Specialization in Criminal Courts: Decision Making, Recidivism, and Re-victimization in Domestic Violence Courts in Tennessee

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aria Golestani ◽  
Emily Owens ◽  
Kerri Raissian
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Domestic Violence Courts

Understanding Decision-Making in Specialized Domestic Violence Courts

2016 ◽  
Vol 23 (6) ◽  
pp. 749-771 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gillian M. Pinchevsky
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Causal Attribution ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Theoretical Frameworks ◽  
Judicial Decision Making ◽  
Focal Concerns ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Court Processing ◽  
Domestic Violence Courts

This study fills a gap in the literature by exploring the utility of contemporary courtroom theoretical frameworks—uncertainty avoidance, causal attribution, and focal concerns—for explaining decision-making in specialized domestic violence courts. Using data from two specialized domestic violence courts, this study explores the predictors of prosecutorial and judicial decision-making and the extent to which these factors are congruent with theoretical frameworks often used in studies of court processing. Findings suggest that these theoretical frameworks only partially help explain decision-making in the courts under study. A discussion of the findings and implications for future research is provided.

Evidence, Jury Trials and Witness Protection—The Auld Review of the English Criminal Courts

2002 ◽  
Vol 6 (3) ◽  
pp. 163-177
Author(s):  
Jenny McEwan ◽  
Mike Redmayne ◽  
Yvette Tinsley
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
Judicial Control ◽  
Trial Process ◽  
Jury Trials

The publication of Auld LJ's review of the English criminal courts may herald significant reform of the trial process. It is argued that recommendations to retain the jury whilst subjecting its decision-making to greater judicial control, and restricting proper research into its operation, lack a coherent foundation and may prove problematic in practice. The recommendations may enhance protection for vulnerable witnesses although proposals to increase the chances of convicting in cases of domestic violence may also create risks for victims.

Examining the Interaction of Race and Probationer Noncompliance on Sanctioning Decisions

2019 ◽  
pp. 215336871987302
Author(s):  
Danielle M. Romain ◽  
Amber E. Krushas
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Racial Disparity ◽  
Sentencing Decisions ◽  
Focal Concerns ◽  
Prior Literature ◽  
Focal Concerns Perspective ◽  
Relevant Factors ◽  
Domestic Violence Courts

Much of the prior literature on racial disparity has focused on sentencing decisions, with recent studies examining possible interactions between defendant race and legally relevant factors. Many defendants serve their sentences within the community, yet less is known about decision-making when probationers are noncompliant with the conditions of their sentence. Rooted in the focal concerns perspective and congruence to stereotypes framework, this study examines whether noncompliance issues are moderated by probationer race in predicting the likelihood of a jail sanction. A sample of 302 review hearings from domestic violence courts was included for analysis. Results demonstrate that several noncompliance issues influenced sanctioning, independent of race; no significant interactions were found. Implications for probation decision-making are discussed.

Offender-Centric Policing in Cases of Rape

2021 ◽  
pp. 002201832110274
Author(s):  
Philip NS Rumney ◽  
Duncan McPhee
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Police Officers ◽  
Sexual Offending ◽  
Confirmation Bias ◽  
Missed Opportunities ◽  
Predatory Behaviour ◽  
Investigative Tool ◽  
Care And Support ◽  
History Of

The article explores the idea of ‘offender-centric’ policing in cases of rape, with its focus on suspect and offender admissions and behaviours. It features discussion of 11 cases, illustrating offender-centric pathways to charge or conviction, the challenges facing complainants, suspects and police officers, along with missed opportunities to focus on a suspect’s behaviour. The importance of victim care and support is discussed, and it is argued that victim care should accompany an offender-centric approach to rape investigation. It is also argued that there are potential dangers with offender-centric tactics, specifically, that without due care it may become a self-confirming investigative tool influenced by confirmation bias which may lead to flawed decision-making. The article concludes by arguing that offender-centric policing has benefits in those cases with suspects who engage in predatory behaviour, have a history of previously undisclosed sexual offending and domestic violence and other problematic behaviours. It also has value in focusing the attention of investigators on what steps were taken by a suspect to ascertain the complainant’s consent. While the offender-centric approach cannot address all investigative challenges in rape cases, it is a useful addition to existing strategies.

Support for Compromise in Principle and in Practice

2020 ◽  
pp. 176-203
Author(s):  
Jennifer Wolak
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Education Reform ◽  
Health Care Policy ◽  
Policy Outcomes ◽  
Decision Making Process ◽  
Care Policy ◽  
Specific Policy ◽  
Domestic Violence Legislation

This chapter reports a set of experiments that consider people’s appraisals of specific policy compromises in Congress, focusing on whether people like compromises less once they understand what types of policy concessions they entail. Drawing on recent congressional compromises on domestic violence legislation, education reform, and health-care policy, the experiments test whether people evaluate Congress and its policy outcomes differently when bills are represented as compromises where both sides made concessions in order to achieve policy gains. The results show that people are disappointed when they learn that a bill failed to pass due to members of Congress refusing to compromise. Members of Congress do not seem to be penalized for their support of compromise legislation. Policy compromises serve to boost the perceived legitimacy of the decision-making process, particularly among those who are ideologically opposed to the outcome.

Contradictions and Their Consequences: How Competing Policy Mandates Facilitate Use of a Punitive Framework in Domestic Violence–Child Maltreatment Cases

2020 ◽  
pp. 107755952096988
Author(s):  
Elizabeth Marie Armstrong ◽  
Emily Adlin Bosk
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Decision Making ◽  
Domestic Violence ◽  
Child Welfare ◽  
Policy Framework ◽  
Child Welfare Workers ◽  
Policies And Procedures ◽  
Assessment Procedures ◽  
Welfare Workers ◽  
Related Harm

Research shows child welfare cases involving caregiver domestic violence (DV) continue to produce punitive consequences for non-abusive adult victims. This occurs despite the adoption of a supportive policy framework that emphasizes perpetrator responsibility for DV-related harm to children. Risk assessment procedures have been implicated in punitive outcomes, but we know little about how they shape child welfare workers’ decision-making practice. Focusing on a state with a supportive policy framework, this paper uses grounded theory to examine how policy contradictions, procedural directives around risk assessment, and informal interventions produce punitive consequences for adult victims of DV and unmitigated risk to children. Data include state policy and procedural documents and interviews with child welfare workers describing decision-making in their most recent completed case and most recent case involving DV. Findings point to the need for active alignment of policies and procedures, greater integration of knowledge across practice areas, renewed commitments to differential response, and greater inclusion of DV specialists in child welfare settings.

scholarly journals ‘Too High’, ‘Too Low’, or ‘Just Fair Enough’?

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 351-368
Author(s):  
Joanna Nicholson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Fair Trial ◽  
International Human Rights Law ◽  
Criminal Courts ◽  
International Human Rights ◽  
International Human ◽  
The Right ◽  
Human Rights Standards

Abstract That an accused receives a fair trial is essential to the legitimacy of international criminal courts and tribunals. However, how best to interpret the right to a fair trial in order to maximize the legitimacy of international criminal courts and tribunals’ decision-making? Some argue that international criminal courts and tribunals should aspire to the highest standards of fairness and should aim to set an example for domestic courts in this regard. Others argue that the unique context within which international criminal courts and tribunals operate allows them, at times, to interpret the right to a fair trial in a way which falls below minimum international human rights standards. This article examines both of these positions and finds both to be problematic. Rather, the article argues that international criminal courts and tribunals should aim for a middle path, the ‘fair enough’ standard, when interpreting the right to a fair trial. In situations where a different standard than that found within international human rights law is applied, international criminal courts and tribunals should expend greater effort in being open and clear as to why this is so, and should take care in communicating this to their audience, including victims and the accused. By doing so, the legitimacy of their decision-making will be enhanced.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document