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.     

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.     

Drug Court as Both a Legal and Medical Authority

This article explores how addiction is conceptualized in a drug court program. Through observations and interviews in a drug court in a large northeastern city, the author reveals how the court uses ambiguous and inconsistent medicalized language to describe addiction, extending the label of addiction to behaviors not just associated with using drugs, but with selling drugs as well. Ultimately, drug courts incorporate a medicalized notion of addiction to further their own control over drug-related issues, since they become the authority of both the client's treatment and their punishment.     

Co‐Occurring Disorders in Treatment‐Based Courts: Results of a National Survey

Drug courts and mental health courts have expanded rapidly in the past several decades to provide more efficient coordination of treatment and supervision of offenders with behavioral health problems. A significant number of offenders in these court‐based programs have co‐occurring mental and substance use disorders, which predict early termination, relapse, rearrest, and other negative outcomes. A web‐based national survey examined programmatic adaptations for co‐occurring disorders (CODs) among 54 drug courts, mental health courts, and freestanding COD dockets. COD dockets were smaller and of longer duration, and provided more intensive services than programs situated in drug courts or in mental health courts. However, more similarities than differences were noted across the different types of court‐based program. Key adaptations for CODs included extended program duration, highly intensive and integrated treatment, smaller, less formal, and more frequent hearings, and use of specialized supervision teams and dually credentialed staff. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Jewish Courts in Medieval England

Basing their conclusions on Latin documents, historians have painted the Jewish courts of medieval England as limited and haphazard affairs, their jurisdiction limited mostly to family law. They have also assumed that rabbinic courts ceased their activity in England after 1242. Hebrew rabbinic sources from the same period—some of which have never been published—provide more detailed information. These sources describe several professional courts staffed by learned scholars and adjudicating a range of legal issues. These courts existed throughout the thirteenth century—until the Expulsion of 1290—and included some of the leading rabbis in medieval England: Benjamin of Cambridge, Moses of London, and Moses’s son Elijah Menahem. The London court of Rabbi Elijah Menahem in particular possessed significant powers and utilized Elijah’s royal connections to enforce its rulings. Besides correcting the scholarly perception of rabbinic courts in medieval England, this article demonstrates how crucially important rabbinic texts and responsa are for historians as a source alongside other types of medieval documentation.     

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.     

The Failure of the Bona Fide Occupational Qualification in Cross‐Gender Prison Guard Cases: A Problem beyond Equal Employment Opportunity

Knowing the theory of gender that a court is using to understand and assess the issues in a case is vital to ensuring that women are afforded their full rights under the law. Unfortunately, courts often do not explicitly state what understanding of gender is informing their decisions. An exception is found in employment law: specifically, the bona fide occupational qualification (BFOQ) exception to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, which allows employers to engage in sex‐based discrimination in those instances in which the sex of the employee is a reasonably necessary qualification for the job. In these cases, because the court must analyze how “manness” or “womanness” impacts one's qualification to hold certain kinds of employment, the court must articulate its understanding of gender. This paper examines two BFOQ cases in the cross‐gender prison guard context, those cases in which an individual of one sex seeks to guard inmates of the opposite sex. In these cases the courts created a theory of gender that posits men and women as different in kind. The theory developed in this line of cases is an attack on Title VII protections and a potential barrier to women's equality under the law.     

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.     

Federal District Court Decision Making in Public Forum and Religious Speech Cases, 1973–2001

This article investigates federal district court decision making in First Amendment lawsuits concerning religious expression and public forums. As trial courts, district courts are the first to adjudicate claims concerning religious speech in public places and thus they determine whether a public forum is open to expression in general, as well as grant or deny access to that forum for a religious speaker. With a comprehensive database of all district court cases concerning religious expression and public forum doctrine, we use logistic regression to measure the significance of several legal and extra-legal variables in order to explain district court outcomes.     

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.     

ASSESSING CONTENT VALIDITY: STANDARDS SET BY THE COURT1

Thirty-one court cases were reviewed in order to determine the standards set by the court in their assessment of the content validity of paper-and-pencil tests. The findings indicate that the courts have not acted upon a uniform set of standards. In some instances, tests are judged solely on the basis of their “face validity;” in others, extensive evidence is required. The discussion centered on the failure of the courts to consistently apply professionally developed selection guidelines. The implications for practitioners and psychologists were discussed.     

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.     

Integrating the criminal justice system into mental health service delivery: the worcester diversion experience

The substantial number of persons with mental illness encountered in many sectors of the criminal justice system has spurred actors from various agencies within that system to take actions aimed at reducing the growth of this population. These actions have included the development of specialty police units, jail diversion programs, and other mechanisms for channeling persons with mental illness out of the criminal justice system and into mental health treatment. The courts, too, have become involved in this effort with the recent development of the "mental health court," the latest of the "specialty" or "problem solving courts." These courts have not been without their critics, however, nor are they the only feasible approach to court-based diversion. This paper identifies and explores a range of options for structuring the relationship between criminal courts and local mental health systems. Beginning with a discussion of the rationale motivating the development of mental health courts, two alternatives to this specialty court model are discussed. One involves judges dealing with defendants having mental illness and substance abuse on a case-by-case basis. The other takes advantages of linkages that may already exist between most courts and the mental health providers who conduct their forensic assessments, expanding the role of these providers to serve as boundary spanners between courts and the components of local mental health systems. Regardless of the model adopted, however, appropriate linkages must exist between the courts and relevant providers. A case study is provided that demonstrates how the status of a locale's linkages can be evaluated and how the information derived from such evaluation can be used to improve the linkages between police, courts, and health and human services agencies.     

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.     

Influence of attentional focus on skilled motor performance: Performance decrement under unfamiliar focus conditions

Recent studies have demonstrated that the direction of attentional focus exerts a substantial influence on motor performance. We argue that in well-learned skills, this variable might be confounded with athletes’ familiarity with focus conditions. We studied the effect of familiarity and the direction of attentional focus on performance in two experiments using 2 (familiarity) × 2 (direction) within-subject designs. A significant main effect of familiarity—that is, better performance under familiar compared with unfamiliar focus conditions—confirmed the influence of familiarity on motor performance. Results are consistent with existing concepts, but lead to different consequences when applied to sport and exercise.     

The role of competency to stand trial in mental health courts

Concerns have been raised in the literature about the competency to stand trial and competency to make treatment decisions of defendants referred to mental health courts. However, there is little information reported about the evaluation and prevalence of incompetence, characteristics of incompetent mental health court defendants, and disposition of mentally ill defendants too disturbed to be diverted from the criminal justice system through mental health courts. This study reports on the 85 potential mental health court defendants referred for trial competency evaluations during the first three years of operation of the Akron Ohio Mental Health Court. Of the 80 defendants who could be located for evaluation, 77.5% were found incompetent, and 53% of the incompetent defendants were not restored to competence even after an average of 49 days of treatment in a state psychiatric hospital. The implications of these findings in terms of the diversion potential of mental health courts for the severely mentally ill are discussed.     

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.     

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.     

From victimhood to empowerment: Muslim women's narratives in the Shari'a courts of Jerusalem and Taibe

This study features the voices of women who sued their husbands in the Shari'a courts, revealing the empowerment that resulted from learning their legal rights. The stories of some two hundred Palestinian Muslim women who appealed to the Shari'a courts in Jerusalem and Taibe during the years 2000–2003 formed the basis of this study. The women came to the courts to claim material support (nafaqa) from their husbands and to demand child support (hadane). Four major reasons why these women sued their husbands in court emerged from their stories, revealing familial, social, economic and even political circumstances that impinged on their lives.     

From referral to disposition: case processing in seven mental health courts

The number of mental health courts in the United States is rapidly increasing, from one in 1997 to nearly 100 in 2004. However, to date there is comparatively little research regarding these specialty courts. The present study reports data on the referral and disposition decision-making processes of seven mental health courts. Information on all referrals to the seven courts over a three-month period was gathered. Results show that, in comparison with individuals involved in the criminal justice system, mental health court clients are more likely to be older, White, and women than individuals in the general criminal justice system. Furthermore, this over-representation occurs at the point of referral, rather than at the point of the court's decision to accept or reject a referral. In addition, the length of time from referral to diversion is much longer in these mental health courts than in other types of diversion programs. Implications of these findings are discussed.