犯罪学与刑事司法

Report
美国刑事司法政策与实证研究
体制,成效,困惑和期待
何霓 博士 副院长
犯罪学与刑事司法学院
东北大学 波士顿 美国
第一节
美国刑事司法实证研究体制
长春 国家检察官学院分院2011年暑期研讨会讲稿
西方国家为何重视实证科学?
蕴含公平/公正
科学方法的发展和运用
对宗教信仰的挑战
把对客观事实的重视当作民主意识的体现
在法治国家里单依个人主观意识/信仰/价值观来制定政策无法自圆其说
维护政府/政策合法性的需要:被视为中立的客观数据可以用来指导实践和帮
助决策者应对立法执法不公的指责
社会本身变成了可统计的变量,比如:
各项衡量社会/社区的指标 (经济状况;人口/种族分布;选区规划;议
员名额;政府各项拨款等等)相互关联
对犯罪和自杀的简单统计曾被用来衡量“社会道德失范”
西方对犯罪率(1830起)和失业率(1900起)的计算/计录将相对孤立的
个人不幸置于社会公责的考虑范畴
以资源(广义)分配来衡量公平正义
如何科学实证?(1)
鉴定是否科学实证的基本要件:测量(概念),检验(理
论),证伪(结果)
对科学实证过程的描述:
“It may be defined as a systematic search for the most
accurate and complete description and explanation of events,
relying on the principles of empiricism, objectivity,
tentativeness, skepticism, ethical neutrality, parsimony, and at
least a modified determinism as guides.”
实证研究主要方法:问卷、观察、访谈、文件分析,案例、
试验,综合统计分析 (通常需要多种方法并用)
如何科学实证?图释(2)
如何科学实证?(3)
一位中国法学教授2010年访美时的个人总结:
中国法学界对实证研究的认识:已觉醒但未觉悟
主要不足之处:
知识结构单一。专业知识片面,缺乏整体刑事法的概念;
方法论的单一。仅注重规范分析和价值拷问,对命题的纯粹论证
等等;
发现问题的意识培养不够;
实务实践参与太少,书本的背诵和闭门造车。
我加一句:
•研究体制和高水准实证研究人才的缺乏
•法学教育中科学的成分不足
犯罪学与刑事司法:实证研究专业人才的摇篮(1)
(大)犯罪学研究范畴包括: making of law(立法); breaking of law(小犯罪学
主要研究违法/犯罪); and reacting to the breaking of law(执法)。
因犯罪学与刑事司法紧密相连,美国许多(非法学)院系以两者共同命名,
并成为集社会学,法学,政治学,经济学,哲学,心理学和生理学等多学科的专
业。
美国的犯罪学与刑事司法作为独立的领域始于60年代末。曾饱受社会学与
法学专业人士的排挤。
美国现有近千个犯罪学与/或刑事司法本科项目,近五百个硕士项目,近五
十个博士授予点。
美国东北大学犯罪学与刑事司法研究生院以犯罪学与司法政策研究为主
旨。暂时与宾大,佛罗里达大学,亚利桑纳州大并列全国第十二名。
犯罪学与刑事司法: 实证研究专业人才的摇篮(2)
与欧洲大陆法系的国家不同,美国的犯罪学/刑事司法专业独立于法学院之
外。两者课程设置与就业目标大相径庭。法学院一般不教授实证研究方
法。犯罪学/刑事司法专业从本科到博士都将实证研究方法列为必修课之
一。不过一些美国法学院会雇用统计专家以助师生研究所需。也有不少
JD/PhD双料法学或刑事司法教授。
个人观点:北美,西欧,北欧,东欧,澳洲的犯罪学基本上以社会学为主
流。南欧学者对以心理学和生理学为主的犯罪学依然保留较大兴趣。亚洲
的犯罪学方兴未艾。非洲与南美则是落在亚洲之后。
全职犯罪学家:美国(3000以上), 英国(900左右), 其他欧洲国家50-400不等。
美籍/旅美中国犯罪学家: 大约30-40人
联邦政府专职机构: 司法实证研究的主要数据来源
犯罪/司法/从业人员统计数据收集(1)
联邦司法部 (Department of Justice/Office of Justice Programs)
-Bureau of Justice Statistics(司法数据署): collection, analyze, publish, and
disseminate “crime/offender/victim/operation of justice system related”
statistical information
地方警察机构年度数据汇总于FBI:Uniform Crime Report (UCR)
司法部年度犯罪受害人问卷数据收集: National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS)
司法部根据需要不定期特项数据收集
-National Institute of Justice (国家司法研究中心):research, development,
and evaluation
联合研究机构收集专项数据:National Center for State Courts
联邦政府专职机构: 司法实证研究的主要数据来源
犯罪/司法/从业人员统计数据收集(2)
非政府职业研究机构收集专项数据: Vera Institute,Rand Corporation, NORC,
GSS, WVS
职业协会自行数据收集:ABA
政府/基金会赞助研究者个人收集数据
科研经费来源:
美国科学基金会 (National Science Foundation)
美国国家健康中心 (National Institute of Health)
美国国家精神健康中心 (National Institute of Mental Health)
各大基金会
世界最大社科数据库:ICPSR*
国家司法数据库:NACJD*
*需交机构会员年费才能享用全部数据。数据来自世界各地。
美国司法部新任数据署和司法研究中心主任的期望 (1)
数据署主任James Lynch博士(原美国大学刑事司法学教授)
- 联邦数据署的职责:“to build, maintain, and utilize statistical systems that
describe the extent and characteristics of crime in our nation and the status and
response of the justice system.”
-任职间的主要目标:1) restoring and redesigning the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS); 2) building the capability to use operational data
for statistical purposes; 3) improving prosecution and adjudication statistics;
and 4) improving statistics on supervision and the flow of persons between
correctional institutions and society.
-数据署主任任期六年。直接向司法部长负责。
-三个挑战:如何保持中立;如何保护数据中涉及个人的隐私;如何加强署
内数据分析人员的科研能力以服务于司法部及其他联邦行政部门。
美国司法部新任数据署和司法研究中心主任的期望 (2)
司法研究中心主任John Laub博士*(原美国东北大学刑事司法学教授)
- 司法研究中心的职责: “The National Institute of Justice — the research,
development and evaluation agency of the U.S. Department of Justice — is
dedicated to improving knowledge and understanding of crime and justice
issues through science. NIJ provides objective and independent knowledge and
tools to reduce crime and promote justice, particularly at the state and local
levels. ”
- 主要目标:1)establish NIJ as the leader in scientifically based research on
crime and justice; 2) create an organizational culture grounded in science and
research; 3) obtain more funding for social science research; 4) develop an
innovative, cutting-edge research agenda; 5) reach out to all stakeholders; and
6) improve the diffusion of scientific knowledge.
*2009年10月由Obama总统提名,2010年六月上任;历史上首位具有刑事司法学博士学位的联邦司法研究中心主任。
美国司法部和政府责任办公室如何对地方司法实践进
行实证评估?(1)
司法部评估要点
- 联邦政府每年为地方司法机构提供30亿美元的资助以控制/预防犯罪
- 马理兰大学中标为司法部赞助的500个地方项目进行科学评估
- 最终报告命名为“Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s
Promising”。 结果长达几百页,但值得一读。一些欧洲国家经常能扬长避
短,最合理的利用来自于美国司法界的经验教训。
- 接受评估的犯罪防治项目包括以下主要模式:社区,家庭,学校,劳务市
场,公共场所,警察,其他司法机构
-评估标准:1)各项目的独立效应;2)(相对)投资回报率;3)何时,
何地,如何使某项目更有效的特定条件
美国司法部和政府责任办公室如何对地方司法实践进
行实证评估?(2)
政府责任办公室司法评估要点
- 是对受政府资助的评估者的研究设计与执行的评估
- 从1992到2002十年间96个项目中(共值三千七百万美金)分类随机抽出
15个(共值一千五百万美金)进行分析。
-结果如下:1)全优项目5个(占经费的48%);2)设计优良,但执行有误
的项目6个(占经费的21%);3)设计有问题的项目4个(占经费的30%)
- 评估结果的效应:科研申请门槛提高 ;项目执行期间监督加严;项目终
结后数据入库的限时要求。
Sense and Sensibility in American Penal Culture (Tonry,
2004; OUP)
Senator Jim Webb (2009) Criminal Justice Reform Bill:
Imprisonment: An American dilemma
- “the cyclical effects of steeply rising and then sharply
falling crime rates on prevailing sensibilities, and through
them on American penal culture and policies, produced
the criminal justice system Americans have now”
- “popularist style of politics renders American politicians
more susceptible to shifts in public sentiment.”
Lack of Emphasis on Theories of Criminal Justice (1)
Explicit attention to theorizing in the field of CJ is
infrequent and unreflective
Preoccupation with criminal justice effectiveness (which
is treated as one of the independent variables to predict
crime/disorder/fear, for example) is one of the problems.
Lack of Emphasis on Theories of Criminal Justice (2)
Criminal justice and criminology refer to different
phenomena, although closely related to each other.
Criminology: scientific study of crime and criminal
behavior; study of law breaking.
Criminal justice science: study of governmental social
control premised on punishment or blameworthiness;
study of the domains of lawmaking and law enforcing.
Lack of Emphasis on Theories of Criminal Justice (3)
The boundaries of formal and informal social control
are changing rapidly.
ABA survey of the administration of justice in the
50s and President’s commission on Law
Enforcement and Administration of Justice in 1967,
led to the “system diagram”-connecting police,
court and correction in a system of social control.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/justsys.cfm
Lack of Emphasis on Theories of Criminal Justice (4)
In criminal justice theory, criminal justice variables
(e.g., decisions/attitudes/styles of behaviors by CJ
officials, or the structural and procedural changes in
CJ organizations; or development and changes in
substantive criminal law by legislature) are treated
as dependent variables.
Criminal Justice Wedding Cake (Walker):
The top layer: celebrated cases (like the O.J. Simpson trial)
which involve the full criminal process and an enormous
amount of publicity
The second and third layer: serious felonies which are
defined by 1) the nature of the crime; 2) the suspect's prior
record; and 3) the relationship between the victim and the
offender
The fourth layer: misdemeanors (not viewed as real threats
to public safety); Due process rule not always followed;
第二节
美国司法实证研究的理论和实践
爱尔兰共和国司法部高级管理人员(2005-2008)年度暑期实证研究培训班讲稿节选
Evidence-based Policy (1): 以实证依据为基础的政策
制定
实证依据与价值取向的博弈
Fact:
Nature and magnitude of the problem
Effectiveness of current policy
Effectiveness of alternative policies
Value:
Values and value conflicts (e.g., due process & crime control)
Value choices: prioritizing and balancing values
Evidence-based Policy (2): 偏离实证而制定政策的可
能危害
Policy-making Process
Policy choices are heavily value-laden
Often developed in the context of crisis (“moral panic”) with simplistic
solutions
Not very well grounded in research or evaluation results
Consequences: reactive, poorly planned, ineffective, costly, and even
harmful (e.g., Three-Strikes law, Boot Camps, Scared Straight, D.A.R.E.)
Evidence-based Policy (3): 政策 实施与机构变革
Policy Implementation and Institutional Change
Institutional apparatus ultimately decide whether/how/when
policies are implemented
How to maximize policy implementation?
Change resistance and support
Identify stakeholders
Build coalitions
Dynamics in institutional change (e.g., COP-ring theory;
Sentencing Guidelines)
Evidence-based Policy (4): 几点建议
Recommendations on Evidence-based Policy
Seeking a middle ground by balancing social choices with
evidence-based models of policy-making
From “muddling through” to creating “useable knowledge”, to
assessing policy impacts that can inform future reforms
New standards: empirical evidence, rigorous research design,
and requirement of replication
Theory-Policy-Evaluation (1): 如何识别好的理论
How Do We Evaluate a “Good” Theory?
Internal logical consistency
Scope
Parsimony
Testability
Empirical validity
Policy implication
Theory-Policy-Evaluation (2): 理论是制定政策的依据
Basic Assumptions in Theory-guided Policy
All major criminological theories have implications for CJ policy
and practice
The better the theory explains the problem, the better it is
able to help solve the problem
However, theoretical plausibility should not be the only
consideration for policy-making
Ethical, legal, moral standards: humanity, fairness, equity, due process
effectiveness and efficiency
Theory-Policy-Evaluation (3): 政策制定的客观现实
The Reality of Policy-making
The underlying theoretical notions are ill-stated and vaguely
understood( 政策的理论依据不详不足)
Policy often adopted for political, economic, or bureaucratic
reasons first, then a “theory” is fitted to justify the policy(本末倒
置)
Competing demands:
Scientific demands for strong causal reasoning based on theory
Policy demands for quick answers
Theory-Policy-Evaluation (4)
Summary
Theories inform CJ policy choices
-Identify potential cause of a problem before adopting policies to
address them
Theoretical assumptions influence both the choice of target
and the nature of intervention
Sound evaluations
-Assess whether policy affected the target group in the manner
intended, and the extent to which it achieved overall longer-term goals
-Provide credible information for future program and policy
development
Theory-based Evaluation (1): 以理论为指导的项目
评估
Evaluation
Use of social science methods to systematically investigate the
effectiveness of social intervention programs in ways that are
adapted to their political and organizational environments and
are designed to inform social action in ways that improve social
condition
Theory-based Evaluation (2)
Formative evaluation (以改进项目执行为目的的评估)
Furnish information for guiding program improvement
Summative evaluation (以总结成果为目的评估)
Render a summary judgment on the program’s performance
Theory-based Evaluation (3)
Evaluation Hierarchy (评估的目标和种类)
Assessment of Need for the program
Assessment of Program Design and Theory
Assessment of Program Process and Implementation
Assessment of Program Outcome/Impact
Assessment of Program Efficiency
Theory-based Evaluation (4)
Evaluation Hierarchy (项目的必要性)
Assessment of Need for the program
Diagnose problems (what/where/when/how big?)
Based on existing data sources (e.g., social indicators; agency records,
surveys, censuses, forecasts)
Identify targets of intervention
Individuals, families, organizations, geographically and politically
defined communities
Example: gang definitions and intervention
Theory-based Evaluation (5)
Evaluation Hierarchy (项目设计与理论)
Assessment of Program Design and Theory
Use theory to
Describe cause-and-effect sequences
Identify target and explain why the target can be affected through the
program
Define program goals and objectives
Formulate and prioritize evaluation questions
Design evaluation research
Interpret evaluation findings
Theory-based Evaluation (6)
Evaluation Hierarchy (项目的实施)
Assessment of Program Process and Implementation
Setting criteria for judging program process (key words:
accessibility, appropriate, adequate, satisfactory, reasonable,
intended)
Process monitoring from multiple perspectives (evaluator,
management and accountability)
Conformity of the program to its design
Coverage and bias (e.g., delivery, eligibles, dropouts, site variations)
Theory-based Evaluation (7)
Evaluation Hierarchy (项目的最终结果/成效)
Assessment of Program Outcome/Impact
Stakeholder perspectives
Program impact (distinguish theory failure or implementation
failure)
Measurement
Reliability
Validity
Prior research
Unintended outcomes
Theory-based Evaluation (8)
Evaluation Hierarchy
Assessment of Program Outcome/Impact (cont.)
Classical Experimental Design (“randomized field experiment”,
or “gold standard”) (试验设计的主要成分)
Treatment group
Control group
Random assignment
Treatment
Pretest
Posttest
Quasi-experimental Design
Theory-based Evaluation (9)
The Fundamental Advantage of the Randomized
Experiment
High internal validity
Allows research to disentangle the effect of treatment from the confounding
effects of other factors
Threats to Internal Validity
Examples: history, maturation, statistical regression to the mean, selection
bias, testing effect
Theory-based Evaluation (10)
Disadvantages of Randomized Experiment:
Too rigid (to be flexible to complex reality)
Cost (high)
Timing (possible delayed effect)
Ethics (equity, fairness)
Integrity of design easily violated (e.g., equivalence in groups,
treatment delivery-dilution, migration)
External validity (due to self-selection in participation)
Political barriers
Theory-based Evaluation (11)
Conditions Favorable to Experimental Design
(如何增加司法改革试验成功的机率?)
When interventions involve addition of resources
When interventions represent less serious threats to
community safety
When test CJ sanctions that are more lenient
When public visibility is lower
When interventions do not significantly reduce discretion of CJ
agents
When there is a high degree of hierarchical control
When treatment is not unduly complex, expensive and
cumbersome
Theory-based Evaluation (12)
How to Make Better Use of Quasi-experimental Design?
Constructing control group by matching
Equating groups by statistical procedures
Regression-discontinuity design (cutting-point design)
Comment: strong quasi-experimental design can be an effective
alternative when random assignment is not feasible
Theory-based Evaluation (13)
Evaluation Hierarchy (项目的实效性)
Assessment of Program Efficiency
Two components
Cost-benefit analysis
Cost-effectiveness analysis (especially when human services are the
outcome)
Cost of achieving a given result
Useful for comparing the efficiency of different programs
Efficiency analysis determines whether a social program should
be continued, expanded, or terminated
第三节
美国刑事司法/犯罪学实证研究范例
美国州际法院刑事审判研究模式一例
John Kramer and Jeffery Ulmer (2009)
宾州量刑规范化改革成效的实证研究
理论框架 (由远至近)研究者试图用以下要件来解释量刑结果的差异:
- 社会因素:司法政策大趋势;人口/种族/性别分布及变化速度;经济实
力;犯罪率的升降
- 州级因素:州立量刑指导意见;州际刑事司法政策;州司法(监狱)资
源
- 市/郡因素:政治,社会文化环境;地方监狱/看守所资源
- 法庭因素:法庭内亚文化;法官个人政治倾向;法庭结构及案件数量
- 其他焦点因素:对被告应负罪责的看法;社区保护的需要;其他实际制
约因素
美国州际法院刑事审判研究模式一例(续)
数据收集/分析:
量刑结果:刑种-监禁/社区矫治/缓刑;服役地点;刑期长短
影响量刑结果的AB两级因素:
A
B
-辩诉交易或陪审团决定
-本地法庭年平均案件量
-定罪罪名
-本地陪审团审判使用率
-罪行严重程度
-本地监狱空缺率
-前科纪录
-少数民族公民比例
-最低法定刑期
-本地犯罪率
-武器使用
-法庭规模大小
-种族,性别,年龄
-共和/民主党派比例
统计分析+法官/检察官面谈纪录
National Survey of Prosecutors (2001)
Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice and the National
Opinion Research Center (NORC) jointly conducted this survey
Survey includes the following main question areas:
- Staffing
- Funding
- Special Categories of Felony Prosecutors
- Caseload
- Juvenile Matters
- Work-related Threats or Assaults
- DNA evidence
American Sentencing Reform Movement: Major Goals
Sentencing Reforms: 1) sentencing guidelines; 2)
mandatory minimum sentencing statutes; 3) three-strikes
laws; and 4) truth-in-sentencing laws
Three intended goals by the reformers:
- More punitive
- More effective
- Fairer sentence outcomes
American Sentencing Reform Movement: Major
Outcomes (1)
- yes, it does appear that sentences are more punitive today
than they were in the past; however, more punitiveness has
not produced the predicted reduction in crime.
- yes, most studies of sentences imposed under federal/state
guidelines suggest that they are more uniform and less
disparate.
- lack of longitudinal research comparing the effect of
offender characteristics on sentence outcomes before and
after the implementation of guidelines.
American Sentencing Reform Movement: Major
Outcomes (2)
Unwarranted disparities in sentencing:
- racial minorities and women were sentenced differently
than whites and men
- harsher sentences to black and Hispanic offenders
- more lenient sentences on females
- the unemployed and less educated reserved harsher
sentences
Costs of Incarceration : 2008 $75 Billion (Schmidt, Warner Gupta 2010)
Some theoretical and empirical investigations:
The social sources of Americans’ punitiveness (Unnever
& Cullen, 2010; Criminology 48(1)
Three theoretical models:
- Crime-distrust model (fear of crime & mistrust of
govn’t)
- Morale decline model (society in moral decay; needs to
apply punitive sanctions)
- Racial animus model (racial and ethnic intolerance)*
Most salient and consistent predictors
Controversy: The impact of legalized abortion on
crime? (Donohue & Levitt, 2001)
Roe v. Wade (US Supreme Court, 1973)
5% drop in birth rate (smaller cohort size)
“States with higher abortion rates in 1970s and 1980s
have greater crime reduction rates in 1990s.”
“Legalized abortion rate appears to account to 50
percent of the recent drop in crime”
Unintended Consequences of Political Popular
Sentencing Policy: The Homicide Promoting Effects of
“Three Strikes” in U.S. Cities (1980-1999) by Kovandzic et
al., in Cole et al., 2005) (1)
- High costs of incarceration
- Costs of building and operating additional prisons
- Difficulties in controlling inmates serving life sentences
- More demands for court trials
- Increased racial disparity in the inmate population
Unintended Consequences of Political Popular
Sentencing Policy: The Homicide Promoting
Effects of “Three Strikes” in U.S. Cities (19801999) by Kovandzic et al., in Cole et al., 2005) (2)
- Failure to reduce crime through deterrence or incapacitation
- Homicide promoting effects (criminals change their modus operandi,
e.g., they may choose to kill victims, witnesses, or police officers to
reduce the chance of apprehension)
Marvell and Moody (2001): found that three-strikes law increased
homicide rates (24 states) by 10-12 percent over the short term and by 23
percent over the long term.
Kovandzic et al.’s (2002) results provided exceptionally strong support for
Marvell and Moody’s claim (short term increase 13-14 percent; long term
increase 16-24 percent)
Criminal Trials in the U.S. (Pizzi) (1)
• The major differences (soccer vs. football):
– Americans are obsessed with rules
– Americans insist on exact precision in rulings that can
never be precise
– The degree to which control over the direction and
conduct of the trial has been ceded to the advocates.
– The degree to which judges see themselves as somehow
removed from the contest and as less responsible for the
conduct or outcome of the trail.
55
Criminal Trials in the U.S. (Pizzi) (2)
• Insist on false adjudicative precision in the U.S. trial
system (jury selection, objections and sidebar
conferences)
• The differing relationships between players and
coaches in the two sports (attitudes on spontaneity
and improvisation)
• The role of lawyers at trial (movement, presence)
and their relationship to witnesses (coaching)
56
Criminal Trials in the U.S. (Pizzi) (3)
• U.S. trials are far more personalized
• Evidence sharing a problem
• The shaping of evidence for adversarial advantage before
trial
• Strong emphasis on lawyers performance at trail
• Winning (at all cost) mentality
• A defense attorney in the U.S. stress over and over the
loyalty he owes to the client. He became the client in a
sense.
• Prosecutors prefer trial judges who run “tight ships” and
keep control over both the advocates.
57
第四节
中国刑事司法实证研究范例
-福建省刑事辨护机制课题
(麦克阿瑟基金会赞助)
哈佛大学肯尼迪政府学院中国青年法学家2011年暑期实证研究培训班讲稿节选
• Right to Counsel in the U.S.
– 6th Amendment, US
Constitution (“in all criminal
prosecutions, the accused
shall…have the assistance of
counsel for his defense.”
– What happens when one
could not afford an attorney?
– Facts about Indigent defense
in the U.S. (BJS, 2000 Special
Report)
•
•
•
•
66% felony defendants (in federal ct.)
and 82% felony defendants (in state
ct.) were represented by public
defenders/assigned counsel
90% of federal defendants and 75%
state defendants were found guilty,
regardless of the type of attorney
used
Among those found guilty, higher %
of the defendants with publicly
financed counsel were sentenced to
incarceration (FC-88% vs. 77%; SC71% vs.54%)
95% of all criminal defendants are
tried in state courts
• Evolution of the Right to
Counsel Debates in the U.S.
(1853-2002)
•
•
•
•
•
•
Webb v. Baird, (1853), Indiana
Supreme Court (principle of civilized
society)
Powell v. Alabama (1932), US
Supreme Court (all state capital
cases)
Johnson v. Zerbst (1938), U.S.
Supreme Court (reaffirm the right in
all federal courts)
Betts v. Brady (1942), US Supreme
Court (denied extending it to state
felony proceedings)
•
•
•
Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), US
Supreme Court (overruled Betts)
In re Gault (1967), US Supreme Court
(children)
Argersinger v. Hamlin (1972), US
Supreme Court (misdemeanor state
proceedings with a potential loss of
liberty)
Strickland v. Washington (1984), US
Supreme Court (effective counsel)
Alabama v. Shelton (2002), US
Supreme Court (counsel must be
provided for the accused in order to
impose a suspended prison sentence)
The American Reality Re Indigent Defense
• “Gideon’s Broken Promise: America’s Continuing Quest for
Equal Justice” (ABA 2004 Special Report)
– Lack of adequate funding (inadequate compensation; lack of
resources/state fiscal crises/resource disparity between prosecution
and indigent defense)
– Inadequate legal representation (competency; caseload; contact;
ethics)
– Structural defects (uneven service; delays in process; lack of data)
• Recommendations: adequate funding; raising assigned
counsel fees; increase state oversight
61
Framing the Research Project (1)
•Why do we study legal representation and criminal processing in
China?
•Why do we focus on district level courts and criminal cases only?
•Why do we conduct the pilot in Fujian?
•What do we expect to learn?
•Which methods should we use to achieve our research
objectives?
•How do we successfully implement our research plan?
•What would be the logical next step after the pilot?
•Why?
Framing the Research Project (2)
Design of the Pilot Study
Purposes: benchmarking + future research + targeted reforms
Sampling: why/how?
Research questions: what/why/how?
Implementation: feasibility + adjustment
Data Analysis and Interpretation of Results
Descriptive: convergent + divergent results
Analytical: test of hypotheses
Implications for future research and policy
How well did we execute our research plan?
Benefits of: pilot study/triangulation of methods/evidencebased policy
Framing the Research Project (3)
Sampling Concerns:
- Representativeness is a key element
- Feasibility of implementation is uncertain due to lack of
prior local research experience
- Political sensitivity and possible risks for researchers &
research participants
- Regional differences in accessibility and cooperation
- Flexibility and adjustment are required in a pilot study
(e.g., cost; training; supervision; sample size; time constraint; travel, etc.)
Key Questions for Fujian Pilot Study
What is the extent of legal representation for criminal
defendants in district level courts(基层法院)?
How are criminal defendants represented?
What is the dynamic of the courtroom working group
(judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys)?
How are the outcomes of criminal cases really decided in
these courts?
What are the prevailing perceptions of legal practitioners
on criminal justice reforms?
Fujian Pilot Key Hypotheses (1)
Level of legal representation in criminal cases is low in
Chinese District People’s Court
There is a difference in the use of legal representation by
case types (e.g., violent crime defendants are more likely
to seek legal representation)
There are variations in both the availability and quality of
legal representation across regions of different economic
development
Fujian Pilot Key Hypotheses (2)
There are variations in both caseload and distribution of
case categories across regions of different economic
development
Chinese criminal lawyers have little substantive impact
on sentencing outcome based on the defense they
provide in court
Fujian Pilot Key Hypotheses (3)
Chinese criminal lawyers focus not on acquittal but on
presenting mitigating circumstances to impact the
sentencing decision
Extra-legal factors (such as sensitivity of the case, a
defendant’s residency/employment statuses, an
attorney’s professional reputation in the courtroom and
political connections) play significant role in determining
case process and outcome
Fujian Pilot Key Hypotheses (4)
Criminal defense attorneys are marginalized in Chinese
court by their professional peers such as judges and
prosecutors
There are decreased (communist) party influence on
case outcomes in the lowest court (i.e., less requests
submitted by a presiding judge to the judicial committee)
Fujian Pilot Key Hypotheses (5)
There is an increase in qualification and professionalism
among Chinese legal practitioners in the past three
decades
Job satisfaction (with regard to prestige, stress, turnover,
financial reward and upward political mobility) is low for
judges, prosecutors and defense attorneys who work in
the lowest level Chinese court
Data Collection (1): Survey
The Design of Survey Questionnaire (基层法院刑事辨护机制的调研)
What kind of questions to ask, and why?
Knowledge from the field (informative; comprehensive; exhaustive;
timely)
Relevance to the current and follow-up research on the topic (closed
vs. open-ended Qs.)
Relevance to the ongoing criminal justice reform in general
Questions that can be answered by multiple occupational groups
Questions that can be correlated for analytical inquiries later
How do we record responses?
Response scale
Pilot test of the questionnaire with an eye on anticipated responses
Data Collection (1): Survey (cont.)
Implementation of the Survey and Presentation of the
Results
Who completes our survey?
Juris Master (JM) candidates (Fujian law schools)/Local Lawyer’s
Associations/Major local law firms
Focus is on lawyers, but contrast from other CJ occupational groups is
desired
Empirical analysis of the survey
Descriptive
Correlational (hypothesis testing on group differences)
Narrative
Data Collection (2): Courtroom Observations
Purpose: (1) observe the overall dynamics of courtroom
interactions; and, in particular (2) roles played by defense counsel
in actual criminal trials
Data collection Instrument: Ct. observation form (听审记录表)
Implementation process
- Where
- When
- How
Data Collection (3): Case Files
Case level data collection
Complete case files(卷宗 )
Record keeping
Confidentiality concerns
How to make use of them?
Cross-sectional differences (professionalism; inter-agency disparities)
Longitudinal differences (professionalism; intra-agency changes)
Statistical analysis (codification of files)
Narrative exploration; impact of legal reforms on ct. (sentencing) practices
Summary judgment files (判决书)
Open court/legal web site access
Utility (large quantity; recent cases) and limitation (selection bias;
limited jurisdictions; limited case types uploaded)
Fujian Pilot Study Key Findings
福建试点项目主要结果
(see Tables in Word format)

similar documents