Battered wives, lawyers, and district attorneys: An examination of law in action

1983 ◽  
Vol 11 (5) ◽  
pp. 403-412 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lee H. Bowker
Keyword(s):  
Author(s):  
Lauren-Brooke Eisen ◽  
Miriam Aroni Krinsky

Local prosecutors are responsible for 95 percent of criminal cases in the United States—their charging decisions holding enormous influence over the number of people incarcerated and the length of sentences served. Performance metrics are a tool that can align the vision of elected prosecutors with the tangible actions of their offices’ line attorneys. The right metrics can provide clarity to individual line attorneys around the mission of the office and the goals of their job. Historically, however, prosecutor offices have relied on evaluation metrics that incentivize individual attorneys to prioritize more punitive responses and volume-driven activity—such as tracking the number of cases processed, indictments, guilty pleas, convictions, and sentence lengths. Under these past approaches, funding, budgeting, and promotional decisions are frequently linked to regressive measures that fail to account for just results. As more Americans have embraced the need to end mass incarceration, a new wave of reform-minded district attorneys have won elections. To ensure they are accountable to the voters who elected them into office and achieve the changes they championed, they must align measures of success with new priorities for their offices. New performance metrics predicated on the goals of reducing incarceration and enhancing fairness can shrink prison and jail populations, while improving public trust and promoting healthier and safer communities. The authors propose a new set of metrics for elected prosecutors to consider in designing performance evaluations, both for their offices and for individual attorneys. The authors also suggest that for these new performance measures to effectively drive decarceration practices, they must be coupled with careful, thoughtful implementation and critical data-management infrastructure.


2001 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 282-294 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Boland Hamill ◽  
Ernest S. Graham ◽  
Emmett Thomason ◽  
Renee Huerta-Choy

This study surveyed prosecuting attorneys' offices to determine the current practices involving the use of televised testimony of child witnesses. Members (or designates) of the National District Attorneys Association (n = 768) completed questionnaires that assessed whether they had ever used televised child testimony and whether its use had led to an appeal. Respondents who had never used televised testimony were asked to indicate the reason(s) why they had chosen not to use it. Results suggested that televised testimony is not a common practice among respondents in that only 17.1% of the sample used it. If a respondent did use it, it was unlikely to lead to an appeal (only 22.9% of the time). Respondents who had never used this type of testimony reported that a variety of legal and practical restrictions, as well as their own personal beliefs, prevented them from doing so. Results are discussed in terms of the controversy regarding the use of televised testimony.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anita Eerland ◽  
Eric Rassin

People involved in criminal proceedings (e.g. police officers, district attorneys, judges, and jury members) may run the risk of developing confirmation bias, or tunnel vision. That is, these parties may readily become convinced that the suspect is guilty, and may then no longer be open to alternative scenarios in which the suspect is actually innocent. This may be reflected in a preference for guilt-confirming investigation endeavours, as opposed to investigations that are aimed at confirming, or even excluding, alternative scenarios. In three studies, participants read a case file, and were subsequently instructed to select additional police investigations. Some of these additional endeavours were guilt- confirming (i.e. incriminating), whereas others were disconfirming (i.e. exonerating). Results suggest that additional investigation search was guided by an initial assessment of the suspect’s guilt (Study 1). Furthermore, participants’ tendency to select incriminat- ing investigations increased with increased crime severity, and with the strength of the evidence present in the case file. Finally, the selection of incriminating investigations was associated with conviction rates (Study 3). However, in general, participants did not favour incriminating endeavours. That is, in the three studies, the percentages of selected incriminating endeavours did hardly or not exceed 50%.


2018 ◽  
Vol 56 (212) ◽  
pp. 735-739
Author(s):  
Nuwadatta Subedi ◽  
Hima Raj Giri

Introduction: The medico legal reports and certificates prepared by doctors can be used as valuable documentary evidence in the court of law. The study was designed with objectives to explore the perception of judges and lawyers about the quality of medico legal reports prepared by the doctors and their competence in providing the expert evidence in the court. Methods: It is a questionnaire based cross sectional study conducted among the district judges and government attorneys of 75 districts of Nepal from March to May 2016. The data obtained was analysed by SPSS version 16.0. Results: Among a total of 78 participants who responded the questionnaire, 40 (51.3%) were district judges and 38 (48.7%) district attorneys. Most of them graded that the reports prepared by the doctors were just average. Among them, 49 (63.6%) strongly agreed and 28 (36.4%) partially agreed that the reports were useful in deciding the cases. A total of 44 (56.4%) respondents strongly agreed and 34 (43.6%) partially agreed that expert opinion of the doctors in the courts were useful to decide the cases. Seventy one (92.2%) of them rated general doctors as moderately competent. Conclusions: The medical reports prepared by the Nepalese doctors were just average as perceived by judges and lawyers and the competency in presenting the evidence in courts was moderate as rated by them.


2001 ◽  
Vol 27 (6) ◽  
pp. 731-743 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Garcia ◽  
John M. Darley ◽  
Robert J. Robinson

2017 ◽  
Vol 46 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-51 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy E. Wood

Abstract:Extensive media coverage has focused attention on the disproportionate frequency and severity of police use of force against black communities in the United States. Video documentation captured by public officials and private citizens aided by the ubiquity of cell phones has made this violence inescapable, enabling conversations of system-wide problems within a mainstream context. Video documentation has been posed as a means of increasing transparency on the part of police and the district attorneys tasked with the decision of whether or not a police shooting requires the indictment of an officer. This documentation is also simultaneously posed as a check against the unmitigated authority of officer testimony, as a financial windfall for companies selling the technology, and as the ultimate exoneration for police officers attempting to justify their decisions in the field. These concurrent rhetorical registers operate in different domains and rarely overlap. The enormous amount of attention that has been focused on body-camera programs belies a techno-utopian impulse, an investment in a technological fix to complex and interlocking historical and socio-political realities. With this attention, funding has followed, pre-existing body-camera programs have been extended, and pilot programs have launched, presenting new challenges for police departments whose resources cannot meet the fiscal demands of a dramatic technological shift in a short period of time. Similarly, policies and laws regarding these devices themselves as well as the footage they capture have been sluggish to coalesce around coherent principles. This paper examines the emergent markets, policies, and laws governing the footage captured by police-worn body cameras in the United States and employs this footage as a way to reckon with complex ethical issues for information professionals.


Author(s):  
Brett Curry ◽  
Banks Miller

The pervasiveness of their influence arguably makes prosecutors the most consequential actors in the American criminal justice system. Armed with discretion over which cases to pursue, what charges to file, and which issue areas to prioritize, prosecutors play a decisive role in determining what progresses from investigation to the courtroom. It is their charge to do justice in each case, but that obligation hardly forecloses the influence of politics on their decisions. Despite their centrality, however, prosecutors and their behavior have failed to garner even a fraction of the attention that scholars have directed toward law enforcement, correctional systems, or judges. The discretion of American prosecutors is theoretically immense; there are few formal constraints upon it. If a federal or state prosecutor declines to pursue a case that has been referred to him or her, that declination decision is essentially immune from judicial review. But these formalisms come with more practical limitations. At the federal level, United States Attorneys are appointed by the president and, therefore, are expected to carry out an administration’s general policy priorities. In the states, most district attorneys answer to the electorate, which imposes its own constraints on a prosecutor’s freedom of action. Chief prosecutors—state and federal—are simultaneously principals to their subordinates and agents of the people or the president. If those considerations were not enough, American prosecutors must be mindful of still other factors. How might their actions today impact their future career paths? What influence might legislative changes, public opinion, or judicial rulings have on how they operate? Scholarship on prosecutors has addressed some of these questions, but we still lack a good understanding of all the ways in which politics infects prosecutorial decision-making. As “progressive prosecutors”—many who are former public defenders—continue to win office, new questions will arise about how far prosecutors can push reform of the criminal justice system. A major looming question is how voters conditioned to law-and-order rhetoric will evaluate the new prosecutors. Some preliminary work shows that non-White prosecutors tend to reduce rates of incarceration, while Republican-affiliated prosecutors increase them.


Author(s):  
Erik Søndenaa ◽  
Terje Olsen ◽  
Patrick Stefan Kermit ◽  
Nina Christine Dahl ◽  
Robert Envik

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the awareness of intellectual disabilities (ID) amongst professionals in the criminal justice system (CJS) and their knowledge of those persons, either as victims, witnesses, suspects, accused or defendants. Design/methodology/approach A survey of the professionals in the CJS (n=388), combined with a series of focus group interviews with experienced professionals (n=20), was conducted. Findings One out of three respondents (police, district attorneys and judges) reported that they have regular contact with suspects who have an ID. Differences in knowledge of ID amongst professionals in the CJS can explain awareness and detection of persons with ID. Research limitations/implications Non-responders may represent professionals with no knowledge or less interest in these issues. Originality/value Reflections on ID have not previously been studied in the Norwegian CJS. The findings serve as a basis and status quo for further research.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document