The State of the Art of Child Hearings in Germany. Results of a Nationwide Representative Study in German Courts

According to German family law, in family court proceedings that deal with custody or access rights, family judges are obligated to personally hear the child if the feelings, ties, or will of the child are significant for the decision. In a research study commissioned by the Federal Ministry of Justice, a nationwide representative survey of all judges compiled their personal information and their attitudes and expectations as well as various parameters regarding the concrete practice of hearing children. Also, with a very complex methodological design, over 50 children and their parents were studied one week in advance of the hearing, directly before and after the hearing, and four weeks following the hearing. The results of the study are presented, particularly those pertaining to the burden and relief for the children and the expectations of judges. The practical experiences of family judges in personally hearing children are included as well.     

Parents' and Children's Views on Talking to Judges in Parenting Disputes in Australia

Judicial interviews with children in contested parenting proceedingsare an uncommon and contentious practice in Australia and manyother common law jurisdictions. While there has been some debateabout the merits and risks of such a practice among professionalsand academic commentators, there is little research on the viewsof children and parents. In this study, children and parentsinvolved in contested and non-contested family law matters inAustralia were asked to comment on this practice. A subsequentarticle will explore the views of Australian judges on talkingwith children in chambers, and their experience of doing so.Children and parents had mixed views but most children saidthat it should be an option even if they did not want it forthemselves. Children who had been the subject of contested proceedingswere generally keen to talk to the judge even though most hadbeen interviewed by an independent expert and had a child legalrepresentative. Resident parents were, however, much more likelythan non-resident parents to be in favour of children beingable to talk with the judge, either alone or together with acounsellor or ‘interpreter’. Both parents and childrenwho were in favour of children talking directly to judges gavevery similar reasons. They were related to children's rightto be heard and acknowledged, the value of direct communicationand the likely beneficial effect on the decision.     

Commons ignorance: the failure of environmental law to produce needed information on health and the environment

One of the most significant problems facing environmental law is the dearth of scientific information available to assess the impact of industrial activities on public health and the environment. After documenting the significant gaps in existing information, this Article argues that existing laws both exacerbate and perpetuate this problem. By failing to require actors to assess the potential harm from their activities, and by penalizing them with additional regulation when they do, existing laws fail to counteract actors' natural inclination to remain silent about the harms that they might be causing. Both theory and practice confirm that when the stakes are high, actors not only will resist producing potentially incriminating information but will invest in discrediting public research that suggests their activities are harmful. The Article concludes with specific recommendations about how these perverse incentives for ignorance can be reversed.     

Polygamy In Family Court: A Resource For Judges Dealing With An Unfamiliar Family Structure

Cases concerning polygamous households can present difficult challenges for family courts. Though a growing number of Americans practice polygamy, the lifestyle still remains shrouded in mystery. Many polygamists are religious (and sometimes racial) minorities that have suffered from discrimination. The most influential judicial precedents concerning polygamy come from the nineteenth century and are tinged with religious and racial stereotypes, which can make judges uncomfortable with citing those decisions. There is a need for reliable, unprejudiced, and up‐to‐date information about polygamy that judges can cite while maintaining an image of objectivity and impartiality. This Article seeks to provide that resource. It provides information about the evolutionary influences that shape polygamy, how polygamy is practiced in the modern world, and common problems affecting polygamous households that judges should be aware of.     

无权处分场合买卖合同的效力与权利瑕疵担保

《民法典》第597条第1款的主要规范目的是,无权处分不影响买卖合同的效力。只要承认权利人的追认会产生所有权变动的效果,就适宜承认存在效力未定的处分行为。区分负担行为和处分行为,在解释论上具有可取之处。在传统债法上,无权处分致使给付不能的,存在适用债务不履行责任抑或权利瑕疵担保责任的争论,两方面规定在构成要件上有实质区别。我国《民法典》合同编实行救济进路,第三人享有所有权、抵押权等权利致使所有权不能转移的,当事人可以选择适用《民法典》第597条第1款或第612条,两者在违约责任的构成要件和效果上并无实质区别。《民法典》第612条中规定的第三人“享有权利”文义范围较窄,应当对其进行目的论扩张,将第三人“过去享有权利”且主张权利的一些情形纳入其中;即使买受人构成善意取得,仍可认定出卖人违反权利瑕疵担保义务。     

Judicial Independence: Evidence from a Natural Experiment

In this article, we directly test the presence of judicial independence by examining judicial recess appointees who have later been confirmed by the Senate to full‐time Article III judicial positions. Specifically, we compare the votes of recess‐appointed courts of appeals judges during their temporary appointment tenure with a similar period following Senate confirmation. We find substantial differences in pre‐ and postconfirmation voting, suggesting that the structural protections of the Constitution provide judges a certain amount of independence.     

Enabling responsible public genomics

As scientific understandings of genetics advance, researchers require increasingly rich datasets that combine genomic data from large numbers of individuals with medical and other personal information. Linking individuals' genetic data and personal information precludes anonymity and produces medically significant information--a result not contemplated by the established legal and ethical conventions governing human genomic research. To pursue the next generation of human genomic research and commerce in a responsible fashion, scientists, lawyers, and regulators must address substantial new issues, including researchers' duties with respect to clinically significant data, the challenges to privacy presented by genomic data, the boundary between genomic research and commerce, and the practice of medicine. This Article presents a new model for understanding and addressing these new challenges--a "public genomics" premised on the idea that ethically, legally, and socially responsible genomics research requires openness, not privacy, as its organizing principle. Responsible public genomics combines the data contributed by informed and fully consenting information altruists and the research potential of rich datasets in a genomic commons that is freely and globally available. This Article examines the risks and benefits of this public genomics model in the context of an ambitious genetic research project currently under way--the Personal Genome Project. This Article also (i) demonstrates that large-scale genomic projects are desirable, (ii) evaluates the risks and challenges presented by public genomics research, and (iii) determines that the current legal and regulatory regimes restrict beneficial and responsible scientific inquiry while failing to adequately protect participants. The Article concludes by proposing a modified normative and legal framework that embraces and enables a future of responsible public genomics.     

The Role of Panels in Enhancing Legal Predictability

This article considers the justification for using panels of judges to make decisions in common law systems. The usual argument is that panels are more likely than lone judges to make correct judgments. This article suggests an additional justification: panels increase the law's predictability, so potential litigants can anticipate correctly which legal rules will apply in their cases. Three models, each with a different conception of the legal process, are employed to demonstrate the predictability-enhancing effect of panels. Comparison of the models suggests the effect is strongest when precedent has a substantial impact on how judges make decisions.     

How Law Rules: Torture,Terror, and the Normative Judgments of Iraqi Judges

We present a factorial survey experiment conducted with Iraqi judges during the early military occupation of Iraq. Because U.S. soldiers are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts, there is no opportunity for these judges to express their views regarding highly publicized torture cases. As legally informed representatives of an occupied nation, however, Iraqi judges arguably have a strong claim to a normative voice on this sensitive subject. We are able to give voice to these judges in this study by using a quasi‐experimental method. This method diminishes social desirability bias in judges' responses and allows us to consider a broad range and combination of factors influencing their normative judgments. We examine why and how the U.S. effort to introduce democracy with an indeterminate rule of law produced unintended and inconsistent results in the normative judgments of Iraqi judges. A critical legal perspective anticipates the influences of indeterminacy, power, and fear in our research. More specifically, we anticipated lenient treatment for guards convicted of torture, especially in trouble cases of Coalition soldiers torturing al Qaeda prisoners. However, the results—which include cross‐level, judge‐case interaction effects—were more varied than theoretically expected. The Iraqi judges responded in disparate and polarized ways. Some judges imposed more severe sentences on Coalition guards convicted of torturing al Qaeda suspects, while others imposed more lenient sentences on the same combination of guards and suspects. The cross‐level interactions indicate that the judges who severely sentenced Coalition guards likely feared the contribution of torture tactics to increasing violence in Iraq. The judges who were less fearful of violence were more lenient and accommodating of torture by Coalition forces. The implication is that the less fearful judges were freed by an indeterminate law to advance Coalition goals through lenient punishment of torture. Our analysis suggests that the introduction of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq is a negative case in the international diffusion of American institutions. The results indicate the need for further development of a nuanced critical legal perspective.     

A comparison of Chinese judges' and US judges' knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony

Abstract

We surveyed 170 Chinese judges about their knowledge and beliefs about eyewitness testimony, and compared their answers to a prior survey of 160 US judges. Although the Chinese judges were less knowledgeable than the US judges, both groups had limited knowledge of eyewitness testimony, including for such important issues as whether lay people can distinguish between accurate and inaccurate eyewitnesses. Unlike the US judges, greater knowledge of eyewitness factors for the Chinese judges was not related to beliefs that may be necessary to reduce eyewitness error. Compared to the US judges, the Chinese judges were much less likely to believe that they needed additional eyewitness training and that they knew more about eyewitness testimony than lay persons. We also discuss the impact of culture, legal systems, investigative procedures, and judges' function on the Chinese judges' responses, and the legal reforms that China may need to implement to reduce eyewitness error.     

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.     

论我国学术自由的宪法基础

《中华人民共和国宪法》第47条规定的科学研究自由,目前被学者们诠释为文化权利或者文化权利的组成部分,而文化权利这一范畴不仅被我国宪法学者指称宪法第47条规定的自由,还被人权法学者用来解读国际人权法中的有关权利,并且具有内涵模糊、外延不确定、宪法规定与国际人权法的规定不一致的特点,弱化了科学研究自由的独立价值和功能。笔者认为,我国宪法中规定的科学研究自由,在外国宪法中多规定为学术自由或学问自由,因此可以吸收和移植域外宪法学理论关于学术自由的诠释资源,来丰富我国科学研究自由的权利内涵。遵循宪法解释学的路径,运用基本权利的客观价值秩序理论,可以架起科学研究自由通往我国高等教育制度的桥梁,以科学研究自由为宪法基石构筑我国现代大学法制,从根本上破解我国高等教育"行政化"的顽疾。     

Knowledgeable Judges Make a Difference: Judicial Beliefs Affect Juvenile Court Transfer Decisions

This study examined how judicial knowledge and attitudes about transfer affects transfer decisions by juvenile court judges. Participants included 232 juvenile court judges from around the country who completed a vignette survey that presented a prototypical case involving a serious juvenile offender. Participants were asked to decide whether the juvenile should be transferred and to rate his rehabilitative potential. Judges who believed in the deterrent effects of transfer were more likely to recommend that the juvenile be transferred and to rate him as having lower rehabilitative potential. More experienced judges saw greater rehabilitative potential in the juvenile and were less likely to transfer him to the criminal court. Overall, judges tended to think that transfer lacked general and specific deterrent effects, endorsed rehabilitative over punitive goals in sentencing, and felt positively about the juvenile justice system's effectiveness in handling serious offenders. Yet, a sizable minority of judges felt otherwise. The implications of the findings for judicial education and legal advocacy are discussed.     

Juvenile and Family Court Judges’ Knowledge and Attitudes About Sex Trafficking of Minors: Associations with Gender,Race, and U.S. Region

Juvenile and family court judges are a professional group that have a significant amount of decision-making power in cases of sex trafficking of minors. The purpose of this project is to examine the association of juvenile and family court judges’ gender, race, and U.S. region with their attitudes and knowledge about sex trafficking of minors. Drawing from a survey of 55 juvenile and family court judges in the U.S., this study used standardized scales to measure attitudes and knowledge about child sex trafficking. Results indicate some differences by gender and geography in a sample of experienced judges across the U.S. The consistency of these findings are discussed in the context of other research and implications for targeted training.     

The Role of Case Complexity in Judicial Decision Making

The literature on ideology and decision making offers conflicting expectations about how judges' ideology should affect their votes in cases that raise many legal issues. Using cases from the U.S. courts of appeals, I examine the strength of ideology as a predictor of sincere voting in single and multi‐issue cases, and test whether the same effect for ideology can be seen for liberal and conservative judges. For all judges, ideology yields a larger effect as the number of issues increases; however, conservative judges are much more likely than liberal judges to cast sincere votes at all levels of complexity.     

Field reliability of competence to stand trial opinions: How often do evaluators agree, and what do judges decide when evaluators disagree?

Despite many studies that examine the reliability of competence to stand trial (CST) evaluations, few shed light on "field reliability," or agreement among forensic evaluators in routine practice. We reviewed 216 cases from Hawaii, which requires three separate evaluations from independent clinicians for each felony defendant referred for CST evaluation. Results revealed moderate agreement. In 71% of initial CST evaluations, all evaluators agreed about a defendant's competence or incompetence (kappa = .65). Agreement was somewhat lower (61%, kappa = .57) in re-evaluations of defendants who were originally found incompetent and sent for restoration services. We also examined the decisions judges made about a defendant's CST. When evaluators disagreed, judges tended to make decisions consistent with the majority opinion. But when judges disagreed with the majority opinion, they more often did so to find a defendant incompetent than competent, suggesting a generally conservative approach. Overall, results reveal moderate agreement among independent evaluators in routine practice. But we discuss the potential for standardized training and methodology to further improve the field reliability of CST evaluations.     

Korean citizen participation in criminal trials: The present situation and problems

As citizen participation in criminal trials was first introduced in 2008, it is advisable to keep the present form of an all-citizen jury system rather than introduce or adopt aspects of the Continental mixed tribunal system because the former system makes the best use of the meaning of Article 1 of the Act of Citizen Participation in Criminal Trials in Korea. Though previously professional judges participated in the deliberation process, under the current system, the new procedure should allow only jurors to engage in deliberations and render verdicts, with sentencing still left to professional judges. The new law should also eliminate a consent agreement required for a defendant in jury trial, thereby making jury trial mandatory for certain classes of heinous crimes like murder or even political crimes; juvenile cases, however, may still be excluded from jury trial. In addition, the exclusion right of the court should also be recognized, but the current comprehensive rule (Article 9 (1) (3)) should be eliminated. It is necessary for the jury verdict to have legal binding force such that the prosecutor cannot appeal the acquittal if the verdict was decided unanimously. Lastly, as for the use of victim participation programs, it is enough to simply allow victims to make statements as witness. This year, on March 6, 2013, the revised system of civil participation in criminal trials has been ready based on the evaluation of the current system by the Committee on Civil Judicial Participation, which was comprised of members from the judiciary, the academia, and civil organizations. The new amendment will be submitted to the National Assembly within this year.     

Judges’ sentencing decisions with older offenders

Older offenders tend to be treated with more leniency in the criminal justice system. A number of studies show that older offenders are less likely to be incarcerated, and when they are incarcerated, are more likely to receive shorter sentences. However, to date, no research has directly examined why such leniency occurs. This study asked U.S. state trial court judges to reflect on their sentencing practices with older offenders and to rate the factors considered most important when sentencing this population. Responses were received from 212 judges. Only 31% of judges acknowledged treating older offenders with greater leniency. These judges also indicated that they predominantly rely on legal factors when making decisions about sentencing with older offenders rather than factors specifically associated with age. Only cognitive impairment was identified by judges as one of the five most important factors to consider when sentencing older offenders. These results are discussed in terms of judges’ awareness of how they weigh information to make legal decisions. The influence of judges’ age and attitudes about aging on sentencing decisions are also explored.