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.     

论和谐社会理念下人民法庭的弱司法化

在我国,人民法庭是一定历史阶段的产物,它在成立之初及以后相当长的时期内,在很多方面均发挥了重要作用.但随着社会的发展同,人民法庭工作也面临着困境,集中表现在纠纷的解决与规则之治之间出现了矛盾和背离,"两便"原则并未带来预期效果,人民法庭的特殊功能难以发挥等.和谐社会的丰富内涵隐寓着完善的社会纠纷解决机制,在构建和谐社会的大背景之下,根据我国当前及今后一段时间内的司法实际,为了更好地发挥人民法庭的特殊功能,寻求纠纷解决与通过法律达到规则之治之间的统一,应适时改变人民法庭的传统角色定位,将其从完全的司法性质改造成弱司法性质的简易纠纷处理机构,并通过相关制度的构建加以实现.     

Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention,conviction, and sentencing*

A significant body of literature has examined racial and ethnic inequalities in sentencing, focusing on how individual court actors make decisions, but fewer scholars have examined whether disparities are institutionalized through legal case factors. After finding racial and ethnic inequalities in pretrial detention, conviction, and incarceration based on 4 years of felony court data (N = 83,924) from Miami-Dade County, we estimate nonlinear decomposition models to examine how much of the inequalities are explained by differences in criminal history, charging, and for conviction and incarceration, pretrial detention. Results suggest that inequality is greatest between White non-Latinos and Black Latinos, followed by White non-Latinos and Black non-Latinos, ranging from 4 to more than 8 percentage points difference in the probability of pretrial detention, 7–13 points difference in conviction, 5–6 points in prison, and 4–10 points difference in jail. We find few differences between White non-Latinos and White Latinos. Between half and three-quarters of the inequality in pretrial detention, conviction, and prison sentences between White non-Latino and Black people is explained through legal case factors. Our findings indicate that inequality is, in part, institutionalized through legal case factors, suggesting these factors are not “race neutral” but instead racialized and contribute to inequalities in court outcomes.     

Professional responses to ‘parental alienation’: research-informed practice

ABSTRACT

Parental alienation was historically a term rejected by courts in England and Wales, but lawyers and social workers have noted an increase in the incidence of its use, possibly driven by campaign groups and media narratives. The two statutory services that provide independent social work advice to courts in England and Wales, respectively, on children’s best interests in parenting disputes, have taken different approaches to developing practice guidance in response to concerns about the recent use of alienation terminology. A review of international research and domestic case law was undertaken as part of the development of guidance in Wales. This review revealed a dearth of reliable evidence on the concept of parental alienation, its prevalence, effects and measures for intervention. This article builds on that review and recent developments to discuss the progress being made in practice to counter myths about alienation and considers how best to support practitioners in resisting pressures to conform to these powerful narratives.     

The Right to Counsel in Juvenile Court: The Conundrum of Attorneys as an Aggravating Factor at Disposition

In re Gault provided procedural safeguards in juvenile courts, including the right to counsel. Decades later, judges continue to resist appointing lawyers. And, when they do appoint counsel, lawyers appear to be an aggravating factor when judges sentence youths. In 1995, Minnesota enacted law reforms, including mandatory appointment of counsel. As a cost‐saving strategy, the law also converted most misdemeanors into status offenses and restricted judges’ sentencing authority in order to deny juveniles a right to counsel. This study compares how juvenile courts processed 30,270 youths in 1994—the year before the changes—with how they processed 39,369 youths in 1999 after the amendments. We assess changes in appointment of counsel and their impact on sentencing practices. We report inconsistent judicial compliance with the mandate to appoint counsel and a positive decrease in the number of youths removed from home.     

FATHERHOOD IN THE CHILD SUPPORT SYSTEM: AN INNOVATIVE PROBLEM‐SOLVING APPROACH TO AN OLD PROBLEM1

The article is a summary of the development of the District of Columbia Superior Court's Fathering Court Initiative. The Fathering Court Initiative is a problem‐solving court that has developed an innovative approach to child support cases that involves noncustodial parents returning from a period of incarceration. The program is designed to operate as a court based partnership between government and private sector organizations that match resources with family needs to promote responsible co‐parenting.     

The Effects of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Disorders on Institutional Misconduct Among Female Inmates

The US Sentencing Guidelines are among the most ambitious attempts in history to control sentencing discretion. However, a major sea change occurred in January of 2005, when the US Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Booker and Fanfan, that in order to be constitutional, the federal guidelines must be advisory rather than presumptive. The impact of the Booker/Fanfan decisions on interjurisdictional variation and sentencing disparity is an opportunity to examine the issue of whether the increased opportunity to sentence according to substantively rational criteria entails increased extralegal disparity. We draw on a conceptualization of courts as communities and a focal concerns model of sentencing decisions to frame expectations about federal sentencing in the wake of Booker/Fanfan. We test these expectations using USSC data on federal sentencing outcomes from four time periods: prior to the 2003 PROTECT Act, the period governed by the PROTECT Act, post-Booker/Fanfan, and post-Gall v US. In general, we find that extralegal disparity and between-district variation in the effects of extralegal factors on sentencing have not increased post-Booker and Gall. We conclude that allowing judges greater freedom to exercise substantive rationality does not necessarily result in increased extralegal disparity.     

(Dis)order in the Court: Examining Neighborhood Disorder Prosecutions in Miami-Dade County

Abstract

This study examines race, space, perceptions of disorder, and nuisance crime prosecution in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Research has examined nuisance policing, yet little attention has been devoted to nuisance crime prosecutions, especially at the neighborhood level. Aggregating data on defendants arrested for nuisance offenses from 2012 to 2015 up to the neighborhood level, we estimate count models for pretrial detention, case acceptance, conviction, and sentencing outcomes in neighborhoods. We find two patterns of nuisance crime prosecution. Drug disorder prosecutions are concentrated in economically disadvantaged neighborhoods with large Black defendant populations, suggesting a more suppressive treatment of these “marginalized” spaces. In contrast, greater enforcement of homelessness and alcohol nuisance crimes in White non-Hispanic neighborhoods suggests disorder prosecutions are also used to impose order and containment in more economically “prime” spaces. These countervailing patterns highlight the spatial contingency of nuisance enforcement, whereby prosecutors differentially enforce nuisance crimes in prime and marginalized spaces.     

法院“人财物”问题研究——以法院审判权的独立行使为视角

我国之所以出现法院对地方政府的依赖以及地方政府对法院审判权的不当干预现象,根本原因在于目前法院的人财物管理方式存在制度性缺陷,即法院行政化的人事制度、依赖政府财政拨款的经费保障制度与现代审判权的运行规律存有内在冲突。它后台式地消解着法院的独立性,必须建立以符合法官职业特性和审判权运行规律的人财物管理制度,这是审判权独立运行的基石。