Court Outcomes Research Articles

Children seeking asylum: Determinants of asylum claims by unaccompanied minors in the United States from 2013 to 2017

AbstractThis paper examines the treatment and processing of immigration court decisions for unaccompanied alien children (UAC) in the United States from 2013 to 2017. We focus on two primary questions in our research: (1) whether asylum cases involving UAC are substantially different in outcome than non‐UAC cases, and (2) whether there have been significant differences in the immigration courts' asylum decisions involving unaccompanied minors before and after the Trump administration came to power. We utilize various multilevel models to test individual applicant‐, immigration judge‐, county‐, and state‐level variables on the likelihood of UAC receiving a positive outcome in immigration court. We find strong support for the second hypothesis and mixed support for the first. Overall, our findings suggest that multiple political, economic, social, and geographical factors influence immigration hearings for UAC beyond the individual strength of any one child's case.

The Impact of Child‐Parent Psychotherapy on Child Dependency Court Outcomes

AbstractAlthough parental compliance with court orders in child welfare cases is key to achieving physical parent‐child reunification and successful case closure, little research has examined how parent‐child relationship‐focused rehabilitative services uniquely influence case outcomes. This project fills this gap by investigating links between court ordering of and parental participation in Child‐Parent Psychotherapy (CPP) with court outcomes. Data were obtained from court records of 448 court‐involved parents. Hierarchical regressions revealed that greater participation in CPP led to reunification and successful case closure but not faster case closure. Courtroom professionals should consider parent‐child relationship‐based therapies as tools for achieving child welfare goals.

The Challenge of Biases in Machine Learning Models and Big Data Analytics for International Criminal Investigations

Advances in mobile phone technology and social media have created a world where the volume of information generated and shared is outpacing the ability of humans to review and use that data. Machine learning (ML) models and big data analytical tools have the power to ease that burden by making sense of that information and providing insights that might not otherwise exist. In the context of international criminal and human rights law, ML is being used for a variety of purposes, including to uncover mass graves in Mexico, find evidence of homes and schools destroyed in Darfur, detect fake videos and doctored evidence, predict the outcome of European Court of Human Rights’ judicial hearings and gather evidence of war crimes in Syria. ML models are also increasingly being incorporated by States into weapon systems to better enable targeting systems to distinguish between civilians, allied soldiers and enemy combatants or even inform decision-making for military attacks. The same technology, however, also comes with significant risks. ML models and big data analytics are highly susceptible to common human biases. Those biases have the potential of reinforcing and even accelerating existing racial, political or gender inequalities. They can also paint a misleading and distorted picture of the facts on the ground. This article canvasses how common human biases can impact ML models and big data analytics. This article also examines what legal implications these biases can have under international criminal law and international humanitarian law.

Consensus Decision Making: A Comparative Analysis of Judging and Judicial Deliberations

This article seeks to shed new light on how judicial consensus is formed. Through a multi-country series of 17 interviews with judges and clerks in six different courts – both ordinary and constitutional – across Europe, I investigate how judges negotiate and bargain to create final outcomes, and how the deliberative process itself may help to shape outcomes. Interview responses suggest two factors affect the probability that judges will be able to reach consensus outcomes: the complexity of the case and the background of the case rapporteur. These interview responses are then paired with an original dataset of case outcomes from seven European constitutional courts. The dataset of court outcomes suggests that the complexity of the case matters greatly, though limited testing shows judicial backgrounds do not appear to be a significant factor in the creation of consensus.

Associations between Legal Representation and Mental Health Court Outcomes

This study empirically examines the associations between legal representation and four key outcomes in mental health courts. The outcomes include whether eligible defendants chose to participate in a municipal mental health court (MMHC); if defendants chose to participate, whether the MMHC resolved their criminal charges without court supervision; whether eligible defendants attended the initial MMHC court hearings; and whether defendants successfully completed the MMHC program. The study included 1012 defendants who were accepted into a MMHC in a state where municipal court defendants do not have to be represented by a defense attorney. We conducted bivariate and logistic regression analyses to identify differences in each of the four outcomes between MMHC defendants who did or did not have a defense attorney. The results of the bivariate and logistic regression analyses found defendants represented by defense attorneys were more likely to choose not to participate in the MMHC, to resolve their criminal charges without court supervision, to participate in initial court hearings, and to successfully complete the MMHC program. All four regression models were statistically significant, although the amount of variance explained was relatively low, ranging from 6% to 13%.

What, Besides a Lack of Reoffending, Indicates Successful Completion of a Drug Court Program

Drug courts were developed in the United States in the late-1980s as a response to the perceived ineffectiveness of traditional criminal justice responses to drug-related problems. Over the past 20 years drug courts have begun to emerge across the world. In Australia, the model was first adopted in New South Wales in 1999 and continues to gain popularity in most States. Drug court program evaluations routinely focus on recidivism rates as a key indicator of performance; however, this measure does not consider any other components that can result in a successful drug court outcome. This article presents the methodology and analysis of research that sought to determine what other elements of the drug court process are linked to the successful completion of a drug court program. A documentary analysis was conducted of the operation and outcomes of Australian drug courts and thematic analysis of naturalistic observation data from drug court proceedings. The research conclusively identified one overarching theme – “the rehabilitative ideal” – and how it is linked to drug court success. In this vein, the article discusses a number of recommendations on how drug courts can be informed by evidence of best practice to enhance outcomes.

Crimes Against Children: Evaluative Language and News Reports on Sentences

This study explores how South African television news reports communicate on sentence proceedings criminal cases involving violent acts against children. These kinds of crimes tend to attract public interest, and the outcomes can be a litmus test on the community's views concerning the justice system. By using cluster criticism to consider the discursive and non-discursive components of selected news reports, the study considers how television news broadcasts use factual and evaluative language and visuals when communicating court outcomes. The paper argues that these broadcasters tend to use evaluative language and visuals, as opposed to factual terms. This tendency can prevent news media from playing the educative role envisaged in the principle of open justice because instead of emphasising the factual aspects of sentencing proceeding, these reports focus on the outcome and the emotive aspects of the cases that entertain rather than educate.

Institutionalizing inequality in the courts: Decomposing racial and ethnic disparities in detention, conviction, and sentencing*

AbstractA significant body of literature has examined racial and ethnic inequalities in sentencing, focusing on how individual court actors make decisions, but fewer scholars have examined whether disparities are institutionalized through legal case factors. After finding racial and ethnic inequalities in pretrial detention, conviction, and incarceration based on 4 years of felony court data (N = 83,924) from Miami‐Dade County, we estimate nonlinear decomposition models to examine how much of the inequalities are explained by differences in criminal history, charging, and for conviction and incarceration, pretrial detention. Results suggest that inequality is greatest between White non‐Latinos and Black Latinos, followed by White non‐Latinos and Black non‐Latinos, ranging from 4 to more than 8 percentage points difference in the probability of pretrial detention, 7–13 points difference in conviction, 5–6 points in prison, and 4–10 points difference in jail. We find few differences between White non‐Latinos and White Latinos. Between half and three‐quarters of the inequality in pretrial detention, conviction, and prison sentences between White non‐Latino and Black people is explained through legal case factors. Our findings indicate that inequality is, in part, institutionalized through legal case factors, suggesting these factors are not “race neutral” but instead racialized and contribute to inequalities in court outcomes.

Neighborhood context and racial/ethnic disparities in judicial processing

AbstractThis article examines the importance of neighborhoods in shaping judicial processing and racial/ethnic disparities in court outcomes. Scholarship instructs that court actors—prosecutors, defense counsel, and judges—make legal decisions with local communities in mind. With the rise of geographic information in arrest records and mapping techniques, greater opportunities exist to evaluate the role of neighborhood context in the juvenile and criminal courts. This article synthesizes research on how the characteristics of neighborhoods where defendants live and/or offend influence judicial processing. Attention is given to how scholars define neighborhoods, identify key neighborhood conditions, and analyze the relationships among places and judicial decisions. Emphasis is also placed on unpacking debates on whether neighborhood conditions diminish or aggravate racial/ethnic disparities in court outcomes, such as incarceration decisions. Its analysis reveals findings of neighborhood effects as well as evidence of neighborhood characteristics widening racial/ethnic differences in judicial processing. This article thus encourages the consideration of community context in disparity studies and policy efforts to improve citizens' access to justice.

Mental disorder in people convicted of homicide: long-term national trends in rates and court outcome.

Homicide rates have fallen markedly in the UK over the past decade. There has been little research on whether homicides by people with mental disorder have contributed to this downward trend. Furthermore, there is limited information on trends in court outcomes for people with mental disorder who commit homicide. To examine trends in general population homicide and homicide by people with mental disorder, and to explore court outcome. We conducted a national, consecutive case series of homicide in England and Wales (1997-2015). Data were received from the Home Office Statistics Unit of Home Office Science. Clinical information was obtained from psychiatric reports and mental health services. There has been a fall in the homicide rate in England and Wales since 2008. Despite this, the relative contribution of mental disorder as a proportion of all homicide has increased. Our findings also showed the inappropriate management of people with serious mental illness convicted of homicide. Of those who committed homicide and were diagnosed with schizophrenia, a third were imprisoned, and there was a marked fall in hospital order referrals. We found this to be linked to substance misuse comorbidity. The proportional increase in homicide by people with schizophrenia suggests more complex factors may be driving rates, such as substance misuse. Addressing substance misuse comorbidity and maintaining engagement with services may help prevent patient homicide. Despite their complex needs, people with serious mental illness continue to be imprisoned. Improvements in assessment and the timely transfer of prisoners to health services are required.

Legal Outcomes of Suspected Maltreatment Cases Evaluated by a Child Abuse Pediatrician as Part of a Multidisciplinary Team Investigation.

Child abuse pediatricians often carry the stigma that their sole role is to diagnose maltreatment. In reality, child abuse pediatricians use their clinical experience and current evidence-based medicine to make the best medical diagnoses for the children they evaluate. To better understand the legal conclusion of suspected maltreatment cases with medical examinations, this study sought to: (i) evaluate the percentage of children seen for suspected maltreatment that led to a clinical diagnosis of maltreatment, (ii) determine the number and type of criminal charges associated, and (iii) analyze the legal outcomes of cases as they proceeded through the judicial system. This study retrospectively reviewed the legal outcomes of 1698 children medically evaluated in 2013-2014 as part of an investigation by a multidisciplinary team at a children's advocacy center in a mid-sized city in Oklahoma. Data were collected from electronic medical records, the district attorney's office, and a public court docket. Of the original cohort, 477 (28.09%) children yielded a medical diagnosis of at least one type of maltreatment. Further analysis yielded 115 unique court cases involving 138 defendants and 151 children. A total of 286 charges were filed resulting in 190 convictions. While maltreatment allegations yield a high number of children that must be evaluated, a comprehensive medical evaluation helps determine which cases do not have sufficient medical findings for a diagnosis of maltreatment. The findings in this study indicate that a majority of suspected maltreatment cases seen by child abuse pediatricians did not result in criminal court outcomes.

Taking Note: Justice Harry A. Blackmun's Observations from Oral Argument about Life, the Law, and the U.S. Supreme Court

Taking Note: Justice Harry A. Blackmun's Observations from Oral Argument about Life, the Law, and the U.S. Supreme Court

Sustained Outcomes? an Exploratory Study of Juvenile Drug Courts and Long‐Term Recidivism

AbstractThis exploratory study examined juvenile drug courts’ effect on adulthood recidivism. Utilizing a twelve‐year average follow up time, adult recidivism rates were compared between previous juvenile drug court participants and a comparison group of juveniles who participated in traditional probation. Linear regression models indicated limited recidivism effects of drug court on arrests or convictions into adulthood. The findings suggest that gender and race may play a role in how justice‐involved juveniles interact and experience juvenile drug court, highlighting the need for gender‐responsive and culturally responsive policies, practices, and programs within juvenile drug courts. Recommendations are made regarding future research areas and ways to potentially improve long‐term juvenile drug court outcomes.

Misdemeanor Courts, Due Process, and Case Outcomes

Very little research on courts and sentencing outcomes focuses on misdemeanor courts despite the fact that most crime processed through the criminal justice system is misdemeanor in nature. In fact, the overwhelming empiricism in this area is on felony court outcomes at either the federal or state levels. This research utilized a mixed methodology approach, a combination of observation, survey, and secondary data, to explore misdemeanor court outcomes across the State of Florida. In particular, this research focused on the extent of due process afforded misdemeanor defendants and how this impacted case outcomes. Findings indicate an overall lack of due process and awareness of due process rights across the vast majority of cases. This study also explored sentencing outcomes via traditional metrics associated with contemporary sentencing research. Findings suggest that misdemeanor courts processing operate much differently than felony courts. The implications for future research and policy are discussed.

The Liberation Hypothesis Perspective and Juvenile Court Outcomes: Implications for an Understanding of the Interplay Between Offender and Offense Characteristics

Extensive empirical support demonstrates the importance of legal (e.g., crime severity, prior record) and extralegal factors (e.g., race/ethnicity, gender) in predicting juvenile court outcomes. An understudied area is inquiry into how certain extralegal factors interact with legal determinants to impact the social control of juveniles. This study uses a sample of delinquent referrals from a Northeast state over 10 years to examine the impact of race/ethnicity, gender, crime severity, and prior record, individually and in combination, on juvenile court outcomes. Although the liberation hypothesis predicts that extralegal factors have a diminishing effect on case outcomes as the severity of the case increases, overall, we fail to find support for this expectation.

The impact of chemical trace evidence on justice outcomes: Exploring the additive value of forensic science disciplines

The focus of this research was to examine the contribution chemical trace evidence makes to criminal justice outcomes. The aim of this work was to place the discipline of chemical trace evidence under the spotlight as there is a dearth of robust research on the impact of this discipline. In this study, data relating to the forensic examinations in a sample of 238 cases which included chemical trace evidence, was collated with data from police investigations and court processes. The findings show that chemical trace evidence is frequently used in combination with other forensic disciplines to support the progress of high-level criminal cases through the justice system. Due to characteristics of how the criminal cases in the dataset were investigated and prosecuted, in combination with the methodology applied in this study, the impact of forensic evidence on the decision to charge suspects could not be analysed quantitatively. However, the impact of forensic evidence on court outcomes in the sample of cases was analysed using methodology that considered the results of the examinations, and the ability of the evidence to provide support for the inclusion or exclusion of persons of interest. The possibility of chemical trace evidence having impact when applied in combination with other forensic disciplines was also examined. It was found that biological examination results was a significant standalone predictor of court outcomes. In contrast, chemical trace examinations did not predict court outcomes when considered as a standalone predictor but examination results of chemical trace evidence in combination with ballistics/tool marks was significantly associated with court outcomes. The findings of this research indicate that, to assess the full impact of any discipline of forensic evidence on the criminal justice system, the analysis must take into account the potential for important synergies that may exist with other forensic and non-forensic evidence.

Neighborhood Context and the Pretrial Process: Do Defendants Face Adverse Outcomes Due to Their Home Address?

When extralegal factors correlate with differences in bond amount and pretrial detention, justice may be compromised. Prior research has identified disparity related to defendant characteristics, such as income and race. This article offers insight into a less explored source of disparity, neighborhood context, and a particularly disadvantaged population, defendants, or pretrial detainees, unable to afford their bail in court and booked into a county jail. Considering the desire for community safety, the difficulty of predicting dangerousness and court attendance, and the impact of ecological factors on other court outcomes, it is hypothesized that neighborhood context heightens disparity in the pretrial process. Findings support this argument. Offense elements best predict bond amount; however, there exists disparity based on neighborhood characteristics. When assessing the same factors in relation to detention length, bond amount is not significant, but rather individual- and neighborhood-level characteristics. Implications are discussed in light of current bail reform efforts.

Fifty years post Gault: A meta-analysis of the impact of attorney representation on delinquency outcomes

PurposeThe United States Supreme Court decision In re Gault highlighted the importance of legal representation throughout juvenile justice proceedings. However, prior studies indicate that juveniles with legal representation have been both advantaged and disadvantaged across juvenile court outcomes. Some research suggests a “lawyer penalty” where youth represented by legal counsel are punished more severely than their non-represented counterparts. MethodsGiven the implications of these findings on both the court and life outcomes of juvenile offenders, the current study performs a meta-analysis comparing the dispositional sanctions of adjudicated juvenile offenders with counsel to those without representation. ResultsJuveniles represented by legal counsel were over two times more likely to receive an out-of-home placement compared to those without attorneys. The lawyer penalty was robust over time, across bivariate and multivariate studies, and whether individual-level or state-level data were analyzed, as having an attorney present increased the odds of a juvenile being removed from their home by over 200%. ConclusionsEvidence of a lawyer penalty has persisted since the In re Gault decision despite an increase in sophistication of statistical analyses. The implications for juvenile court practice, the role of legal representation in juvenile court proceedings, and future research are discussed.

Court outcomes among female juveniles with sexual offences

ABSTRACT Female juveniles with sexual offences (FJSOs) are an understudied population. The current study compares FJSOs with their male counterparts and evaluates whether male and female juveniles with sexual offences from different family types have similar charges and court outcomes. Data were obtained from a statewide court dataset in Alabama from 2004 to 2014 (n = 205 females, 2816 males). Participants were categorised by offence category, family type, and court outcome. Chi-square tests and hierarchical logistic regressions were conducted to test for differences in offence patterns and court outcomes by gender and family type, respectively. Females committed less severe offences and received less severe punishments for a given offence compared with males. Family type and two-way interactions between family type, gender, and offence severity played limited roles in offence patterns and in court sentencing. Disposition patterns in females point towards the feasibility of providing more services for all juveniles with sexual offences.

Naming Names: The Impact of Supreme Court Opinion Attribution on Citizen Assessment of Policy Outcomes

The manner in which political institutions convey their policy outcomes can have important implications for how the public views institutions' policy decisions. This paper explores whether the way in which the U.S. Supreme Court communicates its policy decrees affects how favorably members of the public assess its decisions. Specifically, we investigate whether attributing a decision to the nation's High Court or to an individual justice influences the public's agreement with the Court's rulings. Using an experimental design, we find that when a Supreme Court outcome is ascribed to the institution as a whole, rather than to a particular justice, people are more apt to agree with the policy decision. We also find that identifying the gender of the opinion author affects public agreement under certain conditions. Our findings have important implications for how public support for institutional policymaking operates, as well as the dynamics of how the Supreme Court manages to accumulate and maintain public goodwill.