Observations of reintegrative shaming in a mental health court

This study compares the use of stigmatizing and reintegrative shame - as specified in Braithwaite's Crime, shame and reintegration (1989) - across traditional criminal court and mental health court settings. Items from the Global Observational Ratings Instrument were used to gather data on 87 traditional court cases and 91 mental health court cases, presided over by five different judges. The observational items capture three constructs: respect, disapproval, and forgiveness, as they apply to Braithwaite's theory. We present means tests to examine differences in shaming between court types and judges. Findings show that the mental health court is more likely to use reintegrative shaming and show respect and forgiveness for offenders, and less likely to show disapproval. Similarly, judges who preside in both court types are significantly more likely to practice reintegrative shaming in the mental health court context. We further explore these findings using field notes and illustrate those components of a mental health court that are conducive to reintegrative shaming.     

法院解释条约的原理与中国机制的构建

条约是公认的国际法,许多国家在司法实践中都将条约作为法院裁判案件的适用依据。但在我国,宪法并未规定条约在其中的地位,条约主要是立法转化适用而不是吸纳适用,其也不是行政诉讼案件的适用和参照依据。因此,有必要构建法院解释条约的机制,明确法院解释条约发生的条件,同时建立参照条约的个案解释方法,法院在个案审理中可以直接以非人权条约为适用依据来裁判案件,援引人权条约或者参照条约进行论证和说明理由。     

The Prosecution Role where Courts Decide Cases

This article explores the role played by prosecutors during the court stage of criminal proceedings. It complements Peter et al.’s chapter on negotiated case settlements in showing how the power to decide cases is divided between judges and prosecutors when cases are taken to court. Providing information as to, e.g. what influence prosecutors in the 11 study countries have on what evidence is brought to court in “normal” and accelerated court proceedings, this chapter explores the balance of responsibilities in court rooms across Europe.     

The Drug Court as Postmodern Justice

The drug court is far more than a new version of the old drug-diversion idea. It is a fundamental embodiment of postmodern justice and represents a paradigm shift from criminal court practices. This article compares the drug court to the criminal court in terms of the dimensions of the modernism-postmodernism debate as specified in legal research and public policy scholarship. First, the courts are differentiated in terms of their worldviews, ideas on the nature of society, definitions of truth, and conceptions of the foundation of law. Next, the drug court and criminal court jurisprudence are juxtaposed. Specific dimensions include their collaborative versus adversarial systems and the individualized versus the due process framework. Finally, the two courts are considered in terms of their divergent visions of the drug user. Upon analysis, it appears that the two courts are in an intractable ideological disagreement framed by competing modern versus postmodern intellectual dispositions.     

“She's Way Too Good to Lose”: An Evaluation of Honolulu's Girls Court

This research evaluates the efficacy of a gender-specific, problem-solving court for girl offenders. Official statistics, interview data, and focus group data are utilized to determine whether the court is achieving its stated goals of reducing recidivism, risky behaviors, and confinement for the girls who attend this court program. The present research demonstrates that the program does seem to be effective in terms of reducing both recidivism and risky behavior as well as increasing the development of prosocial and healthy relationships. The article concludes with some lessons learned from the implementation of this court program as well as ideas for future research.     

Decision Making in a Hybrid Organization: A Case Study of a Southwestern Drug Court Treatment Program

This article presents a case study of decision making in a drug court located the southwestern United States. This study seeks to fill a gap in research on decision making by attending to the ways that drug court officials navigate the demands of a court that is dedicated to both therapy and criminal justice. This analysis differs from previous research by viewing the drug court as a “hybrid organization” and asking how the staff members interact in the decision‐making process. Additionally, this research provides an opportunity to investigate the concerns over collaborative decision making raised by critics. The data from this case study reveal that as a hybrid organization, the drug court staff often divides along institutional lines by allowing the counseling staff to manage treatment and the judge to manage punishment. When tensions arise, they are resolved by the structure of the court, which is hierarchical rather than collaborative.     

德国法院体系探析

德国特色法院体系的形成与演变有其深刻的社会历史背景,首先是文化传统,其次是经济体制,第三是工人运动。德国的法院系统由宪法法院、普通法院和专门法院三类组成。宪法法院专门审理违宪案件;普通法院只审理刑事案件和民事案件;专门法院包括(普通)行政法院、财政法院、劳动法院、社会法院、专利法院、军事法院和惩戒法院等。除了(普通)法院和宪法法院具有独立地位外,其他法院均隶属于政府有关部门。德国行政审判权由各级行政法院与劳动法院、社会法院、财政法院等共同行使。专门法院的性质介于行政机关与司法机关之间,但行政机关的性质更多(本质上属于行政司法)。     

ROMANCING THE COURT

Problem‐solving courts, created at the end of the twentieth century, make court‐based solutions central to addressing significant societal problems, such as substance abuse and its impact on criminal activity and family functioning. Yet, lessons gleaned from over 100 years of family court history suggest that court‐based solutions to intractable social problems have rarely been effective. This article asks three questions of the problem‐solving court movement: What problem are we trying to solve? Is the court the best place to solve the problem? What are the consequences of giving authority to a court for solving the problem? Answering those questions through the lens of specific examples from family court—the original problem‐solving court—leads to the conclusion that neither the structural issues that courts face, such as overwhelming numbers of cases, nor the momentous societal issues that problem‐solving courts have recently begun to shoulder can be adequately addressed through court‐based solutions. The factors that allegedly distinguish new problem‐solving courts from earlier exemplars, especially the family court, are both less unique and less successful than they have been portrayed by problem‐solving court enthusiasts. These factors alone fail to justify the expansion of problem‐solving courts without further evidence of their effectiveness. Moreover, the potential dangers inherent in problem‐solving courts are not theoretical. By examining illustrative examples from the history of the family court, the dangers become clearly apparent.     

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.     

鉴定人出庭作证新论——兼论新《刑事诉讼法》的相关条款

近年来,刑事诉讼中诸多冤假错案暴露出有瑕疵的鉴定意见造成法官对案件事实认定错误的问题,使鉴定人不出庭现象备受指摘,各方要求鉴定人出庭的呼声不绝于耳。然而,鉴定人出庭作证必须以案件具备其出庭必要性为前提,在鉴定意见质证机制尚未完善之前,如若忽视质证效果而一味强调鉴定人出庭,无异于叶公好龙。深刻洞察制约鉴定人出庭之因素,理性评估出庭作证之效果,客观认识质证功能虚化之成因,才能有助于鉴定意见的审查判断,科学构建鉴定人出庭作证的机制。     

FAMILY COURT REFORM IN SIX PENNSYLVANIA COUNTIES

This article describes judicial behavior in local family court reform movements, vis-à-vis six case studies, as part of a larger study on the implementation of court-connected custody mediation in Pennsylvania. Research findings provide new insight into the initiation of change by judges at the local court level. When motivated to do so, family court judges in Pennsylvania bring about local reform independently and expeditiously. Judges who desire alternative methods to litigation of custody disputes implement court change with few organizational constraints: They decide how and when reform is to be implemented, and they assign nonjudicial professionals to assist in reform implementation. Finally, judges establish their own criteria for assessing the success of change initiated. Throughout reform movements, judges take on a variety of roles in bringing about change—first as reform activists, then as leaders in reform movements, and finally, as advisors in reform implementation. These case studies reveal the diversity in judicial style when court change is implemented; at the same time, similar court goals and objectives are obtained.     

Transforming Teens: Measuring the Effects of Restorative Justice Principles in a Teen Court Setting

This paper examines the impact of restorative justice principles in a teen court setting. Specifically, our research attempts to quantitatively measure learning of certain restorative justice principles through the teen court process by comparing matched, pre‐ and post‐survey responses to questions involving the adolescent's ability to understand their crime as a violation of relationships within their community, as opposed to merely a violation of law. Qualitative responses regarding the efficacy of the teen court program from both teen participants and their parents are also examined in the context of restorative justice principles. Finally, the efficacy of the teen court model is discussed in terms of recidivism rates compared to teens who do not experience the teen court process.     

优化司法职权配置的现状分析——以江苏法院为例

自党的十七大提出优化司法职权配置以来,江苏省各级法院积极行动,提高认识,采取措施,实践证明优化司法职权配置等司法改革在江苏法院已经或正在产生一定的效应。当然也存在一些问题,诸如法院职权受行政权制约无法有效运作,法院职权被地方化困扰不得摆脱羁绊等。这些问题之所以存在,是由其背后的具体原因决定的。必须审慎对待当前的司法矛盾,认真做好优化法院司法职权配置工作。     

对中外专利商标司法救济模式的调查分析与比较研究(上)

其他国家和地区的专利、商标司法救济模式大体可以概括为四种 :即以美国为代表的选择模式、以德国为代表的专利法院模式、以我国台湾地区为代表的行政法院救济模式和日本的普通法院行政诉讼模式。     

Long-term effects of participation in the Baltimore City drug treatment court: Results from an experimental study

This study uses an experimental design comparing 235 offenders assigned either to drug treatment court or treatment as usual. It extends prior analyses of this study sample to examine whether differences observed between drug treatment court subjects and control subjects at one and two years after the start of the program persist after three years, when many of the subjects had ceased active treatment. Further, it extends earlier analyses that showed that the quantity of drug treatment court services received was related to lower recidivism rates by using an instrumental variables approach to handle the endogeneity problem that sometimes arises when subjects self-select into different levels of service. Results show a sustained treatment effect on recidivism, controlling for time at risk. This effect is not limited to the period during which services are delivered. Rather, it persists even after participation in the drug court program ceases. Results also show that the recidivism is lowest among subjects who participate at higher levels in certified drug treatment, status hearings, and drug testing. These positive findings are tempered with findings that more than three-fourths of clients are re-arrested within three years, regardless of participation in the drug treatment court, and that drug treatment court cases spend approximately the same number of days incarcerated as do control cases. Implications for strengthening drug treatment courts are discussed.     

Do Criminal Court Outcomes Vary by Juvenile Transfer Mechanism? A Multi-Jurisdictional,Multilevel Analysis

In recent decades, the number of juvenile defendants transferred to criminal court has increased dramatically, in large measure due to an expansion of available transfer mechanisms. While transfer traditionally occurred by judicial waiver of jurisdiction, alternatives have emerged and eclipsed judicial waiver as the primary route to adult court. The present study examines whether the mechanism of waiver—judicial, prosecutorial, or legislative—affects sentencing outcomes for juvenile defendants transferred to adult court. Results from multilevel models that control for state-level variation indicate that sentencing outcomes are inextricably tied to method of transfer. Most notably, non-criminal outcomes are most likely for cases that arrive in criminal court by legislative waiver. This suggests that legislative waiver is an ineffective means of sending juvenile offenders to criminal court, and provides some empirical support for the notion that judicial waiver is the most appropriate method of transfer.     

英美两国刑事法官的证据调查权评析

人们长期认为,英美法系的法官在法庭上一般是消极、被动地听审,却不能积极调查证据。事实上,英美两国的立法与审判实践却表明:法官可以询问证人、传唤证人出庭,或进行"庭外勘验"。尤其在没有陪审团参与的审判中,法官能更加主动地调查证据。这说明,英美两国的刑事法官并非完全消极、被动,特别是当庭审主体变为一元的职业法官时,他因对案件事实最终负责,而更加具有调查证据的天然冲动。由此可见,中国刑事法官在庭审中无需亦不能塑造成纯粹的仲裁者角色,而应保留适当的且受到法律合理规制的证据调查权。     

Can Us-Type Court Management Approaches Work In Civil Law Systems? Experiences From The Balkans And Beyond

The benefit of applying modern management approaches to court operations to ensuring access to justice, timely and transparent dispositions, and increased public trust in courts is recognized in many countries. In the USA, the art of applying modern management techniques to court operations has evolved over the past 30 years into a now solidly established profession. Since the underlying principles and techniques of modern court management, such as case flow management, goal-oriented performance measures, workload assessments, customer surveys, etc., are derived from general management concepts they are not tied to a particular legal system or framework and can be successfully applied in non-US systems if they are properly adjusted. Interested in the positive results of court management in the USA, researchers and practitioners in several European countries have been looking at the applicability of the approaches used in the USA to improve their own ability to manage court processes more efficiently.Since court management has become a main staple of reforming court operations in the USA, it is not surprising that US-funded development assistance in the Balkan states and other countries often involves transferring court management US-style into the newly evolving democracies as part of rule of law or commercial sector development assistance. These projects frequently introduce, among others, case flow management techniques that sometimes seem to be in conflict with underlying legal principles or procedural laws, and often defy the local legal culture. The US-funded assistance programs are often introduced parallel to efforts funded by European and other donors, which may take and suggest different approaches to the host country. As a result, confusion and insecurity about which approaches are appropriate for a particular country can arise and impede much needed reforms or lead to legislative and regulatory changes that do not mesh well or even conflict with other parts of the legal framework.This article reviews the role of US-based court management approaches in recent court reform efforts under way in Serbia, Bosnia, and Croatia and, in light of lessons learned there and in other countries, assesses the reform processes applied and their status. It also outlines how these court management approaches fit into non-US court systems, how they can be adjusted according to individual country needs and what the main obstacles are that such reform efforts generally face.     

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.     

VIEW FROM THE BENCH

Although some believe that the family courts are gender biased against fathers, Judge Menno disagrees. From his experience as a family court judge and his view from the bench, fathers are treated fairly in court determinations pertaining to access to their children. In making these determinations, courts must take into consideration the reality of divorce and out-of-wedlock arrangements. This article describes how Judge Menno's county family court operates, and he further subgroups various types of fathers, describing how each fares in the family court when trying to gain access to their children.