Pub Date : 2021-05-18DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1923589
R. Solberg, Christopher Stout
Abstract Women may have broken the glass ceiling in terms of appointments or election to the highest courts in the U.S. but barriers still exist. In this study, we explore whether voters who have the opportunity to select state supreme court justices account for gender composition when deciding whether to support a female candidate. We test this proposition using data from the Judicial Elections Database Initiative and two online experiments. Our own analysis across both the real-world elections and our experiments reveals that voters are not significantly affected by gender diversity on the court when deciding whether to support a judicial female candidate, even when those levels are at an extreme.
{"title":"Is Nine Too Much? How the Gender Composition of State Supreme Courts Influences Support for Female Candidates","authors":"R. Solberg, Christopher Stout","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1923589","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1923589","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Women may have broken the glass ceiling in terms of appointments or election to the highest courts in the U.S. but barriers still exist. In this study, we explore whether voters who have the opportunity to select state supreme court justices account for gender composition when deciding whether to support a female candidate. We test this proposition using data from the Judicial Elections Database Initiative and two online experiments. Our own analysis across both the real-world elections and our experiments reveals that voters are not significantly affected by gender diversity on the court when deciding whether to support a judicial female candidate, even when those levels are at an extreme.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"92 1","pages":"291 - 305"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72899729","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 : 2021-05-07DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1817816
Brett Curry, Banks Miller
Abstract In this project, we employ original data on the future positions of United States Attorneys (USAs) to assess the influence of formal qualifications in structuring the post-service careers of a group of elite political figures. Compared to USAs who are white men, we find that presidents are significantly more likely to nominate USAs who are females or minorities to positions on the federal bench and in the upper federal bureaucracy. In other words, and after controlling for a number of additional individual-level differences, we find the same professional credential—service as a USA—to be more advantageous in the context of nomination to these positions for traditionally underrepresented individuals than for white men. We also find that more fine-grained qualifications influence the likelihood of promotion; in some instances, those individual qualifications also operate differently across demographically traditional and nontraditional nominees.
{"title":"The Influence of Diversity and Qualifications in Presidential Nominations: The Case of United States Attorneys","authors":"Brett Curry, Banks Miller","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1817816","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1817816","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In this project, we employ original data on the future positions of United States Attorneys (USAs) to assess the influence of formal qualifications in structuring the post-service careers of a group of elite political figures. Compared to USAs who are white men, we find that presidents are significantly more likely to nominate USAs who are females or minorities to positions on the federal bench and in the upper federal bureaucracy. In other words, and after controlling for a number of additional individual-level differences, we find the same professional credential—service as a USA—to be more advantageous in the context of nomination to these positions for traditionally underrepresented individuals than for white men. We also find that more fine-grained qualifications influence the likelihood of promotion; in some instances, those individual qualifications also operate differently across demographically traditional and nontraditional nominees.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"322 1","pages":"252 - 270"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83784593","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 : 2021-05-01DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902437
U. Tahura
Abstract This article examines whether the increased use of technology has the potential to deliver a cost-effective and time-efficient litigation system in Bangladesh. It investigates how technology can be an integral part of the litigation system and a factor in reducing litigation costs and backlog to ensure greater access to justice. This empirical research identifies the costliest areas of litigation in Bangladesh, reveals why these costs arise, and how technology can be adopted to ensure a transparent reduction of litigation costs. Although technology has some practical and legal limitations, it represents a potential solution to the current deterioration endured by the Bangladesh judiciary.
{"title":"Can Technology Be a Potential Solution for a Cost-Effective Litigation System in Bangladesh?","authors":"U. Tahura","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902437","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902437","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract This article examines whether the increased use of technology has the potential to deliver a cost-effective and time-efficient litigation system in Bangladesh. It investigates how technology can be an integral part of the litigation system and a factor in reducing litigation costs and backlog to ensure greater access to justice. This empirical research identifies the costliest areas of litigation in Bangladesh, reveals why these costs arise, and how technology can be adopted to ensure a transparent reduction of litigation costs. Although technology has some practical and legal limitations, it represents a potential solution to the current deterioration endured by the Bangladesh judiciary.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"15 1","pages":"180 - 204"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76563789","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 : 2021-04-10DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902439
A. Badas
Abstract The Chief Justice is viewed as the leader of the Supreme Court. In their position of leadership, many –including the Chief Justice– believe it is incumbent upon the Chief Justice to maintain and enhance the Court’s institutional legitimacy. This paper hypothesizes that because the Chief Justice is concerned with the Court’s legitimacy, he will be influenced by public opinion to a greater extent than the Associate Justices. Analysis of Supreme Court decision-making between 1952 and 2016 supports this hypothesis.
{"title":"The Chief Justice and Judicial Legitimacy Evidence from the Influence of Public Opinion","authors":"A. Badas","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902439","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902439","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The Chief Justice is viewed as the leader of the Supreme Court. In their position of leadership, many –including the Chief Justice– believe it is incumbent upon the Chief Justice to maintain and enhance the Court’s institutional legitimacy. This paper hypothesizes that because the Chief Justice is concerned with the Court’s legitimacy, he will be influenced by public opinion to a greater extent than the Associate Justices. Analysis of Supreme Court decision-making between 1952 and 2016 supports this hypothesis.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"20 1","pages":"150 - 163"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"75428103","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 : 2021-04-03DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994807
Amy Steigerwalt
Welcome to the second issue of Volume 42 for the Justice System Journal. 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 second issue of Volume 42 once again highlights the incredible breadth of our field, as well as the various fields, subfields and discipline that all equally contribute to this breadth. We begin with three articles that examine national high courts, both in the US and abroad. Leading off this issue is “Learning to Speak Up: Acclimation Effects and Supreme Court Oral Arguments,” by Rachael Houston, Siyu Li, and Timothy R. Johnson. While many scholars have explored so-called “freshmen” effects on the courts, the Houston, Li and Johnson examine this possibility in a novel arena: oral arguments. Do those justices who are new to the Court participate in ways distinct from their more senior colleagues. Importantly, they find the answer is “yes”: newer justices speak less and interrupt their colleagues less frequently than those who have been on the bench longer. Their more nuanced findings, particularly about gender differences in interruption levels by new justices, also provide a host of areas for future scholars to explore. We continue the exploration of oral arguments with “A High Court Plays the Accordion: Validating Ex Ante Case Complexity on Oral Arguments,” by Henrik L. Bentsen, Gunner Grendstad, William R. Shaffer, and Eric N. Waltenburg. The Norwegian Supreme Court can set the time allocated to parties for oral arguments. This piece finds there are clear links between external measures of case complexity and which cases the Norwegian Supreme Court blocks out more time to address. The implications of this piece are two-fold: first, it offers validation for a novel measure of case complexity that can be used for national high courts that have variable oral arguments times; and second, it offers support for the continued use of certain measures to account for case complexity by those studying national high courts where the time for oral arguments is fixed. Our final piece examining national high courts returns our attention to the US Supreme Court and the potentially unique role played by the Chief Justice. In “The Chief Justice and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the Influence of Public Opinion,” Alex Badas argues and finds that those holding the position of Chief Justice consistently pay more attention to concerns about the Court’s legitimacy by being
欢迎阅读《司法系统杂志》第42卷第二期。《JSJ》是由国家法院中心和劳特利奇出版社(Taylor & Francis)合作出版的。《华尔街日报》致力于为涉及政府第三部门的无数问题的创新社会科学研究提供一个出口。关于JSJ的信息，包括杂志的目标和范围以及手稿提交说明，可以在我们的网站上找到:http://www.tandfonline.com/ujsj。稿件提交完全通过ScholarOne系统在线处理，提交稿件的直接链接为http:// mc.manuscriptcentral.com/ujsj。第42卷的第二期再次突出了我们领域的惊人广度，以及各个领域、子领域和学科，这些领域、子领域和学科都为这种广度做出了贡献。我们从三篇研究美国和国外国家高等法院的文章开始。首当其冲的是Rachael Houston、Siyu Li和Timothy R. Johnson合著的《学会大声说话:适应环境的影响和最高法院的口头辩论》。虽然许多学者都在探索所谓的“新生”对法院的影响，但休斯顿、李和约翰逊在一个新的领域研究了这种可能性:口头辩论。那些新入职的法官参与的方式与他们的资深同事不同吗?重要的是，他们发现答案是肯定的:与那些任职时间较长的法官相比，新上任的法官说话更少，打断同事的频率也更低。他们更细致入微的发现，特别是关于新法官在打断程度上的性别差异，也为未来的学者探索提供了许多领域。我们继续探讨口头辩论的“高等法院演奏手风琴:在口头辩论中验证事前案件的复杂性”，作者是Henrik L. Bentsen, Gunner Grendstad, William R. Shaffer和Eric N. Waltenburg。挪威最高法院可以规定分配给当事人进行口头辩论的时间。这篇文章发现，案件复杂性的外部衡量标准与挪威最高法院阻止更多时间处理的案件之间存在明显的联系。这篇文章的含义是双重的:首先，它为一种新的案件复杂性测量方法提供了验证，这种方法可以用于具有可变口头辩论时间的国家高等法院;其次，它为那些研究口头辩论时间固定的国家高等法院的人继续使用某些措施来解释案件的复杂性提供了支持。我们研究国家高等法院的最后一篇文章将我们的注意力转向美国最高法院和首席大法官可能发挥的独特作用。在《首席大法官与司法合法性:来自公众舆论影响的证据》一书中，亚历克斯·巴达斯认为并发现，那些担任首席大法官职位的人在法院审理案件时，通过更多地回应公众舆论，始终更加关注对法院合法性的担忧。这篇文章对最高法院的反多数主义作用和首席大法官对潜在反对意见的反应提供了重要的见解，同时，与本期的休斯顿、李和约翰逊的文章类似，也证明了不同的大法官在最高法院中扮演着不同的角色，并可能受到类似力量的不同影响，这取决于他们的角色和任期。本期的另外三篇文章带我们环游世界，对荷兰、孟加拉国和中国的法院提供了独特的见解。martin van Gils, Franka Baardman和Philip Langbroek对《专业人士的反馈:法庭的联合制作》进行了评价
{"title":"Letter from the Editor - Volume 42, Issue 2","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994807","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2021.1994807","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the second issue of Volume 42 for the Justice System Journal. 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 second issue of Volume 42 once again highlights the incredible breadth of our field, as well as the various fields, subfields and discipline that all equally contribute to this breadth. We begin with three articles that examine national high courts, both in the US and abroad. Leading off this issue is “Learning to Speak Up: Acclimation Effects and Supreme Court Oral Arguments,” by Rachael Houston, Siyu Li, and Timothy R. Johnson. While many scholars have explored so-called “freshmen” effects on the courts, the Houston, Li and Johnson examine this possibility in a novel arena: oral arguments. Do those justices who are new to the Court participate in ways distinct from their more senior colleagues. Importantly, they find the answer is “yes”: newer justices speak less and interrupt their colleagues less frequently than those who have been on the bench longer. Their more nuanced findings, particularly about gender differences in interruption levels by new justices, also provide a host of areas for future scholars to explore. We continue the exploration of oral arguments with “A High Court Plays the Accordion: Validating Ex Ante Case Complexity on Oral Arguments,” by Henrik L. Bentsen, Gunner Grendstad, William R. Shaffer, and Eric N. Waltenburg. The Norwegian Supreme Court can set the time allocated to parties for oral arguments. This piece finds there are clear links between external measures of case complexity and which cases the Norwegian Supreme Court blocks out more time to address. The implications of this piece are two-fold: first, it offers validation for a novel measure of case complexity that can be used for national high courts that have variable oral arguments times; and second, it offers support for the continued use of certain measures to account for case complexity by those studying national high courts where the time for oral arguments is fixed. Our final piece examining national high courts returns our attention to the US Supreme Court and the potentially unique role played by the Chief Justice. In “The Chief Justice and Judicial Legitimacy: Evidence from the Influence of Public Opinion,” Alex Badas argues and finds that those holding the position of Chief Justice consistently pay more attention to concerns about the Court’s legitimacy by being","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"18 1","pages":"113 - 114"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83292485","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 : 2021-03-30DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902438
Kate Eugenis
Abstract Research suggests that women who run in elections for state supreme court tend to do well in those elections. However, this begs the question: how do those women fare in judicial primary elections and is the subsequent success just a reflection of a more arduous primary process? Using a unique dataset of judicial primary elections from 1990 through 2016, I establish similarities and differences in the structural process and test hypotheses about the paths women take when running for state supreme court. Taking into account the different structural paths available to women, I find women have an advantage in primary elections in that they are more likely to “win” and move to the general elections. However, I also find incumbent women are more likely to attract women as challengers when running in primary elections, and women are more likely to attract challengers in nonpartisan judicial elections. This finding may be mitigated by differences in the primary process based on state. Overall, I find women do not have a disadvantage in the judicial primaries, and often have an advantage over similarly situated men. As a whole, this work paints a nuanced picture of the ways women are elected to state supreme court. These findings also dispel many assumptions about the disadvantages women are thought to have when running for state supreme court.
{"title":"A Harder and Longer Process? Dispelling Myths about Women in Judicial Primary Elections","authors":"Kate Eugenis","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902438","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1902438","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Research suggests that women who run in elections for state supreme court tend to do well in those elections. However, this begs the question: how do those women fare in judicial primary elections and is the subsequent success just a reflection of a more arduous primary process? Using a unique dataset of judicial primary elections from 1990 through 2016, I establish similarities and differences in the structural process and test hypotheses about the paths women take when running for state supreme court. Taking into account the different structural paths available to women, I find women have an advantage in primary elections in that they are more likely to “win” and move to the general elections. However, I also find incumbent women are more likely to attract women as challengers when running in primary elections, and women are more likely to attract challengers in nonpartisan judicial elections. This finding may be mitigated by differences in the primary process based on state. Overall, I find women do not have a disadvantage in the judicial primaries, and often have an advantage over similarly situated men. As a whole, this work paints a nuanced picture of the ways women are elected to state supreme court. These findings also dispel many assumptions about the disadvantages women are thought to have when running for state supreme court.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"163 2 1","pages":"271 - 290"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-03-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77830780","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 : 2021-03-08DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1882918
Ellen A. Donnelly
Abstract Crime rates and criminal justice responses to them are unevenly distributed across communities in the United States. When court officials review a new case, they consider whether the alleged offender and incident fit the “normal” profile of a case from a community. Neighborhoods and their conditions, such as economic disadvantage, crime rate, and racial/ethnic composition, may have understudied impacts on disparities in incarceration sentencing. This study evaluates whether the conditions in areas where defendants live and where they offend affect racial differences in incarceration sentences. Doing so allows us to estimate whether sentencing disparities are differentially affected by neighborhood type. Relying on the Gelbach decomposition method to estimate the size and sources of Black–White disparities in incarceration sentencing decisions, the study reveals that economic disadvantage in a defendant’s neighborhood of residence increases the likelihood of incarceration and lengthens sentences for Blacks. Conversely, economic affluence in neighborhoods of criminal incident reduces racial differences in sentencing by producing harsher sanctions for Whites. Findings highlight the importance of incorporating neighborhood contexts into assessments of sentencing disparities.
{"title":"Race, Neighborhoods, and Sentencing: How Social Conditions and Neighborhood Types Affect Incarceration Disparities","authors":"Ellen A. Donnelly","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1882918","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1882918","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Crime rates and criminal justice responses to them are unevenly distributed across communities in the United States. When court officials review a new case, they consider whether the alleged offender and incident fit the “normal” profile of a case from a community. Neighborhoods and their conditions, such as economic disadvantage, crime rate, and racial/ethnic composition, may have understudied impacts on disparities in incarceration sentencing. This study evaluates whether the conditions in areas where defendants live and where they offend affect racial differences in incarceration sentences. Doing so allows us to estimate whether sentencing disparities are differentially affected by neighborhood type. Relying on the Gelbach decomposition method to estimate the size and sources of Black–White disparities in incarceration sentencing decisions, the study reveals that economic disadvantage in a defendant’s neighborhood of residence increases the likelihood of incarceration and lengthens sentences for Blacks. Conversely, economic affluence in neighborhoods of criminal incident reduces racial differences in sentencing by producing harsher sanctions for Whites. Findings highlight the importance of incorporating neighborhood contexts into assessments of sentencing disparities.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"54 1","pages":"230 - 251"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-03-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85470735","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 : 2021-02-26DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881664
M. van Gils, F. Baardman, P. Langbroek
Abstract Mirrormeetings are focusgroups used by courts in the Netherland to gather feedback on the functioning of court services and judges in different fields of law. Different categories of court users are consulted on their experiences with court proceedings in different legal fields. In the set-up of those meetings judges and court staff are the listening audience of the conversation between court users about issues brought up by moderators of the session. That conversation is intended to mirror the court work. In this article we share the results of an inquiry into the functioning of mirrormeetings as a feedback instrument. Our study shows how courts and judges value the feedback they receive. However, because courts control the organisation and content of mirrormeetings to a considerable extent, there may be a risk of missing out on relevant, but unforeseen feedback. Furthermore, the follow up of mirrormeetings in terms of change in routines or in judicial behaviour is traceable to a limited extent. Therefore, it is difficult to assess if and how intended adaptations are implemented.
{"title":"Feedback for professionals: co-production of court services by mirrormeeting-focusgroups for the judiciary in the Netherlands","authors":"M. van Gils, F. Baardman, P. Langbroek","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881664","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881664","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Mirrormeetings are focusgroups used by courts in the Netherland to gather feedback on the functioning of court services and judges in different fields of law. Different categories of court users are consulted on their experiences with court proceedings in different legal fields. In the set-up of those meetings judges and court staff are the listening audience of the conversation between court users about issues brought up by moderators of the session. That conversation is intended to mirror the court work. In this article we share the results of an inquiry into the functioning of mirrormeetings as a feedback instrument. Our study shows how courts and judges value the feedback they receive. However, because courts control the organisation and content of mirrormeetings to a considerable extent, there may be a risk of missing out on relevant, but unforeseen feedback. Furthermore, the follow up of mirrormeetings in terms of change in routines or in judicial behaviour is traceable to a limited extent. Therefore, it is difficult to assess if and how intended adaptations are implemented.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"13 1","pages":"164 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"90663054","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 : 2021-02-22DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881667
H. L. Bentsen, Gunnar Grendstad, William R. Shaffer, Eric N. Waltenburg
Abstract While high courts with fixed time for oral arguments deprive researchers of the opportunity to extract temporal variance, courts that apply the “accordion model” institutional design and adjust the time for oral arguments according to the perceived complexity of a case are a boon for research that seeks to validate case complexity well ahead of the courts’ opinion writing. We analyze an original data set of all 1,402 merits decisions of the Norwegian Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018 where the justices set time for oral arguments to accommodate the anticipated difficulty of the case. Our validation model empirically tests whether and how attributes of a case associated with ex ante complexity are linked with time allocated for oral arguments. Cases that deal with international law and civil law, have several legal players, are cross-appeals from lower courts are indicative of greater case complexity. We argue that these results speak powerfully to the use of case attributes and/or the time reserved for oral arguments as ex ante measures of case complexity. To enhance the external validity of our findings, future studies should examine whether these results are confirmed in high courts with similar institutional design for oral arguments. Subsequent analyses should also test the degree to which complex cases and/or time for oral arguments have predictive validity on more divergent opinions among the justices and on the time courts and justices need to render a final opinion.
{"title":"A High Court Plays the Accordion: Validating Ex Ante Case Complexity on Oral Arguments","authors":"H. L. Bentsen, Gunnar Grendstad, William R. Shaffer, Eric N. Waltenburg","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881667","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract While high courts with fixed time for oral arguments deprive researchers of the opportunity to extract temporal variance, courts that apply the “accordion model” institutional design and adjust the time for oral arguments according to the perceived complexity of a case are a boon for research that seeks to validate case complexity well ahead of the courts’ opinion writing. We analyze an original data set of all 1,402 merits decisions of the Norwegian Supreme Court from 2008 to 2018 where the justices set time for oral arguments to accommodate the anticipated difficulty of the case. Our validation model empirically tests whether and how attributes of a case associated with ex ante complexity are linked with time allocated for oral arguments. Cases that deal with international law and civil law, have several legal players, are cross-appeals from lower courts are indicative of greater case complexity. We argue that these results speak powerfully to the use of case attributes and/or the time reserved for oral arguments as ex ante measures of case complexity. To enhance the external validity of our findings, future studies should examine whether these results are confirmed in high courts with similar institutional design for oral arguments. Subsequent analyses should also test the degree to which complex cases and/or time for oral arguments have predictive validity on more divergent opinions among the justices and on the time courts and justices need to render a final opinion.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"130 - 149"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84535830","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 : 2021-02-11DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881665
Ethan D. Boldt, C. L. Boyd, R. Carlos, Matthew E. Baker
Abstract The pretrial detention decision has critical implications for a defendant’s employment opportunities, family ties, likelihood of conviction, and length of prison sentence. While prior researchers have assessed the disparities that exist in the bail decision based on defendant and case characteristics, little systematic empirical attention has been paid to the effects of the pretrial detention judge on decisions at this stage of criminal case proceedings. Here, we focus specifically on judge race and sex, exploring not only the unconditional effects of judge sex and race but also whether the effects of these judge characteristics at the bail decision are conditioned on the sex and race of the defendant. Using newly collected pretrial detention data from 22 federal district courts from 2003 to 2013, we empirically examine the effects of judge and defendant race and sex on whether defendants are released on their own recognizance before trial or, instead, are given a more punitive pretrial outcome. Our results indicate important judge and defendant-based differences in bail setting leniency provided to defendants including that Black judges are more likely to grant pretrial release without hefty conditions to white defendants than are white judges. We also find that female judges are more likely to detain or require monetary bail for male defendants and less likely to do so for female defendants relative to male judges.
{"title":"The Effects of Judge Race and Sex on Pretrial Detention Decisions","authors":"Ethan D. Boldt, C. L. Boyd, R. Carlos, Matthew E. Baker","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881665","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2021.1881665","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The pretrial detention decision has critical implications for a defendant’s employment opportunities, family ties, likelihood of conviction, and length of prison sentence. While prior researchers have assessed the disparities that exist in the bail decision based on defendant and case characteristics, little systematic empirical attention has been paid to the effects of the pretrial detention judge on decisions at this stage of criminal case proceedings. Here, we focus specifically on judge race and sex, exploring not only the unconditional effects of judge sex and race but also whether the effects of these judge characteristics at the bail decision are conditioned on the sex and race of the defendant. Using newly collected pretrial detention data from 22 federal district courts from 2003 to 2013, we empirically examine the effects of judge and defendant race and sex on whether defendants are released on their own recognizance before trial or, instead, are given a more punitive pretrial outcome. Our results indicate important judge and defendant-based differences in bail setting leniency provided to defendants including that Black judges are more likely to grant pretrial release without hefty conditions to white defendants than are white judges. We also find that female judges are more likely to detain or require monetary bail for male defendants and less likely to do so for female defendants relative to male judges.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":"9 1","pages":"341 - 358"},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2021-02-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80094157","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：