Alan Tomkins Publications

Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know, and How Will We Get There?

Lisa M. Pytlik Zillig et al. — Fri, 30 Nov 2012 13:30:31 PST

This article examines social science relevant to public engagements and identifies the challenges to the goal of meaningful public input into science and technology policy. Specifically, when considering “which forms, features, and conditions of public engagement are optimal for what purposes, and why?” we find social science has not clarified matters. We offer a model to guide systematic research that defines and empirically connects variations in features and types of public engagement activities to specifically defined variations in effective processes and outcomes. The specification of models, as we have done, will guide policy makers, practitioners, and the public in determining what kinds of engagement techniques are optimal for what kinds of purposes. Our model is presented to start conversations and inspire research that in the future should help to ensure meaningful public participation that meets the promise of contributing thoughtful societal values and perspectives into governmental policies impacting science and technology research.

Reducing Courts’ Failure-to-Appear Rate by Written Reminders

Brian H. Bornstein et al. — Wed, 28 Nov 2012 11:45:27 PST

This article examines the effectiveness of using different kinds of written reminders to reduce misdemeanor defendants’ failure-to-appear (FTA) rates. A subset of defendants was surveyed after their scheduled court date to assess their perceptions of procedural justice and trust and confidence in the courts. Reminders reduced FTA overall, and more substantive reminders (e.g., with information on the negative consequences of FTA) were more effective than a simple reminder. FTA varied depending on several offense and offender characteristics, such as geographic location (urban vs. rural), type of offense, and number of offenses. The reminders were somewhat more effective for Whites and Hispanics than for Blacks. Defendants with higher institutional confidence and those who felt they had been treated more fairly by the criminal justice system were more likely to appear, though the effectiveness of the reminder was greatest among misdemeanants with low levels of trust in the courts. The implications for public policy and pretrial services are discussed.

Public Engagement for Informing Science and Technology Policy: What Do We Know, What Do We Need to Know, and How Will We Get There?

Lisa M. PytlikZillig et al. — Thu, 24 Mar 2011 08:00:31 PDT

Constructs of Justice: Beyond Civil Litigation

Alan Tomkins et al. — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 15:14:03 PDT

It is the case that civil justice problems constitute the bulk of courts’ work in both the state and federal legal systems (see, e.g., Court Statistics Project, 2006; U.S. Courts, 2007). Nevertheless, a decision rendered by a jury (or a judge) takes place in only a relatively small percentage of civil disputes. There are exponentially more civil disputes resolved outside of court than are resolved via jury verdicts (see, e.g., Galanter, 1983, 1993, 1996; Miller & Sarat, 1980–1981; Trubek, Grossman, Felstiner, Kritzer, & Sarat, 1983), a state of affairs true for the UK as well as the US (Pleasence, 2006). Hersch’s (2006) analysis of nearly 3,800 federal civil cases shows even a litigant’s request for a jury trial rather than a bench trial (regardless of whether it emanates from the plaintiff or the defendant) in trial-eligible cases is more likely to result in the parties’ out-of-court settlement than it is to result in a jury verdict.

The empirical reality, thus, is that juries play only a limited—it is fair to say, a relatively minor—role in civil dispute resolution. Yet jury research has dominated the scholarship of the psychology and law community virtually since the revival of psycholegal research in the 1970s, and the pattern of focusing on jury matters continues today. This chapter is a call for psycholegal scholars to study civil justice matters beyond the context of litigation and the courts, both to allow us to better understand the resolution of civil issues in the litigation/court contexts and to better understand the larger institutional (and sometimes societal) contexts in which civil disputes materialize and are most often resolved (see Felstiner, Abel, & Sarat, 1980–1981; Galanter, 1983, 1993, 1996; Kritzer, Vidmar, & Bogart, 1991; Trubek et al., 1984; Trubek, Sarat, Felstiner, Kritzer, & Grossman, 1983).

An area of psycholegal research that has provided significant insights into civil disputes is the different conceptualizations of ‘‘justice.’’ Over the last fifty years or so, there has been a great deal of commentary and research into various psychosocial constructs of justice. In this chapter we focus on the more prominent justice theories, that is, distributive, procedural, restorative, and retributive justice (e.g., Tyler, Boeckmann, Smith, & Huo, 1997).

Briefly, distributive justice is concerned primarily with the perceived fairness of the outcome of a given proceeding, whether that proceeding is judicial, quasi-judicial (e.g., arbitration, mediation, or some other form of dispute resolution), or entirely non-judicial in nature (e.g., legislative decisions that affect distribution of resources). Procedural justice, in contrast, is concerned with whether the procedures used in a given process are considered fair by the participants, and is similarly not restricted to judicial settings. Restorative justice is concerned, as the name implies, with restoring an injured party to his or her pre-injury state and helping the injuring party recognize and redress the injurious nature of his or her acts. Finally, retributive justice looks at the psychology of responding to harms that have been inflicted. Recent research indicates that retributive and restorative justice principles are, as with the distributive and procedural justice contexts, applicable outside the judicial context (e.g., Morrison & Ahmed, 2006).

In this chapter, we will briefly discuss justice constructs and offer examples of important questions outside the courtroom litigation realm that we believe present opportunities for psycholegal scholars to more fully develop our understanding of civil justice.

From the Psychiatric Hospital to the Community: Integrating Conditional Release and Contingency Management

Eric B. Elbogen et al. — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:07:11 PST

Psychiatric hospital recidivism has been and continues to be a persistent problem in treating individuals with chronic mental illness. Conditional release, a form of involuntary outpatient commitment, has been suggested as one possible solution. Guided by therapeutic jurisprudence, this article presents a proposal about conditional release that would maximize convergence of social values and would be empirically testable. Specifically, a scientifically validated treatment intervention for individuals with chronic mental illness, contingency management, is integrated with conditional release. From this proposal, a number of empirical hypotheses and legal questions about discharging psychiatric patients are generated and discussed.

EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN PSYCHOLOGY AND LAW/CRIMINAL JUSTICE: Historical Foundations, Present Structures, and Future Developments

James R. P. Ogloff et al. — Wed, 20 Dec 2006 09:41:01 PST

Although psychology had a brief—and rather dramatic—foray into the legal system early in this century, it was only after World War II that psychology started to systematically permeate the legal system. Building on the interest psychologists and other social scientists had on the law, education and training in the areas of psychology and law/criminal justice has undergone considerable growth and development over the past two decades. The authors discuss the early developments and current models of this education and training. Implications of the increased interest and training in psychology and law/ criminal justice, and directions for future developments in these areas, also are explored.

Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts: What Public Opinion Surveys Mean to Judges

David B. Rottman et al. — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 09:53:42 PDT

In August 1998 a comprehensive national survey added to the growing mass of information on how the public perceives the state courts. The “Perceptions of the U.S. Justice System,” commissioned by the American Bar Association, relied on telephone interviews of 1,000 American adults selected at random. The respondents were asked for their opinions about “the justice system,” lawyers, judges, law enforcement and the courts. The findings from the ABA survey were optimistic relative to most of the previous surveys. Public confidence in the courts relative to other major institutions seemed higher, and experience with courts appeared to promote higher rather than lower levels of confidence. For the most part, however, there was more continuity than change in the 1998 survey. The public retained rather stereotypical views of how courts and judges work.

Over twenty years of surveys, the same negative and positive images of the judiciary recurred with varying degrees of forcefulness across all of the national and state surveys. The negative images centered on perceived inaccessibility, unfairness in the treatment of racial and ethnic minorities, leniency toward criminals, and a lack of concern about the problems of ordinary people. There was concern that the courts are biased in favor of the wealthy and corporations. Indeed, the perception of economic- based unfairness in civil cases seemed to rival the perception of judicial leniency in criminal cases as a source of public dissatisfaction. There also was strong evidence of public concern that political considerations, and especially campaign fundraising, exerted an undue influence on the judiciary.

The surveys also uncovered positive images of the courts. There were perceptions that judges are honest and fair in case decisions and well-trained, that the jury system works, and that judges and court personnel treat members of the public with courtesy and respect.

While the surveys between 1977 and 1998 reveal the contours of a relatively consistent public image of courts, it remained a broad-brush portrait. In particular, we lack a body of data that can measure the extent to which the image of the courts is the same when viewed from the perspective of different social groups. In this article, we use findings from a new survey to explore differences in perceptions of the courts among racial and ethnic groups and other issues that, in our view, deserve urgent attention by the judiciary in a period of reexamination of what the courts are doing and need to do better to secure the public’s trust and confidence.

The Need for and the Role of Comparative and Cross-Cultural Perspectives in Behavioral-Science-and-Law Scholarship

David Carson et al. — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 14:25:39 PDT

Behavioral-science-and-law scholarship suffers from the lack of many activities examining issues from a comparative or cross-cultural perspective. Although U.S. contributions tend to be the most insular, the problem applies to virtually all behavioral-science-and-law endeavors. This special perspective examines the trend in behavioral-science-and-law scholarship) presents data to support the allegation that there are few comparative/cross-cultural contributions) offers explanations for the situation, and advocates for the introduction of more comparative/cross-cultural efforts in the future.

Final Report: Nebraska Child Support Collection and Disbursement System Implementation Project

Alan Tomkins et al. — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 13:17:39 PDT

In June, 1999, the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center (PPC) was asked by the Executive Board of the Nebraska Legislature to undertake a study of child support issues. Specifically, the PPC was asked to recommend how Nebraska can preserve existing strengths and reduce or eliminate weakness in its child support customer service system as the state complies with a federal mandate and develops a centralized State Disbursement Unit (SDU) for the receipting and disbursement of child support payments.

In order to learn about the strengths and weaknesses of the present customer service system in Nebraska, as well as learn what other states are doing to service child support customers, the PPC spent most of its efforts consulting with Nebraska stakeholders (custodial and non-custodial parents; employers; child support enforcement workers, staff and officials; district court clerks; attorneys; policymakers and legislative and gubernatorial staff; judicial personnel; and other interested persons), state and federal child support enforcement staff and other officials from around the nation, leaders and staff from private companies working in child support around the country, and with other national experts. The PPC worked closely with an inter-governmental Work Group, consisting of representatives from the Unicameral, the Nebraska Child Support Enforcement/)IV-D agency, the Governor’s Office, the State Court Administrator’s Office, and the District Court Clerk’s Association.

The results of these efforts lead the PPC to offer 10 recommendations that we believe will help preserve existing customer service strengths and reduce or eliminate weaknesses:
• Establish an on-going, intergovernmental and key stakeholder team(s) to monitor and participate in the selection, implementation, and on-going evaluation of the customer service system in Nebraska.
• Make extensive use of a toll-free, Voice Response Unit (VRU)/automated telephone system with customer service representatives as the primary means of obtaining customer service.
• If possible, provide access to a person with whom customers can speak face-to-face for service.
• Provide customer services specifically for employers.
• Include all child support cases in the new SDU and customer service systems.
• Ensure adequate staffing and a sufficient infrastructure to allow customer service providers to succeed, and also slowly implement changes to the current child support system.
• Specify performance indicators and conduct customer satisfaction studies.
• Make use of new technologies to expand access to information and to allow innovative means for interactions between customers and customer service providers.
• Use the upcoming change as an opportunity to develop and expand innovative social programs designed to further the goals of the child support system.
• Be patient as the new systems are implemented and be proactive in informing stakeholders of upcoming changes.

Along with these 10 recommendations (and an elaboration of the rationales for the recommendations), seven policy decision points are identified and discussed. Five challenges to successful implementation of the SDU-linked customer service system are presented. Finally, we encourage all those involved in the child support system to work together, to move on from past disagreements, and engage in an effective decisionmaking process that will result in positive outcomes for Nebraska’s children and families.

Introduction to "Persons with Disabilities": Special Issue of Behavioral Sciences and the Law

Alan Tomkins — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 12:59:50 PDT

In 1990, the United States Congress enacted legislation protecting the civil rights of persons with disabilities. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) (1990) has been termed the most significant civil rights legislation since the 1960s (Rothstein, 1992/1994; see also Drimmer, 1993; Gostin & Beyer, 1993). The intent of the ADA is to provide “not only equal treatment [for persons with disabilities], but also equal opportunity” (Rothstein, 1992, p. 19, emphasis in original). The purpose of the ADA is not only to eliminate intentional discrimination, but also to change “policies and practices that have a discriminatory impact” on persons with disabilities (p. 19). The ADA was implemented in the wake of decades of growing awareness of and responses to the numerous societal barriers confronted by persons with disabilities. The civil rights movement for persons with disabilities was spawned by grass roots movements (Scotch, 1984). Over time, this civil rights movement has been aided by behavioral science research as well as by legal actions (see, e.g., Scotch, 1984, 1988; see also Ainlay, Becker, & Coleman, 1986; Asch & Fine, 1988; Rothstein, 1992/1994; Shapiro, 1993).

It is still too early to assess the ultimate success of the specific ADA legislation, much less the general disability-rights, advocacy movement. Nevertheless, as the articles in this special issue of Behavioral Sciences and the Law reflect, the behavioral-science-and-law community has much to contribute to the elimination of the marginalization of persons with disabilities in modern society. As shown in the articles in this issue, these efforts can include a) assessing progress in light of legislation and policy reforms, b) identifying on-going barriers, and c) offering ideas for different ways to conceptualize not only the problems, but also the solutions to problems confronting persons with disabilities. Ultimately, these and the other efforts being undertaken in the legal, social, and political arenas should help in the fight to fully integrate persons with disabilities into every part of the social fabric.

Introduction to Families and the Courts: Special Issue of Behavioral Sciences & the Law

Alan Tomkins et al. — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:31:16 PDT

This special issue of Behavioral Sciences & the Law examines some of the many issues related to “Families and the courts.” As Judge Ted Rubin (this issue) observes, “Not everything or everybody ends up in a family court—or any other court—when there is a family problem. But much does and many do.” The issue deals with some of the family matters that do—or should—implicate the legal system (ranging from the attempts of gay men and lesbians to obtain legal recognition of their parental status vis-a-vis their children to the potential role of law in protecting children from emotional maltreatment by their parents). It also deals with issues regarding the nature, structure, definition, and jurisdiction of family courts; the practice of other courts that handle family matters (such as domestic violence), as well as some of the mental health professionals who aid the courts in their decision making. Scientific issues, practical issues, ethical issues, and political issues are covered. The six articles comprising the special issue span a vast territory.

Introduction to special issue: INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES (Behavioral Sciences and the Law)

Alan Tomkins et al. — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 11:25:01 PDT

There is a dearth of behavioral-sciences-and-law (bsl) scholarship that employs an international, comparative, or cross-cultural perspective. Traditionally, bsl scholarship is national in its orientation. Thus, it is quite pleasing to have assembled five articles for this “Special Issue on International Perspectives” that address bsl issues from a nontraditional perspective. The four core articles (there also is a “Special Perspective” that the Issue Editors have contributed) in the Special Issue represent the kinds of research, theorizing, and writing that can open the horizons and expand the boundaries of traditional scholarship in the bsl area.

Introduction to "Current Directions": Behavioral Sciences and the Law 2000

Alan Tomkins — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:17:47 PDT

Th is is the second “Current Directions” issue published in Behavioral Sciences and the Law. Our Current Directions issues are not themed issues, but rather they are a collection of current research reports, special perspectives, and other publications. In this issue of Current Directions, there are five traditional research report/special perspective articles:
• Frederick, “Mixed Group Validation: A Method to Address the Limitations of Criterion Group Validation in Research on Malingering Detection”
• Cooper & Hall, “Reaction of Mock Jurors to Testimony of a Court Appointed Expert”
• Cascardi, Poythress, & Hall, “Procedural Justice in the Context of Civil Commitment: An Analogue Study”
• Cauffinan & Steinberg, “(Im)maturity of Judgment in Adolescence: Why Adolescents May be Less Culpable than Adults”
• Mossman, “The Meaning of Malingering Data: Further Application of Hayes’s Theorem”

There also are two reviews of forensic risk assessment manuals produced by forensic clinicians from the Mental Health, Law, and Policy Institute of Simon Fraser University (HCR-20: Assessing Risk for Violence, Version 2, and The Manual for the SVR- 20). Dr. Douglas Mossman, an academic forensic psychiatrist, and Dr. Phillip Witt, a practitioner forensic psychologist, examined the risk assessment tools.

Introduction to Public Trust and Confidence in the Courts

David B. Rottman et al. — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 10:12:42 PDT

This special issue is fortunate in its timing. The topic of public perceptions of the courts is having a rare moment in the limelight thanks to the drama of Florida’s ballots and what can count as a vote (or what opportunities there are for recounting ballots) in the U.S. Presidential election. The outcome of the political election seemed to rest on successive decisions by the judicial system: in particular, Florida’s trial and appellate courts, the federal court of appeals, and ultimately the U.S. Supreme Court. Each of these courts addressed the propriety of electoral ballot counts for Presidential candidates in various Florida counties. The apparent political nature of the legal decisions in virtually each case fueled concern about the solidity of public support for the judiciary. In particular, claims were made that the results were partisan and would cause an abrupt decline in public support for the courts and in the value given to the judiciary’s independence of other branches of government.

Our initial call for papers for this special issue preceded the Florida events by more than a year. Nonetheless, the resulting issue is very relevant to the questions raised in news reports and debated in list-serves of social scientists and legal professionals interested in the law and legal institutions. What do the articles have in common? All seven articles are empirical. Six of the seven rely on data from surveys conducted in the United States and analyze opinion on “state and local courts” or “courts in your community” or “the courts of State X”. The U.S. Supreme Court, the staple of political science and sociological examination of American courts, is rarely mentioned. This may, in part, reflect, the availability of new data. Fifteen states have commissioned opinion surveys since 1995. In addition, in recent years three national surveys focused on state, but not federal, courts. There are other similarities among the articles. All seven studies refer to racial and ethnic diff erences in opinions about the courts and legal institutions, and four of the seven explicitly seek to explain those diff erences, including the sole non-U.S. study, a consideration of ethnic differences in Israel.

Introduction to International Perspectives on Therapeutic Jurisprudence

Alan Tomkins et al. — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:56:43 PDT

Therapeutic Jurisprudence (TJ), a concept first conceived by law professors David Wexler (University of Puerto Rico and University of Arizona) and Bruce Winick (University of Miami) only a little more than a decade ago, has emerged as the leading conceptual perspective in the mental health law field. Indeed, a LEXIS search reveals well over 150 articles on, or citing to, therapeutic jurisprudence in American law review publications in the past decade (terms used were “therapeutic w/5 jurisprudence w/25 Wexler or Winick”).

Although initially a notion that provided an alternative to the traditional “rights” approach to thinking about mental health law problems in the US, TJ has evolved beyond just a mental health conception and expanded way beyond the borders of the USA. For example, under Wexler’s guidance, the University of Puerto Rico School of Law has recently created an International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, and the school’s law review, Revista Juridica Universidad de Puerto Rico, has been regularly publishing TJ articles for the past several years. In July 1998, the University of Southampton and the Behavioral Science and Law Network sponsored the first International Conference on Therapeutic Jurisprudence in Winchester, England, a conference coordinated by one of us (DC) with considerable assistance from Wexler and Winick. Moreover, TJ was a major theme at the international conference on psychology and law held in Dublin in July 1999, and another international TJ conference is scheduled for Cincinnati, Ohio, in 2001.

It should not have surprised us, then, to find that our solicitation of manuscripts for this special issue yielded more publishable manuscripts that could be published in a single issue of Behavioral Sciences & the Law. Rather than reject publishable manuscripts, we decided to publish some in this special issue and publish the rest next year as part of a second special on Therapeutic Jurisprudence. Taken together, the articles in the two issues reflect the kinds of rich and varied work that is being done under the TJ umbrella.

Introduction to International Perspectives on Therapeutic Jurisprudence, Part II

Alan Tomkins et al. — Tue, 10 Oct 2006 09:50:30 PDT

Therapeutic jurisprudence (TJ) is flourishing. There is a proliferation of articles being published. In addition, books are being written, and in the past several years, conferences devoted to TJ have been held. (For a listing of over 300 books and articles, see http://www.law.arizona.edu/upr-intj and follow the “Cumulative Bibliography” link.) Some recent examples: Professors Bruce Winick and David Wexler, who developed the TI concept, teamed with former University of Denver Law Dean Edward Dauer (internationally known for his work in preventive law) to edit a special issue of the journal Psychology, Public Policy, and Law on “Therapeutic Jurisprudence and Preventive Law: Transforming Legal Practice and Education” (volume 5, number 4, 1999). Judge Steve Leben (Johnson County, Kansas), editor of Court Review: The Journal of the American Judges Association, organized a special issue of the journal on TI (volume 37, issue 1, 2000). In addition, the Second International Conference on Therapeutic Jurisprudence will be held on 3-5 May, 2001, at the Kingsgate Conference Center at the University of Cincinnati. One can find out about various TJ activities from the web site hosted by the International Network on Therapeutic Jurisprudence at the above web address.

We are pleased that BS&L is another scholarly journal participating in international TI efforts. Last year, BS&L published the first of two special issues on TI (volume 17, number 5, 1999). The first issue contained several articles that originated as papers presented at the First International Conference on Therapeutic Jurisprudence held in Winchester, UK, in the summer of 1998. The present issue is the second of the two issues, and it includes five more articles that started as Winchester conference papers (Allan & Allan; Birgden & Vincent; Drogin; Elbogen & Tomkins; and McGuire), along with three other articles not from the Winchester conference (Casey & Rottman; Levine; and Slobogin & Fondacaro).

Farewell from the Editor of BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES AND THE LAW

Alan Tomkins — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:45:03 PDT

This double issue is comprised of 12 articles on a variety of topics. The issue marks the beginning of the 20th year of Behavioral Sciences & the Law (BS&L). The journal began publication in 1983 with four themed issues, on ‘Malpractice,’ ‘Terrorism,’ ‘Post-traumatic stress disorders,’ and ‘Informed consent.’ Each of these topics is as relevant in 2002 as it was almost two decades ago. Over the 20 years, BS&L has primarily published special topic issues. Special topics have distinguished BS&L from other journals in the field. The past few years, however, we have been receiving so many high quality manuscripts on matters outside our designated special topic issues that we have started publishing ‘Current Directions’ issues on a regular basis. This double issue is the fourth issue we have published as a Current Directions issue. At the American Psychological Association’s 2001 annual meeting, Brian Bornstein asked Richard Wiener, editor of Law and Human Behavior, and me to discuss the use of experimental methodologies in our journals’ publications. The discussion prompted me to reflect on the various kinds of article we have published in BS&L over the past five years, the period during which I have served as editor of the journal.

International Perspectives on Restorative and Community Justice

Alan Tomkins et al. — Mon, 09 Oct 2006 12:40:42 PDT

Legal systems across the globe have attempted to accommodate to our new understandings of human behavior, evolving notions of fairness, and increasing recognitions by Western jurists that the law sits within, not apart from, the complexities of societies. One manifestation of legal system change has been the attempt to alter legal institutional structures and practices in order to better address the overlap of justice and social concerns, often drawing from culture contexts previously ignored by Western bureaucracies (see, e.g., Levine, 2000, discussing the Maori roots of family group conferencing practices). The interest in restorative justice and community justice is, in part, a reflection of those who are interested in bringing new visions to how justice-related institutions might better address social issues that straddle—and cross—legal limits. For some, it represents forward thinking of how courts can effectively help those who need services as well as justice (see Casey & Hewitt, 2001); for others, it represents a response to dissatisfactions with the justice system that are centuries old (see http://www:fcrjquaker:org/, arguing for restorative and redemptive approaches to justice rather than retributive approaches).