Healing Families: Outcomes from a Family Drug Treatment Court

Family drug treatment courts (FDTC) have been acknowledged as a promising intervention for substance‐abusing parents involved in the child welfare system. Over the past decade, the number of FDTC programs has grown substantially, yet questions remain regarding the efficacy of these courts. This study examines the ability of the Snohomish County (WA) FDTC to address the three main goals of the Adoption and Safe Families Act. Utilizing propensity score matching, this study found that participants were more likely to have their children returned, experienced stronger treatment completion rates, and had less use of foster care. Implications for replication and further analysis are discussed.     

The Relative Influence of Legal Pressure on Outcomes in a Rehabilitation Aftercare Drug Court

American Journal of Criminal Justice - The concept of legal pressure has been used in research to study the effect threats of increased punishment have on the rehabilitation trajectory of...     

The Juvenile Drug Court Judge and Lawyer: Four Common Mistakes in Treating Drug Court Adolescents

This article will present information gleaned from anecdotal experience of existing juvenile drug treatment courts regarding several common mistakes often made by those new to the drug court. The mistakes discussed include: 1) Believing the work and role responsibilities in a traditional juvenile court will not change significantly when entering a juvenile drug court; 2) Citing the elimination of drug and alcohol use as a final outcome goal when developing the mission statement for a juvenile drug court; 3) Believing that a juvenile drug court ensures accountability by keeping a close eye on participants and setting immediate consequences for any break in program rules; 4) Using vicarious learning to “teach a lesson”–making an example of an individual participant who has broken program rules in front of the large group. The goal of this article is not only to raise caution to these pitfalls, but also to help incoming judges and lawyers become aware of the changes that working in a juvenile drug court will demand.     

Parenting in Dependency Drug Court

The Dependency Drug Court (DDC) in Miami, Florida, addresses the needs of families affected by substance abuse through a comprehensive and therapeutic approach. The DDC works with community agencies to provide services that effectively treat the family as a unit. This article discusses the process of adapting a parenting program to meet the needs of families in the DDC.     

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.     

民事审理的集中化研究——以庭审程序为中心

庭审是集中审理的关键,集中审理的主要内容是在开庭审理中得以落实的,审理是否实现了集中化也主要是在开庭审理阶段体现出来。对于我国是否实现了审理的集中化,还存在比较大的争议。但我国立法上并没有严格区分审前程序和庭审程序,虽然有些案件表现出来的是只经过一次庭审即告终结,但这实际上是建立在多次"非正式开庭"基础上的。而且由于"非正式开庭"喧宾夺主成为法官获取案件信息的主要渠道,开庭本身都不具有实质意义,就更谈不上有集中、连续地开庭审理的可能。有鉴于此,为了实现审理的集中化,就需要对现有的开庭审理程序进行改革和完善。     

法院审判流程管理模式:反思与进路

审判管理的主要内容和表现形式很大程度上是案件审判流程管理。探讨增强法院审判管理能力问题,着力点应当放在增强审判流程管理能力上。小立案模式在整合司法公正与效率方面更具有比较优势,更能有效发挥为审判工作服务的功能,基本能够代表审判流程管理未来改革发展的方向。审判流程管理总的目标是实现公正与效率,总的原则是要遵循司法活动规律。     

从“三审合一”到知识产权专门法院 兼论知识产权审判模式和体制的改革

以知识产权审判三审合一实践为基础,笔者发现其主要优势在于统一案件管辖权和审判组织,但仍存在如改革模式缺乏统一性、停留于法院内部、资源配置不合理等瓶颈问题.通过对国外知识产权专门法院做法的研究和借鉴,从国家知识产权战略纲要、三审合一的全面推动、审判组织和案件管辖基础等方面分析我国设立知识产权专门法院的现实基础.此外,还要重点考量设立技术法官辅助审判的制度和对知识产权案件管辖和审级重新区分和整合.     

Mental Health Court Outcomes: A Comparison of Re-Arrest and Re-Arrest Severity Between Mental Health Court and Traditional Court Participants

Mental health courts have been proliferating across the country since their establishment in the late 1990's. Although numerous advocates have proclaimed their merit, only few empirical studies have evaluated their outcomes. This paper evaluates the effect of one mental health court on criminal justice outcomes by examining arrests and offense severity from one year before to one year after entry into the court, and by comparing mental health court participants to comparable traditional criminal court defendants on these measures. Multivariate models support the prediction that mental health courts reduce the number of new arrests and the severity of such re-arrests among mentally ill offenders. Similar analysis of mental health court completers and non-completers supports the prediction that a "full dose" of mental health treatment and court monitoring produce even fewer re-arrests.     

Factors of Success: Drug Court Graduate Exit Interviews

Drug court judges enforce mandated treatment through a series of rewards and graduated sanctions as compliance with mandated treatment and retention are crucial to successful graduation for participants. A study of 600 graduates from drug court details self-report data of motivations and perceptions offenders shared about their experience in drug court. Clients rated different factors related to their entry into, retention in, and graduation from drug court. Upon graduation, clients rated the opportunity to avoid jail as a key factor in their decision to enter drug court and positive improvements in their life as significant in their decision to remain. This research provides important information on the drug court experience from those clients who successfully graduated.     

Splitting the Difference: Modeling Appellate Court Decisions with Mixed Outcomes

In rendering a decision in a particular case, judges are not limited to finding simply for the appellant or for the respondent. Rather, in many cases, they have the option to find for the former on one or more issues and for the latter on one or more other issues. By thus “splitting the difference,” judges can render a judgment that favors both litigants to some degree. What accounts for such mixed outcomes? Several theoretical perspectives provide potential explanations for this phenomenon. First, Galanter (1974) suggests that litigants with greater resources will achieve more favorable outcomes in the courts. Where two high‐resource, repeat‐player litigants meet in the appeals courts, these more sophisticated and successful parties may be able to persuade the court to render decisions with mixed outcomes that at least partially favor each party. Second, split outcomes may result from strategic interactions among the appeals court judges on the decisionmaking panel. Where majority opinion writers seek to accommodate other judges on the panel, split outcomes have the potential to serve as an inducement for more ideologically extreme judges to join the majority opinion. Finally, Shapiro and Stone Sweet ( Stone Sweet 2000; Shapiro & Stone Sweet 2002 ) propose that courts will sometimes split the difference in order to enhance their legitimacy (and ultimately enhance compliance by losing parties). For example, in highly salient cases, where noncompliance would more clearly threaten court legitimacy, judges may be more likely to split the difference in order to mollify even the losing party. We develop an empirical model of mixed outcomes to test these propositions using data available from the U. S. Courts of Appeals Database and find evidence supportive of all three theoretical perspectives.     

Legal Pluralism in an American Community: Perspectives on a Civil Trial Court

This article explores the role of a local trial court in terms of the plurality of legal systems-both formal and informal-found in the community in which the court operates. The concept of legal pluralism in American society is examined, and a comparison is made between the study of plural normative systems and the study of disputes and dispute processing. Two examples of legal pluralism drawn from an empirical study of a mid western community are presented: the first exploring oral contractual agreements among farmers and the second examining formal and informal norms concerning divorce. The application of this form of analysis is found to reveal important distinctions between the manifest and latent functions that the trial court performs in its community setting.     

最高人民法院关于修改《最高人民法院关于审理食品药品纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》的决定(法释〔2021〕17号)

根据《中华人民共和国药品管理法》,最高人民法院审判委员会第1850次会议决定对《最局人民法院关于审理食品药品纠纷案件适用法律若干问题的规定》作如下修改:将第十二条修改为:“食品检验机构故意出具虚假检验报告,造成消费者损害,消费者请求其承担连带责任的,人民法院应予支持。食品检验机构因过失出具不实检验报告,造成消费者损害,消费者请求其承担相应责任的,人民法院应予支持。”     

Improving Outcomes for a Juvenile Justice Model Court: A Realist Evaluation

The main purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of the Erie County, New York, Juvenile Justice Model Court on court improvement and improved case outcomes for youth and families. A quasi‐experimental design was used within a realist evaluation paradigm, with four independent groups in four years. Court improvement was measured by the number of days between appearance and disposition, and improved case outcomes by the extent to which penetration into the juvenile justice system was reduced. Both outcomes were significantly improved, and it was found that the Model Court intervention was the main predictor for their improvement. Youth with reduced penetration had lower levels of recidivism.     

Trial by Polygraph: Reconsidering the Use of the Guilty Knowledge Technique in Court

Polygraph test results are by and large ruled inadmissible evidence in criminal courts in the US, Canada, and Israel. This is well-conceived with regard to the dominant technique of polygraph interrogation, known as the Control Question Technique (CQT), because it indeed does not meet the required standards for admissible scientific evidence. However, a lesser known and rarely practiced technique, known as the Guilty Knowledge Test (GKT), is capable, if carefully administered, of meeting the recently set Daubert criteria. This paper describes the technique, and argues for considering its admissibility as evidence in criminal courts.     

实验法院:近代中国司法改革的一次地方试点

设立实验法院是近代中国以地方试点为特点的司法改革。这场司法改革以提高诉讼效率为目标,先后选择了璧山和重庆两地法院试行《实验办法》。实验法院通过整顿法警队伍并设立职员值日、审检联席会议等制度,革新行政风纪;通过增强法院职权、便利当事人诉讼,提高诉讼效率。实验成果大多被采纳,《实验办法》中的许多制度成为修订新诉讼法的依据。由于地方司法改革涉及到中央立法、司法和行政权的交界,实验法院匆匆终止。厘清和分析实验法院这段历史,可以展现许多诉讼制度在中国吸收、演进的历史细节,实验法院所体现的从地方试点到中央立法这一司法改革思路也对当下有所裨益。     

Recidivism and Psychiatric Symptom Outcomes in a Juvenile Mental Health Court

Few researchers have examined outcomes in Juvenile Mental Health Courts. Recidivism rates were assessed among 108 predominantly African American (95.3%) youth. Ages ranged from 12 to 18 (M = 15.85, SD = 1.45). Substantially fewer re‐convictions, along with re‐arrests, were exhibited among the treatment group (n = 54) compared to the control group (n = 54) after one year of participation or probation supervision. Psychiatric symptomatology among 21 youth was assessed pre‐ and post‐ intervention using the Comprehensive Behavior Rating Scales‐Self Report. Cohen's d effect sizes indicated substantial reductions in mental health symptoms (.33 ≥ d ≤ .88). Results are consistent with the previous studies of problem‐solving court efficacy.