Business as Usual? Bail Decision Making and “Micro Politics” in an Australian Magistrates Court

2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 325-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Travers
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Business As Usual

Between the 1970s and 1990s, political scientists in the United States pursued a distinctive research program that employed ethnographic methods to study micro politics in criminal courts. This article considers the relevance of this concept for court researchers today through a case study about bail decision making in a lower criminal court in Australia. It describes business as usual in how decisions are made and the provision of pretrial services. It also looks at how traditionalists and reformers understood business as usual, and uses this as a critical concept to make visible micro politics in this court. The case study raises issues about organizational change in criminal courts since the 1990s, since there are fewer studies about plea bargaining and more about specialist or problem-solving courts. It is suggested that we need a new international agenda that can address change and continuity in criminal courts.

Criminal Justice in an Era of Mass Deportation

2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 12-38 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingrid V. Eagly
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Criminal Justice ◽  
Criminal Justice System ◽  
Justice System ◽  
State Level ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Law Enforcement Agencies ◽  
Collateral Consequence

After a sustained period of hypercriminalization, the United States criminal justice system is undergoing reform. Congress has reduced federal sentencing for drug crimes, prison growth is slowing, and some states are even closing prisons. Low-level crimes have been removed from criminal law books, and attention is beginning to focus on long-neglected issues such as bail and criminal court fines. Still largely overlooked in this era of ambitious reform, however, is the treatment of immigrants in the criminal justice system. An unprecedented focus on immigration enforcement targeted at “felons, not families” has resulted in a separate system of punitive treatment reserved for noncitizens, which includes crimes of migration, longer periods of pretrial detention, harsher criminal sentences, and the almost certain collateral consequence of lifetime banishment from the United States. For examples of state-level solutions to this predicament, this Essay turns to a trio of bold criminal justice reforms from California that (1) require prosecutors to consider immigration penalties in plea bargaining; (2) change the state definition of “misdemeanor” from a maximum sentence of a year to 364 days; and (3) instruct law enforcement agencies to not hold immigrants for deportation purposes unless they are first convicted of serious crimes. Together, these new laws provide an important window into how state criminal justice systems could begin to address some of the unique concerns of noncitizen criminal defendants.

Introduction

2019 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Vanessa A. Edkins ◽  
Allison D. Redlich
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Policy ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Current System ◽  
Social Science Research ◽  
Science Research ◽  
Plea Bargaining ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Research ◽  
Defense Attorneys

While a great deal of psycho-legal research has focused on the trial process—and the decision making of jurors and juries, in particular—trials are not reflective of the current system of justice in the United States. Instead, we find ourselves within a system of pleas (Lafler v. Cooper, 2012) with a scarcity of social science research available to guide us. With this volume, we hope to integrate the current plea bargaining research that informs the field, from charging and defendant decision making, to attorney influences, to the ramifications at the larger system and institutional levels. Spanning multiple disciplines, the research and theories related to plea bargaining have much to contribute to public policy and to changes that individual actors (e.g., defense attorneys, prosecutors, and judges) may decide to incorporate in their daily interactions within our system of pleas.

A descriptive case study of effective decision-making of a local government organization in the United States of America

2020 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 279-297
Author(s):  
Jennifer Capler
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Local Government ◽  
United States Of America ◽  
The United States ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Government Organizations ◽  
Effective Decision ◽  
Effective Decision Making

PurposeThis article details a qualitative descriptive case study of affective factors of effective decision-making of one local government organization in the United States of America. The specific problem was that many elected American local government representatives lack effective decision-making strategies. This research focus indicated a lack of qualitative research on the real-world experience of factors that were taken into consideration during decision-making within American local government organizations.Design/methodology/approachUsing a local government organization in southwest Illinois, elected representatives were interviewed and observed. The interviews and observations surfaced how the representatives made decisions. Data were analyzed using manual coding and theming to determine themes and patterns.FindingsThe results produced six themes about factors, including emotional intelligence, which impacted decision-making. They are: (1) remembering the past, (2) communication and respect, (3) spurring economic growth and development, (4) fairness, (5) recognizing and removing emotions and bias and (6) accountability.Research limitations/implicationsBeing a single case study, this research is limited in generalization. The research was limited to the identification of current, real-world experience of elected local government representatives.Practical implicationsThe findings of this research can be used to create more effective decision-making practices for local government organizations of similar size.Originality/valueThis is the first study to review, in-depth, the decision-making and emotional intelligence factors of local government organizations in the United States of America. The conceptual background, discussion, implications to local government organizations, limitations and recommendations for future studies are discussed.

scholarly journals Breaching Barriers: The Fight for Indigenous Participation in Water Governance

Water ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (8) ◽  
pp. 2113
Author(s):  
Ryan Emanuel ◽  
David Wilkins
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Indigenous Peoples ◽  
Environmental Governance ◽  
Water Governance ◽  
Atlantic Coast ◽  
The United States ◽  
Barriers To Participation ◽  
Political Landscapes

Indigenous peoples worldwide face barriers to participation in water governance, which includes planning and permitting of infrastructure that may affect water in their territories. In the United States, the extent to which Indigenous voices are heard—let alone incorporated into decision-making—depends heavily on whether or not Native nations are recognized by the federal government. In the southeastern United States, non-federally recognized Indigenous peoples continue to occupy their homelands along rivers, floodplains, and wetlands. These peoples, and the Tribal governments that represent them, rarely enter environmental decision-making spaces as sovereign nations and experts in their own right. Nevertheless, plans to construct the Atlantic Coast Pipeline prompted non-federally recognized Tribes to demand treatment as Tribal nations during permitting. Actions by the Tribes, which are recognized by the state of North Carolina, expose barriers to participation in environmental governance faced by Indigenous peoples throughout the United States, and particularly daunting challenges faced by state-recognized Tribes. After reviewing the legal and political landscapes that Native nations in the United States must navigate, we present a case study focused on Atlantic Coast Pipeline planning and permitting. We deliberately center Native voices and perspectives, often overlooked in non-Indigenous narratives, to emphasize Indigenous actions and illuminate participatory barriers. Although the Atlantic Coast Pipeline was cancelled in 2020, the case study reveals four enduring barriers to Tribal participation: adherence to minimum standards, power asymmetries, procedural narrowing, and “color-blind” planning. We conclude by highlighting opportunities for federal and state governments, developers, and Indigenous peoples to breach these barriers.

Continental Divide and the Politics of Complex Sovereignty: Canada, The United States and the International Criminal Court

2006 ◽  
Vol 39 (2) ◽  
pp. 227-248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adrian L. Jones
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
State Sovereignty ◽  
Continental Divide ◽  
Transnational Cooperation ◽  
Le Canada

Abstract. As a recent instance of transnational cooperation and governance, encompassing a novel combination of international and supranational legal properties, the International Criminal Court provides an instructive forum for considering increasingly complex sovereignty. This paper considers why Canada and the United States have pursued such divergent policies toward the Court. I argue that these postures are informed by their subjective conceptions of state sovereignty, a reflection of varying interests, values and capacities. As such, this case study illuminates factors that may influence patterns and limitations of transnational cooperation by states.Résumé. Comme exemple récent de coopération et de gouvernance transnationales, englobant une combinaison innovatrice de caractéristiques juridiques internationales et supranationales, la Cour pénale internationale constitue un forum instructif pour l'étude de la complexité croissante de la souveraineté. Cet article examine pourquoi le Canada et les États-Unis ont adopté des politiques aussi divergentes à l'égard de la Cour. J'avance que leurs positions sont fondées sur leurs notions subjectives de la souveraineté des États et qu'elles reflètent les divergences de leurs intérêts, de leurs valeurs et de leurs capacités. En définitive, cette étude de cas met en lumière les facteurs susceptibles d'influencer les modèles et les limites de la coopération transnationale entre les États.

The Discursive Process of Legalization: Charting Islands of Persuasion in the ICC Case

2009 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 33-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicole Deitelhoff
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
International Criminal Court ◽  
Institutional Design ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
The United States ◽  
Criminal Court ◽  
Collective Decision Making ◽  
Major Powers ◽  
Institutional Settings

AbstractFor many political observers the successful creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) came as a surprise, as major powers, in particular the United States, had opposed the plans for the ICC. Moreover, the institutional design of the ICC entails enormous sovereignty costs for states but only uncertain benefits. An analysis of the negotiations suggests that the court's successful creation can be attributed to persuasion and discourse within negotiations, that is, a shift in states' interests. The article develops a theoretical model of institutional change that defines the conditions under which persuasion and discourse can affect collective decision making. In particular, this study attempts to show that if (traditionally) weaker actors alter normative and institutional settings of negotiations they can further the chance of persuasion and discourse.

Other Specialty Courts

2019 ◽  
pp. 113-133
Author(s):  
David DeMatteo ◽  
Kirk Heilbrun ◽  
Alice Thornewill ◽  
Shelby Arnold
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Problem Solving ◽  
The United States ◽  
Drug Courts ◽  
Political Climate ◽  
Problem Solving Courts ◽  
Specialty Courts ◽  
Treatment Courts ◽  
Community Courts

The development and success of drug courts resulted in the development of many other types of problem-solving courts. This chapter provides an overview of these other types of problem-solving courts in the United States, including (but not limited to) domestic violence courts, family dependency treatment courts, homelessness courts, truancy courts, veterans courts, DUI/DWI courts, and community courts. This chapter summarizes the sparse research that has been conducted on these courts and considers the future of these types of problem-solving courts. Specifically, this chapter considers whether there is a need for so many highly specific problem-solving courts, how these courts can expand their reach (and whether they should), aspects of these courts that are in need of additional research, and how these courts can function most effectively in today’s economic and political climate.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document