Client Perspectives of Holistic Defense: Strengthening Procedural Justice through Enhanced Client Trust

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 Social Sciences Justice System Journal Pub Date : 2022-04-11 DOI:10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582
Kimberly M. Davidson, Brian J. Ostrom, Matthew J. Kleiman
{"title":"Client Perspectives of Holistic Defense: Strengthening Procedural Justice through Enhanced Client Trust","authors":"Kimberly M. Davidson, Brian J. Ostrom, Matthew J. Kleiman","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Holistic defense, a client-centered model that relies on team-based operations, has emerged in recent years as an alternative to traditional public defense practices. There is some evidence that holistic defense improves client outcomes, yet no research to date has evaluated client perspectives of holistic defense among adult clients. In this study, we hypothesize a relationship between holistic defense and increased client trust, perceptions of procedural justice, and legal and extra-legal outcomes. We examine public defense from the client perspective through in-depth interviews (N = 36) coded deductively, comparing the experiences of clients of holistic defense (n = 20) with those of traditional public defense (n = 16). We find that distrust and cynicism are pervasive in both client samples, but the holistic defense model provides tangible ways to build trust with clients, bolster perceptions of procedural justice, enhance legal and extra-legal client outcomes, and increase client satisfaction. Prior research has demonstrated the importance of procedural justice in terms of client satisfaction, compliance with court decisions, and acceptance of legal authority. However, the public tends to distrust court actors, which erodes procedural justice. We demonstrate that, in addition to both legal and extra-legal client benefits, holistic defense has the capacity to build client trust and bolster perceptions of procedural justice.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Holistic defense, a client-centered model that relies on team-based operations, has emerged in recent years as an alternative to traditional public defense practices. There is some evidence that holistic defense improves client outcomes, yet no research to date has evaluated client perspectives of holistic defense among adult clients. In this study, we hypothesize a relationship between holistic defense and increased client trust, perceptions of procedural justice, and legal and extra-legal outcomes. We examine public defense from the client perspective through in-depth interviews (N = 36) coded deductively, comparing the experiences of clients of holistic defense (n = 20) with those of traditional public defense (n = 16). We find that distrust and cynicism are pervasive in both client samples, but the holistic defense model provides tangible ways to build trust with clients, bolster perceptions of procedural justice, enhance legal and extra-legal client outcomes, and increase client satisfaction. Prior research has demonstrated the importance of procedural justice in terms of client satisfaction, compliance with court decisions, and acceptance of legal authority. However, the public tends to distrust court actors, which erodes procedural justice. We demonstrate that, in addition to both legal and extra-legal client benefits, holistic defense has the capacity to build client trust and bolster perceptions of procedural justice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
整体辩护的当事人视角:通过增强当事人信任来加强程序正义
整体防御是一种以客户为中心的模式,依赖于基于团队的操作,近年来作为传统公共辩护实践的替代方案出现。有一些证据表明,整体防御改善客户的结果,但迄今为止还没有研究评估了成人客户的整体防御客户的观点。在本研究中,我们假设整体辩护与增加客户信任、程序公正感知以及法律和法外结果之间存在关系。我们通过深度访谈(N = 36)编码演绎,从客户角度考察公设辩护,比较整体辩护客户(N = 20)与传统公设辩护客户(N = 16)的经历。我们发现,在这两个客户样本中,不信任和犬儒主义普遍存在,但整体辩护模式提供了切实可行的方法来建立与客户的信任,增强对程序正义的认知,提高法律和法外的客户结果,并提高客户满意度。先前的研究已经证明了程序正义在客户满意度、法院判决的遵守和法律权威的接受方面的重要性。然而,公众往往不信任法院行为者,这削弱了程序正义。我们证明,除了法律和法外的客户利益,整体辩护有能力建立客户信任和加强对程序正义的看法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
期刊最新文献
State Supreme Court Responsiveness to Court Curbing: Examining the Use of Judicial Review The Effects of Jurors’ Initial Views of Jury Service on Predeliberation Preferences for Prosecution or Defense Emerging Hardball Confirmation Tactics and Public Support for the U.S. Supreme Court A War of Words Over Abortion: The Legal-Framing Contest Over the Undue Burden Standard Letter from the Editor
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1