Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1707137
Siyu Li
Abstract I examine the quintessential member of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, in the context of the separation of powers (SOP). As the leader and public face of the Court, the chief is more likely than his colleagues to be cognizant of the institution's legitimacy. Chiefs also hold the important procedural power of assigning opinions when they are in the majority. Given these conditions, I argue that the SOP constrains chief justices’ opinion assignment decisions. Specifically, I find that chief justices are significantly less likely to assign opinions to their ideological allies when the Court faces increased institutional constraint or heightened public discontent. However, these SOP effects are conditioned on the decision authority of the case – they are only constraints in statutory cases. By linking the Court’s external strategic game (SOP) to its internal strategic game, this finding adds nuance of conditionality to the legitimacy-maintenance behavior of the Court and furthers scholars’ understanding of the goals and constraints that affect chief justices’ opinion assignment decisions.
{"title":"A Separation-of-Powers Model of U.S. Chief Justice Opinion Assignment","authors":"Siyu Li","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1707137","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1707137","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract I examine the quintessential member of the Supreme Court, the Chief Justice, in the context of the separation of powers (SOP). As the leader and public face of the Court, the chief is more likely than his colleagues to be cognizant of the institution's legitimacy. Chiefs also hold the important procedural power of assigning opinions when they are in the majority. Given these conditions, I argue that the SOP constrains chief justices’ opinion assignment decisions. Specifically, I find that chief justices are significantly less likely to assign opinions to their ideological allies when the Court faces increased institutional constraint or heightened public discontent. However, these SOP effects are conditioned on the decision authority of the case – they are only constraints in statutory cases. By linking the Court’s external strategic game (SOP) to its internal strategic game, this finding adds nuance of conditionality to the legitimacy-maintenance behavior of the Court and furthers scholars’ understanding of the goals and constraints that affect chief justices’ opinion assignment decisions.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79309698","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1719246
Yung Hyeock Lee
Abstract A nationwide survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies was conducted by Horvath et al. (2001) with an aim of describing comprehensive information about police practices and policies regarding the criminal investigation process. Using the survey results, this study explores whether and how police organizations vary in their ability to clear crimes by examining organizational policies and practices that can predict cleared crimes against persons and property. The study’s results reveal, contrary to the conclusions of the RAND Corporation’s landmark 1977 report on police criminal investigations, that certain organizational characteristics of “crime control” efforts, including the police department’s perceived importance of clearance rates, cold case units, detachment from the public, case screening methods, Automated Fingerprint Identification System ownership, the use of “team policing”, and members of task forces were effective, but that those with a more “due process” orientation such as education requirements for investigators and their supervisors, prosecutor consultation, and problems with prosecutors’ advice tended to inhibit the clearing of cases. Implications for the effectiveness of police organizational policies related to the criminal investigation process are discussed.
{"title":"How Police Policies and Practices Impact Successful Crime Investigation: Factors That Enable Police Departments to “Clear” Crimes","authors":"Yung Hyeock Lee","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1719246","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1719246","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A nationwide survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies was conducted by Horvath et al. (2001) with an aim of describing comprehensive information about police practices and policies regarding the criminal investigation process. Using the survey results, this study explores whether and how police organizations vary in their ability to clear crimes by examining organizational policies and practices that can predict cleared crimes against persons and property. The study’s results reveal, contrary to the conclusions of the RAND Corporation’s landmark 1977 report on police criminal investigations, that certain organizational characteristics of “crime control” efforts, including the police department’s perceived importance of clearance rates, cold case units, detachment from the public, case screening methods, Automated Fingerprint Identification System ownership, the use of “team policing”, and members of task forces were effective, but that those with a more “due process” orientation such as education requirements for investigators and their supervisors, prosecutor consultation, and problems with prosecutors’ advice tended to inhibit the clearing of cases. Implications for the effectiveness of police organizational policies related to the criminal investigation process are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72963437","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2019.1692462
Amy Steigerwalt
{"title":"Letter from the Editor: Volume 40, Issue 4","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2019.1692462","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2019.1692462","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84630117","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-10-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1672597
Christopher N. Krewson
Abstract Why do justices use emotional appeals in their opinions? I explain this strategic decision using a theory based on conflict and audience. In non-salient cases, justices primarily speak to legal audiences. As cases become more salient, justices also cater to increasingly relevant non-legal audiences. This is especially true for dissenters, who seek to expand conflict and mobilize opposition through the use of emotional appeals when they find themselves in the losing coalition. My results confirm these expectations. They suggest that justices are engaged in a policy battle that does not end upon publication of Supreme Court opinions. Each coalition continues to fight for their position through the content of opinions they write, by playing to the strengths and biases of relevant audiences.
{"title":"Strategic Sensationalism: Why Justices Use Emotional Appeals in Supreme Court Opinions","authors":"Christopher N. Krewson","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1672597","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1672597","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why do justices use emotional appeals in their opinions? I explain this strategic decision using a theory based on conflict and audience. In non-salient cases, justices primarily speak to legal audiences. As cases become more salient, justices also cater to increasingly relevant non-legal audiences. This is especially true for dissenters, who seek to expand conflict and mobilize opposition through the use of emotional appeals when they find themselves in the losing coalition. My results confirm these expectations. They suggest that justices are engaged in a policy battle that does not end upon publication of Supreme Court opinions. Each coalition continues to fight for their position through the content of opinions they write, by playing to the strengths and biases of relevant audiences.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75871144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-14DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949
Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Hunter M. Boehme, Gary Zhang
Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences of conviction, the American Bar Association published advisory standards and other online compendium resources aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, no study has explored defense attorney awareness of these efforts or their perceived effectiveness. The current study fills this gap with a survey of South Carolina criminal defense lawyers. Results indicate that the majority of respondents felt that non-binding standards were ineffective, and most were unaware of an ABA standard aimed at increasing notice of collateral consequences. Further, a significant number of respondents were unaware of electronic sources that provided comprehensive lists of collateral consequences. These results indicate that non-binding standards may not be effective at changing attorney practices with regard to providing notice of collateral consequences. Jurisdictions may need to consider implementing binding standards and additional training meant to educate defense attorneys about the availability of electronic legal source material that provides comprehensive lists of collateral consequences.
{"title":"The Effectiveness of the ABA’s Efforts to Increase Defendant Notice of Collateral Consequences: A Survey of South Carolina Defense Attorneys","authors":"Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Hunter M. Boehme, Gary Zhang","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences of conviction, the American Bar Association published advisory standards and other online compendium resources aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, no study has explored defense attorney awareness of these efforts or their perceived effectiveness. The current study fills this gap with a survey of South Carolina criminal defense lawyers. Results indicate that the majority of respondents felt that non-binding standards were ineffective, and most were unaware of an ABA standard aimed at increasing notice of collateral consequences. Further, a significant number of respondents were unaware of electronic sources that provided comprehensive lists of collateral consequences. These results indicate that non-binding standards may not be effective at changing attorney practices with regard to providing notice of collateral consequences. Jurisdictions may need to consider implementing binding standards and additional training meant to educate defense attorneys about the availability of electronic legal source material that provides comprehensive lists of collateral consequences.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79926786","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-09-03DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654948
Richard L. Vining, Teena Wilhelm, E. Wanless
Abstract We examine decisions to seek promotion on state courts of last resort, focusing on the conditions when an associate justice will run for the position of chief justice. We analyze data including all chief justice elections from 1990 to 2014 in the states that elect this position. We construct a taxonomy of associate justices who seek the chief justice position, then use regression analysis and postestimation techniques to better understand these choices. Our findings indicate that judicial actors who seek electoral promotion are strategic and motivated by ideological preferences rather than institutional features or raw ambition.
{"title":"Succession, Opportunism, and Rebellion on State Supreme Courts: Decisions to Run for Chief Justice","authors":"Richard L. Vining, Teena Wilhelm, E. Wanless","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654948","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654948","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We examine decisions to seek promotion on state courts of last resort, focusing on the conditions when an associate justice will run for the position of chief justice. We analyze data including all chief justice elections from 1990 to 2014 in the states that elect this position. We construct a taxonomy of associate justices who seek the chief justice position, then use regression analysis and postestimation techniques to better understand these choices. Our findings indicate that judicial actors who seek electoral promotion are strategic and motivated by ideological preferences rather than institutional features or raw ambition.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-09-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90731452","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-08-20DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1650678
Keith Blackley
Abstract Legislative proposals that attack or curb state supreme courts are often introduced in state legislatures. However, the causes of state court curbing legislation have not been systematically analyzed. This article seeks to expand on existing knowledge of court curbing by examining what causes some U.S. state legislators to introduce court curbing bills. I develop a theoretical argument that court curbing is driven by court–legislator ideological distance and legislator electoral security. I demonstrate that legislators who are ideologically distant from their state supreme court and electorally secure introduce the most court curbing legislation.
{"title":"Court Curbing in the State House: Why State Legislators Attack Their Courts","authors":"Keith Blackley","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1650678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1650678","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Legislative proposals that attack or curb state supreme courts are often introduced in state legislatures. However, the causes of state court curbing legislation have not been systematically analyzed. This article seeks to expand on existing knowledge of court curbing by examining what causes some U.S. state legislators to introduce court curbing bills. I develop a theoretical argument that court curbing is driven by court–legislator ideological distance and legislator electoral security. I demonstrate that legislators who are ideologically distant from their state supreme court and electorally secure introduce the most court curbing legislation.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-08-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77269465","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1643269
Maxwell Mak, J. Rutledge
Abstract We investigate the creation of county-level drug courts in California, Florida, and New York and seek to answer the following questions: (1) what conditions are necessary for the adoption of institutional innovations by the judiciary; and (2) what conditions will encourage or deter the spread of these innovations? We find that preconditions against these alternative approaches can be overcome through the diffusion mechanism of learning and demonstrate that policy diffusion is most important when viewed as having a conditional relationship with institutional and political context. When viewed as a dynamic relationship, we also find that diffusion mechanisms do not operate only in a positive direction and, instead, can work to mitigate or amplify government opposition to changes in judicial approaches.
{"title":"The Diffusion of Collaborative Justice: The Politics of Learning in the Development of Drug Courts","authors":"Maxwell Mak, J. Rutledge","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1643269","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1643269","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We investigate the creation of county-level drug courts in California, Florida, and New York and seek to answer the following questions: (1) what conditions are necessary for the adoption of institutional innovations by the judiciary; and (2) what conditions will encourage or deter the spread of these innovations? We find that preconditions against these alternative approaches can be overcome through the diffusion mechanism of learning and demonstrate that policy diffusion is most important when viewed as having a conditional relationship with institutional and political context. When viewed as a dynamic relationship, we also find that diffusion mechanisms do not operate only in a positive direction and, instead, can work to mitigate or amplify government opposition to changes in judicial approaches.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"88441502","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1637309
Adam D. Feldman, Rebecca D. Gill
Abstract We examine how gendered norms of professional speech affect the ability of female Supreme Court justices to exercise power in oral argument. In this unique dialogue setting, the justices vie for chances to speak. We argue that gender is an embedded characteristic of oral arguments, and implicit assumptions about gender roles lead to disparities in the balance of authority on the Court. Our results show that women are interrupted more than men, which compromises their ability to achieve their goals during oral arguments. This inequity is compounded by the fact that interruptions of female justices by male justices are associated with lower word counts for the interrupted female justices in ways that interruptions by other women are not. The results corroborate conversational and power dynamics previously explored by sociolinguists, but also extend those findings to accommodate the characteristics of more formal, high-stakes discussions involved in the creation of public policy.
{"title":"Power Dynamics in Supreme Court Oral Arguments: The Relationship between Gender and Justice-to-Justice Interruptions","authors":"Adam D. Feldman, Rebecca D. Gill","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1637309","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1637309","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract We examine how gendered norms of professional speech affect the ability of female Supreme Court justices to exercise power in oral argument. In this unique dialogue setting, the justices vie for chances to speak. We argue that gender is an embedded characteristic of oral arguments, and implicit assumptions about gender roles lead to disparities in the balance of authority on the Court. Our results show that women are interrupted more than men, which compromises their ability to achieve their goals during oral arguments. This inequity is compounded by the fact that interruptions of female justices by male justices are associated with lower word counts for the interrupted female justices in ways that interruptions by other women are not. The results corroborate conversational and power dynamics previously explored by sociolinguists, but also extend those findings to accommodate the characteristics of more formal, high-stakes discussions involved in the creation of public policy.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85350912","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2019-07-03DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1656421
Fred L. Cheesman, Kathryn J. Genthon, Douglas B. Marlowe
Abstract Drug courts provide what is often a final opportunity for justice-involved persons suffering from substance use disorders to avoid the criminogenic effects of incarceration and the severe health threats associated with substance use, including death. All persons must be provided the same opportunity to participate and succeed in these courts, regardless of their race, ethnicity, assigned gender at birth, age, gender identity and sexual orientation. Research evidence indicates that disparities in drug court processing based on demographic characteristics of participants may be widespread, contrary to most concepts of fairness, particularly those espoused by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). The Equity and Inclusion Assessment Tool (EIAT) described in this article is designed to assist drug courts to determine whether equivalent access to drug court and equivalent retention in drug court exist among all ethnic, racial, and gender groups. This article describes how the EIAT emerged from earlier work by NCSC with a number of states to develop a performance measure that assessed Access and Fairness in drug courts by comparing the demographic characteristics of drug court referrals to drug court admissions, and admissions to exits.
{"title":"From a Performance Measure to a Performance Evaluation Tool: Conceptual Development of the Equity and Inclusion Assessment Tool (EIAT)","authors":"Fred L. Cheesman, Kathryn J. Genthon, Douglas B. Marlowe","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1656421","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1656421","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Drug courts provide what is often a final opportunity for justice-involved persons suffering from substance use disorders to avoid the criminogenic effects of incarceration and the severe health threats associated with substance use, including death. All persons must be provided the same opportunity to participate and succeed in these courts, regardless of their race, ethnicity, assigned gender at birth, age, gender identity and sexual orientation. Research evidence indicates that disparities in drug court processing based on demographic characteristics of participants may be widespread, contrary to most concepts of fairness, particularly those espoused by the National Association of Drug Court Professionals (NADCP). The Equity and Inclusion Assessment Tool (EIAT) described in this article is designed to assist drug courts to determine whether equivalent access to drug court and equivalent retention in drug court exist among all ethnic, racial, and gender groups. This article describes how the EIAT emerged from earlier work by NCSC with a number of states to develop a performance measure that assessed Access and Fairness in drug courts by comparing the demographic characteristics of drug court referrals to drug court admissions, and admissions to exits.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2019-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82686351","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：