Justice Exam #2

Important Cases

Lawrence vs. Texas (2003)

Due process used to strike down sodomy laws

Intimate sexual contact protected by 14th amendment

Commonwealth vs Mochan (1955)

Common law misdemeanors upheld, but now mostly abolished

Papachristou vs. Jacksonville FL (1972)

Vagrancy ordinance was too broad to give average person warning, led to arbitrary enforcement

City of Chicago vs. Morales (1999)

Gang loitering ordinance - could not be applied constitutionally, and discretion was too broad for PD

Robinson vs. California (1962)

Can't punish for status, need actus reus

Powell vs. Texas (1968)

Crime requires act, not intent - could have been drunk at home, so not a status offense

Ewing vs. California (2003)

Upholds 3 strikes laws as not C&U, not grossly disproportionate sentence when taking criminal history into account.

Clark vs. Arizona (2006)

Thought cop was alien - upholds constitutionality of insanity defense.

People vs. Berry (1976)

Cooling off period - adequate provocation can be used to downgrade murder to manslaughter

Terry vs. Ohio (1968)

Stop and frisk OK with reasonable suspicion

US vs. Jones (2012)

GPS tracking equates to 4th amend. search

Yanta case

Riley vs. California (2014) - not done yet

Can a cell phone be searched as part of an arrest ?

Procedural Justice

Tyler & Blader (2003)

When govn't reps seen as more legit, ppl more likely to comply with law

Rules themselves & process of implementing decisions should be seen as fair

Many aspects of how people feel they have been treated, listened to, respected through process

Murphy (2009)

Legitimacy + satisfaction = willingness to cooperate with PD

Most important when police initiate contact

Prediction - Bail Decision

Goals of bail

Ensure appearance of defendant (integrity of court)

Safety

Preventive detention / incapacitation

Retribution - just keep them off the street

Equitable treatment for similar situations

Prosecutors maintain credibility with court

US vs. Salerno (1987)

Constitutional to incapacitate with bail if you can show person is a danger

3 main options - preventive detention with high bail, regular bail, or release on recognizance

High risk for judge is releasing offender with serious crime, even though they are lowest risk to re-offend - political consequences

Info available to make decision

Current charge

Criminal history

Maybe some SES if lucky

Most of these have been show to have little to no predictive power - much stronger link to length of time to trial

Spohn (2009)

Guidelines are generally used to make system more equitable/consistent. For bail and sentencing.

Goldkamp & Gottfredson (1985)

First run at Philly bail guidelines

Charge and criminal record were criteria used before guidelines

Showed best idea is to shorten time between arrest and trial

Goldkamp et. al. (1995)

Redo of 1985

Brought judges into process

there was inter and intra-judge disparity

goal to reduce disparity and jail overcrowding

Developed voluntary guidelines - deviations justified in writing to provide feedback and refine grid

statistical limitations

missing data

low base rate

Goldkamp and Vilicia (2009)

Follow up to 1995 guidelines

Guidelines largely ignored

didn't use without political pressure or impending lawsuits

Feedback process was not maintained which would have helped

Could eliminate cash bail as an option, but that would remove the judges' safety net

CJ & Public Health

Wood & Beierschmitt (2014)

Police often serve as front line mental health workers

Best resolution is to move upstream

Steadman et al (2000)

PD are gatekeepers of mental health system and street corner psychiatrists

Morabito et al (2008)

Police feel this is outside of their expertise - lack of training

Leads to mercy booking

Need wider focus than just what police can do

Shared rules of engagement for invoking city services

Hotspots of vulnerability - data driven deployment

Look at repeat users across PD and mental health systems

Case management and place management

Gottfredson & Gottfredson (1988) Framework for Decision Making

Three big forces in CJ decisions

Seriousness of offense

Prior criminal record

More attention and resources to longer histories

Relationship between victim and offender

Likelihood to report, be arrested, and serve lengthy prison time

Problem of prediction is omnipresent in CJ system

At every point, decision makers lack feedback

About how similar decisions have been made in the past

Info about the consequences of the choice