State Public Opinion, the Death Penalty, and the Practice of Electing Judges

Do state supreme courts act impartially or are they swayed by public opinion? Do judicial elections influence judge behavior? To date these questions have received little direct attention due to the absence of comparable public opinion data in states and obstacles to collecting data necessary for comprehensive analysis of state supreme court outcomes. Advances in measurement, data archiving, and methodology now allow for consideration of the link between public opinion and judicial outcomes in the American states. The analysis presented considers public opinion's influence on the composition of courts (indirect effects) and its influence on judge votes in capital punishment cases (direct effects). In elective state supreme courts, public support for capital punishment influences the ideological composition of those courts and judge willingness to uphold death sentences. Notably, public support for capital punishment has no measurable effect on nonelective state supreme courts. On the highly salient issue of the death penalty, mass opinion and the institution of electing judges systematically influence court composition and judge behavior.     

Three conditions under which experiments and observational studies produce comparable causal estimates: New findings from within‐study comparisons

This paper analyzes 12 recent within‐study comparisons contrasting causal estimates from a randomized experiment with those from an observational study sharing the same treatment group. The aim is to test whether different causal estimates result when a counterfactual group is formed, either with or without random assignment, and when statistical adjustments for selection are made in the group from which random assignment is absent. We identify three studies comparing experiments and regression‐discontinuity (RD) studies. They produce quite comparable causal estimates at points around the RD cutoff. We identify three other studies where the quasi‐experiment involves careful intact group matching on the pretest. Despite the logical possibility of hidden bias in this instance, all three cases also reproduce their experimental estimates, especially if the match is geographically local. We then identify two studies where the treatment and nonrandomized comparison groups manifestly differ at pretest but where the selection process into treatment is completely or very plausibly known. Here too, experimental results are recreated. Two of the remaining studies result in correspondent experimental and nonexperimental results under some circumstances but not others, while two others produce different experimental and nonexperimental estimates, though in each case the observational study was poorly designed and analyzed. Such evidence is more promising than what was achieved in past within‐study comparisons, most involving job training. Reasons for this difference are discussed. © 2008 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

Enrollment in Mental Health Courts: Voluntariness,Knowingness, and Adjudicative Competence

Mental health courts (MHCs) are rapidly expanding as a form of diversion from jails and prisons for persons with mental illness charged with crimes. Although intended to be voluntary, little is known about this aspect of the courts. We examined perceptions of voluntariness, and levels of knowingness and legal competence among 200 newly enrolled clients of MHCs at two courts. Although most clients claimed to have chosen to enroll, at the same time, most claimed not to have been told the court was voluntary or told of the requirements prior to entering. The majority knew the “basics” of the courts, but fewer knew more nuanced information. A minority also were found to have impairments in legal competence. Implications are discussed.     

论民事证据排除程序的结构

证据排除程序的结构,是指排除程序中各方主体之间的法律地位和法律关系。本文以证据排除程序是否独立于证明力评价程序及本案诉讼程序为线索,对两大法系证据排除程序的具体阶段构造进行了考察。按照当事人权利与法院权力的关系,可以将证据排除程序的横向结构分为行政程序结构、非讼结构与诉讼结构。这三种结构的正当性依次增强而效率性依次减弱,需要根据具体情况进行设置。     

比较法视野下我国盘查措施启动标准:缺陷分析与完善理路

合理设置盘查启动标准既有利于警察执法,也有利于人权保障。通过对我国盘查制度实践的深入研究和对域外法治国家盘查启动标准的比较考察发现,我国盘查措施在启动标准上存在着混淆概念、标准单一和司法缺位三大缺陷。未来我国盘查措施启动标准的设置应当尊重警察盘查的认知规律、正视盘查的实践需要。此外,还应引入司法审查为警察正确理解盘查启动标准提供理论上的指引。     

挑战与应对:民行检察监督制度的新发展

民行检察监督制度获得强力推进的基本依据便是司法实践中不断增长的监督诉求,监督的范围在逐渐扩大,内含于监督中的观念性因素也在此过程中悄然转变,监督理念的现代化更新为监督制度的可持续发展提供了新的泉源基础。目前所需着力实现的制度转轨集中表现在从有限监督到全面监督、从实体监督到程序监督以及从诉讼监督到社会监督等三大转向之上,由此呈现出民行检察监督制度新发展的完整风貌。     

空白刑法规范的特性及其解释

空白罪状由于概括性的委任立法使得规范弹性具有难以避免性和合理性,法律概念的相对性更为明显,部门法规范的易变性也使得其容易出现偏离立法规范目标的情况,对其必须进行刑法的独立规范判断,区分事实问题和法律问题。提倡双向对应的规范解释路径,能够有效地实现概括的类型化转向具体的定型化,获得规范与事实的一致。由于罪刑法定在技术上并无制约作用,因此规范解释空白罪状时,重要的是合理运用解释方法,以得出妥善结论,注重目的解释和体系解释可以有效地实现刑法的规范保护任务。