Pub Date : 2022-07-18DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2100960
Scott J Hofer
The central issue at the heart of Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. [594U.S. _____ (2021)] was whether public schools can regulate students’ off-campus speech. The case brought about novel legal questions clarifying the Court’s position on off-campus speech made via social media, which can be viewed on campus. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment was violated by the Mahanoy Area School District for suspending student B. L. from extracurricular activities for posting profane messages on social media while off-campus. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion, Alito wrote a concurring opinion (joined by Justice Gorsuch), and Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter. After failing to make the Mahanoy Area High School varsity cheerleading squad, student B.L. posted two images on social media (Snapchat). The Snapchat messages were sent to a small group of her immediate friends and were only shared temporarily in accordance with the basic functions of the Snapchat application. B.L.’s messages were a crude expression of frustration using both obscene language and gestures. The gesture was the display of the middle finger and the caption on the image read: “f k school f k softball f k cheer f k everything.” Although this message was initially intended to be temporary and reach only a small designated audience, one recipient stored a copy of the Snapchat message and shared the message with school officials. In addition, a screenshot was widely shared among the cheerleading team and the student body. Upon receiving evidence of B.L.’s social media messages, school officials took punitive action and suspended her from the junior varsity cheerleading team for one full year. School officials reasoned that B.L. had broken school policy by “us(ing) profanity in connection with a school extracurricular activity.” School officials justified their decision arguing that B.L. had violated the code of conduct for the cheerleading team which forbade profanity as well as posting negative information about cheerleading on the internet. This code of conduct had been formally approved by the school board as well as by the cheerleading coaching staff. After repeated attempts by B.L. and her parents to get this punishment reversed, the case ended up in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Mahanoy Area School District argued that it was permissible for them to punish B.L. as she had waived her rights to free speech by engaging in an extracurricular activity and signing a code of conduct. Attorneys for B.L. argued that her speech was a private matter consisting of the airing of frustrations outside of school hours and outside of school grounds, which B.L. had shared only among her immediate friend group. District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo relied on precedent set in J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District [650 F.3d 915 (2011)] to grant a summary judgment in favor of B.L. In J.S. ex rel. Snyder, th
Mahanoy地区学区诉b.l.案的核心问题[594 u.s.。_____(2021)]是公立学校能否规范学生的校外言论。该案件带来了新的法律问题，澄清了法院对通过社交媒体发表的校外言论的立场，这些言论可以在校园里看到。最高法院以8票赞成、1票反对的结果裁定，马哈诺伊地区学区(Mahanoy Area School District)因学生b.l.在校外在社交媒体上发布亵渎性信息而暂停学生的课外活动，违反了宪法第一修正案。布雷耶大法官写了多数意见，阿利托大法官写了一份同意意见(戈萨奇大法官也加入了)，托马斯大法官是唯一的反对意见。在未能进入马哈诺伊地区高中的校队拉拉队后，学生B.L.在社交媒体(Snapchat)上发布了两张照片。Snapchat的消息被发送给了她的一小群好友，根据Snapchat应用程序的基本功能，这些消息只被临时分享。b.l.的短信是用下流的语言和手势粗鲁地表达失望。这个手势是中指的展示，图片的说明文字是:“我喜欢学校，我喜欢垒球，我喜欢加油，我喜欢一切。”虽然这条消息最初是临时的，只针对一小部分指定的受众，但一位收件人存储了一份Snapchat消息的副本，并与学校官员分享了这条消息。此外，一张截图在拉拉队和学生团体中广泛分享。在收到b.l.在社交媒体上发信息的证据后，学校官员采取了惩罚措施，并将她从校少年队的拉拉队中除名整整一年。学校官员的理由是，B.L.违反了学校的政策，“在学校的课外活动中使用了脏话”。学校官员为他们的决定辩护说，B.L.违反了啦啦队的行为准则，该准则禁止在互联网上发表有关啦啦队的负面信息。这一行为准则已经得到了学校董事会和啦啦队教练组的正式批准。在B.L.和她的父母多次试图推翻这一惩罚之后，案件最终在宾夕法尼亚州中区的美国地方法院结束。马哈诺伊地区学区(Mahanoy Area School District)辩称，他们有权惩罚B.L.，因为她参加课外活动并签署了一份行为准则，从而放弃了言论自由的权利。B.L.的律师辩称，她的演讲是一件私事，包括在上课时间和校园外表达自己的不满，而B.L.只在她最亲密的朋友圈里分享过这些。地区法院法官a . Richard Caputo依据J.S. ex rel. Snyder诉蓝山学区案[650 F.3d 915(2011)]的先例，作出了有利于B.L.的简易判决。在J.S. ex rel. Snyder案中，美国第三巡回上诉法院撤销了一项学生因在社交媒体平台MySpace上发表针对学校官员的猥亵言论而被停职的判决。卡普托法官的意见侧重于传播的性质以及它与学校利用的关系
{"title":"Student Expression and the First Amendment: Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L.","authors":"Scott J Hofer","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2100960","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2100960","url":null,"abstract":"The central issue at the heart of Mahanoy Area School District v. B. L. [594U.S. _____ (2021)] was whether public schools can regulate students’ off-campus speech. The case brought about novel legal questions clarifying the Court’s position on off-campus speech made via social media, which can be viewed on campus. In an 8-1 decision, the Court held that the First Amendment was violated by the Mahanoy Area School District for suspending student B. L. from extracurricular activities for posting profane messages on social media while off-campus. Justice Breyer wrote the majority opinion, Alito wrote a concurring opinion (joined by Justice Gorsuch), and Justice Thomas was the lone dissenter. After failing to make the Mahanoy Area High School varsity cheerleading squad, student B.L. posted two images on social media (Snapchat). The Snapchat messages were sent to a small group of her immediate friends and were only shared temporarily in accordance with the basic functions of the Snapchat application. B.L.’s messages were a crude expression of frustration using both obscene language and gestures. The gesture was the display of the middle finger and the caption on the image read: “f k school f k softball f k cheer f k everything.” Although this message was initially intended to be temporary and reach only a small designated audience, one recipient stored a copy of the Snapchat message and shared the message with school officials. In addition, a screenshot was widely shared among the cheerleading team and the student body. Upon receiving evidence of B.L.’s social media messages, school officials took punitive action and suspended her from the junior varsity cheerleading team for one full year. School officials reasoned that B.L. had broken school policy by “us(ing) profanity in connection with a school extracurricular activity.” School officials justified their decision arguing that B.L. had violated the code of conduct for the cheerleading team which forbade profanity as well as posting negative information about cheerleading on the internet. This code of conduct had been formally approved by the school board as well as by the cheerleading coaching staff. After repeated attempts by B.L. and her parents to get this punishment reversed, the case ended up in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The Mahanoy Area School District argued that it was permissible for them to punish B.L. as she had waived her rights to free speech by engaging in an extracurricular activity and signing a code of conduct. Attorneys for B.L. argued that her speech was a private matter consisting of the airing of frustrations outside of school hours and outside of school grounds, which B.L. had shared only among her immediate friend group. District Court Judge A. Richard Caputo relied on precedent set in J.S. ex rel. Snyder v. Blue Mountain School District [650 F.3d 915 (2011)] to grant a summary judgment in favor of B.L. In J.S. ex rel. Snyder, th","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87437483","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 : 2022-07-18DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943
Albert H. Rivero, Ellen M. Key, J. Segal
Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Marks v. United States instructs lower courts interpreting plurality judgments to follow the opinion concurring on the narrowest grounds, or the opinion closest to the dissent, creating the possibility that the position of the Court may not be one favored by the median justice. While the Marks doctrine creates a problem theoretically, it is unclear how frequently these problems materialize. In this paper, we explore how frequently the Marks doctrine actually results in non-median outcomes. We conclude with thoughts about the importance of these cases and speculate about the future of the Marks doctrine.
最高法院在“Marks v. United States”一案中的裁决，指示下级法院在解释多数判决时遵循基于最狭隘理由的一致意见，或最接近反对意见的意见，这就造成了最高法院的立场可能不会受到中间大法官的支持。虽然马克思主义在理论上制造了一个问题，但不清楚这些问题出现的频率。在本文中，我们探讨了马克斯主义实际上导致非中位数结果的频率。最后，我们将思考这些案例的重要性，并推测马克思主义的未来。
{"title":"Invisible Constitutions: Concurring Opinions and Plurality Judgments under Marks v. United States","authors":"Albert H. Rivero, Ellen M. Key, J. Segal","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2095943","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Supreme Court’s decision in Marks v. United States instructs lower courts interpreting plurality judgments to follow the opinion concurring on the narrowest grounds, or the opinion closest to the dissent, creating the possibility that the position of the Court may not be one favored by the median justice. While the Marks doctrine creates a problem theoretically, it is unclear how frequently these problems materialize. In this paper, we explore how frequently the Marks doctrine actually results in non-median outcomes. We conclude with thoughts about the importance of these cases and speculate about the future of the Marks doctrine.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"74660720","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 : 2022-07-03DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2022.2127895
Amy Steigerwalt
{"title":"Letter from the Editor—Volume 43, Issue 3","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2022.2127895","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2022.2127895","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75579934","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 : 2022-06-15DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2084002
Christopher D. Kromphardt, Joseph P. Bolton
Abstract Federal judges offer several stated purposes for pursuing greater publicity in the judicial process, including improving the quality of reporting and educating the public. They are less candid about other goals that influence steps they take as they shape how they are perceived, including strategically using publicity to secure others’ compliance, neutralize policy disagreement, or build legitimacy. Despite these judicial goals, scholars of American politics know little about how federal judges shape the public’s perceptions. We leverage a notable exception to federal judges’ aversion to publicizing their proceedings by analyzing how Ninth Circuit appellate judges respond to media requests to televise oral arguments. We find that the televised representation these judges present to the public is a selective one: decisions to televise appear to be motivated by portraying unanimity, while at the same time avoiding the spread of perceived politicization among the public. These results shed much-needed light on how federal judges navigate a publicity-politicization tradeoff through their strategic use of televising.
{"title":"Ready for Their Close-Up? Ideological Cues and Strategic Televising in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals","authors":"Christopher D. Kromphardt, Joseph P. Bolton","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2084002","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2084002","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Federal judges offer several stated purposes for pursuing greater publicity in the judicial process, including improving the quality of reporting and educating the public. They are less candid about other goals that influence steps they take as they shape how they are perceived, including strategically using publicity to secure others’ compliance, neutralize policy disagreement, or build legitimacy. Despite these judicial goals, scholars of American politics know little about how federal judges shape the public’s perceptions. We leverage a notable exception to federal judges’ aversion to publicizing their proceedings by analyzing how Ninth Circuit appellate judges respond to media requests to televise oral arguments. We find that the televised representation these judges present to the public is a selective one: decisions to televise appear to be motivated by portraying unanimity, while at the same time avoiding the spread of perceived politicization among the public. These results shed much-needed light on how federal judges navigate a publicity-politicization tradeoff through their strategic use of televising.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"78898676","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 : 2022-06-07DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2085494
A. Davies, Janet Moore
It was our honor and pleasure to work with Dr. Amy Steigerwalt to present this special issue of Justice System Journal dedicated to empirical research on indigent defense. We are thankful to all the authors who contributed their work for consideration and are indebted to the reviewers who helped to ensure that this issue represents the diversity and quality of a vibrant research field. We are also mindful that this issue emerges amidst an epistemic crisis in which the concept of shared, verifiable knowledge is subject not only to justifiable critique but also to unwarranted attack. Indeed, as is increasingly true across organizations, institutions, and systems, the practice of indigent defense itself is rife with political battles in which research and data are often deployed as weapons. We view this crisis as an opportunity to celebrate science—the co-production of knowledge through iterative application and improvement of research principles and methods, grounded in commitments to transparency regarding the content, implications, and limitations of resulting data. We do so with this compilation of new research on indigent defense. These volumes have been a focus of our work since 2014, when we co-convened the Indigent Defense Research Association (IDRA) to build new connections among researchers in the field. Since then, IDRA’s conferences, monthly webinars, and listserv have provide a unique space for robust discussion and advancement of research on indigent defense. As was the case with prior volumes, the results of these discussions inform a collection of papers that readers are unlikely to find elsewhere. Some pieces are critical of indigent defense systems and the lawyers that work in them. Other work focuses exclusively on perfecting research methods. Some are animated by goals such as policy improvement, exposure of inequity, or liberation from oppression. But a common thread runs across these pieces: the shared desire to understand indigent defense more deeply and to describe it more accurately. We divide the seven studies in this volume into three groups. We begin with two studies that examine the experiences of people receiving indigent defense services. Each raises questions about what people want and need from indigent defense, and how often they are satisfied. We then move on to three further studies of professionals in indigent defense systems – attorneys and judges – which lead us to wonder about how well their work and goals match what service recipients want. And finally, we present two studies that look at indigent defense services at a jurisdictional level, each asking different questions about the benefits and adequacy of the systems under examination.
{"title":"Justice for All: A Collection of New Empirical Research on Indigent Defense","authors":"A. Davies, Janet Moore","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2085494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2085494","url":null,"abstract":"It was our honor and pleasure to work with Dr. Amy Steigerwalt to present this special issue of Justice System Journal dedicated to empirical research on indigent defense. We are thankful to all the authors who contributed their work for consideration and are indebted to the reviewers who helped to ensure that this issue represents the diversity and quality of a vibrant research field. We are also mindful that this issue emerges amidst an epistemic crisis in which the concept of shared, verifiable knowledge is subject not only to justifiable critique but also to unwarranted attack. Indeed, as is increasingly true across organizations, institutions, and systems, the practice of indigent defense itself is rife with political battles in which research and data are often deployed as weapons. We view this crisis as an opportunity to celebrate science—the co-production of knowledge through iterative application and improvement of research principles and methods, grounded in commitments to transparency regarding the content, implications, and limitations of resulting data. We do so with this compilation of new research on indigent defense. These volumes have been a focus of our work since 2014, when we co-convened the Indigent Defense Research Association (IDRA) to build new connections among researchers in the field. Since then, IDRA’s conferences, monthly webinars, and listserv have provide a unique space for robust discussion and advancement of research on indigent defense. As was the case with prior volumes, the results of these discussions inform a collection of papers that readers are unlikely to find elsewhere. Some pieces are critical of indigent defense systems and the lawyers that work in them. Other work focuses exclusively on perfecting research methods. Some are animated by goals such as policy improvement, exposure of inequity, or liberation from oppression. But a common thread runs across these pieces: the shared desire to understand indigent defense more deeply and to describe it more accurately. We divide the seven studies in this volume into three groups. We begin with two studies that examine the experiences of people receiving indigent defense services. Each raises questions about what people want and need from indigent defense, and how often they are satisfied. We then move on to three further studies of professionals in indigent defense systems – attorneys and judges – which lead us to wonder about how well their work and goals match what service recipients want. And finally, we present two studies that look at indigent defense services at a jurisdictional level, each asking different questions about the benefits and adequacy of the systems under examination.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84285132","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 : 2022-05-28DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2081637
Daniel J. Mallinson, Michael Christopher Zimmerman
Abstract Partisan cues, dynamic representation, and indirect accountability provide theoretical underpinnings for the influence of judicial selection and public opinion in state courts. It is unclear, however, how their effects change across different policy domains. We begin to address this gap by examining state gay and reproductive rights decisions. The effect of national public opinion is conditional on nonpartisan elections for gay rights decisions, whereas judges in retention systems are more responsive to state-level opinion. Partisan elections are the conduit for opinion in reproductive rights cases. This only partially supports the theoretical expectations, suggesting policy domain makes a difference.
{"title":"Judicial Selection and State Gay and Reproductive Rights Decisions","authors":"Daniel J. Mallinson, Michael Christopher Zimmerman","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2081637","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2081637","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Partisan cues, dynamic representation, and indirect accountability provide theoretical underpinnings for the influence of judicial selection and public opinion in state courts. It is unclear, however, how their effects change across different policy domains. We begin to address this gap by examining state gay and reproductive rights decisions. The effect of national public opinion is conditional on nonpartisan elections for gay rights decisions, whereas judges in retention systems are more responsive to state-level opinion. Partisan elections are the conduit for opinion in reproductive rights cases. This only partially supports the theoretical expectations, suggesting policy domain makes a difference.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-05-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87480200","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 : 2022-05-19DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067018
James M. Binnall, Nicholas Petersen
Abstract Forty-nine states, the federal government, and the District of Colombia, statutorily restrict citizens with a felony conviction from serving as jurors. Proponents of felon-juror exclusion justify the practice by suggesting that those with a felony criminal history, if allowed to serve, would infect the adjudicative process. No data supports this assumption. Rather, evidence tends to demonstrate that those with a felony conviction welcome jury service and perform admirably as jurors. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data from a mock jury experiment, we build on this prior research, exploring the impact of diversity on mock jurors’ views of jury service. Findings reveal that diversity of experience, in the form of a felony criminal history, does not “infect” the jury process. Instead, results indicate that the inclusion of felon-jurors has either no effect on or, in some instances, actually increases juror satisfaction. Specifically, the inclusion of felon-jurors makes it more likely that members of a mixed jury view deliberations as helpful for the group and their own opinions as highly valued. These findings support prior research demonstrating the positive impacts of diversity on jury deliberations, informing literatures on felon-juror exclusion and the role of deliberations in shaping attitudes.
{"title":"Felon-Jurors’ Impact on Deliberation Satisfaction: Do They Really “Infect” the Process?","authors":"James M. Binnall, Nicholas Petersen","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067018","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067018","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Forty-nine states, the federal government, and the District of Colombia, statutorily restrict citizens with a felony conviction from serving as jurors. Proponents of felon-juror exclusion justify the practice by suggesting that those with a felony criminal history, if allowed to serve, would infect the adjudicative process. No data supports this assumption. Rather, evidence tends to demonstrate that those with a felony conviction welcome jury service and perform admirably as jurors. Drawing on both quantitative and qualitative data from a mock jury experiment, we build on this prior research, exploring the impact of diversity on mock jurors’ views of jury service. Findings reveal that diversity of experience, in the form of a felony criminal history, does not “infect” the jury process. Instead, results indicate that the inclusion of felon-jurors has either no effect on or, in some instances, actually increases juror satisfaction. Specifically, the inclusion of felon-jurors makes it more likely that members of a mixed jury view deliberations as helpful for the group and their own opinions as highly valued. These findings support prior research demonstrating the positive impacts of diversity on jury deliberations, informing literatures on felon-juror exclusion and the role of deliberations in shaping attitudes.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-05-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"73851489","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 : 2022-05-18DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2071659
David A. Hughes
Abstract What explains media coverage of state supreme court candidates? While the scholarly literature thoroughly examines media coverage of judicial decision-making, little is known about how members of the press cover candidates for the bench. This is an important omission as the campaign trail is one of the few places where voters and candidates directly interact with one another. In this research, I present new data regarding local press coverage of candidates for state supreme courts between 2002 and 2014. I find that, similar to coverage of judicial opinions, members of the press are largely drawn to conflict and spectacle. Specifically, journalists are more likely to cover expensive, churlish, and competitive campaigns for the bench. Nevertheless, I also find that the predicted rate of candidate coverage has fallen dramatically between 2002 and 2014 (approximately 62 percent).
{"title":"Local Media Coverage of Candidates for State Supreme Courts","authors":"David A. Hughes","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2071659","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2071659","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract What explains media coverage of state supreme court candidates? While the scholarly literature thoroughly examines media coverage of judicial decision-making, little is known about how members of the press cover candidates for the bench. This is an important omission as the campaign trail is one of the few places where voters and candidates directly interact with one another. In this research, I present new data regarding local press coverage of candidates for state supreme courts between 2002 and 2014. I find that, similar to coverage of judicial opinions, members of the press are largely drawn to conflict and spectacle. Specifically, journalists are more likely to cover expensive, churlish, and competitive campaigns for the bench. Nevertheless, I also find that the predicted rate of candidate coverage has fallen dramatically between 2002 and 2014 (approximately 62 percent).","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84604155","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 : 2022-05-13DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067800
Alisa Smith, Sean Maddan
Abstract Several theories propose that extralegal factors influence criminal justice outcomes, particularly in less serious cases. Legal representation is intended to afford defendants, even in less serious cases, due process and fair proceedings. So, legal representation should neutralize the effect of extralegal factors in determining criminal justice outcomes, and this should be the case whether the representation is public or private. This study examined the interactive effect of representation and race on predisposition release at first appearance, pretrial diversion offers, and jail sentences to test this proposition. The results showed that public representation did not improve outcomes for white or nonwhite defendants on their likelihood of release at first appearance or receiving jail sentences. Private representation improved outcomes for white defendants but not nonwhite defendants on offers of pretrial diversion. Possible explanations for and the theoretical implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.
{"title":"The Interaction between Legal Representation and Extralegal Factors on Nonviolent Misdemeanor Case Outcomes","authors":"Alisa Smith, Sean Maddan","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067800","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067800","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Several theories propose that extralegal factors influence criminal justice outcomes, particularly in less serious cases. Legal representation is intended to afford defendants, even in less serious cases, due process and fair proceedings. So, legal representation should neutralize the effect of extralegal factors in determining criminal justice outcomes, and this should be the case whether the representation is public or private. This study examined the interactive effect of representation and race on predisposition release at first appearance, pretrial diversion offers, and jail sentences to test this proposition. The results showed that public representation did not improve outcomes for white or nonwhite defendants on their likelihood of release at first appearance or receiving jail sentences. Private representation improved outcomes for white defendants but not nonwhite defendants on offers of pretrial diversion. Possible explanations for and the theoretical implications of these findings and suggestions for future research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-05-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86765422","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 : 2022-04-29DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067799
Elizabeth Webster, Kathleen Powell, Sarah E. Lageson, V. Baćak
Abstract The notion of law as sacred, and lawyers as righteous saviors, may seem anachronistic in the current context of heavy caseloads and expedited processing in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, language reflecting these ideals still permeates defense attorneys’ descriptions of their roles, their legal practice, and their relationships to their colleagues and adversaries. We examine this language – specifically, attorneys’ quasi-religious rhetoric – to better understand courtroom dynamics: how attorneys see themselves, their work, their colleagues, and their legal adversaries. In this analysis of semi-structured interviews with 30 defense attorneys, we find that attorneys use of quasi-religious rhetoric manifests as a cultural practice that helps to establish and maintain professional identities, boundaries, and relationships. Our findings also suggest that young and novice public defenders are likely to express especially zealous views, which may compromise their efforts to collaborate within the adversarial system, as well as contribute to burnout.
{"title":"“Satan’s Minions” and “True Believers”: How Criminal Defense Attorneys Employ Quasi-Religious Rhetoric and What It Suggests about Lawyering Culture","authors":"Elizabeth Webster, Kathleen Powell, Sarah E. Lageson, V. Baćak","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2067799","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The notion of law as sacred, and lawyers as righteous saviors, may seem anachronistic in the current context of heavy caseloads and expedited processing in the criminal justice system. Nevertheless, language reflecting these ideals still permeates defense attorneys’ descriptions of their roles, their legal practice, and their relationships to their colleagues and adversaries. We examine this language – specifically, attorneys’ quasi-religious rhetoric – to better understand courtroom dynamics: how attorneys see themselves, their work, their colleagues, and their legal adversaries. In this analysis of semi-structured interviews with 30 defense attorneys, we find that attorneys use of quasi-religious rhetoric manifests as a cultural practice that helps to establish and maintain professional identities, boundaries, and relationships. Our findings also suggest that young and novice public defenders are likely to express especially zealous views, which may compromise their efforts to collaborate within the adversarial system, as well as contribute to burnout.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"86246385","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：