Cross-Jurisdictional Differences in Punitive Public Attitudes?

With more information the Dutch public becomes less punitive. However, recent studies showed a remaining punitiveness gap between the general public and judges, despite the provision of detailed case information. Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the Dutch public overestimates the courts’ punitiveness. This is not in line with studies abroad. These contradictions raise questions, on the one hand, about the possibility of actual cross jurisdictional differences, on the other hand, about methodological explanations. A limited set of survey questions from studies abroad was therefore replicated with a new Dutch public sample. It focused on questions and methodologies that produced findings most directly at odds with earlier studies in the Netherlands. Using the same measurement approach, findings abroad were reproduced with the new Dutch sample for perceptions of punitiveness of judges and the courts. Thus using a different methodology new findings support conclusions that are opposite to our earlier conclusions. On the other hand, also with methodologies that have produced opposite conclusions abroad, the Dutch public does remain more punitive than judges. In the discussion it is argued that some of the remaining contradictions may be perfectly reconcilable, as long as conclusions are stated in a qualified manner.     

The highest Dutch courts and the preliminary ruling procedure: Critically obedient interlocutors of the Court of Justice

Little is known about the motives of national courts to request a preliminary ruling from the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU) or their satisfaction with and implementation of answers. This article aims to fill this empirical gap on the basis of an analysis of judgments complemented with interviews with judges of the highest courts in the Netherlands. This article shows that judges extensively use the procedure and follow its outcome almost without exception, despite some dissatisfaction. This discontent has surprisingly not affected the courts' willingness to refer in future. The findings also downplay the bureaucratic politics and judicial empowerment theses emphasising strategic motives to refer. Instead, legal‐formalist considerations and the desire to contribute to the development of EU law explain most of the references of the Dutch Supreme Court. The decision (not) to refer of the three highest administrative courts is primarily based on practical and pragmatic considerations.     

Future Uncertainty as a Challenge to Law's Programmes: The Dilemma of Parental Disputes

The article poses the problem of the need for judges to make 'right' decisions. It then describes how judges have attempted to meet this requirement in difficult cases concerning parental disputes over contact with children where there have been allegations of domestic violence. Applying Luhmann's concepts of the legal system, law's function, law's coding and law's programmes (Das Recht der Gesellschaft (Society's Law) 1997), offers a very different perspective on the issue to that of the judiciary or legal commentators who tend to see the issue of the law, determining, with expert help, what is best for the child. Law's function of stabilizing expectations over time obliges it to deal with all matters that come before the courts through the application of 'conditional programmes' and prevents it from applying the 'purpose oriented programmes' of politics and those who see the issue in terms of ideological conflict.     

Confidentiality and the Juvenile and Family Courts

Court proceedings and court records are traditionally open to the public. The courts are public institutions, and openness serves a number of important purposes including protection of the free discussion of governmental affairs and the enhancement of the quality and integrity of the fact finding process. But court proceedings also address family matters including adoptions, juvenile delinquency, child protection, and domestic relations cases. These types of cases often involve personal issues, and many family members would prefer that they remain private. In most states, many of these proceedings have been closed to the public. Strong policy reasons support both openness of family court proceedings and privacy considerations for family members, particularly children. This article addresses confidentiality in the context of juvenile and family court proceedings. It takes the position that the tension between these conflicting policies can be reduced if most family court proceedings are presumptively open, but judges are given the authority to place conditions on the information that can be revealed by observers outside the courtroom. Additionally, the article asserts that if the courts and the media take steps to change their practices and their relationship with one another, both the public interest and the confidentiality interest of the parties can be better served.     

THE PRESS AND THE JUDICIARY： COURT AND JUDICIAL REPORTS IN THE PREss IN ENGLAND AND WALES

Western scholars have argued that image making and image management are a preoccupation of the judiciary. Images of the judiciary may take a variety of forms and be produced for kinds of audiences. One form of judicial image making and image management is live performances in the courtroom and other court settings. Another is the written judgment where the preoccupation is the style of the written text. Press and other mass media reports of judicial activity are another. The audience for judicial images is equally diverse, from fellow judges, lawyers in the courts and the wider legal community, the litigants before the courts to the executive, legislature and the public both in the courtroom and beyond. The image of the judiciary that is available to the public has a particular significance in Western rule of law democracies. As a general rule courts and the judiciary are required to operate in public and their activities must be open to public scrutiny. A recent policy manifestation of this goal is debated about confidence in the justice system and initiatives designed to improve confidence. In the majority of cases public scrutiny of judicial activity and public confidence in the judiciary relies upon the media. Objective and accurate press and media reports play a key role in shaping public understanding of the judiciary and generating or undermining confidence in that institution. Reports in regional and national newspapers have long been an important source of information, shaping public knowledge and facilitating public scrutiny of the justice system. In the UK, there is almost no scholarship on these representations past or present. The result is little known about the representation of the courts and the judiciary in press reports. Little is known about what the diligent reader of these reports can learn about judicial activity. The aim of this article is to take a first step towards changing that state of affairs. It uses a data set made up of 205 contemporary domestic newspaper reports of court and judi     

Reporting sensational trials: Free press,a responsible press,and cameras in the courts

It is common today to criticize the media for the way in which they report sensational trials. Lawyers often join in this criticism, claiming that the portrayals harm their public image. This article examines such complaints and demonstrates that including cameras in the courts need not lengthen a criminal trial, nor substantially affect the judicial process. Using the O.J. Simpson criminal case as a backdrop, the article shows how delays in that case were caused not by cameras, but by the judge's inconsistent rulings that signaled to the defense lawyers that they were under a different and more lenient standard than the prosecutors. Surveys of American judges show that those who have experienced cameras in their own courtroom have come to the conclusion that such media coverage does not impede justice, aids the public in understanding the judicial process and has little effect on American's perceptions of lawyers. Those judges who have the urge to play to the cameras should ban them, but if they do not, the blame lies with them and not the media, which simply report what is happening.     

Gag orders: Shields or swords in the constitutional conflict between fair trial and free press?

In 1976, in Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, the Supreme Court characterized gag orders as the “most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment rights.”; Yet courts impose gag orders that restrict media coverage of courts and trial participants. Many groups believe the use of gag orders is increasing. However, no previous study has attempted to quantify the frequency of gag orders or to explore judicial attitudes about the issuance of such orders. This analysis of the case law and exploratory survey of judges in Florida suggests that courts issue gag orders to protect fair trials, participant safety and privacy, and the sanctity of the courtroom.

This article also suggests that conflict over gag orders arises because judges disagree about the core meanings of the First and Sixth Amendments. This research indicates that judges' individual interpretations of the Constitution color their determinations of whether indirect gags on trial participants, rather than on the media, are impermissible assaults on the First Amendment or are permissible shields of fair trials. Judges tend to be either First Amendment apostles or Sixth Amendment followers, and Sixth Amendment judges are more likely to impose and uphold gag orders. The authors suggest that this schism is unlikely to be resolved without guidance from the Supreme Court.     

司法判决中的词典释义

词典在司法过程中的应用是一个值得关注的司法现象。对中国法院519份涉及词典释义的判决文书进行统计分析表明:词典可以作为文义解释的一种特殊工具,但法院对词典的司法功能尚未形成统一的认识,现实中的词典释义并非一种权威、客观或统一的法律适用方法。由于词典及其释义存在诸多不确定性,判决之际具体选择哪一本词典、哪一种释义,受制于语词的使用语境,取决于司法裁量。实践和理论两方面的分析表明:词典释义可以成为法院确定系争词语之含义的起点,但不是决定语词含义的终点或判准。     

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 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.     

The Impact of Training and Language Competence on Judicial Application of EU Law in Hungary

The aim of this research is to identify the role that training in EU law and in a foreign language play in the use of EU law by Hungarian judges in domestic proceedings. Judges in the new Member States face the problems of no or inadequate official EU translations of relevant EU law or case‐law. The need to compare the meaning of other language versions therefore comes into play in order that the judges comply with the requirements of Union loyalty in the Treaty on European Union: Hungarian judges are shown to exhibit certain creative responses to these challenges. The approach to the research is based on an examination of the institutional framework for judicial training, a selection of pertinent case‐law of the Hungarian courts as well as interviews with a number of judges involved in the application of EU law in their courts.     

A Gramscian Approach to Studying the Judicial Decision-Making Process

This paper applies a Gramscian analytical framework to scrutinise the judicial decision-making process. Based on two distinct research projects, the article explores how, on one hand judges in criminal courts can be identified as part of the bureaucratic machinery of the state, as ‘technicians of repression’; whereas, on the other hand, human rights judges can be distinguished as providing ‘moral and intellectual leadership’ in their production and reproduction of certain values. Some of the key questions this article seeks to answer are: What is the role of hegemony in the judicial decision-making process? To what extent are legal actors both ‘technicians of repression’ and ‘moral and intellectual leaders’? This paper uses examples from empirical research conducted at courts in Argentina and at the European and Inter-American Courts of Human Rights to identify and explore this dual role of judges as both repressive technicians and moral and intellectual leaders in neo-liberal capitalist societies.     

“<Emphasis Type="Italic">Peer effects</Emphasis>” or “<Emphasis Type="Italic">quasi</Emphasis>-<Emphasis Type="Italic">peer effects</Emphasis>” in Spanish labour court rulings

The current work seeks to ascertain whether rulings on dismissal cases issued by incumbent judges in Spanish labour courts are influenced by whether they are acting alone in their own court or sharing duties with other judges such as replacement judges, support judges or incumbent judges from other courts. We consider that a court is treated when more than one judge rules in it. Then, an analysis is conducted so as to determine the effect of such a treatment on the percentage of cases ruled in favour of the dismissed worker. The data used in the research are taken from the information recorded at court level provided by the statistics kept by the General Council of the Spanish Judiciary. A total of 2888 observations were available, corresponding to the period spanning 2004 to 2012. As regards the findings, it may be concluded that there is a significant positive impact on the number of dismissal cases ruled in favour of workers when incumbent judges are not acting alone in their court, particularly when the incumbent judge solves cases together with another professional judge.     

National Judges,Community Judges: Invitation to a Journey through the Looking‐glass—On the Need for Jurisdictions to Rethink the Inter‐systemic Relations beyond the Hierarchical Principle

The historical conflict between the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the national constitutional courts regarding primacy is a misunderstanding. In going through the looking‐glass, we can understand that, on the contrary, the ECJ and the national constitutional courts adopt comparable solutions in their treatment of legal pluralism, and that they see the negation of pluralism as essential for the survival of their own legal orders. Therefore, these judges must be offered a new theoretical context to help them reconcile their role as supreme guardian with the taking into account of the pluralist context. Finally, practical proposals must be made to give judges the instruments and techniques that are capable of reflecting this plural structure.     

组织视角下的民事诉讼发回重审制度

民诉法学界和实务界有关二审程序中的发回重审存在较大争议,该制度成为本次民诉法修改的重要议题之一。为了形成共识,对这一问题从法解释论的角度进行阐释解说尤为必要。为了限制发回重审裁量权的滥用,我国司法实践中采用程序细化与加强对审判的组织管理并行的策略。不过这种"程序"与"组织"的交织并不能真正抑制裁量权滥用,反而因剥夺当事人的程序参与权而损害审判的公信力。为调整二者的相互关系,应在审判管理的组织背景下保障审判程序的自主性,恢复当事人在程序运作中的结构性位置。     

深化改革背景下对司法行政化的遏制

司法行政化,即以行政的目的、构造、方法、机理及效果取代司法自身的内容,形成以行政方式操作的司法。法院司法运作的全过程均带有行政化色彩,表现为司法目的和价值的行政化、案件审判活动的行政化、上下级法院关系的行政化、司法人事制度和法院结构的行政化以及审判管理的行政化等。在给定的约束条件下,司法行政化可以弥补一线司法能力之不足,可以抗制外部干预。但其过度发展会妨碍依法治国,损害办案质量与效率,危及司法权威和公信力,阻碍法院工作的可持续发展。司法行政化的根源在于基本权力结构及其运行机制;司法功能设定的非司法化和资源配置的有限性,统一的人事管理制度和财政供应制度以及国家机能分化不足,亦为重要原因。遏制司法行政化需强化法院的司法审查功能、审判功能以及终局性纠纷解决功能;需阻隔行政性要素介入审判,建立审判独立的"二元模式";需在法院审判管理、司法行政管理、上下级法院业务管理上"去行政化"。     

Welfare as Wrecking Ball: Constructing Public Responsibility in Legal Encounters Over Public Housing Demolition

Scholarship on welfare privatization illustrates how the process often curtails and undermines public responsibility for the poor. In this article, I examine how recipients, policy makers, and judges participate in the legal process as a means of challenging and defending privatization. I look at cases of litigation initiated by public housing tenants between 1985 and 2012 to fight the demolition of their homes to explore the changing meaning of public responsibility within a shrinking public sector. My findings show that as legislative and administrative reforms steered courts toward a more flexible understanding of public responsibility, courts gave increasing attention to the economic hardships experienced by the state itself, while downplaying the plight of low‐income tenants.     

Fairness, Justice, and Legitimacy: Experiences of People's Judges in South Russia

Which criteria do Russians use to evaluate the fairness of their judges, and how does perceived fairness of actual trials influence general beliefs about Russian courts? Lay assessors at courts in South Russia were asked about their experience serving on mixed courts. The justice of the verdicts rendered and the fairness of judges partly explain the respondents’ view of national courts. According to the results, the respondents are also using similar criteria for fairness as Americans or Germans. The social and psychological group effects in a Russian court of lay assessors exhibit a striking similarity to other Western tribunals.     

Transnational Jihadism and the Role of Criminal Judges: An Ethnography of French Courts

Lower national courts are increasingly asked to perform a transnational role, being directly involved in major geopolitical issues such as conflicts, migration, and transnational terrorism. Based on an ethnography of French criminal courts, this article aims to examine this emerging role of national lower courts as transnationalized players. Through an examination of terrorism prosecutions in France and the positions of the different judicial actors, it is argued that lower criminal courts, acting within a transnational context, can offer more robust resistance to states’ policies than supreme courts. This is because of the routine and the banality of their function and the direct interaction with the accused persons coupled with the judges’ own professional ethos and notion of judicial independence. Unlike supreme courts, whose role is more visible, and thus under the constant scrutiny of the political branches of the state, lower courts can operate in a more distant, independent space.     

Paradoxes of proof and punishment: Psychological pitfalls in judicial decision making

Purpose . This study focuses on two psychological mechanisms that may inadvertently affect judges' decisions on proof of guilt and on punishment. It involves mechanisms that are clearly in conflict with formal judicial doctrine. One hypothesis, the conviction paradox, asserts that, faced with very serious offences, a judge's standard of proof will be lower than for less serious, but otherwise comparable, offences. A second hypothesis, compensatory punishment, asserts that in cases with relatively weak evidence, judges who nevertheless render a guilty verdict will be inclined to compensate their initial doubt on the matter of guilt by meting out a less severe sentence. Method . The hypotheses are evaluated in an experiment with Dutch judges and justices who serve in criminal courts. This was done using fictitious but highly realistic dossiers of criminal cases. Results . Neither of the two hypotheses was supported in the present study. Conclusions . Findings are discussed in relation to their implications for theory development and future research in the area of legal decision making.