Pub Date : 2022-04-11DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582
Kimberly M. Davidson, Brian J. Ostrom, Matthew J. Kleiman
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.
{"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":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2062582","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":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75226446","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 : 2022-04-03DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2022.2100958
Amy Steigerwalt
{"title":"Letter from the Editor – Volume 43, Issue 2","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2022.2100958","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2022.2100958","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75398496","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 : 2022-02-24DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2042432
Jennifer L. Kenney, Matthew J. Dolliver
Abstract Sixty-six percent of the total U.S. jailed population (over 400,000 people) are being held in pretrial detention, not convicted of any crime. Most remain in jail simply because neither they nor their families can afford the bail that a judge has assigned to them. Previous research shows that the assignment of bail is both biased and that being detained in jail negatively impacts later justice outcomes. Women, in general, have been more adversely affected in this area due to their overall fewer social and economic resources compared to men. A sample of 150 women and 150 men was used to compare how gender impacted the length of time it took defendants to bail out of a rural county jail in the southeastern U.S. Using previous literature, pathways theory, and the theoretical lens of an architecture of gendered violence, the authors tested for gendered differences in how quickly women and men posted bail once in pretrial detention. A combination of a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional multiple-regression analysis indicated that women took significantly longer than men to post bail, while controlling for bail amount, age, and race. Implications for policy and research are discussed.
{"title":"Time to Bail out: Examining Gender Differences in the Length of Pretrial Detention Using Survival Analysis","authors":"Jennifer L. Kenney, Matthew J. Dolliver","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2042432","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2042432","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Sixty-six percent of the total U.S. jailed population (over 400,000 people) are being held in pretrial detention, not convicted of any crime. Most remain in jail simply because neither they nor their families can afford the bail that a judge has assigned to them. Previous research shows that the assignment of bail is both biased and that being detained in jail negatively impacts later justice outcomes. Women, in general, have been more adversely affected in this area due to their overall fewer social and economic resources compared to men. A sample of 150 women and 150 men was used to compare how gender impacted the length of time it took defendants to bail out of a rural county jail in the southeastern U.S. Using previous literature, pathways theory, and the theoretical lens of an architecture of gendered violence, the authors tested for gendered differences in how quickly women and men posted bail once in pretrial detention. A combination of a Kaplan-Meier survival analysis and Cox proportional multiple-regression analysis indicated that women took significantly longer than men to post bail, while controlling for bail amount, age, and race. Implications for policy and research are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82280861","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 : 2022-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2022.2085495
Amy Steigerwalt
I am incredibly pleased to start off Volume 43 of Justice System Journal with a Special Issue entitled “Justice For All: A Collection of New Empirical Research on Indigent Defense”. JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The Journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the Journal’s Aims & Scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj. This issue reflects a special issue on Indigent Defense, guest edited by Andrew Davies (Southern Methodist University) and Janet Moore (University of Cincinnati). Dr. Davies and Professor Moore are the co-founders and leaders of the Indigent Defense Research Association, a research collaborative focused on answering empirical questions surrounding indigent defense to improve its practice. Each year they publish a collection of novel empirical research representing the best of this field, and Justice System Journal is honored to host this year’s collection. Dr. Davies and Professor Moore have once again produced a Special Issue that will be adding to the broader literature on indigent defense for years to come. This Special Issue begins with an Introduction by Dr. Davies and Professor Moore that provides the background for this research collection, as well as previewing the overarching themes contained in the proceeding research articles. The first set of articles focus on how to assess attorney-client relationships. Our first article is by Heather Pruss (Bellarmine University), M. Sandys (Indiana University), and S.M. Walsh (Indiana University Southeast), entitled “”Listen, Hear My Side, Back Me Up’: What Clients Want from Public Defenders.” As the title notes, this study presents the results of a survey investigating client evaluations and expectations for public defenders. The second article, “Bridging the Gap Between Clients and Public Defenders: Introducing a Structured Shadow Method to Examine Attorney Communication,” by Christopher Campbell (Portland State University) and Kelsey Henderson (Portland State University), similarly attempts to identify what leads to better attorney-client communications. This piece also introduces a novel methodological approach for systematically assessing what are normally legally protected conversations. The next group of articles focuses on attorneys and judges in the indigent defense system. In “‘Satan’s Minions’ and ‘True Believers’: How Criminal Defense Attorneys Employ Quasi-Religious Rhetoric and What It Suggests About Lawyering Culture,” Elizabeth Webster (Loyola University), Kathleen Powell (Drexel University),
{"title":"Letter from the Editor—Volume 43, Issue 1","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2022.2085495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2022.2085495","url":null,"abstract":"I am incredibly pleased to start off Volume 43 of Justice System Journal with a Special Issue entitled “Justice For All: A Collection of New Empirical Research on Indigent Defense”. JSJ is published under an arrangement between the National Center for State Courts and Routledge (Taylor & Francis). The Journal’s commitment is to providing an outlet for innovative, social scientific research on the myriad of issues that pertain to the third branch of government. Information about JSJ, including the Journal’s Aims & Scopes as well as instructions for manuscript submissions, can be found at our website: http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj. Manuscript submissions are processed solely online through the ScholarOne system, and the direct link to submit a manuscript is http://mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj. This issue reflects a special issue on Indigent Defense, guest edited by Andrew Davies (Southern Methodist University) and Janet Moore (University of Cincinnati). Dr. Davies and Professor Moore are the co-founders and leaders of the Indigent Defense Research Association, a research collaborative focused on answering empirical questions surrounding indigent defense to improve its practice. Each year they publish a collection of novel empirical research representing the best of this field, and Justice System Journal is honored to host this year’s collection. Dr. Davies and Professor Moore have once again produced a Special Issue that will be adding to the broader literature on indigent defense for years to come. This Special Issue begins with an Introduction by Dr. Davies and Professor Moore that provides the background for this research collection, as well as previewing the overarching themes contained in the proceeding research articles. The first set of articles focus on how to assess attorney-client relationships. Our first article is by Heather Pruss (Bellarmine University), M. Sandys (Indiana University), and S.M. Walsh (Indiana University Southeast), entitled “”Listen, Hear My Side, Back Me Up’: What Clients Want from Public Defenders.” As the title notes, this study presents the results of a survey investigating client evaluations and expectations for public defenders. The second article, “Bridging the Gap Between Clients and Public Defenders: Introducing a Structured Shadow Method to Examine Attorney Communication,” by Christopher Campbell (Portland State University) and Kelsey Henderson (Portland State University), similarly attempts to identify what leads to better attorney-client communications. This piece also introduces a novel methodological approach for systematically assessing what are normally legally protected conversations. The next group of articles focuses on attorneys and judges in the indigent defense system. In “‘Satan’s Minions’ and ‘True Believers’: How Criminal Defense Attorneys Employ Quasi-Religious Rhetoric and What It Suggests About Lawyering Culture,” Elizabeth Webster (Loyola University), Kathleen Powell (Drexel University),","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2022-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89987419","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 : 2021-12-30DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011495
Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Gary Zhang, Hunter M. Boehme
Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences, policy-makers and scholars have sought to implement formal and informal standards aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, very few studies have sought to explore the actual practices of court room actors regarding collateral consequence notice. The current study filled this gap in knowledge using a survey of South Carolina defense lawyers. Specifically, South Carolina defense attorneys were surveyed about their practices regarding collateral consequence notice as well as their observations of judicial practices regarding collateral consequences. Results indicate that while a large majority of defense attorneys felt that it was their responsibility to inform their clients of collateral consequences, only 36% of respondents agreed that attorneys do a good job informing clients about collateral consequences. In fact, few respondents noted that they always inform their clients about collateral consequences that ex-offenders, probation and parole officers, and social workers consistently identify as particularly impactful to a successful reentry (those related to employment, housing, civic rights, and public benefits) and many never or rarely do so. However, 94.3% of respondents noted that they commonly discuss other collateral consequences with clients. Further, respondents noted that few judges always or often discuss collateral consequences. These results suggest that some collateral consequences are being discussed with some defendants, but also that these practices are inconsistent. Informed by these findings, recommendations for increasing defendant notice of collateral consequences are discussed.
{"title":"Collateral Consequences of Conviction in South Carolina Courts: A Study of South Carolina Defense Lawyers","authors":"Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Gary Zhang, Hunter M. Boehme","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011495","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011495","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences, policy-makers and scholars have sought to implement formal and informal standards aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, very few studies have sought to explore the actual practices of court room actors regarding collateral consequence notice. The current study filled this gap in knowledge using a survey of South Carolina defense lawyers. Specifically, South Carolina defense attorneys were surveyed about their practices regarding collateral consequence notice as well as their observations of judicial practices regarding collateral consequences. Results indicate that while a large majority of defense attorneys felt that it was their responsibility to inform their clients of collateral consequences, only 36% of respondents agreed that attorneys do a good job informing clients about collateral consequences. In fact, few respondents noted that they always inform their clients about collateral consequences that ex-offenders, probation and parole officers, and social workers consistently identify as particularly impactful to a successful reentry (those related to employment, housing, civic rights, and public benefits) and many never or rarely do so. However, 94.3% of respondents noted that they commonly discuss other collateral consequences with clients. Further, respondents noted that few judges always or often discuss collateral consequences. These results suggest that some collateral consequences are being discussed with some defendants, but also that these practices are inconsistent. Informed by these findings, recommendations for increasing defendant notice of collateral consequences are discussed.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-12-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84495975","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 : 2021-12-09DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011494
Christopher M. Campbell, Kelsey S. Henderson
Abstract A growing body of scholarship argues that representing clients in an effective and quality manner should be a critical goal for public defenders, emphasizing the need to be client-centered. Beyond this call, recent research emphasizes that client-centered approaches hinge on good communication as it can contribute to a more effective attorney–client relationship. However, to identify and improve communication and client-centered relationships, major obstacles must be overcome which involve conceptualizing and operationalizing quality representation and communication. In this article, we introduce a two-phase, structured shadowing method as a way to overcome these obstacles. Phase I consists of a survey of public defenders that captures attorneys’ perspectives of factors important in developing and maintaining good communication with clients. The second phase involves an exploratory method of shadowing attorneys in meetings with their clients, and administering a survey of clients to assess the importance of these factors from their vantagepoint and their overall perception of communication with their attorney. Additionally, we demonstrate how this method can be deployed to aid in understanding and improving attorney–client communication from both the attorneys’ and clients’ perspectives. We conclude the article with a discussion of how this method can help to progress research and practice related to quality representation, and as appendices we provide the tools used to demonstrate the approach.
{"title":"Bridging the Gap between Clients and Public Defenders: Introducing a Structured Shadow Method to Examine Attorney Communication","authors":"Christopher M. Campbell, Kelsey S. Henderson","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011494","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011494","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract A growing body of scholarship argues that representing clients in an effective and quality manner should be a critical goal for public defenders, emphasizing the need to be client-centered. Beyond this call, recent research emphasizes that client-centered approaches hinge on good communication as it can contribute to a more effective attorney–client relationship. However, to identify and improve communication and client-centered relationships, major obstacles must be overcome which involve conceptualizing and operationalizing quality representation and communication. In this article, we introduce a two-phase, structured shadowing method as a way to overcome these obstacles. Phase I consists of a survey of public defenders that captures attorneys’ perspectives of factors important in developing and maintaining good communication with clients. The second phase involves an exploratory method of shadowing attorneys in meetings with their clients, and administering a survey of clients to assess the importance of these factors from their vantagepoint and their overall perception of communication with their attorney. Additionally, we demonstrate how this method can be deployed to aid in understanding and improving attorney–client communication from both the attorneys’ and clients’ perspectives. We conclude the article with a discussion of how this method can help to progress research and practice related to quality representation, and as appendices we provide the tools used to demonstrate the approach.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-12-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84779480","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 : 2021-12-08DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011496
Heather Pruss, M. Sandys, S. M. Walsh
Abstract The current study was designed to understand what persons represented by public defenders want from their attorney and how they hope or aspire to interact with their attorney. The results of a thematic analysis of qualitative responses to those inquiries, from 120 people represented by a rural public defender agency, are presented in this article. Though extant literature in this area is scant, the findings here largely echo those prior works: participants articulated a desire for attorneys who effectively communicate, thoroughly investigate, and zealously advocate for them. The data here add nuance, however, to client conceptualizations of those distinct duties, and how clients report they might behave differently with their ideal attorney. Findings also highlight clients’ pronounced “resignation” (Casper 1970) related to systemic deficiencies in public defense and criminal justice systems more broadly, particularly following case disposition—despite overall satisfaction with their individual attorneys. We conclude by discussing implications for practicing attorneys and possible areas of future research.
{"title":"“Listen, Hear my Side, Back Me up”: What Clients Want from Public Defenders","authors":"Heather Pruss, M. Sandys, S. M. Walsh","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011496","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.2011496","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The current study was designed to understand what persons represented by public defenders want from their attorney and how they hope or aspire to interact with their attorney. The results of a thematic analysis of qualitative responses to those inquiries, from 120 people represented by a rural public defender agency, are presented in this article. Though extant literature in this area is scant, the findings here largely echo those prior works: participants articulated a desire for attorneys who effectively communicate, thoroughly investigate, and zealously advocate for them. The data here add nuance, however, to client conceptualizations of those distinct duties, and how clients report they might behave differently with their ideal attorney. Findings also highlight clients’ pronounced “resignation” (Casper 1970) related to systemic deficiencies in public defense and criminal justice systems more broadly, particularly following case disposition—despite overall satisfaction with their individual attorneys. We conclude by discussing implications for practicing attorneys and possible areas of future research.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-12-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72850082","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 : 2021-11-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994799
Maureen Stobb
{"title":"Judicial Review of Asylum Claims at the Border- Department of Homeland Security v. Thuraissigiam","authors":"Maureen Stobb","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994799","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-11-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77155714","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 : 2021-10-26DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994796
Ivanka Bergova
{"title":"Environmental Migration and Asylum: Ioane Teitiota v. New Zealand","authors":"Ivanka Bergova","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994796","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994796","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85712303","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 : 2021-10-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2022.2026264
Scott J Hofer, S. Achury
Abstract The American judiciary has seen a significant rise in diversity with active efforts by presidents to confirm women and racial minorities to the bench, yet a lack of representation remains an issue. While most of the scholarship on the influx of jurists from diverse backgrounds is centered on identifying differences in judicial decision making, we empirically test the impact of racial and gender diversification on the ability of selectors to influence case outcomes by nominating ideologically-aligned judges. Does the selection of judges from underrepresented backgrounds affect the ability of the elected branches to align their ideological preferences on the federal bench? We argue that differences in uncertainty, network integration, and ideological availability within the candidate pool can make it more difficult for selectors to predict the ideological preferences of racial minorities; therefore, their decisions on the bench are less aligned with their selectors’ preferences. Using case outcomes on the federal district courts (1985–2012), we find that decisions adopted by White judges tend to closely align with the ideological preferences of their selectors regardless of their gender; however, the ideology of selectors has no relationship with decisions adopted by most jurists of color, with the exception of Latinas and Asian-Americans. Our results show that diversifying the bench has an ideological cost for the political actors involved in the appointment of district court judges. Weak links between the ideology of the selectors and the behavior of the judges mean lower judicial deference to political actors, and to that extent, the judiciary may become more independent of ongoing ideological battles in American politics.
{"title":"The Consequences of Diversifying the US District Courts: Race, Gender, and Ideological Alignment through Judicial Appointments","authors":"Scott J Hofer, S. Achury","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2026264","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2026264","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The American judiciary has seen a significant rise in diversity with active efforts by presidents to confirm women and racial minorities to the bench, yet a lack of representation remains an issue. While most of the scholarship on the influx of jurists from diverse backgrounds is centered on identifying differences in judicial decision making, we empirically test the impact of racial and gender diversification on the ability of selectors to influence case outcomes by nominating ideologically-aligned judges. Does the selection of judges from underrepresented backgrounds affect the ability of the elected branches to align their ideological preferences on the federal bench? We argue that differences in uncertainty, network integration, and ideological availability within the candidate pool can make it more difficult for selectors to predict the ideological preferences of racial minorities; therefore, their decisions on the bench are less aligned with their selectors’ preferences. Using case outcomes on the federal district courts (1985–2012), we find that decisions adopted by White judges tend to closely align with the ideological preferences of their selectors regardless of their gender; however, the ideology of selectors has no relationship with decisions adopted by most jurists of color, with the exception of Latinas and Asian-Americans. Our results show that diversifying the bench has an ideological cost for the political actors involved in the appointment of district court judges. Weak links between the ideology of the selectors and the behavior of the judges mean lower judicial deference to political actors, and to that extent, the judiciary may become more independent of ongoing ideological battles in American politics.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-10-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83825684","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：