Communicating Justice: Shari‘a Courts and the Christian Community in Seventeenth- and Eighteenth-Century Ottoman Greece

Using Shari‘a court records from Ottoman Salonica and Karaferye, this paper examines the nature of justice as articulated by the state and judges vis à vis Christians. As arbiters of local and state/local relations, the courts were responsible for defining and promoting the state's desire for social harmony, efficiency, and order at the local level while also overseeing the rights and obligations of local populations vis à vis state and local officials. The paper examines the standards of evidence and legal reasoning employed by judges and the relationship between religious law and state law, particularly in the realm of criminal justice. Furthermore, in a bid to assess Christian familiarity with the workings of the law, the paper explores how and when Christians used the courts and the strategies employed by them in the court setting. Ultimately, the Shari‘a courts provided a public forum for strengthening communal networks and resolving disputes between Christians and between Muslims and Christians.     

Sharʿī norms and German Schools: Court Challenges to Participation in Swimming Lessons,School Trips and Sex Education

ABSTRACT

This article examines the treatment by German courts, from the early 1970s to 2016, of requests made by Muslims to be exempted from school activities for religious reasons. Based on a qualitative reading of 72 court rulings, the article demonstrates a shift in the courts’ decision-making, from initially tolerating Muslim requests for exemption to firmly denying them. Arguments from the court rulings are substantiated by an analysis of the public discourse on Muslims in German schools. The results suggest that the transformation of court attitudes corresponded with the rise of broader concerns about multiculturalism and manifestations of Islam in the public sphere, the liberalization of gender norms, and increasing secularism within German society. The article further demonstrates that, contrary to public perception, requests for exemptions from school activities were not a distinctly Muslim phenomenon. Christian families have challenged school activities in a similar way.     

The Politics of Judicial Public Reason: Secular Interests and Religious Rights

This paper seeks a better understanding of the role of public reason in alimenting or defusing religious conflicts by looking at how courts apply it in deciding cases arising out of them. Recent scholarship and judicial decisions suggest, paradoxically, that courts can be biased towards either the secular or the religious. This risks alienating both religious majorities and religious and secular minorities. Judicial public reason is uniquely equipped to protect minorities, and its costs to religious majorities may be mitigated by accepting religious morality and identity claims in the political and legislative realm. Despite the political fragilities of judicial public reason, it is not intrinsically hostile to religious claims. It ought in fact to be fully equipped to recognize the equality and religious freedom rights that religious groups and individuals might assert in pursuing exemptions from general secular laws. Judicial public reason does have the potential to defuse religious conflicts, however much it falls short in practice.     

Religious freedom and cultural asymmetry: Some pitfalls of secularism

ABSTRACT

Disputes concerning state interference in the religious practices and traditions of citizens have created uproar in public debate in India and Europe during the past decades. The contributors to this colloquium on Europe, India, and the Limits of Secularism point to the importance of two domains in addressing these disputes: the comparative study of court decisions and the budding domain of comparative political theory. In this response, I discuss several issues that emerge from these domains and argue that the problem of cultural asymmetry continues to create major pitfalls in the debates on secularism and religious freedom.     

A satisfied clientele seeking more diverse services: Latinos and the courts

This article assesses Latino views of the court system, both of their beliefs about the courts and their experiences with the courts. Relying primarily on the Latino over-sample of the National Center for State Courts (2000) survey of public attitudes toward the courts, we evaluate three aspects of the Latino-judicial relationship. First, we measure whether there are differences between Latino and non-Latino views of the courts. Second, we assess whether there are differences within the Latino community, particularly differences based on nativity, in Latino attitudes toward the courts. Finally, we assess the implications of Latino views of the courts for US society in general. We are particularly concerned about whether having a greater share of Latinos in the population will create new pressures to reform the judiciary.     

Methodological, ethical, and legal considerations in drug court research

Since their inception in the late 1980s, drug courts have become the most prevalent specialty court in the United States. A large body of outcome research conducted over the past two decades has demonstrated that drug courts effectively reduce drug use and criminal recidivism, which has led to the rapid proliferation of these courts. Importantly, drug court research has flourished despite the many challenges faced by researchers when working with a vulnerable population of justice-involved substance users. In this article, we highlight the most common methodological, ethical, and legal challenges encountered in drug court research, and discuss ways in which researchers can overcome these challenges to conduct high-quality research. Drug court research exemplifies how rigorous empirical investigation can be accomplished in the criminal justice system, and it can serve as a useful model for researchers working in other parts of the judicial system.     

Families in court: will a family court do it better?

Family-related case filings in the civil courts, including juvenile matters, exceed 7,000,000 filings annually. These cases typically are handled in several different trial courts. Reform proposals would create a unified family court, with broad jurisdiction over child and family matters. Family court proponents anticipate benefits of greater judicial continuity with a family, better informed jurists and judicial decisions, more client comfort, and better coordinated intervention services. This article reviews present court handling of family-related cases and proceeds to describe family court developments in the states. It then presents each of the potential benefits, discussing the problems they're intended to overcome and the approaches courts are using or might use to achieve these benefits. The author supports the family court direction, while recognizing the paucity of family court evaluation. More assessment is encouraged. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Legal briefing: Healthcare ethics committees

This issue's "Legal Briefing" column covers recent legal developments involving institutional healthcare ethics committees. This topic has been the subject of recent articles in JCE. Healthcare ethics committees have also recently been the subject of significant public policy attention. Disturbingly, Bobby Schindler and others have described ethics committees as "death panels." But most of the recent attention has been positive. Over the past several months, legislatures and courts have expanded the use of ethics committees and clarified their roles concerning both end-of-life treatment and other issues. These developments are usefully grouped into the following eight categories: 1. Existence and availability. 2. Membership and composition. 3. Operating procedures. 4. Advisory roles. 5. Decision-making and gate-keeping roles. 6. Confidentiality. 7. Immunity. 8. Litigation and court cases.     

Generational and age-based differences in attitudes towards jury service

Analysis of surveys of jurors, potential jurors, and the general public show significant differences in attitudes towards jury service by the age of the respondent. This study analyzes the degree to which these differences are the result of generational effects, in which younger citizens are likely to continue in their beliefs about jury service as they age, and the degree to which they are a result of a respondent's life circumstances-income, employment status, or family status-and are thus not likely to be carried with jurors as they age. The article shows that, while there are differences in confidence in the courts by age group, younger jurors are more confident in their own abilities to serve well as jurors but more skeptical of the court as a whole; most differences in attitudes towards jury service are linked to life-cycle phenomena. As such, courts should work to provide assistance to particular age groups within the jury pool, including child care and appropriate compensation, if they are to attract jurors who are representative by age of the general public.     

Bin Laden is one of us! Representations of religious identity at the Parliament of the World's Religions

In July 2004 the fourth Parliament of the World's Religions took place in Barcelona. As with previous modern sessions, the Barcelona event was inspired by the original Parliament, which famously took place in Chicago in 1893. This paper examines the idea of the Parliament as a significant forum for the public representation of religious identity in global context. One way this was expressed in 2004 was in relation to political violence. As one delegate exclaimed rhetorically, ‘Bin Laden is one of us!’ This anxious rhetoric highlighted the problem of how to represent religious identity in the contemporary world. Who is included and who excluded from the global community of the religious? By drawing comparison with the 1893 Parliament, the paper argues that representational strategies deployed at the 2004 Parliament demonstrate the tensions and potential ruptures that confront the idea of religious identity in the context of late modernity.     

Confidence in the courts: a comparison of users and non-users

Much work has been done on the correlates of confidence in the United States Supreme Court. However, very little research has been undertaken to discern the correlates of confidence in state and local courts. Using survey data from Louisiana, we examine confidence in state and local courts. We focus on the role of experience, arguing that the opportunity for wide participation in these courts makes the confidence calculation different from that of a remote institution like the US Supreme Court. We find that, indeed, experience matters and further, that type of experience matters. Those with more stake in the outcome of the court case and less control over it (e.g., defendants) are least confident in state and local courts, while those with little stake and substantial control (e.g., jurors) are most confident in them. Procedural justice concerns also loom large in the confidence calculation for these lower courts. Timeliness, courtesy, and equal treatment all affect public confidence.     

Energy expenditure and enjoyment of small-sided soccer games in overweight boys

When space is limited, it would be preferable to play multiple small-sided soccer games (SSG) simultaneously on small courts, rather than a single game, to maximise participation. Given that the layouts of most gymnasiums incorporate several badminton courts, we examined whether energy expenditure and enjoyment of SSG on a badminton court (6.1 × 13.4 m) were comparable to larger court dimensions (volleyball and basketball courts; 9 × 18 m and 14.2 × 26.5 m, respectively). Twelve overweight boys played 30 min three-a-side SSG on each court in a counterbalanced design. During SSG, energy expenditure was estimated via accelerometry, heart rate was monitored and ratings of perceived exertion (RPE) and enjoyment were obtained. Energy expenditure was similar between badminton and volleyball courts, but lower than the basketball court (p < .05). Mean% HR_max was significantly lower on the badminton court than the volleyball and basketball courts (p < .05). There was no effect of court size on RPE or enjoyment (p > .05). These results suggest that it may be preferable to play SSG on a larger court when space is available. Alternatively, when space is limited the difference in energy expenditure between court sizes can be accounted for by an additional 2.3 min of play on a badminton court.     

The study of American religions: critical reflections on a specialization

This essay introduces a special forum on the study of American religions. The essays in the forum consider what role, if any, the discipline of religious studies plays in shaping work within one area of specialization. This introduction attempts to place the issues raised by the contributors within the context of debates about the status of religious studies in the wake of critiques of sui generis approaches to the study of religion. In different ways, the essays argue that some kind of critical theoretical reflection is necessary for religious studies to make sense as a discipline.     

Exploring the Why of Psychologist Misconduct and Malpractice: A Thematic Analysis of Court Decision Documents

Objective: To identify reasons for misconduct and misconduct amongst Australian psychologists. Method: During the 5‐year period from 2008 to 2013, 42 psychologists across 41 cases were found guilty of misconduct and malpractice by civil and administrative courts across Australia. The court decision documents were analysed using Braun and Clarke’s ( 2006 ) qualitative methodology to explore themes relating to the court’s objective, the psychologist’s subjective, and the authors’ interpretive causal reasons transgressing psychologists engaged in misconduct and malpractice. Results: Explanations given by psychologists for misconduct and malpractice behaviours included the use and abuse of legal and illicit substances, addiction behaviours, and impairment due to mental disorder or unresolved trauma. A number of other reasons identified by the courts and by the authors from the evidence cited in the published court decision documents are also discussed. Possible contributing factors for why misconduct and malpractice behaviours occurred coalesced into three themes: the externalisation of responsibility for personal actions and behaviours, a lack of objectivity concerning why such behaviours occurred, and an inability to understand how personal circumstance affected the provision of ethical services to clients. Conclusion: (a) The complexity of situations and scenarios surrounding psychologist malpractice can be simplified for the benefit of designing interventions by applying Glass’ ( 2003 ) concept of the “slippery slope.” (b) Court records have benefit as detailed data, but could be augmented for greater value with a simple and easily completed additional coversheet of background and demographic data.     

Therapeutic jurisprudence in the courts

Therapeutic jurisprudence is an emerging field of law and social science inquiry that explores the role of the law in fostering therapeutic or antitherapeutic outcomes. This article considers the relationship between therapeutic jurisprudence and court performance goals, examines applications of therapeutic jurisprudence in court settings, discusses the steps involved in incorporating therapeutic jurisprudence principles into the work of courts, outlines the pros and cons associated with practicing therapeutic jurisprudence primarily in specialized courts, and offers suggestions for fostering continued experimentation by courts.     

Examining changes in procedural justice and their influence on problem‐solving court outcomes

The number of problem‐solving courts has grown substantially since the mid‐1990s. Research consistently indicates that participation in these courts lowers recidivism, which is often attributed to defendants’ increased perceptions of procedural justice in these programs. Yet, prior studies are limited in their focus, often examining interactions with the judge in a single court or examining defendant perceptions and outcomes at a single time point. In the present study, we investigate defendant perceptions of procedural justice with judges and case managers across multiple problem‐solving courts over time. Findings indicate that procedural justice varies across court actors and over time. Procedural justice is lower among judges than among case managers; however, changes in perceptions of procedural justice with the judge are associated with improved court outcomes. We suggest that defendant perceptions are variable and complex but important in explaining variations in outcomes.     

Why Did God Make Me This Way? Religious Coping and Framing in the Virtuous Pedophile Community

“Virtuous Pedophiles” (or VPs) have a sexual attraction to children but view child/adult sexual relations as wrong. Research on VPs is nascent but has theoretical importance for our understanding of sexuality, labeling, and extreme stigma. Their relevance is particularly acute in regard to religious coping and framing. As their primary stressor is a predisposition towards a highly stigmatized (or “sinful”) activity, religious VPs find themselves in a unique situation, and it is unknown to what extent they employ conventional religious coping mechanisms. I investigate how VPs use their religious frameworks to make sense of and react to their pedophilia with a survey of respondents recruited from an online VP forum, a content analysis of forum discussions, and several in‐depth, semistructured interviews. Religious VPs tend to employ the same basic religious coping mechanisms (both positive and negative) but customize their approaches to accommodate their unique situation. Positive and negative religious coping show the same relationships with mental health as found in other populations. Religiosity is associated with both lower mental distress as well as less cognitive distortions associated with sexual offending.     

Custody Disputes and Alternative Religions in the Courts of England and Wales

The courts in England and Wales have repeatedly claimed that they occupy a position of religious neutrality when faced with a case involving parties from two differing religions. While this assertion may well be true, when established, traditional religions are involved, it does not appear to be so clear cut, when one of the religions could be described as a ‘new religious movement’ or an ‘alternative religion’. Perhaps the most telling area of law in which to examine the courts’ alleged neutrality is in custody disputes in family law, as it is in these cases that the religious practices of the parents have sometimes become a factor in the case and judges have been more likely to express their opinion of such religious practices. This article analyses the approach of judges to such disputes and demonstrates that the judges tend to maintain a bias towards Judaeo-Christian morality.     

Bringing the behavioral sciences to the law: Tell it to the judge or talk to your legislator?

The empirical data generated by behavioral scientists is frequently targeted for presentation in courts in order to influence decision making. However, legislative bodies, rather than the courts, may be the most appropriate forum to consider such evidence. This article discusses the comparative reception of social science evidence in judicial versus legislative arenas.     

Insulting the sacred in a multicultural society: the conviction of Jussi Halla-aho under the Finnish religious insult section

This article analyses the most well-known and legally important contemporary Finnish religious insult case: the case of the politician Jussi Halla-aho. Concluded in 2012, the said legal process resulted in a conviction due to Halla-aho’s blog post about Islam and its sacred figures. Using a discursive framing, the article argues that the contemporary religious insult cases can, in fact, be political struggles involving various interests in a multicultural society. Building on broadly Durkheimian theorisation of the sacred, it also argues, that besides the Islamic objects set apart as sacred in the process, ‘secular’ ideals or values, such as the public order, tolerance, equality, and freedom of religion are also constructed as such and protected by the officials. By protecting Islam, the courts, in fact, aimed to protect a ‘secular sacred order’ against societal threats.