Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1783766
R. Reid
Abstract In The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest OF K.C. and L.C., Children, and Concerning D.C., Appellants (2020), the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a ruling to vacate and remand with directions a previous judgment that determined that children who are eligible to enroll in the Chickasaw Nation are not “Indian” pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). As a termination of parental right case, the court elevates ICWA requirements of state responsibility from “reasonable efforts” to “active efforts” to ensure that enrollment-eligible children are assisted with the completion of Tribal citizenship and enrollment forms as well as the timely notification of Tribal interests to the courts.
{"title":"State Responsibility under the Indian Child Welfare Act: The People of the State of Colorado, in the Interest of K.C. and L.C., Children, and Concerning D.C. (2020)","authors":"R. Reid","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1783766","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1783766","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In The People of the State of Colorado, Appellee, In the Interest OF K.C. and L.C., Children, and Concerning D.C., Appellants (2020), the Colorado Court of Appeals issued a ruling to vacate and remand with directions a previous judgment that determined that children who are eligible to enroll in the Chickasaw Nation are not “Indian” pursuant to the Indian Child Welfare Act (ICWA). As a termination of parental right case, the court elevates ICWA requirements of state responsibility from “reasonable efforts” to “active efforts” to ensure that enrollment-eligible children are assisted with the completion of Tribal citizenship and enrollment forms as well as the timely notification of Tribal interests to the courts.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83001144","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1789828
Amy Steigerwalt
Welcome to the second issue of Volume 41 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. We begin this issue with a pair of studies that seek to better understand parties’ goals in appealing to and arguing in front of the US Supreme Court. Our first article is by Claire B. Wofford of the College of Charleston, entitled “Why Try? Comparing the Aims of Parties and Amici in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Wofford tackles this question by positing that named parties to a case are primarily concerned with winning while amici seek to influence the broader legal policy the Court announces. Wofford argues that a focus on winning will actually mean proposing multiple legal options for the Court to choose from in a brief, as opposed to focusing on just one; conversely, a focus on a single legal rule emphasizes the desirability of that particular policy outcome. Wofford’s findings confirm these findings generally, but also reveal that interest groups are much more focused on winning, and not simply the adoption of particular legal rules, than conventional wisdom suggests. Andrew H. Smith’s (University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley) contribution to this broader debate delves into the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court given the high costs and low probability of acceptance. In “The Effect of Ideology and Resource Advantages on Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Smith argues and finds that trends over time support the notion that increased resource gaps between litigants leads to fewer appeals, though it’s unclear whether this is more due to a lack of resources for disadvantaged litigants or due to strategic behavior by advantaged litigants seeking to avoid the creation of nationwide precedent. Smith also finds mixed support for the idea that appeals decisions reflect a greater circuit-Supreme Court ideological divide. Read in tandem with Wofford’s argument, both these pieces raise important questions for future research about litigant goals and calculations, and also how these goals and calculations may differ across time, and types of litigants. Our third research article focuses on “Judicial Nominations to the Courts of Appeals and the Strategic Decision to Elevate.” Mikel Norris (Coastal Caroline University) argues presidents choose nominees with an eye toward the likelihood of a contentious confirmation battle. When such battles are more likely, president
{"title":"Letter from the Editor","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1789828","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1789828","url":null,"abstract":"Welcome to the second issue of Volume 41 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. We begin this issue with a pair of studies that seek to better understand parties’ goals in appealing to and arguing in front of the US Supreme Court. Our first article is by Claire B. Wofford of the College of Charleston, entitled “Why Try? Comparing the Aims of Parties and Amici in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation.” Wofford tackles this question by positing that named parties to a case are primarily concerned with winning while amici seek to influence the broader legal policy the Court announces. Wofford argues that a focus on winning will actually mean proposing multiple legal options for the Court to choose from in a brief, as opposed to focusing on just one; conversely, a focus on a single legal rule emphasizes the desirability of that particular policy outcome. Wofford’s findings confirm these findings generally, but also reveal that interest groups are much more focused on winning, and not simply the adoption of particular legal rules, than conventional wisdom suggests. Andrew H. Smith’s (University of Texas, Rio Grande Valley) contribution to this broader debate delves into the decision to appeal to the Supreme Court given the high costs and low probability of acceptance. In “The Effect of Ideology and Resource Advantages on Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court,” Smith argues and finds that trends over time support the notion that increased resource gaps between litigants leads to fewer appeals, though it’s unclear whether this is more due to a lack of resources for disadvantaged litigants or due to strategic behavior by advantaged litigants seeking to avoid the creation of nationwide precedent. Smith also finds mixed support for the idea that appeals decisions reflect a greater circuit-Supreme Court ideological divide. Read in tandem with Wofford’s argument, both these pieces raise important questions for future research about litigant goals and calculations, and also how these goals and calculations may differ across time, and types of litigants. Our third research article focuses on “Judicial Nominations to the Courts of Appeals and the Strategic Decision to Elevate.” Mikel Norris (Coastal Caroline University) argues presidents choose nominees with an eye toward the likelihood of a contentious confirmation battle. When such battles are more likely, president","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79886986","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1743799
Claire B. Wofford
Abstract Why do litigants and amici curiae appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? The judicial politics literature tells us that litigants do so primarily to win the case while amici are more concerned with the legal policy contained in the opinion. The concept of “legal rules” offers one mechanism to evaluate these claims. As legal rules are the Court’s legal policy, the extent of resources case participants devote to rules should reflect the extent they care about the case’s outcome or policy: the more they care about policy, the more attention they should devote to rules; the more they are interested in winning the case, the less attention they should devote to rules. I measure this attention via the number of legal rules litigants and amici suggest to the justices in their written briefs. The findings confirm that parties care primarily about victory on the merits while amici are generally concerned with policy. The results also indicate, however, that the aims of both litigants and amici can vary significantly by their status and that interest group amici in particular may be more interested in winning a case than we have recognized.
{"title":"“Why Try? Comparing the Aims of Parties and Amici in U.S. Supreme Court Litigation”","authors":"Claire B. Wofford","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1743799","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1743799","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Why do litigants and amici curiae appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court? The judicial politics literature tells us that litigants do so primarily to win the case while amici are more concerned with the legal policy contained in the opinion. The concept of “legal rules” offers one mechanism to evaluate these claims. As legal rules are the Court’s legal policy, the extent of resources case participants devote to rules should reflect the extent they care about the case’s outcome or policy: the more they care about policy, the more attention they should devote to rules; the more they are interested in winning the case, the less attention they should devote to rules. I measure this attention via the number of legal rules litigants and amici suggest to the justices in their written briefs. The findings confirm that parties care primarily about victory on the merits while amici are generally concerned with policy. The results also indicate, however, that the aims of both litigants and amici can vary significantly by their status and that interest group amici in particular may be more interested in winning a case than we have recognized.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89496732","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-04-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1758978
Andrew H. Smith
Abstract Scholars examining the relationship between the federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have heretofore explored a myriad of explanations for how the Supreme Court determines which cases it will accept for review, including the ideological relationships between the justices and the circuit judges (and courts) and the resource statuses of the petitioning and responding parties. What scholars have overlooked is why some litigants appeal to the Supreme Court at all, given the low rate of review by the Court and the high costs (financial and otherwise) of an appeal. Scholars have also overlooked how changes in these relationships over time, and across circuits, affect the rates of appeals in the aggregate. I hypothesize that greater ideological disagreements between the circuits and the high court increase the rates of appeals over time, and I hypothesize that increases in the resource divide between the “haves” and “have nots” will depress appeals over time.
{"title":"The Effect of Ideology and Resource Advantages on Appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court","authors":"Andrew H. Smith","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1758978","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1758978","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Scholars examining the relationship between the federal appellate courts and the U.S. Supreme Court have heretofore explored a myriad of explanations for how the Supreme Court determines which cases it will accept for review, including the ideological relationships between the justices and the circuit judges (and courts) and the resource statuses of the petitioning and responding parties. What scholars have overlooked is why some litigants appeal to the Supreme Court at all, given the low rate of review by the Court and the high costs (financial and otherwise) of an appeal. Scholars have also overlooked how changes in these relationships over time, and across circuits, affect the rates of appeals in the aggregate. I hypothesize that greater ideological disagreements between the circuits and the high court increase the rates of appeals over time, and I hypothesize that increases in the resource divide between the “haves” and “have nots” will depress appeals over time.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84645837","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-06DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1723455
B. Phillips
Abstract Function word content analysis is a proven method previously used to study disputed authorship in documents such as historical letters and novels. It has been used in similar fashion to review Supreme Court Justices’ legal opinions, demonstrating general contribution by clerks and variation related to their influence. It has not been used to create a “fingerprint” for clerks that may be used not only to understand their contributions but to directly attribute authorship of any given opinion to them or their Justice. This study builds on previous work to test the potential of a new application of this method in determining the contributions of Supreme Court clerks to the authorship of opinions. Drawing on the academic writings of clerks and Justices, this method has potential for attributing authorship contributions of clerks to individual legal opinions. This could open opinions to review as early and formative work of legal scholars and jurists, many of whom serve as clerks early in their careers. It may also have application to investigating authorship contributions in other legal writings.
{"title":"Research Note: Investigating the Viability of Stylometric Analysis to Attribute Authorship of Supreme Court Opinions","authors":"B. Phillips","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1723455","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1723455","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Function word content analysis is a proven method previously used to study disputed authorship in documents such as historical letters and novels. It has been used in similar fashion to review Supreme Court Justices’ legal opinions, demonstrating general contribution by clerks and variation related to their influence. It has not been used to create a “fingerprint” for clerks that may be used not only to understand their contributions but to directly attribute authorship of any given opinion to them or their Justice. This study builds on previous work to test the potential of a new application of this method in determining the contributions of Supreme Court clerks to the authorship of opinions. Drawing on the academic writings of clerks and Justices, this method has potential for attributing authorship contributions of clerks to individual legal opinions. This could open opinions to review as early and formative work of legal scholars and jurists, many of whom serve as clerks early in their careers. It may also have application to investigating authorship contributions in other legal writings.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-03-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83731099","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-03-04DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1734510
Mikel Norris
Abstract Although presidents regularly elevate district court judges to fill appellate court vacancies, research to date suggests that presidents elevate judges who are further from their preferences than nominees outside the federal judiciary. Current research also does not offer a satisfactory answer of when and why presidents decide to elevate. I argue that presidents are likely to decide to elevate when they perceive political conditions that they think will lead to a nominee facing a difficult confirmation battle in the Senate. Once they decide to elevate, they then elevate judges further from their preferences, knowing they will have the conciliatory prize of being able to fill a newly opened district court seat. This argument is bolstered by recent work that theorizes that judicial nominations and confirmations are dynamic, and not one-shot activities that gridlock models of advice and consent would suggest. The results of this analysis bear out my hypotheses. Presidents typically elevate when the ideological balance of an appellate court is at stake and, when they do, they often elevate district judges who are further from their preferences than they otherwise would. In fact, the district judges they elevate frequently resemble ideologically the appellate judges they are replacing.
{"title":"Judicial Nominations to the Courts of Appeals and the Strategic Decision to Elevate","authors":"Mikel Norris","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1734510","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1734510","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Although presidents regularly elevate district court judges to fill appellate court vacancies, research to date suggests that presidents elevate judges who are further from their preferences than nominees outside the federal judiciary. Current research also does not offer a satisfactory answer of when and why presidents decide to elevate. I argue that presidents are likely to decide to elevate when they perceive political conditions that they think will lead to a nominee facing a difficult confirmation battle in the Senate. Once they decide to elevate, they then elevate judges further from their preferences, knowing they will have the conciliatory prize of being able to fill a newly opened district court seat. This argument is bolstered by recent work that theorizes that judicial nominations and confirmations are dynamic, and not one-shot activities that gridlock models of advice and consent would suggest. The results of this analysis bear out my hypotheses. Presidents typically elevate when the ideological balance of an appellate court is at stake and, when they do, they often elevate district judges who are further from their preferences than they otherwise would. In fact, the district judges they elevate frequently resemble ideologically the appellate judges they are replacing.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-03-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"80053719","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-02-22DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2020.1723842
Brian J. Ostrom, J. Bowman
Abstract The past 50 years has witnessed the ongoing development by public defenders of what it means to “provide the effective assistance of counsel” through strong legal advocacy. More recently, many practitioners contend that in addition to the defense attorney, professional support services, such as social workers, paralegals, and criminal investigators, are critical to effective assistance of counsel in indigent defense cases. The umbrella of what we call the holistic defense model covers the most developed concepts and practices of an integrated defense team. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) evaluated the implementation of holistic defense practices at three public defender offices: the Department of Public Advocacy in Bowling Green, Kentucky; the Hennepin County Public Defender in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Rhode Island Public Defender in Providence County, Rhode Island. In all offices, on-site interviews and surveys were conducted with attorneys, judges, social workers, investigators, and others with knowledge of practices at the site. Results from the evaluation clarify (1) how indigent defense providers have implemented the principles of holistic defense in practice, (2) how holistic defense practices vary among providers, and (3) what factors have facilitated or impeded implementation of holistic defense practices. A team-based approach to representation was most prevalent at Hennepin County and Rhode Island, where social workers, investigators, and attorneys worked closely together and perceived themselves to be part of a “defense team,” while local constraints reduced the level of teamwork at Bowling Green. The findings make clear that each site approaches the practice of holistic defense differently, largely driven by local priorities and funding realities.
{"title":"Examining the Effectiveness of Indigent Defense Team Services: A Multisite Evaluation of Holistic Defense in Practice","authors":"Brian J. Ostrom, J. Bowman","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2020.1723842","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2020.1723842","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The past 50 years has witnessed the ongoing development by public defenders of what it means to “provide the effective assistance of counsel” through strong legal advocacy. More recently, many practitioners contend that in addition to the defense attorney, professional support services, such as social workers, paralegals, and criminal investigators, are critical to effective assistance of counsel in indigent defense cases. The umbrella of what we call the holistic defense model covers the most developed concepts and practices of an integrated defense team. The National Center for State Courts (NCSC) evaluated the implementation of holistic defense practices at three public defender offices: the Department of Public Advocacy in Bowling Green, Kentucky; the Hennepin County Public Defender in Minneapolis, Minnesota; and the Rhode Island Public Defender in Providence County, Rhode Island. In all offices, on-site interviews and surveys were conducted with attorneys, judges, social workers, investigators, and others with knowledge of practices at the site. Results from the evaluation clarify (1) how indigent defense providers have implemented the principles of holistic defense in practice, (2) how holistic defense practices vary among providers, and (3) what factors have facilitated or impeded implementation of holistic defense practices. A team-based approach to representation was most prevalent at Hennepin County and Rhode Island, where social workers, investigators, and attorneys worked closely together and perceived themselves to be part of a “defense team,” while local constraints reduced the level of teamwork at Bowling Green. The findings make clear that each site approaches the practice of holistic defense differently, largely driven by local priorities and funding realities.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-02-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"81521996","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1687371
Miles T. Armaly
Abstract Individuals make judgments about the US Supreme Court via an uncommon preexisting positivity toward the institution. But they are also influenced by elite cues. Under scrutiny here is whether figures who are not as notorious as, say, presidents can influence attitudes toward the Supreme Court. I argue that lesser-salience figures can influence public support for the judiciary, but that some limit of influence surely exists. Using two original survey experiments, I demonstrate both of these propositions to be true. Altogether, of the 12 political figures purported to criticize the Court, 8 are able to compel respondents to change how legitimate they believe the judiciary is in a manner consistent with feelings toward the figure. Figures whom many individuals cannot associate with a particular partisan group do not wield this influence. The support on which the Court relies may be more malleable than previously believed, but is not entirely unresisting.
{"title":"Who Can Impact the US Supreme Court’s Legitimacy?","authors":"Miles T. Armaly","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1687371","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1687371","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Individuals make judgments about the US Supreme Court via an uncommon preexisting positivity toward the institution. But they are also influenced by elite cues. Under scrutiny here is whether figures who are not as notorious as, say, presidents can influence attitudes toward the Supreme Court. I argue that lesser-salience figures can influence public support for the judiciary, but that some limit of influence surely exists. Using two original survey experiments, I demonstrate both of these propositions to be true. Altogether, of the 12 political figures purported to criticize the Court, 8 are able to compel respondents to change how legitimate they believe the judiciary is in a manner consistent with feelings toward the figure. Figures whom many individuals cannot associate with a particular partisan group do not wield this influence. The support on which the Court relies may be more malleable than previously believed, but is not entirely unresisting.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"87689041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261X.2019.1707136
K. Johnson, Robert C. Davis, M. Labriola, M. Rempel, Warren A. Reich
Abstract Pretrial diversion programs began in the 1970s with the intention to provide participants an alternative to incarceration and prevent the negative impact of conviction, while allowing criminal justice providers reduced caseloads. Early programs emphasized goals of employment and rehabilitation. While initial evaluation results were encouraging, findings from more sophisticated research studies were negative and helped to discredit diversion programs. More recently, prosecutors have begun reintroducing diversion programs with more pragmatic goals such as reduced case processing costs and expungement of criminal records to prevent loss of access to the employment market. This article presents findings from a descriptive study of 15 diverse prosecutor-led diversion programs. The article describes the goals of these programs, program eligibility, program requirements, and dispositions upon successful completion; and draws contrasts between modern programs and their predecessors.
{"title":"An Overview of Prosecutor-Led Diversion Programs: A New Incarnation of an Old Idea","authors":"K. Johnson, Robert C. Davis, M. Labriola, M. Rempel, Warren A. Reich","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1707136","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1707136","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Pretrial diversion programs began in the 1970s with the intention to provide participants an alternative to incarceration and prevent the negative impact of conviction, while allowing criminal justice providers reduced caseloads. Early programs emphasized goals of employment and rehabilitation. While initial evaluation results were encouraging, findings from more sophisticated research studies were negative and helped to discredit diversion programs. More recently, prosecutors have begun reintroducing diversion programs with more pragmatic goals such as reduced case processing costs and expungement of criminal records to prevent loss of access to the employment market. This article presents findings from a descriptive study of 15 diverse prosecutor-led diversion programs. The article describes the goals of these programs, program eligibility, program requirements, and dispositions upon successful completion; and draws contrasts between modern programs and their predecessors.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"89740470","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2020-01-02DOI: 10.1080/0098261x.2020.1735689
Amy Steigerwalt
{"title":"Letter from the Editor","authors":"Amy Steigerwalt","doi":"10.1080/0098261x.2020.1735689","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261x.2020.1735689","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7,"publicationDate":"2020-01-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"72716509","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：