The Evolution of Balanced and Restorative Justice

Maloney, Armstrong, and Romig presented a portrait of “Joey,” who was the exemplar of what was wrong with the juvenile justice system, in 1988 when they published The Balanced Approach in this Journal. In response, they reimagined a juvenile justice system predicated on balancing three fundamental goals—protection of community, accountability to victims, and development of competencies to prepare juvenile court‐involved youth for productive roles in their communities. The authors examine the evolution of balanced and restorative justice and re‐imagine how Joey's life may have been different at critical junctures of his juvenile court involvement.     

Science and Technology and the President's Crime Commission

The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice added a Task Force on Science and Technology as somewhat of an afterthought because there had then been very little interaction between science and technology and the criminal justice system (CJS). The task force focused on the CJS as a whole and interactions among its parts, with an important emphasis on analysis of the operating systems and on the important potential role of information systems as the technology advanced. The potential applications of contemporary information and electronic technologies is considerable, especially for assessing risk and needs of identified offenders and for providing relevant information wherever needed. There is urgent need for scientific evaluation of many of the positive and negative aspects of the operation of the CJS and of the potential for new technologies.     

THE “TRUE” JUVENILE OFFENDER: AGE EFFECTS AND JUVENILE COURT SANCTIONING

Age is the only factor used to demarcate the boundary between juvenile and adult justice. However, little research has examined how age guides the juvenile court in determining which youth within the juvenile justice system merit particular dispositions, especially those that reflect the court's emphasis on rehabilitation. Drawing on scholarship on the court's origins, attribution theory, and cognitive heuristics, we hypothesize that the court focuses on youth in the middle of the range of the court's age of jurisdiction—characterized in this article as “true” juveniles—who may be viewed as meriting more specialized intervention. We use data from Florida for court referrals in 2008 (N = 71,388) to examine the decision to proceed formally or informally and, in turn, to examine formally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, probation, commitment, and transfer) and informally processed youth dispositions (dismissal, diversion, and probation). The analyses provide partial support for the hypothesis. The very young were more likely to be informally processed; however, among the informally processed youth, the youngest, not “true” juveniles, were most likely to be diverted or placed on probation. By contrast, among formally processed youth, “true” juveniles were most likely to receive traditional juvenile court responses, such as diversion or probation.     

The Massachusetts Task Force on Secure Facilities: An Examination of the Issue of Security in a Community-Based System of Juvenile Corrections

Authors' note: This article reviews the findings of the Massachusetts Task Force on Secure Facilities' Final Report “The Issue of Security in a Community-Based System of Juvenile Corrections,” L. Scott Harshbarger, Chairman (1977), and includes the comments of the authors which do not necessarily represent the official position of the Task Force.     

Another permanency perspective:Family Drug Court

Because a staggering percentage of criminal court caseloads are intrinsically related to drug or alcohol abuse, general jurisdiction courts with rehabilitative “Drug Court” programs have experienced notable success. A similarly large number of juvenile and family court cases also involve substance abuse. The establishment of a “Family Drug Court” is allowing parents involved in abuse and neglect litigation to benefit from the juvenile justice system's social service mode of rehabilitation.     

The Prisoner's Perspective: A Needed View in Policy Formulation

The need for soliciting attitudes of convicted adult criminals towards the public system of criminal justice remains a neglected area of study. To the exclusion of the “prisoner's perspective”, criminological thought has relied extensively and, at times, exclusively on traditional criminological sources, public opinion polls and simulation studies, for relevant information regarding the criminal justice system. This paper seeks to break the cabal of silence by contending that the “prisoner's perspective” must be a requisite in any effort directed at making better decisions. The relationship between attitudes and behaviour, the sense of participation, the implementation of sound business practices, and the adherence to democratic principles are offered as possible rationales for the acceptance of the “prisoner's perspective”. It certainly cannot be suggested that the majority of ills confronting the criminal justice system are due to the non-recognition of the prisoner; however, unilateral and archaic policy construction and continued bypassing of the “prisoner's perspective” can serve only to harden the apparent resentment and contempt for a criminal justice system predicated on brass-bound policy ideals.     

Of public interest: How courts handle rape victims' privacy suits

In spite of a string of unfavorable court decisions, rape victims continue to bring privacy suits against news organizations that identify the victims. Based on case history, journalists have little to fear from such privacy suits because appellate courts usually find victims' names add credibility to stories and, therefore, are of public interest. Most judges seem to believe that they cannot logically rule a basic fact, such as a name, to be private in one set of circumstances and not in others. A ruling in rape victims' favor may create a slippery slope that erodes the press' First Amendment freedoms. However, the courts' limited opinions provide victims with the possibility that in some circumstance a court may rule against the press on this issue. From a journalist's perspective, a broader ruling is needed to discourage rape victims from bringing suits that, while destined to be unsuccessful, are nonetheless costly to defend.     

Attorney general’s task force on violent crime--1981 three recommendations for legal reform in the criminal justice system

In the spring of 1981 Attorney General William F. Smith appointed a Task Force on Violent Crime with the assignment to report to him concerning specific ways in which the federal government could do more to assist in controlling violent crime without limiting its efforts against organized crime and white-collar crime. The Task Force submitted their final report which contained 64 recommendations. Three of the recommendations concerned the insanity defense, the exclusionary rule and habeas corpus actions.The purpose of this paper is to consider each of these three subjects with regard to their effect on national policy concerning the criminal justice system. In addition each recommendation is discussed with regard to the current status of the law in these areas and proposed congressional legislation on each subject. Further, where applicable, state legislation and federal and state judicial decisions relating to each subject are identified and discussed.In addition to legislation and judicial decisions, selected articles, text books, newspapers, news magazines, and statements by government officials were also utilized as resource material in preparing the article.The Task Force recommended a new option concerning the insanity defense, that of guilty but mentally ill. Concerning the exclusionary rule the Task Force recommended a good faith exception to the rule. With regard to habeas corpus actions, the Task Force recommended several procedural changes including a statute of limitations and a “cause and prejudice” requirement to support federal habeas corpus action. This article supports the recommendations of the Task Force and concerning the insanity defense and exclusionary rule suggests that both should be abolished.     

The Arendtian Dread: Courts with Power

Hannah Arendt was fearful not only of a populist President speaking in the name of the people and unbound by legality. She was also concerned that popular support could be harnessed by those responsible for limiting it. In other words, she was fearful of the American Supreme Court relying on popular support. This is the meaning of her obscure depiction of the American Supreme Court as “the true seat of authority in the American Republic” but unfit to power. I argue that Arendt's characterization of authority as requiring “neither coercion nor persuasion” means that the Court's source of legitimacy is expertise rather than public support. Yet the current dominant understanding among American Justices as well as scholars is that public support is the source of the Court's authority. In Arendt's mind, such an understanding means that the Court has become the seat of power. The corruption of the Court's authority and constitutional law as a language of expertise capable of resisting public opinion will inevitably follow.     

Race,Crime, and Criminal Justice

Fifty years ago, the U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson did not frequently mention race and ethnicity in its discussion of and recommendations for the criminal justice system, but it did have a lot to say about race and crime. Through the use of arrest rates to measure racial differentials in criminal involvement, the Commission concluded that Blacks commit more crime as a consequence of Black people living in greater numbers in criminogenic “slum” conditions. To address racial differences, the Commission favored the Great Society programs of Johnson's War on Poverty. Contemporary criminologists continue to debate the racial distribution of crime, the causes of crimes, and the best policies to reduce crime and racial differentials. The Commission did not anticipate the current debate among scholars regarding how much racial disproportionality exists in the criminal justice system and its causes and consequences. The policies that led to mass incarceration have been significant drivers of continued criminal justice racial disparity. Those policies are inconsistent with the recommendation in The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society (1967), upending the pursuit of a more fair and just system.     

ASSOCIATION OF FAMILY AND CONCILIATION COURTS WHITE PAPER GUIDELINES FOR COURT‐INVOLVED THERAPY: A BEST PRACTICE APPROACH FOR MENTAL HEALTH PROFESSIONALS

This article was written by the Honorable Linda S. Fidnick and Kelly. A. Koch, Esq. Judge Fidnick is an Associate Justice with the Hampshire Probate and Family Court. Prior to her appointment to the bench in 2008, Judge Fidnick was a partner in the Amherst law firm of Burres, Fidnick & Booth LLP, where she concentrated her practice in all areas of family law. Judge Fidnick is a graduate of Smith College and the University of Connecticut Law School, and she has been a member of the Massachusetts Bar for over thirty years. Judge Fidnick is past president of the Massachusetts chapter of the Association of Family and Conciliation Courts (AFCC) and currently serves on the national board of directors of AFCC. Judge Fidnick and Matthew Sullivan, Ph.D. are the co‐chairs of the AFCC Task Force on Court‐Involved Therapists. Attorney Koch is a graduate of Brandeis University and WesternNew England College School of Law. She served as a law clerk to the Justices of the Massachusetts Probate and Family Court and is presently an associate attorney with the Springfield, Massachusetts firm of Bulkley, Richardson and Gelinas. Matthew J. Sullivan, Ph.D. is a psychologist in private practice in California who has written articles, presented and done trainings at numerous national and international venues on interventions in high conflict divorce, Parenting Coordination and child alienation in family law cases. He currently serves on the Board of Directors at AFCC. Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. is a family forensic psychologist practicing in Los Angeles, California. She serves as the reporter for the AFCC Court‐Involved Therapist Task Force and Co‐Chairs the Family Forensic Special Interest Group of Div. 43. She Co‐Chaired the APA‐ABA Working Group on Representation and Advocacy for Children. The AFCC Task Force on Court‐Involved Therapists was given the charge of defining guidelines for the professional practice of therapists working with court‐involved families. A draft of the Guidelines was presented for Comments in March 2010 and all comments were submitted to the Task Force Reporter, Lyn R. Greenberg, Ph.D. on May 1, 2010.     

Diversion in the Canadian Juvenile Justice System: A Tale of Two Cities

Abstract The present study attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of diversion in the juvenile justice system by comparing two different communities. One community has a formalized, well-established diversion program whereas the other community utilizes the Family Court to a much greater extent. Preliminary data suggests no difference in recidivism for a matched sample of young offenders. The implications of the study are discussed in terms of future research on diversion and the need for appropriate comparison groups. In the past two decades, diversion programs have been one of the major innovations within the juvenile justice system. These programs have attempted to divert juveniles from the formal process involving court hearings by creating alternative interventions at the policy and community level. The basic premises underlying these programs is that the formal court system may do more harm than good by labeling youngsters as “delinquent” and rendering them more vulnerable by involvement in an adversary process (Reference numbers 4, 12, 14). Diversion programs that provide youngsters with an opportunity to make restitution or perform community services are compensation for their misbehavior are seen as more immediate and meaningful consequences than awaiting a formal adversarial court hearing (5, 13). However, diversion programs have not met with universal acceptance. Critics have pointed out that programs, in fact, “widen the justice net” by processing children who never would have gone to court anyway (3, 7). As well, concerns have been raised as to the protection of clients' legal rights in the diversion program and the dangers of “double jeopardy” in the event that failure in a program could lead to an even more severe disposition by the court (8, 9). The debate over the effectiveness of diversion programs has been fueled by the lack of research. Although there are many studies that suggest the success of this approach (1, 6, 10), the research has suffered in its credibility due to the absence of appropriate control groups. The present study attempted to fill this significant void in previous evaluations of diversion, by comparing two communities in southwestern Ontario with different approaches to juvenile justice. The cities of Windsor and London are approximately 200 km apart, with comparative populations (200,000 vs 250,000). Windsor has well established diversion programs with substantial support of community agencies, the police force and Crown Attorney's office. This program is described in detail elsewhere (2, 11) so will not be outlined here. London has no such program and consequently has an obviously greater number of youngsters handled through the formalized juvenile court. The authors hoped to capitalize on this “naturally occurring difference” in approach between the two cities by examining the rate of recidivism of young offenders as well as determine their attitudes (and that of their parents) toward the interventions they received. The hypotheses in the pilot studies outlined were that the diversion program youth in Windsor would have a more positive attitude about their intervention and would be less likely to recidivate than a matched sample of youth in London, based on the theoretical underpinning of diversion as well as the results of previous outcome studies.     

Policing Domestic Violence 1967–2017

The U.S. President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice under President Johnson in 1967 called for a program of research that would support evidence‐based tracking, targeting, and testing of policing domestic “disputes.” During the past 50 years, the amount of research on domestic violence has grown. The findings from targeting studies reveal a steep pyramid from many low‐harm cases at the base rising to a tiny fraction that are lethal. The findings from testing studies reveal that arrests reduce reoffending among employed persons in the short run while increasing recidivism among unemployed suspects. Arrests in one experiment increased all‐cause mortality of victims over 23 years. The findings from tracking research reveal wide variance across police agencies in implementing mandatory arrest. Since the Crime Commission, however, mandatory arrest laws were also enacted in 28 states in the 1980s, with uneven enforcement for misdemeanor domestic abuse. New research is needed to test the effectiveness of other domestic violence interventions, including restorative justice, as well as follow‐up studies of previous research sites.     

The politics of race and juvenile justice: The “due process revolution” and the conservative reaction

Through the prism of race, this article analyzes the social structural and political context of juvenile justice law reforms over the past half century. Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, the Supreme Court imposed national legal and equality norms on recalcitrant southern states that still adhered to a segregated Jim Crow legal regime, and these norms provided the impetus for the Supreme Court's juvenile court “due process” decisions in the 1960s. The article then analyzes sociological, criminological, racial factors, media coverage, and political dynamics of the 1970s and 1980s that contributed to the “get tough” legislative reformulation of juvenile justice policies in the 1990s. During this period, conservative Republican politicians pursued a “southern strategy,” used crime as a code word for race for electoral advantage, and advocated “get tough” policies, which led to punitive changes in juvenile justice laws and practices and have had a disproportionate impact on racial minorities.     

“全域数字法院”的构建与实现

近年来中国互联网司法发展取得了显著成效,为建设一种全新的法院样态——"全域数字法院"提供了可能。与既往的法院信息化建设不同,"全域数字法院"是一场重塑性的制度革命,它以线上线下深度融合、内网外网共享协同、有线无线互联互通为基本要求,更加注重系统集成与数字赋能,更加注重流程再造与制度重塑,更加注重全面数字化与高度智能化,运用"技术+制度"为实现更高水平的公平正义注入新效能。建设"全域数字法院",主要路径是通过"平台化建设""无纸化转型""智能化赋能"三阶段,打造全生命周期的司法平台,提供全时空在线的司法服务,构建全流域智能的司法模式,驱动司法制度的全方位变革,并最终实现司法领域从数字赋能到制度重塑的革命性变革。     

The War on Violence: Improving the Response to Domestic Violence in the Military

The Department of Defense has taken steps in recent years to improve outcomes for victims of domestic violence who reside on military installations. In 2000, the Defense Task Force on Domestic Violence was established, a military‐civilian group of experts charged with improving the military's effectiveness in addressing domestic violence in the Armed Forces in a variety of areas including offender accountability, coordination between military and civilian communities, and changing the military climate around domestic violence. This article will provide an overview of the Task Force, its work during the past three years, and its recommendations.     

Marguerite Q. Warren

Abstract

Marguerite (Rita) Warren is remembered as a respected teacher, committed mentor, and good friend. She is perhaps best known, for the experimental study of the Community Treatment Project (CTP). CTP operationalized the Theory of Interpersonal Maturity (I-Level) to provide differential treatment to delinquent offenders. Rita Warren received her doctorate in clinical psychology at the University of California, Berkeley. With graduate school colleagues, she formulated the I-Level Theory. Her focus on correctional treatment began with research on Navy recruits, followed by work with the California Youth Authority, service to the NIMH's Crime and Delinquency Committee, and participation on the Task Force on Corrections for President Johnson's Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice. Academe followed; for 11 years, she was a faculty member at the School of Criminal Justice at the University at Albany. This article is a biography of Rita Warren, focusing primarily upon her career and her research.     

Shooting Down a Hijacked Plane—The German Discussion and Beyond

The article examines whether state officials may shoot down a hijacked airplane which carries uninvolved passengers, if it is known that the plane will be used against the lives of other human beings. In its first sections, it explains the German Federal Constitutional Court’s verdict against such a permission, and it scrutinizes the crucial arguments in this ruling (restrictions on the use of military weapons; human dignity arguments). The author then extends the discussion beyond the path taken by the court. She examines the defensive claims of passengers aboard the plane and the protective claims of potential victims who are present at the hijackers’ target zone. In contrast to the German Federal Constitutional Court, she concludes that state officials must take the claims of both groups of potential victims equally serious, and that such conditions allow applying a consequentialist calculus (“save the greater number”) because it is the only way out of a genuine dilemma.     

INTERORGANIZATIONAL UTILITY OF WELFARE STIGMA IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

The appropriation of “welfare stigma” or stereotypes about poor people's overreliance and abuse of public aid in two core criminal justice functions is examined: felony adjudication in a court system and space allocation in a jail. Through a comparative ethnographic study in which an abductive analysis of data (20 months of fieldwork) was used, we show that criminal justice gatekeepers utilize welfare stigma to create stricter eligibility criteria for due process in criminal courts and occupancy in jails. Specifically, the number of court appearances, motions, trials, jail beds, food, showers, and medical services is considered by professionals to be the benefits that individuals seek to access and abuse. Professionals view their role as preventing (rather than granting) access to these resources. The comparative nature of our data reveals that welfare stigma has interorganizational utility by serving two different organizational goals: It streamlines convictions in courts, which pulls defendants through adjudication, and conversely, it expands early release from jails, which pulls inmates out of the custody population. In the context of diminishing social safety nets, our findings have implications for understanding how discretion is exercised in an American criminal justice system increasingly tasked with the distribution of social services to the urban poor.     

Turning the Witness Stand into a Speaker's Platform: Victim Participation in the Norwegian Legal System as Exemplified by the Trial Against Anders Behring Breivik

In this article, we investigate how victims pursue legal participation when they are confronted by legal barriers and dilemmas that arise from tensions between legal formality and lay expectations and contributions of legal proceedings. We use the trial against Anders Behring Breivik as a case. Breivik placed a bomb in Norway's Government District before he shot and killed 69 people on a small island. We analyze interviews with 31 victims who testified against Breivik in court. We argue that the circumstances of the trial against Breivik can be characterized as “ideal” in terms of victims’ rights. The exceptionality of this case facilitates a focus on unquestioned obstacles to victim participation concerning the professionalization of the legal system. We question the presumption prevalent among some theorists that the professionalization of the legal system excludes lay participation, by arguing that legal formality both alienate and empower lay participation.