THE USE AND EFFECTS OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES IN MUNICIPAL COURTS

With prison, jail, and probation caseloads overloaded, financial penalties appeal as alternative sanctions. Using probation data for cases sentenced in municipal courts, this paper presents regression analyses suggesting that judges tended to employ rational discretion in imposing economic sanctions, for monetary assessments without jail were most likely to be given to low-risk offenders and assignment of probation alone and jail terms was most strongly influenced by offense. The amount of the financial sanction was also significantly related to the type of crime. Controlling for individual attributes and offense, the odds of subsequent arrest and incarceration were significantly less for those given a financial penalty than for those receiving a jail sentence.     

THE PROSECUTION AND PUNISHMENT OF INTERNATIONAL TERRORISTS IN FEDERAL COURTS: 1980–1998*

Research Summary: This study reports findings from the American Terrorism Study. The data show that from 1980 to 1998, the U.S. government periodically tried accused domestic and international terrorists through the use of traditional criminal trials. The extent to which federal prosecutors “explicit politicized” these trials (and the success that the politicization had) varied among the types of terrorist groups. Explicit politically was not found to be successful in trials of domestic terrorists but seemed to work for trials involving international terrorists. Over the 20‐year period, however, federal prosecutors began to rely more heavily (and more successfully) on the politicization of the criminal acts by international terrorists. The results also show that international terrorists, like their domestic counterparts, are much less likely to plead guilty. Finally, the study shows that these traditional trials have resulted in international terrorists being punished more severely than domestic terrorists. Unfortunately, the practice of performing these politicized trials within the venue of the federal court system may have been compromised by defense strategies that capitalized on the due process procedures so prominent in the U.S. system of justice. In the wake of the terrorism attacks in September 2001 by foreign nationals, the federal government began to take the next step in its “war against terrorism” by instituting the use of military tribunals. Policy Implications: Although the federal government has been relatively successful in the prosecution of terrorism in America in the past two decades, the movement toward the use of military tribunals has perhaps become inevitable (as the use of the traditional criminal trial for international terrorists manifests weaknesses). In the short term, it is likely that several international terrorism cases stemming from the September 2001 attacks and other subsequent attacks (which may be presumed) will be tried in federal courthouses across the country (even with the advent of military tribunals). Federal prosecutors will need to be trained on the specifics of trying these kinds of cases. In the long term, the use of military tribunals will provide greater ease of prosecution for the federal government. Long‐term consequences such as retaliatory attacks and attacks aimed at the release of political prisoners cannot be ignored by policy makers.     

人民陪审制的现状与未来

<正>在我国,人民陪审制既是一项重要的诉讼制度,也是一项一度被写入宪法的宪法原则。2005年5月1日《全国人民代表大会常务委员会关于完善人民陪审员制度的决定》(以下简称《决定》)正式实施,更是以立法的形式奠定了人民陪审制在国家司法制度中的地位。然而,现实中陪审制的适用状况却令人堪忧,陪审员"陪而不审,审而不议"的现象广泛存在,在实质上颠覆了立法者对人民陪审制的设计初衷。即便是《决定》实施之后,这一局面也并未得到根本性的转变。这是为什么?人民陪审制在运行过程中出现问题的根源在哪里?其出路又在何方?现有     

THE SOCIAL CONTEXT OF GUIDELINES CIRCUMVENTION: THE CASE OF FEDERAL DISTRICT COURTS*

Recent scholarship on criminal punishments increasingly highlights the importance of courtroom social contexts. Combining recent data from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (FY1997–2000) with aggregate data on federal districts, the current study examines interdistrict variations in the application of downward departures from the federal sentencing guidelines. Findings indicate that substantial variation exists in the probability of both prosecutor‐initiated substantial assistance departures and judge‐initiated downward departures. This variation is accounted for, in part, by organizational court contexts, such as caseload pressures, and by environmental considerations, such as the racial composition of the district. Additional evidence suggests that individual trial penalties and race disparities are conditioned by aggregate court contexts. Drawing on interviews with federal justice personnel, this article concludes with a discussion of future directions for research on federal guidelines departures. Part of the glory of the federal system…is that you've got this one big organization, but it can be molded to different needs…
‐ An assistant U.S. attorney ‐     

MAKING FAMILIES AND CHILDREN A HIGH PRIORITY IN THE COURTS

This article describes the California Administrative Office of the Court's (AOC's) Center for Families, Children & the Courts (CFCC). CFCC is an interdisciplinary unit that brings together all of the AOC's work on statewide policies and practices related to families and children in the court system. CFCC thus models the unified family court model within the state AOC. CFCC's projects and activities are described to show the effectiveness of its multidisciplinary and collaborative approach in addressing complex policy and practice issues. It is hoped that readers may discover aspects of CFCC's work that could be adapted to their own jurisdiction or practice.     

DECISION-MAKING IN THE CRIMINAL COURTS:

This article attempts an analysis of the relationship between the guilty-plea bargaining process and presentence investigation reports. It is argued that because plea-bargaining has increasingly come to involve bargaining over sentence. probation officers, as a consequence, have increasingly come to experience encroachment upon their decision-making autonomy. In this predicament they have found little support from judges, who, committed to norms of managerial efficiency will reassert the primacy of the plea-bargain when probation officers refuse to ratify previously negotiated sentence agreements. The policy implications of this for the criminal justice system are discussed.     

GENDER ISSUES IN THE CALIFORNIA COURTS

The Judicial Council of California's Advisory Committee on Gender Bias in the Courts is one of approximately 30 similar task forces throughout the country charged with investigating issues of bias based on gender in the various state court systems. This article summarizes portions of the committee's draft report, "Achieving Equal Justice for Men and Women in the Courts," and its findings and recommendations. The crucial area of family law including cases where there are allegations of domestic violence is its focus. This article also describes the committee's investigatory process and collaborative efforts and explains the steps planned to implement the advisory committee's blueprint for change.