The Indiana Law Journal & The Indiana Law Journal Supplement - Articles - Volume 82, Special Issue

The NCSC Sentencing Attitudes Survey: A Report on the Findings

no@spam.com (ILJ Webmaster) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:37:57 EDT

The climate of public opinion toward crime and punishment in this country has changed considerably over the past decade. As the national crime rate has declined, crime is less likely to be in the forefront of people's minds and—with the exception of certain high-profile crimes and cases involving celebrities—is less prominent in media coverage. What had been a frequent polling topic ten years ago gets much less attention today. Moreover, recent surveys about crime often fail to specifically address public attitudes toward sentencing, or have examined the issue from one particular ideological point of view.

The NCSC Sentencing Attitudes Survey, a national poll of 1,502 randomly selected adults, was designed to fill this void by delivering specific, unbiased information about what people think and why. The new survey thoroughly examines the American public's views toward sentencing and related issues in an objective manner. The new survey was preceded by a review of past survey data. This review revealed that, similar to controversial issues like immigration, abortion, and capital punishment, sentencing is a topic on which public opinion cannot be properly characterized by simply relying on the general measures so commonly used. More specific lines of questioning were developed to dig deeper, clarify previous findings, and identify the competing values and concerns underlying sentencing attitudes. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

Evidence-Based Practices and State Sentencing Policy: Ten Policy Initiatives to Reduce Recidivism

no@spam.com (Roger K. Warren) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:34:56 EDT

In this paper, I first summarize how greater reliance on evidence-based practices would allow the state courts to improve the effectiveness of state sentencing outcomes, reduce recidivism, and, at the same time, reduce over-reliance on incarceration and promote the utilization of community-based alternatives for appropriate offenders. Second, I then outline ten policy initiatives which the state courts could pursue in order to fully incorporate evidence-based practices into state sentencing policy. Finally, in an appendix I suggest twenty agenda topics for meetings of criminal justice policy teams interested in incorporating evidence-based practices into local sentencing practices. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

“Administration of Justice Is Archaic”—The Rise of Modern Court Administration: Assessing Roscoe Pound’s Court Administration Prescriptions

no@spam.com (ILJ Webmaster) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:25:56 EDT

This is a heavily edited and partially reorganized version of the CCJ/COSCA panel on "The Rise of Modern Court Administration." In it, Sue Dosal and Mary McQueen assess three changes advocated by Pound in respect to the organization of courts, based on their experiences as state court administrators in Minnesota and Washington, and their familiarity with court administration in other states. Russell Wheeler introduced the session, posed the questions, and was primarily responsible for editing, annotating, and partially reorganizing the panel transcript, which Dosal and McQueen edited as well.

A Look at Legal Education: The Globalization of American Legal Education

no@spam.com (James P. White) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:22:28 EDT

On behalf of the American Bar Association's (ABA) Out of the Box Committee on Legal Education, I would like to thank Chief Justice Shepard for inviting me to participate in this symposium. The genesis for the creation of the Out of the Box Committee came from a program in the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar at the ABA annual meeting, held in London in July of 2000. At that meeting the Section's presentation was entitled: "Out of the Box" Thinking About the Training of Lawyers in the Next Millennium. It is my pleasure to report some of the committee's work to the Conference of Chief Justices. Specifically, this presentation will address three main areas of concern regarding globalization: Summer Abroad Programs, Joint Agreements between International Law Schools, and Cross-Border Practice. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

Judges’ Pay: A Chasm Far Worse Than Realized, and Worsening

no@spam.com (Roy A. Schotland) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:16:46 EDT

For our state judges today, let us put aside what might be thought their appropriate "reward" compared to the "reward" for private-sector lawyers. Of course judges earn less than they would in private practice, and of course judges enjoy "rewards" other than salaries. What is surprising is how severe the gap is between the pay for judges and for the private bar—and, strikingly, the gap between the pay for judges and for other public employees. What is deeply disturbing, indeed dangerous, is how the gaps are worsening. Our compensation for judges is so low, that by reducing the caliber and stature of those who are in "the pool . . . willing to serve," this treatment is the most widespread, persistent, and damaging attack on judicial independence—as Chief Justice Roberts said. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

Popular Dissatisfaction With Judicial Restraint—Do Americans Really Want an Independent Judiciary?

no@spam.com (Michael S. Greco) — Sun, 07 Oct 2007 12:11:48 EDT

To begin addressing the central question at hand, I believe that Americans do want an independent judiciary, although many may not know it. My statement reflects the fact that many Americans are of two minds about the judiciary. Several national public opinion surveys conducted by the American Bar Association, the National Center for State Courts, and the Justice at Stake campaign, as well as other state-specific surveys, show that Americans want judges who are free from political influence.However, at the same time, many people favor judicial decisions that reflect their political preferences and values, and many express a desire to hold judges more directly accountable to the public.The root cause of these conflicting and malleable attitudes towards the judiciary, I believe, is a fundamental lack of knowledge. Too many Americans are uneducated about our system of government, and particularly about the constitutionally prescribed roles and responsibilities of the judicial branch. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

Building Support for Strong, Fair, and Impartial Courts

no@spam.com (Michael A. Wolff) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:57:46 EDT

State courts are vulnerable to political pressure. Judges in most states are subject to election and their budgets are subject to approval by the executive and legislative branches. In many states, the courts' constitutional structure and authority can be changed through the referendum and initiative processes.

One hundred years after Roscoe Pound's famous speech, "The Causes of Popular Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice," parts of the speech still sound contemporary. One of Pound's targets was the election of judges. In 1906, about eighty percent of state court judges were elected; today, the number is close to ninety percent, including judges who are subject to retention elections.

Through judicial elections and the legislative process, courts are involved in politics. This is discomfiting. The court system's challenge is to maintain its integrity as the third branch of government. We need to insulate courts as best we can from political pressures that may affect—or give the perception of affecting—judicial decisions. Supporters are essential.

Unpopular decisions—even by federal courts or courts in other states—can be the focal point of anger that is used to drive turnout in judicial elections, either primarily to defeat a sitting judge or to bring out the angry voters for other purposes, or both. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

Governing By Network: The Answer to Pound’s Unanticipated Dissatisfaction

no@spam.com (Stephen Goldsmith) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:50:43 EDT

Roscoe Pound first presented his lecture The Causes of Dissatisfaction with the Administration of Justice in 1906. It was the heyday of the Progressive Era, a government reform movement that coupled concern for social justice with efforts to improve government efficiency. Progressives opposed waste, corruption, and ward politics and sought to change both the quality and scope of government services. Reformers addressed what they viewed as an anemic government response to substantial social problems and widespread corruption.

Fast forward to today: Justice Shepherd asks us to address The Causes of Dissatisfaction Roscoe Pound Never Thought About. In framing this discussion, one needs to consider how judges can affect satisfaction with democratic government and how that satisfaction, in turn, affects them. For courts to satisfy the citizenry, ensure the efficacy of their institutions, and maintain democratic accountability, they need to adapt to significant changes occurring in the delivery of public goods and the exercise of public authority. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

From Kiev to Columbus: A Perspective on Judicial Independence

no@spam.com (Thomas J. Moyer) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:43:06 EDT

I have had the opportunity to meet Oleksandr Potylachak, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ukraine who joined his colleagues in declaring invalid the 2004 presidential election due to massive voter fraud. That decision marked the first time the judiciary of a former East bloc country had overturned the illegitimate action of a ruling political party.

It was a bold move; it was a courageous act. During a visit to Columbus, Ohio in March of 2005, Oleksandr described the fear of retaliation that accompanied the court's decision. The names of the twenty justices participating in the decision were not public; children were kept home from school until the fear subsided. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]

The Impact of Popular Culture on American Perceptions of the Courts

no@spam.com (David Ray Papke) — Sat, 06 Oct 2007 23:36:51 EDT

Lengthy service as a judge or in law enforcement sometimes makes a person a bit paranoid. After sixteen years on the bench, The Honorable Patricia D. Marks, the Supervising Judge for the Criminal Courts in New York's Seventh Judicial District, worried that pop cultural works might be affecting the jurors in her courtroom. Hollywood films, she thought, could make potential jurors leery of serving. Television shows could influence the jurors' understanding of their role. Was Judge Marks being unduly concerned? She perhaps asked herself that very question. But then, after working to guarantee her jurors were not biased by popular culture, she saw an Internet posting from a man who had been summoned for jury duty and actually was doing his "homework" by watching Jury Duty (1995), Trial By Jury (1994), and 12 Angry Men (1957).

For jurors in other courtrooms and for average citizens as well, it seems likely that popular culture affects what they think of the courtroom and courtroom proceedings. In the first section of this essay, I proffer a definition of popular culture and raise the question of how we might study its impact. In the second section, I present a short overview of the way portrayals of the courts have been central in American popular culture during the last century and point out how comfortable Americans are with the courtroom as cultural convention. In section three, I explore the impact of court-related popular culture on what Americans think of and expect from their courts. In the conclusion, I suggest a few steps that could be taken to limit popular culture's impact. . . . [for full article click the PDF below]