Suchergebnisse

Examines tort filings in ten representative US states from 1975-95, focusing on the impact of social, political, policy, and legal system factors in the decision to file. States in sample: Colorado, Kansas, Florida, Maryland, Tennessee, Texas, Washington, Maine, Hawaii, and North Dakota.

National Election Study data, 1990-1992, & Uniform Crime Report arrest rates are used to test alternative explanations of the incarceration disparity between blacks & whites & to investigate state-to-state variations. Multivariate regression analysis indicates that such disparity is affected by several factors, including racial disparity in arrest rates & economic well-being. Further, it appears to be ameliorated by black political mobilization in both conventional & unconventional forms. Incarceration disparity between blacks & whites is a complex phenomenon that cannot be explained by one overarching theory, such as inordinate black involvement in crime or racial discrimination in the criminal justice system; an integrated approach using economic, legal, & political aggregates is suggested. 2 Tables, 29 References. Adapted from the source document.

AbstractBackgroundCourts are unusually vulnerable governing institutions that rely upon deeply seated public support and notions of institutional legitimacy to flourish and remain policy‐relevant. This diffuse support allows courts to be viable policy entities while simultaneously issuing edicts that are counter‐majoritarian. A recent debate centers on whether policy disagreement affects members of the public's diffuse support stores for the nation's High Court.ObjectiveHere, we investigate whether policy disagreement between citizens and their state courts influences public perceptions of state court legitimacy (diffuse support). We also examine how those who disagree with state court policy making (policy "losers") assay the legitimacy of their state courts differently than those who feel that their policy preferences are promoted by state courts (policy "winners").MethodsWe draw data from the 2012 Cooperative Congressional Election Study (CCES), where researcher‐specific content for 1000 respondents allowed us to ask a number of questions about citizens' perspectives on their state high courts. We employ Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to analyze these citizen views of state legal institutions.ResultsWe find that policy agreement is quite relevant to citizens' levels of diffuse support for their state courts and that the relative drivers of policy "winners" and "losers" assessments of their courts' legitimacy do evince overlap but in important ways are distinct.ConclusionOur findings provide important insight on how citizens view courts and the law. Our investigation also sheds light on the dynamics of citizen disagreement with government outcomes and perceptions of institutional legitimacy.

'These Estimable Courts' uses original survey data to explore citizens' attitudes toward state courts. The book explores citizens' beliefs about the legitimacy of these courts as well as opinions about how judges decide cases, judicial policy-making, the selection of judges, and citizens' views regarding compliance with the law.