No description available.

This thesis considers how potentially vulnerable populations are affected by various economic and policy shocks. In the first chapter, I investigate the impact of natural resource booms on crime by estimating the effect of the coal boom and bust of the 1970s and 1970s on reported crime rates. I begin by demonstrating that changes in the value of coal reserves affected local economic conditions and population composition, both of which have theoretical and empirical links to crime. The net effect is theoretically ambiguous. The estimates suggest that the immediate impact of increasing the value of natural resources is to depress crime rates, primarily through changes in property crime, but these changes erode over time. My findings are consistent with an initial change in criminal activity in response to local labor market conditions that is subsequently offset by selective migration. Individuals who are charged with committing a crime often find themselves behind bars while their case is adjudicated. In the United States, over 400,000 individuals are in jail each day waiting for their criminal cases to be resolved. The majority of these individuals are detained pretrial due to the inability to post low levels of bail (less than $3,000). In chapter 2, my coauthor and I estimate the impact of being detained pretrial on the likelihood of an individual being convicted or pleading guilty, and their sentence length, using data on nearly a million misdemeanor and felony cases in New York City from 2009 to 2013. Causal effects are identified using variation across arraignment judges in their propensities to detain defendants. We find that being detained increases the probability of conviction by over seven percentage points by causing individuals to plead guilty more often. Because pretrial detention is driven by failure to post bail, these adverse effects disproportionately hurt low-income individuals. While some public policies create burdens that fall most heavily on low-income people and households, the public safety net is comprised of programs intended to protect and support this vulnerable population. In chapter three, my coauthors and I examine whether programs that provide vouchers to households can continue to influence behavior even after the household leaves the program. Using detailed scanner data, we test whether benefit vouchers received through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) change household purchasing decisions and whether these changes continue to persist even after households are no longer eligible to participate in the program. In 2009, the package of goods available through WIC vouchers changed to include additional items and place nutritional restrictions on other items. Examining variation due to this package change, we show that the WIC vouchers change purchasing decisions consistent with the nutritional guidelines of the program. However, we find evidence of limited persistence post-eligibility, and that households exposed longer to the revised package are generally not more likely to continue to purchase these items after eligibility ends.

No description available.

Master of Arts / Sociology, Anthropology, and Social Work / Mario V. Cano / Despite the substantial research conducted on racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system, the majority of research focuses on final sentencing decisions. Less attention has been devoted to earlier stages in criminal processing, such as the presentence detention process. In fact, the analyses that did investigate presentence detention status mainly used state-level data, and there is only a handful of studies that have examined race/ethnicity and gender effects on detention and bail in the federal criminal justice system (e.g., Albonetti, 1989; Bak, 1998: Reitler, et. al., 2012; Spohn, 2009). Furthermore, recent analyses have uncovered that extralegal disparities in presentence detention outcomes, particularly racial and ethnic disparities, vary across court jurisdictions (e.g., Levin, 2008; Pinchevski & Steiner, 2013; Eisenstein & Jacob, 1977). Thus, the purpose of this study is to explore the effects of defendants’ race/ethnicity and gender, and social context, on defendants’ pretrial status. This study employs a multilevel modeling strategy and uses criminal sentencing data (N=130,120) from the U.S. Sentencing Commission (USSC) for fiscal years 2008 to 2010, across 89 U.S. District Courts, including supplemental data drawn from the U.S. Census Bureau and the Federal Judicial Center’s Federal Court Management Statistics. The initial findings indicate that Black and Hispanic defendants are less likely than Whites, and females are more likely than males, to be released on bail and rereleased on their own recognizance (ROR). Regarding the district level, ROR is less likely for defendants processed in districts with a higher crime rate and higher socioeconomic disadvantage. On the other hand, bail is more likely for defendants processed in districts with larger courts (more judges). In cross-level interactions increase in percent Black, increase in crime rate, and increase in socioeconomic disadvantage are positively associated with bail for Black defendants, while increase in percent Hispanic and court size are positively associated with bail for Hispanic defendants. Consistent with the courts as communities and focal concerns perspectives, this study found that the presentence process is influenced by local practices, norms, and concerns for organizational efficiency. These distinctive features of court jurisdictions interact with race/ethnicity and affect defendants' presentence status. Future research is needed to better assess the detention process with increased access to federal data. In addition, examination of intersectionality of race/ethnicity, gender and age at the presentence detention stage is required.

This study addresses individual and group-level effects of jury deliberation and decision making. Using a real case, this study tests pretrial publicity (PTP) effects over time, starting in the pretrial phase and evaluating for media effects throughout the mock-jury decision making process. The sample was composed of mock-jurors (N = 49 deliberating groups of five/six persons). Results address (1) a primacy effect of PTP exposure over time and general perceptions associated with the PTP exposure, (2) attributions of individual cognitive story and verdict preference confidence, and (3) juror- and jury-level characteristics associated with deliberation and communicative influence. Results reveal that the order in which participants saw PTP had differing effects on individual pre-deliberation decision making, but had no significant differing effects on final verdict decisions across groups. The only juror characteristic that had significant effects on the deliberation were perceived communicative influence, perceived participation, need for cognition, and motivation to process and discuss case evidence. In terms of discussing PTP in the deliberation, the only aggregated group effect on the verdict was trust in the jury system. Past research suggests that juries are formed to make unbiased decisions (Gastil, 2008), and in this case, jury deliberation potentially attenuated the presence of media bias.

No description available.

Yes / The rule of law, that is, the fair, competent, effective, and predictable application of laws that enhance, rather than undermine, social accountability and fundamental human rights, is a core function of the state, and forms part of its social contract with the citizenry. However, ensuring that a government upholds the rule of law requires a number of checks and balances. Some of this accountability and enforcement function lies with the other branches of government: oversight of the executive by the legislative branch through its committees and reports, and by the judiciary, which has its own proactive powers and can be petitioned by citizens and their representatives. But this republican structure can still be unresponsive or resistant to scrutiny, particularly when elites across the branches of government are indifferent to, or collude in, maintaining chronic problems in the justice system. Active non-governmental organisations (NGOs) are therefore recognised as a crucial component in the effective application of the rule of law due to their independence from government and their often-different perspective on the impact of unevenly applied and unjust laws and law enforcement through direct contact with the victims of arbitrary treatment. This chapter explores ways in which NGOs (both international and local) can contribute to strengthening rule of law through a case study of how the Open Society Institute and its Justice Initiative (OSJI) and a network of Brazilian NGOs developed a campaign to reduce the excessive use of pre-trial detention. It demonstrates how NGOs can fulfil important watchdog functions and are able to change laws, policies and practices that significantly improve the rule of law by working strategically with one another, with international partners and with sympathetic state actors.

Fundamental notions: Publicity principle, Pretrial investigation, The secrecy of the data of pretrial investigation. The content of publicity principle in penal code has been analyzed applying the methods of data analysis, comparison and classified analysis, and the place of the content in the system of the other principles of penal code has been assessed. The standards of penal code of the Republic of Lithuania regulating the run of publicity principle in pretrial investigation have also been analyzed. The content of the above mentioned standards has been revealed analyzing the practice of European Court of Human Rights and the Constitutional Court of the Republic of Lithuania. The conception of publicity principle and its place in the system of penal code is presented in the work; hereinafter the possibilities of participants and people who are uninterested in the result of criminal process are analyzed. The Constitution of the Republic of Lithuania consolidates the principles of free speech and other principles of democratic states, which guarantee the right to get information about all events and processes, including the investigation of criminal act and at the same time to enable the control of these processes and to influence them. The Law on Criminal Process of the Republic of Lithuania consolidates the attitude that the data of pretrial investigation cannot be declared. The secrecy of the data like the right to free speech cannot be considered as absolute value... [to full text]

The notion that pretrial media coverage impacts the judicial process of highly publicized trials is not limited to contemporary times. This study sheds light on the modem day issues that pretrial media surrounding celebrity criminal cases imposes on the United States judicial system and juries. A literature review examines the conflict between the First, Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to free press and fair trials, the impact of prejudicial pretrial media, precedents established in case law, and remedies that the courts use to limit the effects of prejudicial media. Expanding upon the literature review, the study next analyzes the public's view on crime, the media's manipulation of celebrity criminal trials, social and psychological theories on pretrial publicity, problems with current remedial measures, and specific celebrity case examples. The study provides a comprehensive analysis examining each individual aspect in determining the overall effect pretrial media has on celebrity criminal cases. The media is an essential part of society, but its reporting of the pretrial stages of celebrity criminal court cases impacts the jury's ability to give a celebrity defendant a fair trial.

No ano de 2016, o Brasil passou a ser o terceiro país com maior população carcerária do mundo. Levantamentos recentes indicam que o sistema de justiça tende a banalizar o uso da prisão cautelar (40% dos presos brasileiros são provisórios), em dissonância à legislação processual penal que traz a prisão preventiva como medida excepcional, assegurando a liberdade como regra até a decisão condenatória definitiva. O estudo dessa questão paradoxal é de interesse da comunidade jurídica por investigar se a tomada da decisão não está associada apenas ao conteúdo das regras jurídicas, mas a fatores extrajurídicos, desafiando as clássicas teorias da argumentação racional sobre a decisão judicial. Também de todo cidadão, potencial vítima de arbitrariedades no direito de liberdade, e da sociedade brasileira, já que o encarceramento em massa resulta em rebeliões, mortes, aumento da violência e canalização de recursos públicos de áreas produtivas para a contenção de pessoas. São os seguintes os problemas da pesquisa: 1) Para os magistrados, os sentidos da prisão preventiva e as razões de sua decretação são mais amplos do que os limites previstos na lei? 2) Em caso afirmativo, quais os sentidos construídos por eles e quais são os fatores considerados ou de influência para as decisões? Analisamos a questão a partir de premissas do realismo jurídico norte-americano, enquanto teoria descritiva da decisão judicial, para a qual o direito não é o único nem o principal elemento determinante das decisões. Objetivamos verificar quais são os sentidos construídos pelos juízes acerca da prisão preventiva e identificar como fatores extrajurídicos influenciam as decisões sobre ela. A investigação foi realizada coletando-se dados por meio de entrevistas semiestruturadas, a partir de amostra formada com dez participantes voluntários (juízes federais e estaduais). Procedemos à análise qualitativa, a partir da metodologia da produção de sentidos, na epistemologia do Construcionismo Social, oriundo da Psicologia Social. Os resultados encontrados indicam que os sentidos construídos pelos juízes acerca da prisão preventiva coincidem em parte, mas são mais amplos do que os conteúdos da legislação. Também revelam alguns fatores extrajurídicos de influência sobre as decisões de prisões cautelares. E demonstram como regras legais podem ser desconsideradas nas decisões quando elas não estiverem em consonância com as concepções individuais que os juízes constroem como solução justa ou correta. Concluímos, que de acordo com esta pesquisa, estão corretas as premissas do realismo jurídico: as regras legais têm influência, mas não exclusiva e nem necessariamente determinante, sobre as decisões. Para se compreender a extensão dos fatores extrajurídicos sobre as decisões judiciais é preciso prosseguir nas pesquisas empíricas interdisciplinares, que busquem compreender o fenômeno jurídico sob a perspectiva e com o instrumental de outros ramos do saber, já que estudos convencionais herméticos e meramente dogmáticos não conseguem revelar todos os seus aspectos, nem permitem conhecer o funcionamento operacional efetivo do sistema de justiça criminal. / Since 2016 Brazil has the third higher prison population in the world. Recent surveys indicate that the justice system tends to overuse pretrial detention (40% of Brazilian prisoners are pretrial detainees), in dissonance with the criminal procedural law that regulate preventive custody as exceptional measure, ensuring freedom to defendants as a rule until definitive conviction. The study of this paradoxical situation concerns to the law community once it investigates if the decision making is not only related to the content of the legal rules but also to extralegal factors, challenging the classic theories of rational argumentation about the judicial decision making. The inquiry matters to all citizens, potential victims of arbitrary imprisonment, and to the Brazilian society, since mass incarceration results in rebellions, deaths, increase of violence and channeling of public resources of productive areas for the containment of people. The research problems are as follows: 1) Are the meanings of pretrial detention for judges and the reasons for their enactment broader than the limits established by law? 2) If so, what are the meanings constructed by them and what are the factors considered or influencing decisions? We analyze the question from the premises of American legal realism as a descriptive theory of judicial decision, for which legal rules are not the only nor the main determinants of decisions. The purpose of the study was to verify which are the meanings constructed by the judges about the preventive custody and to identify extralegal factors influences at the decisions. Data was collected through semi-structured interviews, based on a sample of ten volunteer participants (federal and state judges). We proceed to the qualitative analysis, utilizing the production of meanings methodology, in the epistemology of Social Constructionism, from Social Psychology. The results indicate that the judges\' meanings about pretrial detention coincides in part, but they are broader than the contents of the legal rules. They also reveal some extralegal factors of influence on the decisions. And they demonstrate how legal rules can be disregarded in decisions when they are not in line with the individual conceptions that the judges construct as a just or right solution. We conclude that, according to this research, the premises of legal realism are correct: legal rules have influence, but not exclusively and not necessarily decisive, on decisions. In order to understand the extent of extralegal factors over judicial decisions, it is necessary to continue with interdisciplinary empirical research that seeks to understand the legal phenomenon from the perspective and with the instruments of other branches of knowledge, since hermetic, merely dogmatic studies cannot reveal aspects of how the criminal justice system functions.