Law & Policy最新文献

Criminal courts in the United States engage defendants with Limited English Proficiency on a regular basis. However, we know little about how court-appointed interpreters shape case-level routines and dispositions, nor how these interpreters navigate their immediate courtroom environment. We draw on observations of bail hearings (N = 647) conducted in 2015–16 in three arraignment courts in New York and New Jersey to map the practice and consequences of language interpretation. More specifically, we examine whether the use of an interpreter relates to indicators of judicial treatment and case disposition by bail type/amount, and explore more broadly how the presence of interpreters shapes the casework of other courtroom actors. Results from multivariate regression models indicate that cases with interpreters are associated with a more limited judicial review, a lower likelihood of unconditional release, and higher cash bonds. We discuss these findings in terms of evolving mechanisms of social control and the criminalization of disadvantaged populations.

This article examines the purpose and practice of a Veterans Treatment Court (VTC), a new type of problem-solving court designed to connect qualifying former service members in the criminal justice system with social services. While existing studies of VTCs explain these courts by focusing on veterans' distinct needs or deservingness based on their military service, this article argues that these courts are being created because of societal beliefs about veteran worth. By revealing how court staff, participants, and volunteers in one VTC invoke beliefs about veteran worth, the findings of this study show that VTCs link worth to veteran identity, leaving participants suspended in conflicting notions of state and individual responsibility for criminal behavior.

Although misdemeanors make up the bulk of criminal cases in the United States, the majority of research on court decision-making examines felony sentencing. In contrast to felony courts, lower-level courts are characterized by higher case volumes and increased reliance on informal sanctions, which may contribute to greater racial–ethnic disparities. To assess this possibility, we examine pretrial detention and case processing outcomes for misdemeanants in Miami-Dade County, Florida. Utilizing temporal (detention time) and monetary (bond amount) measures of pretrial detention, we assess whether and to what extent there are racial–ethnic disparities in formal and informal sanctions facing misdemeanants. Results indicate that black defendants, especially black Latinx defendants, face greater informal sanctions (longer detention and higher bond amounts), are more likely to be convicted, and experience more severe formal sanctions than do white non-Latinx defendants. These findings complicate Feeley's (1979) argument about lower-level cases, revealing that black defendants are punished by both the court process and formal sanctions. In this way, “the process is the punishment” for lower-level white and nonwhite defendants, while the punishment is also the punishment for black defendants.

We investigate cause lawyers’ roles in movements for the domestic adoption of international human rights norms. Social movements scholarship often assumes that lawyers will divert activism toward institutional tactics, while the sociolegal studies literature emphasizes that lawyers are active in diverse ways across venues. A paired comparison of antidiscrimination movements in South Korea and Japan reveals how critical junctures in regime history shape the tactical repertoires that cause lawyers bring to their interactions with movement actors, and thus also movement tactics. This research advances scholarship on professionals in social movements, cause lawyers as norm entrepreneurs, and legal mobilization in East Asia.

In this article, we investigate factors affecting hate crime policies by examining anti-LGBT (lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender) hate crime reports as a type of policy implementation. Analyzing state-level data drawn primarily from the US Census between 1995 and 2008, we examine how structural and social movement mobilization factors explain hate crime reporting. We find that anti-LGBT hate crimes are more likely to be reported in more urbanized states and in states with both split political elites and a greater number of LGBT social movement organizations. We discuss the implications of our findings for separating the drivers of policy passage from policy implementation and for complementary criminological and social movement explanations for hate crime reporting.