scholarly journals Due Process & the Theater of Racial Degradation: The Evolving Notion of Pretrial Punishment in the Criminal Courts

Daedalus ◽  
2022 ◽  
Vol 151 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-152
Author(s):  
Nicole Gonzalez Van Cleve

Abstract Most theorists assume that the criminal courts are neutral arbiters of justice, protected by the Constitution, the rule of law, and court records. This essay challenges those assumptions and examines the courts as a place of punitive excess and the normalization of racial abuse and punishment. The essay explains the historic origins of these trends and examines how the categories of “hardened” and “marginal” defendants began to assume racialized meanings with the emergence of mass incarceration. This transformed the criminal courts into a type of public theater for racial degradation. These public performances or “racial degradation ceremonies” occur within the discretionary practices and cultural norms of mostly White courtroom professionals as they efficiently manage the disposition of cases in the everyday practice of law. I link these historical findings to a recent study of the largest unified criminal court system in the United States–Cook County, Chicago–and discuss court watching programs as an intervention for accountability and oversight of our courts and its legal professionals.

1979 ◽  
Vol 4 (4) ◽  
pp. 29-32
Author(s):  
Brian Lucas

In its Second Main Report, Law and Poverty in Australia, the Commission of Inquiry into Poverty expressed the view that “legal representation for children appearing before the children's court, whether in the criminal or protective jurisdiction, is necessary if justice is to be done.”This view coincides with the opinion of the Supreme Court of the United States of America in In re Gault. It has been said that this decision “unleashed a frontal assault on the juvenile court system.” It confirmed that juveniles were entitled to “due process” and the same protection which the Fourteenth Amendment and the Bill of Rights afforded to adults.


2016 ◽  
Vol 59 (6) ◽  
pp. 779-795 ◽  
Author(s):  
David A. Crenshaw ◽  
Lori Stella ◽  
Ellen O’Neill-Stephens ◽  
Celeste Walsen

Courtrooms in the United States whether family court or criminal court fall far short of being either developmentally or trauma sensitive. While there is growing recognition that vulnerable child witnesses are at risk of retraumatization by court procedures and some judges have used their discretionary powers to render courtrooms less toxic to children, the system was designed by adults for adults, and certainly not for children. The court process especially in criminal trials does not typically take into account the developmental constraints of children nor do they fully understand trauma in children and the risks to testifying child witnesses. Humanistic psychology has long stood for social justice and compassion toward our most vulnerable humans, especially children, but the long and slow-to-change traditions of the court system in the United States creates an environment that is inhospitable to children and even older victims as illustrated by the low rate of prosecutions in rape cases. This article outlines the distressing conditions that await child victims/witnesses in this country in comparison with other developed countries and an innovative, out-of-the box solution that does not interfere with the rights of the accused.


2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 71-84
Author(s):  
Magda Olesiuk-Okomska

Although in international law responsibility traditionally had belonged to states, along with involvement of individuals in conflicts between states and committing by them crimes on a massive scale, a need to criminalize such acts and to bring offenders guilty of the most serious violations of international law to justice - arose. Establishment of international criminal courts resulted from the need to fulfill internationally the idea of justice. Development of international criminal courts reflects differences in inter alia attitude towards ratione materiae of particular courts and tribunals. The purpose of this article is to present and discuss international crimes within the jurisdiction of international criminal courts and tribunals. A typology of international criminal courts was indicated and the most important courts and tribunals were presented in detail. The paper discusses subject jurisdiction of International Military Court in Nuremberg and International Military Tribunal for the Far East in Tokio, the first international courts established to bring war criminals to justice; as well as the subject jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, the only permanent court in international criminal court system, having universal jurisdiction. Four categories of the most serious crimes of international concern were considered, and doubts concerning subject jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court, as well as its functioning in general, were signalized.


Author(s):  
Marian R. Williams

The death penalty has long been a source of debate and is perhaps the most litigated sentence in the United States. Arguments for the use of the death penalty point to “just deserts” or retribution, while arguments against its use point to its implementation, including how the death penalty is administered (e.g., via electrocution, lethal injection), the types of offenses that are eligible for the death penalty (e.g., murder, rape, treason), and the offenders who are sentenced to death (e.g., males, minorities). This latter concern is the subject of much research, to the extent that a number of U.S. Supreme Court cases have addressed this research, especially in the cases Furman v. Georgia (1972) and McCleskey v. Kemp (1987). Research has indicated that those who are sentenced to death share common characteristics, including gender, minority status, social class, geography, and victim similarities. Overwhelmingly, research has noted that, in general, those who kill white victims are the most likely to receive a death sentence, particularly black offenders who kill white victims. Also, males are more likely to receive a death sentence than females, low-income individuals are more likely to receive a death sentence than higher-income individuals, and committing a capital offense in a handful of counties in the United States increases the likelihood of a death sentence. It is difficult to determine in most cases the reasons for this disparity. Outright discrimination by prosecutors, judges, and/or juries is a possibility, but the court system has made it extremely difficult for offenders to prove discrimination in their individual cases. Some researchers argue that the criminal justice system is stacked against minorities and the poor, by enforcing laws more forcefully in their neighborhoods and requiring financial resources to defend oneself (e.g., bail, defense attorneys). Regardless of the reason for disparate treatment in individual cases, the fact that disparate treatment exists is concerning in a country whose constitution emphasizes due process and equal protection under law.


Author(s):  
Diane S. Young

This entry on the adult court system in the United States discusses the foundation, structure, and authority of courts at federal, state, and local levels. The role of criminal courts, the nature of an adversarial justice system, the plea bargaining process, and the goals of sentencing are described. Innovations such as specialized courts, restorative justice approaches, and therapeutic jurisprudence are presented. Finally, several social work roles in the court system are identified.


Author(s):  
David S. Tanenhaus

Juvenile justice is a technical term that refers to the specific area of law and affiliated institutions, most notably the juvenile court, with jurisdiction over the cases of minors who are accused of being miscreants. Although the idea that the law should treat minors differently from adults predates the American Revolution, juvenile justice itself is a Progressive Era invention. Its institutional legitimacy rests on the power and responsibility of the state to act as a parent (parens patriae) on behalf of those who cannot care for themselves. Since the establishment of the world’s first juvenile court in Chicago in 1899, this American idea of creating separate justice systems for juveniles has spread across the nation and much of the world. For more than a century, American states have used their juvenile justice systems to respond to youth crime and delinquency. Since the 1960s, the US Supreme Court has periodically considered whether juvenile courts must provide the same constitutional due process safeguards as adult criminal courts and whether juveniles prosecuted in the criminal justice system can receive the same sentences as adults, such as the death penalty or life without the possibility of parole.


2020 ◽  
pp. 147737082097657
Author(s):  
Jonathan Simon

As we approach the decade anniversary of the US Supreme Court decision in Brown v. Plata (2011), it is perhaps a good time to take stock of some of the optimism expressed by this author (Simon, 2014) that the landmark prisoners’ rights decision, with its stark condemnation of the toxic combination of chronic illness, medical neglect, and overcrowding so typical of American prison systems in the era of mass incarceration, and its rhetorical invigoration of ‘dignity’ as a constitutional value, could play a role in taming mass incarceration in the United States. In doing so, part of the inquiry is juridical and jurisprudential. Did the opinion move the court system towards more protection of human rights for prisoners? The second aspect of the question is cultural and political. At a time of unprecedented public interest in reforming the criminal legal system in the United States, has the language or rhetoric of ‘human dignity,’ along with the problems of illness and overcrowding that the Plata case called national attention to, played a role in the foment? The Black Lives Matter movement, a major force in the street protests against policing in the summer of 2020, emerged just two years after Plata and, completely independently, has revitalized abolition discourse in the United States, leading to popular calls to ‘defund’ the police. To what extent should abolition and other goals of the movement for racial justice, supplant human dignity, with its liberal legal genealogy, as a meaningful lodestar for legal and political efforts to end mass incarceration? As an essay in normative sociological jurisprudence, my answers will be both descriptive and prescriptive.


2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Matthew Clair

This paper considers how criminal defendants make consequential decisions during court processing. Drawing on interviews and ethnographic observations among a racially and socio-economically diverse sample of Boston-area defendants and among legal officials, the author describes defendants’ differential styles of engagement with lawyers and the court. Whereas defendants who have reason to trust their lawyers often delegate legal authority to them in consequential moments and experience relative ease of court navigation as a result, defendants who have reason to mistrust their lawyers often withdraw from lawyers and seek to acquire their own legal expertise, such as knowledge about criminal law and procedure learned in their communities, in jail, and through observation. Defendants’ assertive use of self-acquired expertise, however, is discouraged by the court system, often drawing punitive responses from legal officials and constraining defendants’ legal choices. Thus, the cultural styles and resources that scholars have shown to benefit the privileged in mainstream institutions such as schools and workplaces have negative repercussions in the criminal courts, often to the detriment of less-advantaged defendants. The author discusses implications for research on criminal court disparities and sociological theory on culture, expertise, and navigation across a range of institutions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 42 (02) ◽  
pp. 325-346 ◽  
Author(s):  
Max Travers

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.


1991 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 393-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marilyn Houghtalin ◽  
G. Larry Mays

One of the lingering controversies surrounding the juvenile justice system in the United States is the transfer of juvenile offenders to adult criminal courts, ostensibly for more severe dispositions. This issue especially has been of concern as the “get-tough” movement seemingly has gained momentum over the past two decades. This article examines the waiver process in New Mexico to establish the characteristics of the juveniles subject to the process and to determine the actual, instead of symbolic, criminal court dispositions of juveniles tried as adults.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document