Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Impacts of the ACTION program:• Offenders find it easier to follow court orders; 90 percentreported that the ACTION Center information increasedtheir ability to comply with their case disposition.• Compared with 2003, the number of services providedby the center in 2005 increased by 72 percent; theamount of revenue collected increased by 87 percent.• In 2006, the staff serviced more than 25,000 court usersand collected more than $1.5 million in fees and fines.• Freed from having to manage service delivery, the courtcan now process cases more efficiently: in fiscal year2005–2006, the court disposed of 40 percent more casesthan in the year before the center opened.CONCLUSIONCalifornia is the largest court system in the nation and oneof the most innovative. The two programs highlighted aboveare just samples of ongoing endeavors in the state designed tomeet court user needs and address procedural fairness concerns.As we move forward with the procedural fairness initiativein California, we will not only continue to build tools for judicialofficers and court staff to better understand and implementthe elements of procedural fairness, but will also highlight andleverage the good work that is currently taking place withinthe branch. There is a possibility for collaboration with otherstates that also are looking for the best way to implement proceduralfairness concepts to benefit the public and the courts.“I just want to be treated the same, like you treat anybodyelse that has money. . . . You got a tie, I don’t. I’m still a man, ahuman being.” The court user in a focus group who said thiswas responding to a question presented at the conclusion ofeach court user focus group: “Before we adjourn, is there anythingelse you’d like to say about how the California courtsmight be improved?” His answer—a clear and simple requestto be treated as an equal within the courts no matter hisincome or appearance—resonates with procedural fairnessconcerns and reflects the goals of the initiative. Indeed, thecourts of California are listening to the public. The branch isworking to ensure that everyone who enters our courts istreated with dignity and respect and that all members of thepublic are given a meaningful opportunity to be heard.Douglas G. Denton (A.B. Economics,University of California at Berkeley) is a seniorcourt services analyst at the CaliforniaAdministrative Office of the Courts, SanFrancisco (douglas.denton@jud.ca.gov). Hewould like to acknowledge the following peoplefor their invaluable assistance: the members ofthe Judicial Council of California, includingChief Justice Ronald M. George, Assistant Presiding Judge JamieA. Jacobs-May, Assistant Presiding Judge Charles W. McCoy, Jr.,and Mr. William C. Vickrey, the Administrative Director of theCourts in California; Mr. Ronald G. Overholt, Chief DeputyDirector; Mr. Kenneth L. Kann, Director; Ms. Dianne Bolotte,Assistant Director; Professor Tom R. Tyler; Dr. David B. Rottmanand the National Center for State Courts; Dr. Brenda J.Wagenknecht-Ivey; Judge Kevin Burke; Judge Steve Leben; theCenter for Court Innovation; the dedicated members of theCalifornia judicial branch; and staff at the AOC, particularly Mr.John A. Larson and the Promising and Effective Programs team.54 Court Review - Volume 44
Court Review Author Submission GuidelinesCourt Review, the quarterly journal of the American JudgesAssociation, invites the submission of unsolicited, original articles,essays, and book reviews. Court Review seeks to provide practical,useful information to the working judges of the United States andCanada. In each issue, we hope to provide information that will beof use to judges in their everyday work, whether in highlighting newprocedures or methods of trial, court, or case management, providingsubstantive information regarding an area of law likely toencountered by many judges, or by providing background information(such as psychology or other social science research) that can beused by judges in their work.Court Review is received by the 2,500 members of the AmericanJudges Association (AJA), as well as many law libraries. About 40percent of the members of the AJA are general-jurisdiction, state trialjudges. Another 40 percent are limited-jurisdiction judges, includingmunicipal court and other specialized court judges. The remainderinclude federal trial judges, state and federal appellate judges,and administrative-law judges.Articles: Articles should be submitted in double-spaced text withfootnotes, preferably in Word format (although WordPerfect formatcan also be accepted). The suggested article length for Court Reviewis between 18 and 36 pages of double-spaced text (including thefootnotes). Footnotes should conform to the current edition of TheBluebook: A Uniform System of Citation. Articles should be of a qualityconsistent with better-state-bar-association law journals and/orother law reviews.Essays: Essays should be submitted in the same format as articles.Suggested length is between 6 and 12 pages of double-spaced text(including any footnotes).Book Reviews: Book reviews should be submitted in the same formatas articles. Suggested length is between 3 and 9 pages of double-spacedtext (including any footnotes).Pre-commitment: For previously published authors, we will considermaking a tentative publication commitment based upon anarticle outline. In addition to the outline, a comment about the specificways in which the submission will be useful to judges and/oradvance scholarly discourse on the subject matter would be appreciated.Final acceptance for publication cannot be given until a completedarticle, essay, or book review has been received and reviewedby the Court Review editor or board of editors.Editing: Court Review reserves the right to edit all manuscripts.Submission: Submissions may be made either by mail or e-mail.Please send them to Court Review’s editors: Judge Steve Leben, 301S.W. 10th Ave., Suite 278, Topeka, Kansas 66612, email address:sleben@ix.netcom.com; or Professor Alan Tomkins, 215 CentennialMall South, Suite 401, PO Box 880228, Lincoln, Nebraska 68588-0228, email address: atomkins@nebraska.edu. Submissions will beacknowledged by mail; letters of acceptance or rejection will be sentfollowing review.Court Review - Volume 44 55
Page 1 and 2: Court ReviewVolume 44, Issu
Page 3 and 4: Court ReviewT H E J O U R N A L O F
Page 5 and 6: A WHITE PAPER OF THE AMERICAN JUDGE
Page 7: nomenon exists. 6 Thus, procedural
Page 10 and 11: THE PUBLIC EXPANDS THEIR KNOWLEDGE
Page 12 and 13: ception of the courts as long as pe
Page 14 and 15: or also because they are more famil
Page 16 and 17: PERCEPTIONS OF PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS
Page 18 and 19: up to the courtroom, but also the w
Page 20 and 21: 3. Judicial education must include
Page 22 and 23: Society Faculty Working Papers, Pap
Page 24 and 25: ABOUT THE AMERICAN JUDGES ASSOCIATI
Page 26 and 27: from outcomes and toward the proced
Page 28 and 29: courts are based heavily upon evalu
Page 30 and 31: Providing people with information a
Page 32 and 33: compared to traditional court proce
Page 34 and 35: judges, if procedural fairness is e
Page 36 and 37: Commission on Children in Foster Ca
Page 38 and 39: Several of the court attenders expr
Page 40 and 41: prior experience with the legal sys
Page 42 and 43: Vicky Weisz is a Research Professor
Page 44 and 45: emerged as the strongest predictor
Page 46 and 47: CONFERENCE OF STATECOURT ADMINSTRAT
Page 48 and 49: The resourceguide... willcontain ef
Page 50 and 51: [T]he AOC willbe better able toiden
Page 54 and 55: The Perceptions ofSelf-Represented
Page 56 and 57: APPEARANCE OUTCOMEStipulation*Stipu
Page 58 and 59: TABLE 8: SATISFACTION WITH COURT EX
Page 60 and 61: Decision Makers andDecision Recipie
Page 62 and 63: [Judges']proceduralfairness andoutc
Page 64 and 65: Study 3 isimportant becauseit demon
Page 66 and 67: [O]ur questions toparticipantsinclu
Page 68 and 69: addition, Fairness Heuristic Theory
Page 70 and 71: dural justice can obscure the equal
Page 72 and 73: economic loss based on a variety of
Page 74 and 75: doubt that aspirations for, and sat
Page 76 and 77: proposed conditions, in the judge c
Page 78 and 79: ole optimally, procedural fairness

Special Issue on Procedural Fairness - American Judges Association

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?