Catalogue Search | MBRL
Are you sure you want to remove the book from the shelf?
{{itemTitle}}
133,637
result(s) for
"CRIMINOLOGY"
Sort by:
POLICE REFORM AS SYSTEM JUSTIFICATION
System Justification Theory (SJT) provides a useful lens through which to critique recent police reform efforts. SJT posits that members of society tend to justify and maintain existing social and political systems even when those systems disadvantage them, because the predictability of the status quo provides palliative, epistemic, and existential comfort in what otherwise appears to be an unjust and inequitable societal structure. Contrary to “false consciousness” theories, SJT claims that disadvantaged groups may intentionally rationalize what they know to be an unfair status quo, because doing so reduces social anxiety and threat while providing much desired order and meaning to structurally or systemically broken systems.
One such broken system—the American policing machine—continues to enjoy broad system justifying support from advantaged and disadvantaged groups alike, despite incontrovertible evidence of the system’s unfairness, ineffectiveness, and inefficiency. This contention may seem at odds with the fact that policing also receives among the most vocal and sustained criticism and calls for change of any stable political structure in the country. But it is those very “reforms” championed and implemented in recent years that proves the inherent desire to defend and maintain the status quo.
This Article provides two novel contributions to legal literature. First, it provides the first SJT-specific critique of policing and its ability to maintain itself, relatively unchanged, despite its long history of racialized violence and class exploitation. Second, it utilizes the SJT framework to explore how purported reforms to the policing status quo are designed to defend that status quo as fundamentally sound and fair. The two most heavily funded and implemented policing reforms since the Summer 2020 uprisings against police violence—procedural justice and predictive policing—serve not to transform the structure of policing by eliminating it or reducing its bias and exploitation, but to justify its inherent authority through the façade of objectivity. These reforms provide a veneer of legitimacy, making it easier to rationalize the unchanged and unjust status quo. At root, SJT reveals that defenses of policing rarely derive from logic or facts, but from deep-seated psychological needs to perceive the world as orderly, safe, and fair. Recognizing these motivations is key to fostering productive dialogue about true transformative change.
Journal Article
SACRED VICTIMS
In this essay, we update and expand David Baldus’s famous study of Georgia homicides in the 1970s to uncover the impact of the race and sex of homicide victims on whether a defendant was sentenced to death and ultimately executed. We show that the odds of a death sentence were sixteen times greater if the victim was a White woman than if the victim was a Black man, even when other factors that might explain the disparity were taken into account. Furthermore, we identified a clear hierarchy among victims with regard to whether a death sentence was ultimately carried out. Among the defendants who were sent to death row for killing a White woman, 30% were executed. But the share drops to 19% if the victim was a White man, 10% if the victim was a Black woman, and 0% if the victim was a Black man. We then use contemporary, nationwide Supplemental Homicide Report (SHR) data to show that the effect we identified in Georgia in the 1970s generalizes to the nation as a whole and to the present day. We argue that these disparities, which cannot be explained by factors extrinsic to the victim’s race and sex, are further evidence that the ultimate question ofwho lives and dies in our criminal justice system remains unconstitutionally tainted by outdated notions of chivalry and White supremacy.
Journal Article
DOES A LAWYER MAKE A DIFFERENCE? A STUDY ON THE SENTENCING OF DEATH-ELIGIBLE DRUG OFFENDERS IN CHINA
Does legal representation affect critical judicial decisions? This Article highlights a paradox at the heart of the court sentencing processes used for death-eligible drug offenders in China. On the one hand, lawyers are regarded as a staple of due process. On the other, court decisions are insensitive to the availability (whether drug offenders have access to legal assistance) and the quality (the varieties and the conditions of legal services provided by private versus court-appointed attorneys) of legal representation. I argue that this perplexing contradiction derives from the institutional alienation of criminal lawyers in China, a theory containing three main dimensions: power deficit, identity confliction, andprocedural-based legitimacy. The defense lawyer has little power to determine capital drug sentencing decisions; at the same time, criminal defense lawyers are unable to fully realize themselves in their professional activities. They are used as instruments to advance bureaucratic and political interests and are therefore exposed to impoverished and instrumental relationships with judicial institutions and their own activities. This paradox—the insignificance of differences—takes place in China’s non-adversarial judicial settings and its authoritarian political environment. It is differentiated but connected with a paradox between eradicating inequality and providing adequate assistance to the most marginalized defendants in adversarial criminal justice systems. This Article adopts mixed research methods, including qualitative interviews of legal professionals across China and quantitative measures based on a regression analysis of national-level (N = 10,132) and provincial-specific (N = 3,955) samples of court judgments.
Journal Article
JUDICIAL RESISTANCE TO NEW YORK’S 2020 CRIMINAL LEGAL REFORMS
This Article seeks to examine judicial opposition to New York’s 2020 criminal justice reforms in the context of existing scholarship on judicial organizational culture to understand why judicial obstruction occurs and how it can be addressed. New York’s 2020 criminal legal reforms sought to reduce pretrial detention and to provide greater access to discovery for the defense by curtailing judicial discretion to set bail and judicial power to excuse prosecutorial discovery delays. But judges opposed the law both surreptitiously and openly through defiant opinions, administrative adjustments, and routine court actions that undercut the reforms’ intended effects.
Scholars such as Malcolm Feeley, Brian Ostrom, and Roger Hanson have written about how the informal organizational culture of a court system can be an impediment to reforms. Their analysis applies to New York’s 2020 reforms and provides insight into why this specific resistance occurred and how it can be addressed. The judiciary was included in planning and discussing the 2020 reforms and the reforms sought to remove judicial discretion in the matters of bail and discovery. Yet when it came time to implement the change, judges used other powers to avoid releasing individuals and to avoid sanctioning prosecutors.
This is at least partially due to New York’s judicial appointment scheme which makes the judiciary sensitive to structural narratives concerning public safety and court leniency. Although these reforms were democratic and popular, judges were not sufficiently incentivized to properly implement the changes. If reforms are to succeed, the popular and political will to pass the reforms must extend beyond the passage of the law and must also create mechanisms to scrutinize, guide, and support the judiciary’s implementation of the law.
Journal Article