Citizens’ perceptions of the courts: The impact of race, gender, and recent experience

This study examined the influences of race, gender, and recent court experience on citizens’ perceptions of the courts in their communities. Using national survey data collected in 2000, this research assessed variation in perceptions of the courts along four dimensions: differential treatment, fair procedure and outcome, concern and respect, and overall evaluation. The results showed that racial minorities, including Blacks and Latinos, were more likely than Whites to have negative attitudes toward the courts. While race is generally a better predictor than gender, the interaction between gender and race is important in understanding citizen’s perceptions of the courts. Citizens who have recent personal contact with the courts tend to rate the courts less favorable than those who have no recent contact. Citizens’ opinions of the police and equal opportunity are also significantly related to their perceptions of the courts. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.     

Problem‐Solving Courts: A Brief Primer

This essay traces the history of problem‐solving courts (including drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts and others), outlines problem‐solving principles, and answers a basic set of questions about these new judicial experiments: Why now? What forces have sparked judges and attorneys across the country to innovate? What results have problem‐solving courts achieved? And what – if any – trade‐offs have been made to accomplish these results?     

法院政治功能的学理疏释

现代的法院制度与古代的相比,其区别主要不在于法院纯司法功能的变化,而在于司法与政治关系发生了实质性的嬗变。法院作为国家政治权力架构中的重要一环、法治得以实现的基本机关、民主制度的维持者与裁决者以及人民的法院,就必然要与政治发生关系,具有相应的政治功能,从而在权力分立的政治架构中,通过个案的审理与相关政治行为的判定,发挥着制约其他国家权力,规范权力运行秩序并维护宪政制度的功效。     

A CALL UNHEEDED

This article discusses the obstacles to implementing education programs for divorcing parents, the goal of which is to make parents aware of the effect divorce can have on children and provide them with skills necessary to address such problems. This article attempts to differentiate between adopter and nonadopter courts, that is, courts that have adopted mandatory education programs for divorcing parents and courts that have not. The article also provides an analysis of possible justifications of why some courts have chosen not to implement such programs.     

Protecting Ohio's Children: Ohio Juvenile Court Jurisdiction to Prevent Nonparty Interference in the Protection of the Best Interest of a Child

Ohio Rule of Juvenile Procedure 2(Y) allows juvenile courts to do what other courts cannot: designate additional parties to an action, allowing juvenile courts to better accomplish their statutory purpose of pursuing the best interests of children. However, sometimes this can lead to confusion about juvenile courts’ actions to protect children, especially when courts invoke Rule 2(Y) to stop interference with proceedings. This article will examine the historical foundations of Ohio's juvenile courts, the unique authority that they possess, and the conflicts that can arise due to interference with juvenile court proceedings. Ohio's juvenile courts have unique authority, and they can use that authority in a way that does not conflict with constitutional rights, while still working to protect the interests of children.     

Introduction: Problem‐Solving Courts

Problem‐solving courts have become a significant feature of the U.S. justice system, and their popularity appears to be growing internationally with courts under way or in development in countries such as Australia and Great Britain. Drug courts are the most visible type of problem‐solving court, but other varieties are beginning to take hold. Mental health courts, domestic violence courts, and community‐based courts among others are beginning to handle a considerable portion of the legal workload in many jurisdictions. Criminal law violations as well as neighborhood conflicts and interpersonal disputes are increasingly being referred to problem‐solving courts rather than to traditional criminal or civil courts.     

Public support for the courts: An examination of alternative explanations

Public opinion surveys consistently show that there are generally high levels of support for the court system. While there exists general public support for the courts, the most often heard criticism is that the courts are too lenient. The purpose of this study is to describe public attitudes toward the courts and examine a number of explanations of public support for, or against, the courts. The article examines five hypotheses: (1) respondents who are pro-punishment would not be supportive of the courts; (2) respondents who are supportive of the police and the correctional system would be supportive of the courts; (3) respondents who are supportive of the police would not be supportive of the courts; (4) respondents who identify themselves as conservative would not be supportive of the courts; and (5) respondents who express fear and/or concern about crime, and/or who have experienced victimization would not be supportive of the courts. It is found that members of the public express diffuse support for the courts, but criticism center around court leniency and plea bargaining. At least partial support is found for all five hypotheses with support for strong punitive sanctions the best predictor of attitudes toward the courts.     

A testable theory of problem solving courts: Avoiding past empirical and legal failures

Recent years have seen a proliferation of problem solving courts designed to rehabilitate certain classes of offenders and thereby resolve the underlying problems that led to their court involvement in the first place. Some commentators have reacted positively to these courts, considering them an extension of the philosophy and logic of Therapeutic Jurisprudence, but others show concern that the discourse surrounding these specialty courts has not examined their process or outcomes critically enough. This paper examines that criticism from historical and social scientific perspectives. The analysis culminates in a model that describes how offenders are likely to respond to the process as they engage in problem solving court programs and the ways in which those courts might impact subsequent offender conduct. This Therapeutic Jurisprudence model of problem solving courts draws heavily on social cognitive psychology and more specifically on theories of procedural justice, motivation, and anticipated emotion to offer an explanation of how offenders respond to these programs. We offer this model as a lens through which social scientists can begin to address the concern that there is not enough critical analysis of the process and outcome of these courts. Applying this model to specialty courts constitutes an important step in critically examining the contribution of problem solving courts.     

维稳压力对基层法院组织形态的形塑

维稳压力是形塑中国法院组织形态的重要因素。在维稳工作中,基层法院与地方党政系统形成紧密的互需关系。一方面,基层法院通过行使审判职能和延伸审判职能的方式参与地方维稳工作;另一方面,在案件审理执行以及涉诉信访工作中,基层法院也需要地方党政系统的支持。在维稳压力的影响下,基层法院的组织形态进行了调适,形成以案件属性转化、责任体系再造、组织运行重构为主要内容的运作机制。经过调适的组织形态在很大程度上提升了基层法院应对维稳问题的能力,不过法官独立行权空间受到一定程度的限缩。在基础性社会矛盾突出的转型期,基层法院组织形态的建构与运行依然会建立在对维稳压力审慎考量的基础之上。     

The Structure of American Legal Institutions and the Diffusion of Wrongful‐Discharge Laws, 1978–1999

This article evaluates how the social structure of American legal institutions influenced the diffusion of wrongful‐discharge laws over the period 1978–1999, and it assesses whether economic or political variables influenced the diffusion process. The results are surprising and quite striking. Precedents by other courts within the same federal circuit region were generally more influential in the diffusion process than precedents by courts in neighboring states or by courts within the same census or West legal reporting region, even though the precedents were on matters of state law rather than federal law and the decisions were usually made by state courts rather than federal courts. There is some limited evidence that political variables may also have been a factor, but economic variables were not statistically significant, even though the new employment laws may have had important economic consequences.     

Oversight of Administrative Rulemaking: Judicial Review

The role of the courts in the review of administrative rulemaking raises profound questions as to the legitimate interference of courts in the exercise of administrative activities, which are often carried out in the pursuance of a legislative mandate. In contrast to the review of administrative acts of individual application, the Union courts have shown a more hesitant approach in the review of administrative rulemaking activities. This contribution will discuss the review by the Union courts of administrative rulemaking for compliance with procedural as well as substantive standards and will explore whether a convincing rationale for their more deferential attitude to the review of administrative rules can be provided. The article will explore to what extent lessons can be learned from the jurisprudence of the federal courts in the USA, which have struggled, even after the adoption of the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), with similar problems.     

Lifting the cover on drug courts: evaluation findings and policy concerns

Drug treatment courts emerged in 1989 as a court-based solution to an enormous increase of drug-related arrests. Since their inception, drug treatment courts have been subject to empirical and process evaluations to provide quantitative and qualitative data regarding their effectiveness. This article reviews the extant literature on the effectiveness of drug treatment courts and discusses findings regarding various components of the criminal justice system. It is argued that based on empirical evaluation findings, drug treatment courts have achieved success in lowering rates of recidivism among drug offenders, despite problematic methodological and analytical concerns. This article also presents key components and agents of drug treatment courts and discusses their impact and relevance to policy creation and adaptation. It is suggested that when combined with empirical evaluations, process evaluations provide great insight into the drug-treatment-court dynamic. This article concludes with a discussion of the implications of drug treatment courts for justice policy.     

Assessing the effectiveness of drug courts on recidivism: A meta-analytic review of traditional and non-traditional drug courts

Purpose

The objective of this research was to systematically review quasi-experimental and experimental evaluations of the effectiveness of drug courts in reducing offending.

Methods

Our search identified 154 independent evaluations: 92 evaluations of adult drug courts, 34 of juvenile drug courts, and 28 of DWI drug courts. The findings of these studies were synthesized using meta-analysis.

Results

The vast majority of adult drug court evaluations, even the most rigorous evaluations, find that participants have lower recidivism than non-participants. The average effect of participation is analogous to a drop in recidivism from 50% to 38%; and, these effects last up to three years. Evaluations of DWI drug courts find effects similar in magnitude to those of adult drug courts, but the most rigorous evaluations do not uniformly find reductions in recidivism. Juvenile drug courts have substantially smaller effects on recidivism. Larger reductions in recidivism were found in adult drug courts that had high graduation rates, and those that accepted only non-violent offenders.

Conclusions

These findings support the effectiveness of adult drug courts in reducing recidivism. The evidence assessing DWI courts' effectiveness is very promising but more experimental evaluations are needed. Juvenile drug courts typically produce small reductions in recidivism.     

In the Best Interests of an Indian Child: The Indian Child Welfare Act

Before passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978, state, private, and federal agencies systematically removed Indian children from their families and tribal communities, placing them with non‐Indian families with little appreciation for the detrimental impact that cultural deprivation would have on these children. State courts often ignored the sovereign authority of tribal courts with regard to their children, and were, more often than not, unwilling to acknowledge the importance of the perspective of the child's tribe and/or extended family members. With passage of the Indian Child Welfare Act in 1978, Congress imposed upon state child welfare practices substantive and procedural requirements to which state courts must adhere, most notably the mandate that state courts must now give primary consideration to the placement of Indian children within their extended families and tribal communities. In addition, federal law requires state courts to recognize tribal court authority and jurisdiction over tribal children. This article reviews the history of federal, state, and private practices that propelled Congress to pass the ICWA, the changes that have resulted from this vital legislation, and the challenges that face courts in ensuring that state courts meet these requirements.     

Who Wants Informal Courts? Paradoxical Evidence from a Yugoslav Attempt to Create Workers' Courts for Labor Cases

The comrades' courts of the East European socialist countries are considered by those who favor alternative means of dispute resolution to be admirable examples of informal courts in modern industrial societies. However, these courts have not been extensively investigated. This article presents the results of an intensive observational study of one kind of socialist alternative court, the Yugoslav Courts of Associated Labor, comparing them with an ideal model of informal courts and with the available data on comrades' courts in other East European socialist countries. We find that, in contrast with the latter, the Yugoslav courts are indeed workers' courts, in the sense that they are used by workers—over 90% of their cases are brought by individual workers. On the other hand, they are not workers' courts in the sense of being controlled by workers—they are instead dominated by legal professionals. We conclude that these Yugoslav courts are attractive to individual workers precisely because they are not informal, social courts, but rather are independent legal agencies from which workers may receive unprejudiced decisions and substantial remedies.     

论惩罚性赔偿责任的可保性

惩罚性赔偿因具有的惩罚性和吓阻性,而具有准刑事罚的性质,其责任也被认为具有准刑事责任的性质。这在学界已成共识。但惩罚性赔偿责任可否经由保险而转嫁风险,即惩罚性赔偿责任是否具有可保性,分歧甚大。美国法院也有不同做法。单纯从经济学的角度看,可以不否认惩罚性赔偿责任的可保性,但基于惩罚性赔偿制度的功能和力图实现法律价值的考量,若允许其可保,就会使惩罚性赔偿的功能丧失殆尽,致该项制度形同虚设,故其应不具有可保性。     

公民社会经济权利宪法救济之中国路径——以南非宪法法院判例为切入点

南非宪法法院对公民社会经济权利的违宪审查判例受到宪法学界的广泛关注,这种做法具有制度创新和人权保障的双重效应。我们可以借鉴南非宪法法院相关判例,建立公民社会经济权利宪法救济的中国路径。在人民法院系统中设立宪法法庭,在人民代表大会系统中设立宪法委员会,并且在人民法院和人民代表大会之间建立特定的衔接机制,通过这些措施有助于实现中国特色的公民社会经济权利宪法救济。     

刑事裁判权主体初论

刑事裁判权的主体是裁判机关,但其又依靠具体裁判组织行使职权。我国法院与裁判组织设置方面存在法院地方化、审判委员会裁判案件、陪审员虚置等问题,笔者提出的完善建议是:1.将法院的人事权和财政权收归法院系统,依据司法管区设置地方法院;2.调整审判委员会职权,取消其裁判重大疑难案件的权力,并建立同级法官会审制度;3.陪审员应当有权参与庭前审查工作,并针对部分案件设立陪审团制,使其与原来的参审制形成优势互补。     

论德国行政诉讼中司法权的边界

德国行政诉讼中法院的受案范围几乎不受限制。行政法院对行政案件有完全的管辖权,可以主动、全面、深入地审查事实问题与法律问题,一般无须尊重行政机关在事实判断方面的专业知识与经验。不过,自上个世纪70年代以来,由于行政判断余地等理论的发展,行政法院对行政主体进行强势监督与制约的格局有所松动。另外,行政法院在判决与执行中恪守权力分立原则。德国行政诉讼中这一权力边界格局的形成,是与其宪政体制、法院分工、法定法官原则、二战后对公民权利的重视以及发达的公法理论等紧密相关的。     

法院变更起诉罪名之研究

目前国外对法院变更指控罪名问题研究已较成熟,英美法国家以法院不能变更指控罪名为原则,以变更指控罪名为例外.而大陆法系国家的法律规定,法院依职权审判,在事实审判上需要受制于起诉指控的范围,而在法律适用和罪名确定上法院可以自主行动.我国在该问题上虽已有法律规定,但太笼统,简单,面对一些实际问题该法律规定似嫌无能为力.法院应该享有变更指控罪名权,只是要在法院行使该权力时给予必要的规范.法院对指控事实的认定和检察院并无二致,只是在罪名认定上有分歧时可以直接在判决书中将指控罪名加以变更,该变更必须未对被告人辩护权造成实质影响且对其有利;如果指控罪名不当,法院如欲变更会恶化被告人的处境,不宜直接变更,须与检察机关协商后按照一定的程序加以变更.