Judges as therapists and therapists as judges: the collision of judicial and therapeutic roles in drug treatment courts

This paper explores the implications of the expansion of judicial and therapeutic roles in a drug treatment court (DTC) in Canada. Issues that are raised are: how the courtroom is framed as a therapeutic space where public appearances by participants are part of the therapeutic process; how judges have taken on therapeutic practices, effectively compromising their traditional role as neutral arbiter; how certain women resisted therapeutic interventions by judges and felt they received harsher punishments than men; and how treatment counselors in DTCs are given powers of enforcement over their clients. The collision of judicial and therapeutic roles in the DTC results in negative consequences for individuals in the specialized courts. Specifically, DTC participants are expected to engage in a therapeutic relationship with their treatment counselors and the court; however, their right to confidentiality is withheld, and their treatment counselors act as agents for the court.     

The Politics of Benchcraft: The Role of Judges in Mental Health Courts

Mental health courts (MHCs) offer community‐based treatment in lieu of criminal prosecution for chronic offenders with psychiatric disabilities, and MHC judges enjoy expanded powers to achieve the court's objectives. Because scholars know little about how judges transition into a new occupational role in the problem‐solving courtroom, this ethnographic study of four MHCs in the United States focuses on how judges learn to orchestrate their responses to treatment noncompliance in this novel court setting. The goal of this article is to examine the professionalization of MHC judges and the emergent craft of therapeutic adjudication. To achieve this goal, I investigate judicial strategies for motivating, questioning, and defending participants accused of wrongdoing. I conclude that the art and practice of problem‐solving justice requires judges to rise to the larger institutional challenges embedded in the alternative courtroom, a process I call the politics of benchcraft.     

How Litigants in Dutch Courtrooms Come to Trust Judges: The Role of Perceived Procedural Justice,Outcome Favorability,and Other Sociolegal Moderators

This paper examines the hypothesis that litigants' perceived procedural justice is positively associated with their trust in judges. We argue that although this association might seem quite robust, it can vary across contexts. In particular, we suggest that the nature and magnitude of the association between procedural justice and trust in judges depends on outcome concerns, and other sociolegal moderators such as outcome importance and prior court experience. We tested our predictions in three different types of law cases among 483 litigants at court hearings of the district court of the Mid‐Netherlands. As predicted, our results indicate that perceived procedural justice was positively associated with trust in judges when outcomes were relatively favorable, and that this association was even stronger when outcomes were relatively unfavorable. The courtroom context studied here enabled us to explore how other sociolegal variables moderated these relationships.     

The judge's view of competency evaluations. II

Twenty trial court judges were surveyed to determine what information they considered pertinent in psychiatric examinations for competence. These judges showed a clear understanding of what they were asking for in ordering the examinations but also showed a significant tendency to use the competency exam to advise them about other issues in addition (e.g., dangerousness or the need for treatment). As a group the judges appeared to be eager for psychiatric input. Typical judges could be described as pragmatic in their views of psychiatry in the courtroom, having a relatively low level of expectation but a high degree of satisfaction with the psychiatric opinions they receive.     

Specialized Domestic Violence Courts

Abstract

The multimethod study assesses the perceptions of specialized domestic violence courts' processes with victims' experiences as the central focus. Perceptions of the traditional courts and specialized domestic violence courts are compared among victims, courtroom police, attorneys, judges and victim advocates. Domestic violence education among attorneys, judges, and victim advocates is also compared. Despite the intended improvements with the specialized court model, victims report similar problems in both court models. Safety and victims support among respondents is mixed. Professionals from the specialized court receive no more domestic violence education than those from the general court. Victims' and courtroom police recommendations are presented.     

Pragmatic Discourse and Gender Inequality in China

Using courtroom dialogs from actual court trials in China as data, this article analyzes an emerging “pragmatic discourse,” deployed by judges to assist, but at the same time to constrain divorcing women. Through questions, statements, rebuttals, and other interactional devices, Chinese judges define the premises that underpin the law's understanding of gender equality and women's welfare. By looking at how discourses are deployed by judges and litigants, we link micro linguistic practices to more general social forces and processes. Despite their honest effort to protect women's rights, Chinese judges often inadvertently reinforce and reproduce the patriarchal norm. The data demonstrate how the hegemonic patriarchal order reasserts itself in an institutional forum that is meant to promote gender equality. The interaction of the discourses also highlights the tensions in Chinese society and displays the effect of changing social environment on the legal operation.     

HOW JUDGES THINK ABOUT RACIAL DISPARITIES: SITUATIONAL DECISION‐MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM*

Researchers have theorized how judges’ decision‐making may result in the disproportionate presence of Blacks and Latinos in the criminal justice system. Yet, we have little evidence about how judges make sense of these disparities and what, if anything, they do to address them. By drawing on 59 interviews with state judges in a Northeastern state, we describe, and trace the implications of, judges’ understandings of racial disparities at arraignment, plea hearings, jury selection, and sentencing. Most judges in our sample attribute disparities, in part, to differential treatment by themselves and/or other criminal justice officials, whereas some judges attribute disparities only to the disparate impact of poverty and differences in offending rates. To address disparities, judges report employing two categories of strategies: noninterventionist and interventionist. Noninterventionist strategies concern only a judge's own differential treatment, whereas interventionist strategies concern other actors’ possible differential treatment, as well as the disparate impact of poverty and facially neutral laws. We reveal how the use of noninterventionist strategies by most judges unintentionally reproduces disparities. Through our examination of judges’ understandings of racial disparities throughout the court process, we enhance understandings of American racial inequality and theorize a situational approach to decision‐making in organizational contexts.     

Roles and Power within Federal Problem Solving Courtroom Workgroups

Problem solving (PS) courts (e.g., drug, family, gang, prostitution, reentry) are becoming more commonplace. Today, PS courts exist or are planned in nearly all of the ninety‐four U.S. federal districts. These courts focus on integrating therapeutic jurisprudence into the courtroom environment while emphasizing group decision‐making processes among courtroom workgroup members. In this legal setting, courtroom workgroup teams, regularly consisting of judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, probation officers (POs), and treatment providers engage a collective, case management approach to decision making with shared power among team members. However, despite the court's therapeutic and collaborative design, we find that POs wield powerful influence in decision making. Informed by sixteen months of qualitative fieldwork, including semistructured interviews, observation of courtroom workgroup meetings, and court observations in five federal PS courts in three federal districts, we find that POs exert undetected informational, technical, and relational power within the PS courtroom workgroup. This role and its accompanying power transforms POs into key decision makers, regardless of PS court type, workgroup dynamics, and decision‐making style. The POs' role makes them critical contributors to the outcomes in federal PS courts with important implications for punishment decisions in the federal justice system. With an increasing number of PS courts currently in the planning stages at the federal level, our study has implications for the structure and decision outcomes in these growing courtroom workgroups.     

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.     

Judges’ views on evidence of genetic contributions to mental disorders in court

This preliminary analysis assesses how judges view the use of behavioral genetics evidence on genetic influences to mental disorders in court. Twenty-one semi-structured interviews, analyzed using constant comparative analysis, were conducted with California trial court judges. Most judges reported the beneficial effects of this evidence being presented in court, particularly as a mitigating factor for sentencing. Yet some judges viewed it as an aggravating factor and expressed concerns about genetic privacy. Judges described initial reactions to being potentially presented with evidence on genetic influences to mental disorders as apprehension, curiosity, and sympathy. Judges also reported putting significant trust in experts on these issues. Findings suggest some judges are skeptical of this evidence, but largely open to its presentation. Sympathetic reactions may result in mitigating attitudes of some judges. As judges significantly trust experts, some judges could also be overly trusting of genetic evidence and expert opinion on these issues.     

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.     

Judging the Other: The Intersection of Race,Gender, and Class in Family Court

This critical ethnographic study of family court child maltreatment proceedings describes and illuminates the ways in which racial, gender, and class disadvantages can manifest on the ground as judges, attorneys, social service workers, and parents—joined often by gender but split by race and class—adjudicate cases. The findings suggest that intersectionality worked in ways that exponentially marginalized poor mothers of color in the courtroom. They were marginalized both through the rules of the adversarial process (which silenced their voices) and through the construction of narratives (which emphasized individual weakness) over structural obstacles as well as personal irresponsibility over expressions of maternal care and concern. Standard due process courtroom practices also communicated bias or social exclusion, especially in a courtroom split by race and class.     

Gender,Critical Mass,and Judicial Decision Making

We examine the role of gender in legal decision making by applying critical mass theory to the U.S. federal district courts. We analyze whether behavioral differences manifest themselves in the decision‐making proclivities of male and female judges, contingent on the existence of a critical mass of female judges at a court point (i.e., each city in which a district court is located). Our results indicate that women jurists exhibit distinctive behavior in certain cases when there is a critical mass of women at a court point. These differences are most significant in criminal justice cases; modest differences between men and women are also identified in civil rights and liberties cases. Gender is not significant in labor and economic regulation cases. These findings suggest that the increasing presence of women on the federal bench could have substantial policy ramifications in the American polity.     

Courtroom Discourse and the Gendered Construction of Professional Identity

In addition to providing an arena for dispute resolution, the courtroom serves lawyers and judges as an important site for the construction and maintenance of their Professional identity. It is mainly through the strategic use of language within the constraints on courtroom discourse that this process takes place. Within the framework of feminist theories of language as constituent of social identity, this paper analyzes courtroom interaction to determine how gender affects the construction of the Professional identity of lawyers and judges in Israeli district courts. Quantitative analyses of terms of address, intrusions, judges'takeover of examinations, challenging comments, and the forms and use of directives indicated that women judges and women lawyers were accorded less deference than men, and that the Professional competence of women lawyers was challenged and undermined. The qualitative analysis of the off-the-record comments by judges, lawyers, and witnesses to lawyers revealed that all participants questioned the professional performance of women lawyers in gender-stereotypic ways. The devaluation of women professionals and the gendered interpretations of their behavior enacted through the discourse in the courtroom may have implications for the outcomes of trials.     

Courting Compliance: Case Managers as “Double Agents” in the Mental Health Court

An ethnographic study of four Midwest mental health courts was focused on how case managers influence the judicial response to offender noncompliance. Mental health courts, which bear little resemblance to traditional work group models, are staffed by teams of legal and social service professionals working collaboratively toward reducing recidivism and community reintegration for high‐risk offenders. Few studies, however, have explored how treatment providers practice their trade in this new court organization. I investigate how case management professionals, working at the intersections of the social welfare and criminal justice systems, leverage courtroom decision making that results in greater leniency or enhanced punishment. The findings suggest that mental‐health‐court case managers act as boundary spanners in terms of their strategic use of resources to facilitate treatment goals. I conclude that case managers act as “double agents” challenging the state to advocate for clemency while enforcing client rules to uphold the integrity of the court.     

Understanding China's Court Mediation Surge: Insights from a Local Court

This article seeks to understand how reported mediation rates in Chinese courts are produced and what they actually signify. It analyzes data obtained through prolonged fieldwork at a court in central China. The article finds that the court has directly responded to central level mediation incentives by enhancing its overall mediation rate. It has done so strategically by seeking the highest increase using the fullest discretion in the mediation incentive structure and seeking to optimize the highest rate at the lowest cost and risk to the court. This has undermined the objectives of the central level incentives toward mediation, while also drawing the courts' scarce resources away toward unnecessary mediation practices, in part far removed from the courtroom. The article concludes by drawing out broader theoretical conclusions about how information asymmetries, discretion, and goal displacement play out in hierarchical control structures of authoritarian courts.     

Effects of Court Officials on Sentence Severity: Do Judges Make a Difference?

The present article examines the effects on sentencing of a number of variables measuring court actors and their traits. Sentencing patterns were shown to vary substantially from judge to judge but the differences were found to be related more to the types of cases judges received than to sentencing styles of individual judges. Independent of traditional sociodemographic traits of offenders and legal variables, individual judges do not appear to sentence differently. Moreover, when we estimated equations which included judicial background characteristics, there were no discernible independent effects. These findings differ from both informed intuition and inferences one might draw from previous research. Consideration of subcultures of justice and cases on which court officials disagree about sentences may help explain differences between present and past research.     

American State Supreme Court Justices, 1900-1970

What are the paths that lead to the state supreme court bench? If we can identify these paths, can we then determine that they produce distinctive patterns in a court3 decision making? Based on a study of 694 judges who sat on 16selected American state supreme courts between 1900 and 1970, this article finds that the appellate judiciary was drawn from a variety of legal and political backgrounds rather than from any single career line. The judges came from both non-elite and elite law schools. About half had no substantial lower court judicial experience. Over one-third had been public prosecutors, another third had held other elective political office, and only a small minority had practiced in multilawyer big-city law firms. The article reports changes over time in these and other judicial characteristics (such CIS age, turnover, political party affiliations) and describes interstate differences. Few significant statistical relationships are found, however, between the background characteristics of judges and selected characteristics of state supreme court opinions.     

Mediator Settlement Strategies

Settling cases poses a challenging task for the mediator. Most disputes are hotly contested by both parties or they would not have progressed to the point of entering the court arena or mediation. Yet, despite differences in the nature of their cases, the organization of each program we have studied, and the style of mediation predominating in each, striking similarities exist in the techniques used by the mediators to settle cases. Observation of over 40 different mediators in 175 mediation sessions in three programs suggests that in order to do the job which they are charged with accomplishing—bringing mediation cases to settlement— mediators develop a repertoire of strategies employing a variety of sources of power. Mediator strategies fall into four principal categories: presentation of self and the program, control of the process of mediation, control of the substantive issues in mediation, and activation of commitments and norms. Mediators empower themselves by claiming authority for themselves, their task, or the program based upon values external to the immediate situation, or manipulate the immediate situation so that settlement is more rather than less likely. Based upon their differential use of these strategies, mediator styles fall along a continuum between two types: bargaining and therapy. Mediation seems to range between a bargaining process conducted in the shadow of the court to a communication process which resembles therapy in its focus upon exploring and enunciating feelings .     

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。