No description available.

abstract: In the wake of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, courts and social service systems across the country have begun establishing veterans treatment courts (VTC). The first VTC was created in 2004 and there are now over 300 in at least 35 states. Yet, their underlying assumptions have not been clearly articulated and their functioning and outcomes have not been well tested. These courts aim to reduce rates of incarceration and recidivism among justice-involved veterans and draw heavily on the structure and assumptions of drug and mental health courts. However, VTCs are different in important ways. Unlike other problem solving courts, VTCs actively express gratitude to criminal defendants (for past military service) and have the ability to connect participants to a socially-esteemed identity. Earlier problem solving courts have drawn on Tyler’s theory of procedural justice to predict a path from procedurally fair treatment and social bonds with court personnel through changes in social identity to increased perceptions of legal legitimacy and, ultimately, program completion and reduced recidivism. The present study tested a modified, version of Tyler’s theory that incorporates gratitude and focuses on veteran identity as the mediating construct between fair treatment and perceptions of legal legitimacy. A cross-sectional survey design was used with a convenience sample (N = 188) of participants in two Arizona VTCs. The results indicate that perceptions of procedural justice, perceived social bonds and receipt of gratitude are positively associated with both veteran identity and perceptions of legal legitimacy. Further, veteran identity was found to be a significant mediator between the first three constructs and legal legitimacy. Finally, neither recidivism risk nor race/ethnicity moderated the relationships. The study supports the importance of acknowledging past military service and enhancing the level of veteran identity among VTC participants. Implications for practice and future research are discussed. / Dissertation/Thesis / Doctoral Dissertation Social Work 2016

Magister Legum - LLM / The aim of this study is to scrutinise, in particular, the legal bases of and decisions taken by various hybrid courts with regards to such consolidating or fragmenting effects on substantive international criminal law. The first section (Chapter 2), it will examine what is to be understood by the notion of a hybrid court. This will be followed by an analysis of the hybrid courts that have been established thus far. Furthermore, the advantages and reasons for which hybrid courts have been established in recent decades will be discussed, especially regarding their potential advantages as a transitional justice instrument. Moreover, disadvantages of hybrid courts and their deficiencies in the past will be addressed. Subsequently, the role of hybrid courts within the international legal system and their utility in the future will be discussed. This will include, on the one hand, the scope of the jurisdiction of hybrid courts in relation to other national and international criminal courts, especially vis-à-vis the ICC. On the other hand, it will be addressed whether hybrid courts will – or should – be established in the future, given the creation of the permanent ICC as well as the shortcomings of hybrid courts in the past. Against this background, the impact of hybrid courts on the further development of international criminal law will be assessed in the third section of the paper (Chapter 4). In this regard, the discussion will focus on a representative selection of hybrid courts, namely the Special Court for Sierra Leone (SCSL), the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (ECCC) and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL). It will be discussed how their legal bases as well as their jurisprudence relate to the previous state of international criminal law, and whether they constitute adverse diversifications or positive contributions to international criminal law. In a concluding section (Chapter 5), the results of the study will be analysed and possible correlations between the structural elements of hybrid courts and their impact on international criminal law will be discussed. Finally, further questions regarding the use of hybrid courts in the future will be addressed.

This thesis defines courts as pure public goods. It deals with the inclusion of the courts of the state powers, deals with the courts in terms of performance of the state administration. It draws attention to the problem of the system of courts, which doesn't correspond in terms of the territoral aspect with distribution of land in the Czech Republic and also connects on this research transport service courts. Then examines the issue of provision of services and satisfaction of the courts of such services.

This dissertation is motivated by a straightforward question about a drastic change to American politics: why has the process of staffing the circuit courts of appeals, once so agreeable and bipartisan, seemed to have descended into almost complete partisan bitterness? Across the entire time series, these are, after all, the same courts endowed with the same power of judicial review. And when the process of staffing them was harmonious, the courts were nevertheless deciding the fate of major, controversial policies of national importance---such as the New Deal in the 1930s and civil rights in the 1950s---just as they do today. Yes, many other aspects of American politics have changed through the decades. But what could possibly explain such a complete reversal of course? I argue that this change, toward divisiveness and partisan warfare, is actually about the judiciary itself and the substantive manner by which the nominees are thought of---namely, the entry of judicial ideology into the debate through the innovation of circuit judges being evaluated on ideological terms. While taken for granted as central today, any ideological assessment of circuit court nominees, and in particular viewing them as having a comprehensive judicial philosophy as opposed to just a position on singular pressing issue of the day, was almost nonexistent for generations. Its entry into the process was piecemeal and somewhat complicated, but it eventually came to dominate and irrevocably polarize the business of staffing the courts. I argue that this was the key factor that leaves us where we are today. Broadly speaking, I consider the contributions and particular strengths of my dissertation, relative to previous scholarship, to be threefold. First is my argument and accompanying analyses which put the crucial (and severely understudied) role of judicial ideology front and center. Second, I analyze the entire lifespan of the circuit courts, whereas the previous scholarship looks only at (often relatively brief) subsets of their history. As far as I know, this is the first study to systematically look at all circuit court nominations from the establishment of these courts in 1891 through the modern era. Third, I collect and analyze a great deal of new data. In particular I focus on systematically utilizing extensive archival resources and build two original data sets related to the Senate's public and private evaluation of judicial nominees; and while there is certainly a qualitative aspect to much of this research, I also synthesize and make sense of it with quantitative analysis. In chapter 1, I explain the puzzle motivating this research, elaborate my argument, and lay out the theoretical, methodological, and data collection contributions of this dissertation. I also review the literature and describe the three existing schools of thought. In chapter 2, I give an overview of the history of the circuit courts from their founding to the present. In this data-heavy chapter, I examine multiple metrics individually, and using several of these I build a robust composite score of divisiveness for each nominee ever made to the circuit courts, from 1891 through 2020. As far as I know this has never been done before. I find overwhelming evidence that the process has fundamentally changed and become more divisive. In chapter 3, I dig more deeply into the timing of this change, and begin to explore how and why it happened---and begin my attempt at demonstrating how the evaluation of judicial ideology is central to this change. To do this I examine a massive data source that has never been utilized: the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings for all nominees. With both qualitative and quantitative analysis, I show that the evaluation of nominees has varied widely over time. Prior to 1979, nominees were evaluated almost exclusively based on their qualifications, with ideology examined only under special circumstances, which I explore in depth. In this time period, ideological scrutiny predicted a contentious confirmation process, providing evidence for my argument that ideological evaluation drove divisiveness. Also in this chapter, I analyze the post-1979 transition to the routine ideological evaluation that permanently altered the confirmation process. I find that Republicans and comprehensive judicial philosophies both played a key role. In chapter 4, I examine the senators' private evaluation of nominees, in part to serve as a check on the validity of my earlier data analysis and also to see if there is any difference between the senators' public and private goals in relation to the judiciary. To do this, I build an original data set of over 1000 internal letters and memoranda from senators, by searching the archival records of nearly every president since Benjamin Harrison as well as over 150 senators. Studying this material qualitatively and quantitatively, the findings here largely align with the analysis of the public committee hearings: for much of history senators were concerned mainly about qualifications, with ideological concern rare and under special circumstances, but eventually ideology came to be the predominant concern which ended the consensual and placid process. This immense historical record also brings to light additional senatorial goals, such as ensuring residents of their own state as well as personal friends obtain judicial appointments. In chapter 5, I focus in on the post-1979 era and I find that the more ideologically distant a nominee is from the Senate, the more divisive the confirmation process is. This provides evidence that the process is defined by ideology related to the nominees, not garden variety polarization of the system. In chapter 6, I conclude, trying to synthesize all of my findings as well as offer some thoughts on areas of future research.

Recent events have given attention to the public perception of criminal justice field in the United States. Although there has been much political debate about problems in the criminal justice field, attention should be turned to the prospective employees who will soon be seeking out these debates: college students seeking to enter the criminal justice field. The current study did that through survey data obtained from 112 students enrolled in criminal justice courses at East Tennessee State University during the Fall 2020 semester. Analysis revealed much about student interest in various criminal justice occupations, their perceived ability to perform the duties associated with them and the factors that motivated their decision-making. It also indicated that certain characteristics may influence desire to enter the policing and legal fields. Each of these findings is discussed.

Thesis (LLM )--Stellenbosch University, 2011. / ENGLISH ABSTRACT: In the field of administrative law, the judiciary has traditionally exercised control over the administrative actions of the executive through judicial review. However, judicial review is neither the most effective nor the most efficient primary control mechanism for systemic administrative improvement. In a country faced with a task of =transformative constitutionalism‘, and hindered with scarce resources, there is good cause to limit judicial intervention as the first response to administrative disputes. The major theme of this thesis is to investigate the feasibility of administrative tribunal reform in South Africa, using two other commonwealth countries, Australia and England, as a basis for comparison. Australia and England have been chosen for comparison because they share similar administrative law traditions and they can provide working models of coherent tribunal structures. The Australian tribunal system is well-established and consists of tribunals which fall under the control of the executive, while tribunals in England have recently undergone a significant transformation, and are now part of the independent judiciary. The South African government currently spends, indeed wastes, a significant amount of money on administrative law litigation. Due to the limitations of judicial review, even after the high costs of litigation and the long duration of court proceedings, the results achieved may still be unsatisfactory. Furthermore, judicial review is unsuited to giving effect to systemic administrative change and the improvement of initial decision-making. Australia and England have begun to move away from the traditional court model for the resolution of administrative disputes. Both have indicated a preference for the important role of tribunals in the administration of disputes. Tribunals have been shown to offer the advantage of being speedier, cheaper, more efficient, more participatory and more accessible than traditional courts, which contributes to tribunals being a more available resource for lay people or people without sophisticated legal knowledge, and provides wider access to remedies than courts. The English and Australian models indicate a few important trends which need to be applied universally to ensure a sustained tribunal reform and a system which provides a higher level of administrative redress than the over-burdened and institutionally inept courts currently do. These include co-operation among government departments and tribunals; open and accountable systemic change; the need for supervision and evaluation of the whole of administrative law by an independent and competent body; and ultimately a focus on the needs of users of state services. At the same time, there are arguments against administrative tribunal reform. These include the costs of reform; the ways to establish tribunals; and the level of independence shown by the tribunals. These arguments are especially relevant in the South African context, where the government faces huge social problems and a scarcity of resources. However, after an analysis of the valuable characteristics of tribunals and the role that they serve in the day to day administration of justice, it is difficult to see how these objections to tribunals can outweigh their potential importance in the administrative justice system. The need for sustained systematic reform in South Africa is one that cannot be ignored. Tribunals offer a valuable alternative to judicial review for the resolution of administrative disputes. Furthermore, the tribunal systems of Australia and England demonstrate how the effective creation and continued use of comprehensive tribunal structures contributes firstly to cost reduction and secondly to ease the administrative burden on courts who are not suited to cure large-scale administrative error. / AFRIKAANSE OPSOMMING: In die administratiefreg oefen die regsprekende gesag tradisioneel beheer uit oor die uitvoerende gesag deur middel van geregtelike hersiening. Geregtelike hersiening is egter nie die mees doeltreffende of effektiewe primêre beheermeganisme om sistemiese administratiewe verbetering teweeg te bring nie. In 'n land met die uitdagings van 'transformatiewe konstitusionalisme‘ en skaars hulpbronne, kan 'n goeie argument gevoer word dat geregtelike inmenging as die eerste antwoord op administratiewe dispute beperk moet word. Die deurlopende tema van hierdie tesis is 'n ondersoek na die lewensvatbaarheid van hervorming van administratiewe tribunale in Suid-Afrika, in vergelyking met die posisie in Australië en Engeland, waarvan beide ook, tesame met Suid-Afrika, deel vorm van die Statebond. Hierdie lande is gekies vir regsvergelykende studie aangesien hulle 'n administratiefregtelike tradisie met Suid-Afrika deel en beide werkende modelle van duidelike tribunale strukture daarstel. Die Australiese tribunale stelsel is goed gevestig en bestaan uit tribunale onder die beheer van die uitvoerende gesag, terwyl die tribunale stelsel in Engeland onlangs 'n beduidende hervorming ondergaan het en nou deel van die onafhanklike regsprekende gesag is. Die Suid-Afrikaanse regering mors aansienlike hoeveelhede geld op administratiefregtelike litigasie. Selfs na hoë koste en lang vertragings van litigasie mag die resultate steeds onbevredigend wees as gevolg van die beperkings inherent aan geregtelike hersiening. Tesame met hierdie oorwegings is geregtelike hersiening ook nie gerig op sistemiese administratiewe verandering en verbetering van aanvanklike besluitneming nie. Australië en Engeland het onlangs begin wegbeweeg van die tradisionele hof-gebaseerde model vir die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Beide toon 'n voorkeur vir die belangrike rol wat tribunale in die administrasie van dispute kan speel Tribunale bied die bewese voordele om vinniger, goedkoper, meer doeltreffend, meer deelnemend en meer toeganklik te wees as tradisionele howe, sodat tribunale 'n meer beskikbare hulpbron is vir leke, oftewel, persone sonder gesofistikeerde regskennis en dus beter toegang tot remedies as tradisionele howe verskaf. Die Engelse en Australiese modelle dui op enkele belangrike tendense wat universeel toegepas moet word om volgehoue tribunale hervorming te verseker en om =n stelsel te skep wat 'n hoër vlak van administratiewe geregtigheid daarstel as wat oorlaaide en institusioneel onbekwame howe kan. Dit verwys bepaald na samewerking tussen staatsdepartemente en tibunale; deursigtige en verantwoordbare sistemiese veranderinge; die behoefte aan toesighouding en evaluasie van die hele administratiefreg deur 'n onafhanklike, bevoegde liggaam; en uiteindelik 'n fokus op die behoeftes van die gebruikers van staatsdienste. Daar is egter terselfdertyd ook argumente teen administratiewe tribunale hervorming. Hierdie argumente sluit in die koste van hervorming; die wyses waarop tribunale gevestig word; en die vlak van onafhanklikheid voorgehou deur tribunale. Hierdie argumente is veral relevant in die Suid-Afrikaanse konteks waar die regering voor groot sosiale probleme te staan kom en daarby ingesluit, 'n tekort aan hulpbronne ook moet hanteer. Daarenteen is dit moeilik om in te sien hoe enige teenkanting en teenargumente met betrekking tot die vestiging van administratiewe tribunale swaarder kan weeg as die potensiële belang van sulke tribunale in die administratiewe geregtigheidstelsel, veral nadat 'n analise van die waardevolle karaktereienskappe van tribunale en die rol wat hulle speel in die dag-tot-dag administrasie van geregtigheid onderneem is. Die behoefte aan volhoubare sistemiese hervorming in Suid-Afrika kan nie geïgnoreer word nie. Tribunale bied 'n waardevolle alternatief tot geregtelike hersiening met die oog op die oplossing van administratiewe dispute. Tesame hiermee demonstreer die tribunale stelsels in Australië en Engeland hoe die doeltreffende vestiging en deurlopende gebruik van omvattende tribunale bydra, eerstens om kostes verbonde aan die oplossing van administratiewe dispute te verlaag en tweedens, om die administratiewe las op die howe, wat nie aangelê is daarvoor om grootskaalse administratiewe foute reg te stel nie, te verlig.

The means of personal data protection in courts, legal acts, regulating that, are analyzed in the final work ,,Legal aspects of personal data protection in the judicial system“. The implementation of information technologies in the work of courts has fasten the judge of cases, though when the automate administration of personal data started, the danger personal data to be detected has increased, breaking the persons` right to privacy. The author also analyses the purpose of a courts` information system LITEKO and the data, which is administrated with this program. It is aiming to find out the measures, which can be used to strengthen the protection of personal data. The author while analyzing the practical situation of personal data protection in courts, gives recommendations, how occurring problems could be solved. The work brings us to the main conclusion, that personal data protection and the right to the privacy should not be made absolute. The ways how to protect personal data and the right to privacy in court processes, to guarantee the quality of court process and the reliability in courts should be found.

This  article  has  as  aim  to  reflect  about  the  protection  of economic, social and cultural rights before the regressive measures adopted by governments in Latin America, as well as of the different levels of jurisdictional tutelage that those receive. The document develops the concept of a regressive measure and the scope of the non-regression principle, furthermore, it shows the experience of the Constitutional Courts from Peru and Colombia and the organs of the Interamerican System of Human Rights regarding the protection of social rights. / El presente artículo tiene por propósito plantear una reflexión sobre la protección jurisdiccional que reciben los derechos sociales frente a la adopción de medidas regresivas en Latinoamérica por parte de los Estados, así como de los diversos grados de tutela jurisdiccional que aquellos reciben. El artículo desarrolla la noción de regresividad y los alcances del principio de prohibición de regresividad, así como la experiencia  de las Cortes Constitucionales de Perú y Colombia y de los órganos el Sistema Interamericano de Derechos Humanos en torno a la protección de los derechos sociales.

Magister Legum - LLM / Hybrid Courts are the latest innovation in the prosecution of international crimes after the era of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY). Examples include; the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia, the Regulation 64 Panels in the courts of Kosovo and the Special Court for Sierra Leone. The hybrid court model at its inception was believed to be the panacea for the short comings of purely international tribunals. The characteristic location of the tribunals in the locus of the atrocities and the participation of local judicial officers alongside their international counterparts was expected to promote legitimacy and foster capacity building for conflict ravaged transitional states. Despite the criticisms of the model today, a new hybrid court has recently been inaugurated to prosecute Hissène Habré the former President of Chad, for international crimes committed during his presidency. The promulgation of the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Senegal suggests that the model continues to be useful, especially for Africa. This is of particular significance since international criminal justice has lately come under attack on the continent. The on-going feud between the African Union and the International Criminal court is only the most prolific example of this. This research paper explores the dimensions of the challenges facing the legitimacy of international criminal justice in Africa and the extent to which the hybrid court model can provide a solution for them. In order to do so, the study begins by addressing the meaning of legitimacy within the African context. A general discussion of hybrid tribunals, as well as the specific manifestations of the model in Africa so far, follows. The Special Court for Sierra Leone and the Extraordinary African Chambers in the Courts of Senegal are distinguishable from each other in structure and are thus juxtaposed in order to illuminate possible improvements on the hybrid court model for the future.