granted the motions. Defense attorneys indicated reasons for requesting competency evaluations that were frequently unrelated to concerns about competency. Hearings to determine competency were often not even held, and if a defendant was found to be incompetent. most judges believed that involuntary commitment to a mental institution should be automatic regardless of perceived dangerousness. The authors argue that these issues demand further attention and resolution to allow the competency laws to accomplish their intended goal without jeopardizing defendants’ rights.     

ISSUES AND MISCONCEPTIONS IN PRISONER LITIGATION: A CRITICAL VIEW*

In the past quarter-century, the number of suits filed by prisoners in federal courts has substantially increased. Critics have borrowed metaphors from ballistics or pathologv to describe this increase as an “epidemic” of “legal pollution” or an “explosion.” The causes of this “hyperlexis,” or excessive litigation, are often attributed to prisoners' attempts to retry their cases once they have lost, or to some psychological attribute of plaintiffs who view litigation as a means of striking back at their keepers. This paper examines several common conceptions of prisoner litigation. National ling data from federal district courts are used to assess the merits of each. The data provide little support for many of the conceptions of and explanations for prisoner suits. It is suggested that prisoners' use of courts may be a form of social resistance to conditions for which there is no other legitimate avenue for relief: