Victims' influence on intimate partner violence revictimization: an empirical test of dynamic victim-related risk factors

Research has reported that not only characteristics of the perpetrator but also characteristics of the victim influence risk for intimate partner violence (IPV). This would suggest that prevention of repeat abuse could benefit from a focus on both perpetrator and victim characteristics. Knowledge on factors that are within victims' sphere of influence is important because a focus on victim characteristics can help victims to take control of their situations and can thereby empower them. Dynamic victim-related factors are most relevant here as these are factors that can be changed or improved, in contrast to unchangeable static factors. Surprisingly, however, little is known about how victim-related factors affect risk for revictimization of IPV. The current study was conducted among a Dutch sample of 156 female, help-seeking IPV victims. The aim was to examine to what extent prior IPV and, in particular, dynamic victim-related factors influence risk for future IPV. In accordance with the models articulated by Foa, Cascardi, Zoellner and Feeny, we studied how the three key factors from their models-partner violence, victims' psychological difficulties, and victims' resilience-related to risk for IPV revictimization. Results provide support for several key factors (partner violence and victims' psychological difficulties) and, moreover, show which victim-related factors contribute to revictimization risk above and beyond the influence of prior violence committed by a partner against the victim (i.e., victims' prior IPV victimizations). Findings are discussed in terms of recommendations for practice and future research.     

Routinization of Divorce Law Practice in China: Institutional Constraints' Influence on Judicial Behaviour

Based on in-depth fieldwork investigations and extensive interviews,this article demonstrates that adjudication has replaced mediatedreconciliation and become the dominant way of handling seriouslycontested divorce petitions in contemporary China. Specifically,for first-time petitions, judges routinely render against divorce.But for second-time petitions, they routinely render adjudicateddivorce. This shift is closely linked to recent reforms in theChinese judiciary and especially the assessment criteria imposedon courts and judges. This article thus argues that the assessmentcriteria and the institutional constraints of Chinese courtsmore generally have overwhelmingly affected, if not dictated,the decision-making process of Chinese judges.     

Do Judicial Responses to Restraining Order Requests Discriminate Against Male Victims of Domestic Violence?

Every state in the United States authorizes its courts to issue civil orders of protection for victims of domestic violence. Ideally, restraining orders should be available to all victims. However, consistent with the patriarchal paradigm, research suggests that judicial responses to domestic violence temporary restraining order (TRO) requests may be sex-differentiated. This paper reports on a study that explored equal protection issues in family law by evaluating gender and violence profiles of a random sample of 157 TRO petitions involving intimate partners, dating couples, and married persons in a California district court. The majority of cases involved allegations of low or moderate levels of violence perpetrated by male defendants against female plaintiffs. Although there were no systematic differences in level of violence as a function of plaintiff sex, judges were almost 13 times more likely to grant a TRO requested by a female plaintiff against her male intimate partner, than a TRO requested by a male plaintiff against his female partner. Further analyses revealed that this sex differentiation was limited to cases involving allegations of low-level violence.

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.     

Refocusing on women: a new direction for policy and research on intimate partner violence

A key question facing researchers of intimate partner violence is how the real-life contexts of victims' lives should affect state policy. The bulk of recently adopted and much touted criminal justice reforms have taken the form of relatively inflexible, one-size-fits-all mandatory responses focused on counseling, restraining, and punishing batterers. Even the protection order system relies far more heavily on batterer treatment programs than on victim support to prevent future violence. Together, these reforms have largely sacrificed the contextualized, woman-centered focus from which the antidomestic violence movement originated. Recently, however, a small body of research has emerged indicating that responding flexibly to victims' needs and providing them with advocacy and broad social support could be a more successful strategy for keeping women safe. These data highlight the importance of expanding victim-centered resources and reincorporating a particularized perspective into current policy and practice. Development of this literature should guide future reform efforts.     

法学方法论视野中的法官说理

法院应是人们讲理的场所,法官应该说理,通过说理以增强判决的说服力与可接受性。法官不说理导致判决的可接受性低,当前申诉、上访、执行难等现象就是明证。为此,研究法官说理方法成为加强法官说理必然途径。研究法律解释、法律推理、法律论证等法学方法有助于完善法官说理的方法,有助于从法官说理能力、说理权责、说理激励等方面构建法官说理机制。     

Youth Transfer Decisions: Exploring County Variations

In an effort to control violent and chronic juvenile offenders, many state legislatures have created statutes that give exclusive jurisdiction to adult criminal courts for certain violent offenses. Much research has been conducted on juvenile transfers, but relatively few studies rely on official and self‐report data to evaluate this process. By using data from four counties within Washington State, this study examines how legal, extra‐legal, and organizational variables impact waiver decisions. In cases where youths were selected for transfer proceedings, data from official records are used to compare transfers within and between counties. In addition, interview data with juvenile court personnel (e.g., juvenile court judges, probation officers, legal advisors) are used to assess the factors associated with transfer decisions. Policy implications are presented along with recommendations for future research.     

UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS

Fragmented court systems are especially problematic for domestic violence victims because they typically are involved in more than one proceeding that stems from the same pattern of abuse. The proceedings are handled in different courts and before different judges, who are often unaware of these orders being issued in other proceedings. Consequently, conflicting orders are prevalent and the protection and needs of victims are often not met. A unified family court, on the other hand, provides one court with the subject-matter jurisdiction to handle all family-related matters and one judge to hear all cases that involve a single family, resulting in conflicting orders being issued less frequently. Additionally, the needs of victims are better served as a result of the services component. Given the fragmented state of the court systems in New York and Pennsylvania, United States; Alberta, Canada; and Australia, unified family courts should be implemented in each locality.     

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.     

法官事实认定面孔融合下的有限能动——以民事庭审为视角

本文以两个案情相似但结果迥异的民事案例为切入点,通过对笔录的分析,勾勒出我国基层法官在民事庭审中对事实认定呈现的两种面孔——回应型和能动型;同时,两位法官均不是纯粹的回应型和能动型面孔,又恰恰反映出当下我国基层法院法官在民事庭审事实认定中出现的两种面孔融合趋势,即法官的有限能动面孔。本文通过访谈方式、运用数据分析、成本分析及价值权衡等研究方法,分析两种面孔之成因并指出其融合之必要性,最后得出完善我国法官释明权制度,确立有限能动庭审面孔的结论。     

DIVORCE AND THE FAMILY COURT: WHAT CAN BE DONE ABOUT DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

Approximately 50% of couples who have separated report being victims of violence and/or emotional abuse by their former intimate partners. Family courts can make an important contribution toward reducing the number of intimate partners who report being victims of domestic violence and abuse during and following their participation in divorce proceedings in three ways. First, increase opportunities for participation in nonadversarial procedures. Second, implement mandatory assessment/screening for domestic violence using field‐tested instruments that link subscores on sets of items (e.g., control motivated violence, conflict instigated violence/abuse, substance abuse associated violence/abuse) with appropriate community‐based treatments and/or resources. Third, educate family court judges, lawyers, mediators, and other court personnel in the dynamics of domestic violence generally, as well as the dynamics associated with separation/divorce.     

“The roughest form of social work:” How court officials justify bail decisions

Growing research has analyzed quantitative patterns of bail decisions and outcomes, but we know far less about how court officials justify their bail decisions. To enhance understanding of how bail decisions—and their resulting pretrial outcomes—are generated, we interviewed 104 judges, prosecutors, and public defenders in a northeastern state. Court officials in our study reported three primary justifications at bail: ensuring defendants return to court, preventing crime, and lessening harm. The first two justifications have been suggested in the literature, but the latter is novel and encompasses two secondary justifications: lessening criminal legal system harm and lessening societal harm. We show how these justifications and the decisions they enable blend risk management with rehabilitation and emerge from court officials’ shared assumption of defendants’ social marginality but varied beliefs about what to do about such marginality pretrial. Each justification allows for distinct, but at times overlapping, bail decisions. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of court official decision-making, research on racial and socioeconomic inequality, and bail reform policy.     

Individualization,criminalization, or problem resolution: A factorial survey of juvenile court judges' decisions to incarcerate youthful felony offenders

Existing research on the criteria used by juvenile court judges in choosing dispositions is limited in two respects. First, the predictor variables included in most investigations have been limited either in number or in the quality of their measurement. Second, research has not focused on sentencing decisions for serious offenders. Using a factorial survey of juvenile court judges, the present study seeks to determine what factors shape disposition decisions for juvenile felony offenders. The results suggest that judges focus primarily on offense characteristics, and are influenced only marginally by the offender's social characteristics. These findings are more consistent with the view that juvenile courts are becoming “criminalized” than with the view that individualized treatment is the goal. An alternative interpretation—that judges may be problem solvers, trying to dispose of cases efficiently—also is proposed.     

CHILD CUSTODY MEDIATION AND SPOUSE ABUSE

This article discusses domestic violence, providing information and a review of literature regarding this phenomena. The article then goes on to describe a protocol developed by the Orange County (California) mediation and investigative unit that provides protection to the alleged victim of violence through the use of assessment interviews, co-mediation with a male-female mediation team, and the development of postparenting arrangements that provide for protection and security. The article also reviews a sample of 100 domestic violence cases handled in Orange County during 1991. Data from this research suggest that mediators using the protocols described in this article are able to guide the more serious, high-risk cases into more protective outcomes and that mediation can provide a very important adjunct to the trial court process.     

Judicial Power in Russia: Through the Prism of Administrative Justice

This article assesses the power of judges in Russia (on courts of general jurisdiction, arbitrazh courts, and military courts) in dealing with cases in which the government or one of its officials is a party. Power, that is, the resources of judges to make binding decisions, is understood as including jurisdiction, discretion, and authority to ensure compliance. The article analyzes the dramatic growth of jurisdiction and caseload in administrative justice in post-Soviet Russia to the year 2002 and examines how the courts have performed in handling the review of actions by officials (including in the military), tax cases, electoral disputes, and the legality of normative acts (both regulations and laws of lower governments), especially in the late 1990s. High rates of success for persons bringing suits against the government suggest that judges were able by and large to adjudicate fairly and rule against the state. To a considerable degree (but not always), those decisions were implemented (more often than were constitutional and commercial decisions). Interestingly, citizens who challenged the actions of officials in court had much more success than those who brought complaints to the Procuracy. Finally, the article develops an agenda for future research that would deepen understanding of the significance of administrative justice in the Russian Federation and the power of judges.     

Practice tips for managing challenges in parenting capacity assessments in child protection court

Courts frequently rely on parenting capacity assessments to make decisions about visitation and case progress in child protection court. Although these evaluations can provide valuable information to courts, they often involve assessing areas of human behavior that are not clearly defined in the literature. For example, mental health professionals are often tasked with identifying risk and protective factors for child maltreatment while identifying factors that can impede progress towards reunification. Although some of these factors may be easy to identify and assess (e.g., symptoms of mental illness or substance abuse), others may be more challenging. For example, factors such as denial and minimization about risk factors and maltreatment, a parent(s)’ ability to protect their child(ren) from future incidents of maltreatment, the parent(s)’ potential for change, and the consideration of what is in the best interest of the child are hard to assess. This article will provide a summary of the research in these areas, provide tips for managing these areas, and highlight directions for future investigation that will help inform parenting capacity assessments in child protection court.     

UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS OF LIMITED JURISDICTION TRIAL COURT JUDGES

An examination is made of the extent to which limited jurisdiction trial court judges make unique contributions to court policies. The methodology and political implications of minor court research differs from those in higher courts. Analysis of variance found that minor court judges in multiple-judge courts differed in the level and uniformity of fines and costs assessed in misdemeanor cases. Binary tests for regression discontinuity found that judges in single-judge courts initiated policy changes upon entering office. Such knowledge of unique judicial contributions would enable citizens and court officials to make informed decisions in judge selections and court reforms.     

The Influence of Administrative Law Judge and Political Appointee Decisions on Appellate Courts in National Labor Relations Board Cases

Scholars have long been simultaneously concerned with the factors that influence appellate court decision making and the level of deference that the courts allow for agencies. However, scholars have treated administrative agencies as unitary actors with a single level of decision making, but in reality agency decisions involve input from multiple actors within the agency. I argue that appellate courts rely more heavily on decisions made by actors in the bureaucracy with greater levels of expertise and who are less politically motivated as cues in their decision making. This theory is bolstered by legal precedent in the area of administrative law that suggests courts should more heavily rely on the expert judgment of administrative judges. Thus, as a result of their increased expertise, appearance of political neutrality, and institutional support, courts will be more reliant on decisions issued by administrative law judges (ALJs) than those issued by the political appointees as cues in their decision making. Using over 300 unfair labor practice decisions issued by the federal appeals courts on review of cases from the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board), I develop a model of appeals court decision making in unfair labor practice cases as a function of the initial decision of the ALJ, the final order of the political appointees of the NLRB, case characteristics, the ideology of the deciding appeals court panel, Supreme Court influence, and economic factors. Though the ideology of the court plays a role in its decision making, cues from ALJ decision making and that of the Board weigh more heavily in appellate court outcomes. However, cues from ALJ decisions play the most consistent role in appellate court decision making, even in more difficult cases. This has important implications for agency strategy in courts and suggests that future research should consider the influence of lower‐level decision making over appellate court decision making in the area of administrative law.     

Judicial Career Incentives and Court Performance: An Empirical Study of the German Labour Courts of Appeal

This paper examines how the organization of a civil-law judiciary—the German labour court system—shapes court performance. It is argued that civil-law judiciaries can be considered as internal labour markets in which the main incentive derives from career opportunities. Resulting hypotheses are tested on data for nine German Labour Courts of Appeal (Landesarbeitsgerichte) over the period 1980–1998. Two performance measures are computed: the confirmation rate and a productivity measure. The confirmation rate captures how often decisions are upheld in an appeal at the Federal Labour Court. Court productivity is measured by a score derived via data envelopment analysis (DEA) and includes as outputs the number of finished cases and the number of published decisions. Regression analyses show: Courts employing more judges with a Ph.D. are more productive, but write decisions that are less often confirmed by the Federal Labour Court. Courts employing judges with higher ex ante promotion probabilities are less productive and write decisions that are less often confirmed.JEL Classification: J45, K31, M12     

Publish or Paris? Evidence of How Judges Allocate Their Time

A utility-maximizing model of judicial behavior predicts that,all else equal, judges who have stronger preferences for publishingopinions, who have lighter workloads, or who are able to writepublishable decisions more efficiently are more likely to publishtheir decisions. Using federal district court judges' decisionsregarding the constitutionality of the Federal Sentencing Guidelines,this article presents empirical support for these predictions.Many judicial, institutional, and other characteristics areexamined that should be correlated with a judge's workload orwith a judge's taste for, or efficiency in, publishing opinions.These analyses find that, all else equal, judges who held priorpolitical positions, who received higher American Bar Association(ABA) ratings, who had lighter caseloads, who had longer tenures,who struck down the guidelines, or who had a greater chanceof promotion to a U.S. court of appeals were more likely topublish their decisions. In addition, judges' publication decisionswere significantly affected by the prior decisions of judgesin the same district, but little affected by those of judgesin other districts.