Race,Neighborhood, and Drug Court Graduation

This research examines the possibility that racial disparities in drug court graduation are attributable to individual-level employment or education or to neighborhood-level disadvantage. Individual-level data on 455 drug court clients and neighborhood-level census and police incident data are joined geographically. Drug court graduation is modeled using multilevel logistic regression. In a model with no neighborhood-level indicators, client race, employment, and education all predicted drug court graduation. When neighborhood-level variables are introduced, client-level race drops from significance but employment and education remain significant predictors of graduation. Client race, then, appears to be an indirect indicator of neighborhood disadvantage, while client employment and education remain important individual-level predictors of drug court graduation. These results support further analysis of neighborhood-based barriers to drug court graduation and the development of drug court programming that can address neighborhood-based challenges.     

PRO SE DIVORCE LITIGANTS

With the increased number of divorce litigants appearing pro se in the past century, trial court judges and court personnel are forced to deal with their conflicting obligations with more frequency. It is virtually impossible for a trial court judge to ensure all litigants have a fair and meaningful trial without compromising their neutrality. Likewise, court personnel are allowed to give out legal information but not legal advice, with the definition of legal information and advice not neatly packaged into two separate and distinct categories. Consequently, changes must be made. This note suggests various solutions that can be imposed to either reevaluate the role of trial court judges and court personnel so that they no longer have conflicting obligations and are able to accommodate the needs of the pro se litigants or implement services that can provide pro se litigants with other avenues of obtaining information and assistance.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

刑事诉讼审级制度之反思与重构

现代各国的刑事诉讼审级制度虽有一定差异,但多是以三审终审制为原则确立的。随着市场经济的发展和我国法院改革的不断深化,现有四级两审终审制的缺陷已不断显现,并与现代审级制度的一般原理相悖。现有审级制度在程序设计上以及在与司法体制相融合时表现出的渚多缺陷,已经影响到对被告人诉讼权利的保护和司法公正的实现,因此需重新建构以三审终审为原则,以一审终审为补充的刑事诉讼审级制度,同时实行法院的职能分层,规范再审制度。     

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)。     

Observations of reintegrative shaming in a mental health court

This study compares the use of stigmatizing and reintegrative shame - as specified in Braithwaite's Crime, shame and reintegration (1989) - across traditional criminal court and mental health court settings. Items from the Global Observational Ratings Instrument were used to gather data on 87 traditional court cases and 91 mental health court cases, presided over by five different judges. The observational items capture three constructs: respect, disapproval, and forgiveness, as they apply to Braithwaite's theory. We present means tests to examine differences in shaming between court types and judges. Findings show that the mental health court is more likely to use reintegrative shaming and show respect and forgiveness for offenders, and less likely to show disapproval. Similarly, judges who preside in both court types are significantly more likely to practice reintegrative shaming in the mental health court context. We further explore these findings using field notes and illustrate those components of a mental health court that are conducive to reintegrative shaming.     

鉴定人出庭作证新论——兼论新《刑事诉讼法》的相关条款

近年来,刑事诉讼中诸多冤假错案暴露出有瑕疵的鉴定意见造成法官对案件事实认定错误的问题,使鉴定人不出庭现象备受指摘,各方要求鉴定人出庭的呼声不绝于耳。然而,鉴定人出庭作证必须以案件具备其出庭必要性为前提,在鉴定意见质证机制尚未完善之前,如若忽视质证效果而一味强调鉴定人出庭,无异于叶公好龙。深刻洞察制约鉴定人出庭之因素,理性评估出庭作证之效果,客观认识质证功能虚化之成因,才能有助于鉴定意见的审查判断,科学构建鉴定人出庭作证的机制。     

The Effectiveness of a Mental Health Court in Reducing Recidivism in Individuals with Severe Mental Illness and Comorbid Substance Use Disorder

The current study examined the efficacy of a specialized mental health court in reducing recidivism for severely mentally ill defendants with comorbid substance use disorders. There is a wealth of research supporting the efficacy of mental health courts in reducing recidivism for those with severe mental illness; however, the benefit of these courts for individuals with severe mental illness and comorbid substance use disorders has received limited empirical attention. Participants were 514 defendants enrolled in either a traditional adversarial court or a specialized mental health court. Recidivism was assessed across different outcome variables, including frequency of reoffending, severity of new offenses, and length of time to reoffend. When compared to participants in the traditional adversarial court, enrollment in mental health court was associated with a greater length of time to rearrest and fewer participants were rearrested in the mental health court than the traditional court. Group differences between those with and without comorbid substance use disorders who were enrolled in the mental health court were not found across recidivism outcome metrics. Results of the current study are particularly promising given that defendants with substance use disorders are at a greater risk for reoffending.     

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.     

Decision Making in a Hybrid Organization: A Case Study of a Southwestern Drug Court Treatment Program

This article presents a case study of decision making in a drug court located the southwestern United States. This study seeks to fill a gap in research on decision making by attending to the ways that drug court officials navigate the demands of a court that is dedicated to both therapy and criminal justice. This analysis differs from previous research by viewing the drug court as a “hybrid organization” and asking how the staff members interact in the decision‐making process. Additionally, this research provides an opportunity to investigate the concerns over collaborative decision making raised by critics. The data from this case study reveal that as a hybrid organization, the drug court staff often divides along institutional lines by allowing the counseling staff to manage treatment and the judge to manage punishment. When tensions arise, they are resolved by the structure of the court, which is hierarchical rather than collaborative.     

Can Us-Type Court Management Approaches Work In Civil Law Systems? Experiences From The Balkans And Beyond

The benefit of applying modern management approaches to court operations to ensuring access to justice, timely and transparent dispositions, and increased public trust in courts is recognized in many countries. In the USA, the art of applying modern management techniques to court operations has evolved over the past 30 years into a now solidly established profession. Since the underlying principles and techniques of modern court management, such as case flow management, goal-oriented performance measures, workload assessments, customer surveys, etc., are derived from general management concepts they are not tied to a particular legal system or framework and can be successfully applied in non-US systems if they are properly adjusted. Interested in the positive results of court management in the USA, researchers and practitioners in several European countries have been looking at the applicability of the approaches used in the USA to improve their own ability to manage court processes more efficiently.Since court management has become a main staple of reforming court operations in the USA, it is not surprising that US-funded development assistance in the Balkan states and other countries often involves transferring court management US-style into the newly evolving democracies as part of rule of law or commercial sector development assistance. These projects frequently introduce, among others, case flow management techniques that sometimes seem to be in conflict with underlying legal principles or procedural laws, and often defy the local legal culture. The US-funded assistance programs are often introduced parallel to efforts funded by European and other donors, which may take and suggest different approaches to the host country. As a result, confusion and insecurity about which approaches are appropriate for a particular country can arise and impede much needed reforms or lead to legislative and regulatory changes that do not mesh well or even conflict with other parts of the legal framework.This article reviews the role of US-based court management approaches in recent court reform efforts under way in Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia and, in light of lessons learned there and in other countries, assesses the reform processes applied and their status. It also outlines how these court management approaches fit into non-US court systems, how they can be adjusted according to individual country needs and what the main obstacles are that such reform efforts generally face.     

法院解释条约的原理与中国机制的构建

条约是公认的国际法,许多国家在司法实践中都将条约作为法院裁判案件的适用依据。但在我国,宪法并未规定条约在其中的地位,条约主要是立法转化适用而不是吸纳适用,其也不是行政诉讼案件的适用和参照依据。因此,有必要构建法院解释条约的机制,明确法院解释条约发生的条件,同时建立参照条约的个案解释方法,法院在个案审理中可以直接以非人权条约为适用依据来裁判案件,援引人权条约或者参照条约进行论证和说明理由。     

英美两国刑事法官的证据调查权评析

人们长期认为,英美法系的法官在法庭上一般是消极、被动地听审,却不能积极调查证据。事实上,英美两国的立法与审判实践却表明:法官可以询问证人、传唤证人出庭,或进行"庭外勘验"。尤其在没有陪审团参与的审判中,法官能更加主动地调查证据。这说明,英美两国的刑事法官并非完全消极、被动,特别是当庭审主体变为一元的职业法官时,他因对案件事实最终负责,而更加具有调查证据的天然冲动。由此可见,中国刑事法官在庭审中无需亦不能塑造成纯粹的仲裁者角色,而应保留适当的且受到法律合理规制的证据调查权。     

VIEW FROM THE BENCH

Although some believe that the family courts are gender biased against fathers, Judge Menno disagrees. From his experience as a family court judge and his view from the bench, fathers are treated fairly in court determinations pertaining to access to their children. In making these determinations, courts must take into consideration the reality of divorce and out-of-wedlock arrangements. This article describes how Judge Menno's county family court operates, and he further subgroups various types of fathers, describing how each fares in the family court when trying to gain access to their children.     

Predictors of Initial Court Agreement and 1‐Year Relitigation in Title IV‐D Contested Paternity Cases

We examined potential predictors of initial court agreement and 1‐year relitigation in a sample of contested paternity cases involving unmarried parents coming to court to establish paternity, child support, and other issues. Cases participated in an RCT of a parent program and of a waiting period between establishment of paternity and court hearing. We controlled for RCT study factors and used baseline assessment data to predict likelihood of reaching full agreement in the initial court hearing and relitigation in the following year. Findings suggest that cases in which parents get along better outside of court are more likely to reach agreement and less likely to return to court. Additionally, particular parent demographics predict lower likelihood of reaching initial agreement (e.g., parents are non‐White, father earns below $10,000 yearly), more relitigation (e.g., parents are non‐White, mother earns above $10,000 yearly, father has children with others), and less relitigation (e.g., father earns above $10,000 yearly). Child demographics and most parent relationship characteristics did not predict outcomes. We discuss findings and offer suggestions for court interventions.     

Analytic methods for examining race and ethnic disparity in the juvenile courts

Prior studies of juvenile court decision making and racial disparity are often criticized for their lack of methodological rigor. These studies are criticized for focusing their analyses on separate decision-making stages and not taking into account issues that are related to sample selection. This research attempted to address these issues through an analysis of juvenile court case records from the state of Hawaii. Different limited dependent variable models were used to estimate ethnic disparity in juvenile court outcomes. Comparisons of models according to the Bayesian Information Criteria (BICs) are used to assess the overall fit of these models. The findings indicate few substantive differences across models and a general leniency of the court in favor of White youth. The findings do reveal that there are differences in the accuracy with which these models predicted juvenile court outcomes. The usefulness of this method of model comparison for disparity research is discussed.     

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Fragmented court systems are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because they typically are involved in more than one proceeding that stems from the same pattern of abuse. The proceedings are handled in different courts and before different judges, who are often unaware of these orders being issued in other proceedings. Consequently, conflicting orders are prevalent and the protection and needs of victims are often not met. A unified family court, on the other hand, provides one court with the subject-matter jurisdiction to handle all family-related matters and one judge to hear all cases that involve a single family, resulting in conflicting orders being issued less frequently. Additionally, the needs of victims are better served as a result of the services component. Given the fragmented state of the court systems in New York and Pennsylvania, United States; Alberta, Canada; and Australia, unified family courts should be implemented in each locality.     

Public affairs,privacy, and family stress: a case study in rural northern Sweden in the mid-nineteenth century

This article is a case study based on court records. What seems initially to be a petty theft gives rise to remarkable events. Affairs that are initially private later become public. Various events in and around the court throw light upon the way court and community respond to family stress in a mid-nineteenth century rural northern Swedish community. Testimonies by a large number of witnesses in court reveal a society in transition with elements of a money market, which means here a huge amount of ready money in circulation and arenas ready to shelter private transactions.