Courtroom Workgroup Effect on Criminal Justice Outcomes - Research Paper Example

? What effect does the Courtroom Workgroup have on criminal justice outcomes? Full CRJS 480-001 Dr. John David Reitzel Introduction The intricate factors that are intertwined to evaluate the commission of a criminal act are generally tedious and mind-numbing. Perpetuators of justice have rationalized alternative options to reach an equitable agreement among parties involved in sentencing decisions. The current study aims to seek effective and appropriate responses to the research question, to wit: What effect does the Courtroom Workgroup have on criminal justice outcomes? Siegel (2009) has clearly and simply proffered the basic mechanics of the existence of a courtroom workgroup by averring that the prosecution and defense unite to work out a criminal case in a collaborative and cooperative juncture to arrive at an agreement amenable to both parties (20). The benefits that the courtroom workgroup would generate on all parties involved are deemed to outweigh the costs of going through the entire judicial proceedings of a trial. If people are to be made more aware of the essential ingredients, approach and pronounced benefits of courtroom workgroup, sentencing decisions and agreed settlement of criminal cases would be facilitated at the most appropriate time frame. The effect of courtroom workgroup on the outcome of criminal cases would be evaluated and assessed in terms of factors that influence the decision. In this regard, the current research aims to proffer issues relative of courtroom workgroups by expounding and exploring its definition, the basic components of the workgroup, the essential ingredients to make it work. One would delve into the roles and functions of the components of the workgroup to determine the impact on sentencing decisions. Finally, the impact of courtroom workgroup would be closely analyzed from different perspectives as seen in diverse points of views. Do criminal justice outcomes arrived at by courtroom workgroups serve the best interests of all parties involved? Definition and Goals Courtroom Workgroups To clearly provide a greater understanding of courtroom workgroups, the exact definition of the terms would be presented. The research conducted by Haynes, Ruback and Cusick (2008) cited the studies made by Eisenstein and his colleagues (Eisenstein et al., 1988; Eisenstein & Jacob, 1977; Nardulli, Eisenstein, & Flemming, 1988), who averred that “courtroom workgroups consist of individuals who share a common workplace, who interact in the performance of their jobs, and whose collective purpose is to dispose of case” (Haynes, et.al, 2008, 5). Vuolo (2007) expounded on the composition of the courtroom workgroup as “ prosecutors, defense attorneys, judges, and occasionally police (who) work together with the mutual interest of getting the job done as efficiently as possible” (10). The author, likewise, emphasized that although there is a degree of cooperation, some level of restraint and control in the level of behavior of the participants. As Siegel (2009) indicated, the people who comprise the courtroom work group have established a degree of familiarity despite assumption of disparate roles and considered to have acquired competencies and expertise in their respective functions that their objective is to streamline the system to eliminate unnecessary delays and to circumvent costs related to trials. The study of Eisenstein and his colleagues, cited by Haynes, et.al (2008) have prompted the focus on the perception of courtroom workgroups, in terms of offenders and cases, as significantly affecting the outcome of sentencing. Therefore, to answer the research question as the goal of the current study, a closer examination of the composition, function, and factors that influence courtroom work groups’ decision would provide the key to the response. The factors that need to be considered in courtroom work groups are the degree and extent of familiarity among the members, as well as “the context in which the court is located, and the county legal culture (i.e., workgroup members’ shared beliefs about both interpersonal relations and the manner in which cases should be disposed of)” deemed to affect the behavior of the courtroom workgroup. Composition and Role of Courtroom Workgroup Aside from the core participants or major members of the courtroom workgroup above mentioned, its composition was indicated to differ depending on the sentencing phase in criminal courts (Kupchik, 2006, 58). Kupchik revealed that prior to the sentencing phase, the courtroom workgroup is primarily composed of only three major participants, to wit: the judge, the defense attorney and the prosecutor. However, when the sentencing phase progress to processing stage, other participants are included such as external sponsoring agents that offer wide array of services needed to establish credibility and support to the contentions of the defense attorney through the submission of written memoranda specifically required by the court. Hermida (n.d.) noted the crucial role of that defense attorneys play as part of the courtroom workgroup in terms of assuming dual responsibilities of defending the client and at the same time adhering to laws imposed by the justice system. On the other hand, the prosecutor “holds significant power and discretion over the decision to charge a suspect and is often cited as being the most powerful member of the courtroom workgroup” (Hermida, n.d, par. 2). Pyrek (2007) validated that despite the different functions of the members of the work group (where the judge is supposed to be a neutral arbiter between the defense attorney and the prosecutor), cooperation becomes the norm (32). However, Haynes (2008) contended that specific characteristic of the judge, per se, affects and influences the sentencing decision (3). As revealed, the judges’ diverse sociological experiences which are found to have a direct correlation with other factors such as political affiliation, educational background, demographics (particularly race and gender) have profound effect on decisions made in conjunction with other members of the workgroup. Further, as cited by Siegel (2009) there are essential ingredients that were proposed by David Neubauer, a political scientist, as needed to ensure a smooth working relationship among members. These ingredients are: the ability to accept shared decision making; conformity to shared norms; a degree of socialization to orient newcomers on informal work policies and rules; the application of a system of rewards and sanctions; and a shared commitment for goal modification (Siegel, 2009, 20). Just like any work groups in an organizational setting, for example, the basic elements of clear setting of goals, motivational schemes with control, a set of existing policies and procedures, as well as respect for organizational culture are crucial to attain the identified objectives. Factors Affecting Courtroom Work groups’ Decision The study conducted by Haynes (et.al, 2008) specifically proffered the presence of three aspects that are social and psychological in natures that relevantly affect the criminal justice outcomes, to wit: similarity, proximity and stability (6). The aspect of similarity was discussed to take into account three crucial factors that contribute to cohesiveness of the work group. These similarities are noted in terms of “demographic characteristics (race, gender, and age), background (college and law school education), and beliefs (political party)” (Haynes, 2008, 6). From among these factors, the authors revealed that background or educational orientation is deemed most important over age or gender. Further, the degree of similarities in the noted factors has significant effects in terms of making sentencing decisions that require critical evaluation and due discretion, contrary to cases that are regarded to be automatic or straightforward. The factor of proximity considers the distance, location and external environment as it contributes to enhanced opportunities for frequent interaction among courtroom workgroup members. Haynes (et.al, 2008) cited other literatures that supported the factor of nearness in location, from residences of members or even in offices to the courtroom, as leading to more frequent contacts among the members that could facilitate decision making in criminal cases. Finally, stability affects the members’ ease and confidence in each others’ decision-making capabilities through experience and length of time that they have been interacting with each other. As indicated, “the stability of a group’s membership determines the familiarity among members (Goodman & Leyden, 1991) and their patterns of communication (Katz, 1982)” (Haynes, et.al, 2008, 7). The longer that a member knows other teammates, the more familiar one is in terms of understanding preferences, values and communication patterns that enhance the awareness and understanding of the way decisions would be arrived at. Effect of Courtroom Workgroup in Criminal Justice Outcomes A study conducted by Ward, Farrell and Rousseau (2008) resulted in providing credence to the contention that “the racial composition of the courtroom workgroup is an important component of this complex set of social relations shaping criminal sentencing outcomes” (Ward, et.al, 2008, 5). As such, the authors validated that “the odds of incarceration are greater for Black defendants in districts where the proportion of Black judges is lower, and where there is less Black representation among judges and prosecutors combined” (Ward, et.al, 2008, 5). The finding could be explained in terms of signifying the relevance of race as a determining aspect when all other factors are deemed equal in context. This significance of the courtroom workforces’ decision that takes into account contextual characteristics was supported by other studies cited in Haynes research, to wit: Research at both the state and federal levels finds that offenders sentenced in large urban courts receive less severe sentences than offenders sentenced in small rural courts (Hofer et al., 1999). Because urbanization correlates with other court and county variables, however, its effect depends on the offense, the specific sentencing outcome under consideration, and the attributes and behavior of offenders (Myers & Talarico, 1986, 1987; Olson, Weisheit, & Ellsworth, 2001) (Haynes, et.al, 2008, 4). Haynes (et.al, 2008), on the other hand, provided interesting findings in terms of the effects of workgroup factors in decision making. Depending on the characteristics of the workgroups, criminal justice outcomes show marked patterns in terms of types of sentences, the decision to incarcerate, to impose fines or to recommend restitution. The greater similarity in educational backgrounds of courtroom workgroup members contribute to the imposition of lesser punishments (“a lower probability of incarceration and a lower probability that restitution would be imposed). This finding suggests that workgroup members’ early socialization experiences influence their later values, attitudes, beliefs, and ideologies” (Haynes, et.al, 2008, 30). Through the sharing of social experiences that dates back in their academic institutions, the decision of judges and district attorneys were found to favor marginalized penalties. The factor of proximity increases the tendency for judges and district attorneys to decide on imposing fines more than opting for incarceration. As indicated by the authors, the rationale for this could be that frequency in interaction that results from closer geographic location enables these decision makers to see the viability and greater benefits of instituting fines or economic sanctions as opposed to incarceration. This factor is also reported to have increased the probability for restitution. In determining the effect of the characteristic of stability among courtroom workgroup members, the study of Haynes (et.al, 2008) revealed that the more stable workgroups have greater tendencies to decide on not imposing fines. The reason for this is that based on their length of time doing the tasks and functions as workgroup, they have established considerable experience to determine that offenders do not have the capability to pay for the penalties imposed. The imposition of restitution was deemed less likely to be favored by members of courtroom workgroup, especially those noted to have greater similarities in educational background, in proximity and stability, due to the sanctions’ newness relative to the other penalties. This finding was noted to be consistent with “Eisenstein et al.’s (1988) argument that entrenched groups are less likely to adopt new laws” (Haynes, et.al, 2008, 31). In another article written by Williams (2002), the author cited findings from Walker, Spohn, and Delone (1996) who contended that public defenders who form part of the courtroom workgroup are deemed to be more effective and successful in negotiating for more favorable results in behalf of their clients, when compared to private attorneys (1). This particular argument was refuted by Barak (1975) who indicated that “the high caseload and poor organization of public defender offices place indigent defendants at a disadvantage with regard to case outcomes” (Williams, 2002, 1). Greater tendencies were noted by authors Silverstein (1965), Stover and Eckhart (1975), and Hanson et al. (1992) who all supported that the presence of public defenders in courtroom workgroup resulted more in incarceration with longer sentences. Discussion and Conclusion The research was able to identify significant effects of courtroom workgroup to criminal justice outcomes depending on key factors of similarity, proximity, stability consistent with the findings of Haynes, et.al, (2008). The greater their similarities, proximity and stability, the more tendencies for judges and defense attorneys to impose penalties rather than incarceration. The imposition of penalties becomes lesser with members of courtroom workgroup exhibiting greater stability because of their expertise in determining the capacities of the offenders to pay economic sanctions. On the other hand, these factors led to lesser results for imposing restitution due to the adherence to traditional views. Other authors show that courtroom workgroups inclusion of a public defendant could either be an advantage or disadvantage. Their expertise in making negotiations could prove to be beneficial to receive outcomes that are lesser in gravity and in term. On the other hand, more secondary researches proved that their presence as members of courtroom workgroup are much disadvantageous given that their work load and poor organization results more in outcomes skewing towards incarceration of longer terms. Finally, the findings presented by Ward, et.al. (2008) indicate that racial context significantly affects outcome specifically when Black judges were lacking in courts, thereby increasing the tendencies for incarceration for Black defendants. The effects of the courtroom workgroup were specifically identified rendering the objective of the study attained. However, as mentioned by previous researches on the subject, further studies need to be conducted, specifically in the areas of increasing the number of members to be evaluated. Haynes, et.al’s (2008) study focused on judges and district attorneys in the areas of Pennsylvania. The same method could be applied to other members of the workgroup and extended to other states to determine if the same results would be generated. Likewise, the study of Ward, et.al. (2008) could be replicated in other areas to determine the consistency of the outcome. The subject of determining the effect of courtroom workgroup in criminal justice outcomes is crucial as the penalties imposed affect the offenders’ lives. The justice system has recognized that even prisoners are entitled to avail and exercise constitutionally protected rights such as the minimum standard of living, medical benefits, due process to appeal their cases, equal protection rights and the right to be precluded from unusual and cruel punishment (Lawyers.com, par. 2). Even prior to trial, the welfare of criminal offenders and their families should still be at the forefront of the work groups’ decision making process. The study took into perspective the points of views of courtroom workgroup members but not in any way veering towards characteristics of the offenders, which could likewise influence the members’ decision. Since the structure of the workgroup base their formative structure from informal process proposed by James Eisenstein and Herbert Jacob in 1977 (Scalice, 2010), the concept was validated by David W. Neubauer, the political scientist who averred that “every day, the same group of courthouse regulars assembles in the same courtroom, sits or stands in the same places, and performs the same tasks as the day before. The types of defendants and the nature of the crimes they are accused of committing also remain constant. Only the names of the victim, witnesses, and defendants are different” (Scalice, 2010, par. 4). The members should remain cognizant of the fact the offenders are still human beings with rights and hopes to redeem their lives. They should not be treated as case numbers with faceless subjects, the outcome of their hapless crimes left to routine. Despite the absence of formal procedures, the courtroom workgroup acknowledges that “the enforcers of the law do not abuse the powers vested in them and at the same time the accused are given the opportunity to defend themselves. Formal procedures of the criminal justice system ensure that we live in a just and civilized world and is it is imperative  that this system be  sustained and is operational at all time” (Siegel, 2009, 5). References Barak, G. (1975). "In Defense of the Rich: The Emergence of the Public Defender," 2 Crime and Social Justice 2. Eisenstein, J., Flemming, R. B., & Nardulli, P. F. (1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Boston: Little, Brown. Eisenstein, J., & Jacob, H. (1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. Boston: Little, Brown. Goodman, P. S., & Leyden, D. P. (1991). Familiarity and group productivity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 76(4), 578-586. Hanson, R. A., W. E. Hewitt, B. J. Ostrom, and C. Lomvardias (1992). Indigent Defenders Get the Job Done and Done Well. Williamsburg, VA: National Center for State Courts Haynes, S.H., Ruback, B. and Cusick, G.R. (2008). “Courtroom Workgroups and Sentencing: The Effects of Similarity, Proximity, and Stability.” Crime & Delinquency, pp. 1 – 36. Hermida, J. (n.d.). The courtroom workgroup. Retrieved 11 April 2011. < http://www.julianhermida.com/lawnoteseducationworkgroup.htm> Hofer, P. J., Blackwell, K. R., & Ruback, R. B. (1999). The effect of the federal sentencing guidelines on inter-judge sentencing disparity. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 90(1), 239-322 Katz, R. (1982). The effects of group longevity on project communication and performance. Administrative Science Quarterly, 27(1), 81-104. Kupchik, A. (2006). Judging juveniles: prosecuting adolescents in adult and juvenile courts: New perspectives in crime, deviance, and law series. NYU Press. Lawyers.com. Prisoner’s Rights. 2011. Web. 06 April 2011. < http://criminal.lawyers.com/Criminal-Law-Basics/Prisoners-Rights.html> Myers, M. A., & Talarico, S. M. (1986). Urban justice, rural injustice? Urbanization and its effect on sentencing. Criminology, 24(2), 367-391. Myers, M. A., & Talarico, S. M. (1987). The social contexts of criminal sentencing. New York: Springer-Verlag Olson, D. E., Weisheit, R. A., & Ellsworth, T. (2001). Getting down to business: A comparison of rural and urban probationers, probation sentences, and probation outcomes. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 17(1), 4-18. Pyrek, K. (2007). Forensic science under siege: the challenges of forensic laboratories and the medico-legal death investigation system. Academic Press. Siegel, L.J. (2009). Introduction to Criminal Justice. Cengage Learning. Silverstein, L. (1965). Defense of the Poor in Criminal Cases in American State Courts: A Field Study and Report. Chicago: American Bar Foundation. Stover, R. V., and D. R. Eckart (1975). "A Systematic Comparison of Public Defenders and Private Attorneys," 3 American Journal of Criminal Law 265. Vuolo, M. (2007). Criminal Justice and Processing. Retrieved 08 April 2011. < http://www.soc.umn.edu/~vuolo/teaching/soc3102/slides/lec14.processing.pdf> Walker S. C., C. Spohn, and M. Delone (1996). The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Ward, G., Farrell, A., and Rousseau, D. (2008). The Contextual Significance of Federal Courtroom Workgroup Racial Diversity on Sentencing Outcomes. Northeastern University. Pp. 1 – 8. Williams, M.R. (2002). “A comparison of sentencing outcomes for defendants with public defenders versus retained counsel in a Florida circuit court.” Justice System Journal, pp. 1 – 7. Read More