Tackling the Issue of Limited Dialogue and Strengthening Collaboration Among Court Actors for Improving the Condition-Setting Process

Abstract

The concept of the courtroom workgroup highlights the collaboration among judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys in the criminal justice system. Traditionally, this workgroup excludes probation officers, presenting a significant gap in information for sentencing and probation condition-setting processes. Our study explores probation officers’ perspectives on their roles within the courtroom workgroup, emphasizing their importance in sentencing and rehabilitation. Using qualitative data analysis from 85 probation staff and the novel application of causal loop diagrams, we reveal how improved communication and integration of probation expertise may foster better collaboration among court actors. Effective communication, respect for probation expertise, and positive relationships foster better collaboration and more balanced and informed decisions. Conversely, poor communication, lack of respect, high turnover rates, and hierarchical power structures hinder dialogue and collaboration. Addressing these issues could lead to more informed decisions, ultimately advancing justice and fairness within the court system.

Keywords

criminal justice system courtroom workgroups probation decision-making communication qualitative analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abt Associates. (2019). Evaluating the impact of probation and parole home visits (Abt Associates, 2013-IJ-CX-0103). https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/grants/254342.pdf

Alarid

Montemayor

(2010). Attorney perspectives and decisions on the presentence investigation report: A research note. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 21(1), 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1177/0887403409344166

Albonetti

C. A.

(1999). The avoidance of punishment: A legal bureaucratic model of suspended sentences in federal white-collar cases prior to federal sentencing guidelines. Social Forces, 78, 303–329. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/3005798

Andrews

D. A.

Bonta

(2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, & Law, 16(1), 39–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018362

ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH. (2024). ATLAS.ti (version 24) [Computer software]. https://atlasti.com

Bibas

(2004). Plea bargaining outside the shadow of a trial. Harvard Law Review, 117, 2463–2547. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.2139/ssrn.464880

Bjerk

(2005). On the role of plea bargaining and the distribution of sentences in the absence of judicial system frictions. International Review of Law and Economics, 28(1), 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.irle.2007.12.005

Blumberg

(1967). The practice of law as confidence game-organizational cooptation of a profession. Law & Society Review, 1, 15–40. https://doi.org/10.2307/3052933

Burke

(2007). Prosecutorial passion, cognitive bias, and plea bargaining. Marquette Law Review, 93, 183–211. https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol91/iss1/9

10.

Burstein

(1980). Criminal case processing from an organizational perspective: Current research trends. The Justice System Journal, 5(3), 258–273. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/20877599

11.

Chrislip

D. D.

(2002). The collaborative leadership fieldbook (1st ed.). Jossey-Bass.

12.

Crespo

A. M.

(2018). The hidden law of plea bargaining. Columbia Law Review, 118(5), 1303–1424. http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:37122603

13.

Devers

(2011). Research summary: Plea and charge bargaining. Bureau of Justice Assistance. https://bja.ojp.gov/sites/g/files/xyckuh186/files/media/document/pleabargainingresearchsummary.pdf

14.

Eisenstein

Flemming

Nardulli

(1988). The contours of justice: Communities and their courts. Little Brown and Company.

15.

Eisenstein

Jacob

(1977). Felony justice: An organizational analysis of criminal courts. University Press of America.

16.

Farrell

Ward

(2011). Examining district variation in sentencing in the post-booker period. Federal Sentencing Reporter, 23(5), 318–325. https://doi.org/10.1525/fsr.2011.23.5.318

17.

Feeley

M. M.

(1979). The process is the punishment: Handling cases in a lower criminal court. Russell Sage Foundation.

18.

Fitria

Rahmayanti

Sumargo

(2023). The causal loop diagram model of flood management system based on eco-drainage concept. Sustinere: Journal of Environment and Sustainability, 6(3), 185–196. https://doi.org/10.22515/sustinerejes.v6i3.243

19.

Fontana

Frey

J. H.

(2003). The interview: From structured questions to negotiated text. In Denzin

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Collecting and interpreting qualitative materials (2nd ed.; pp. 61–106). Sage.

20.

Gebo

Stracuzzi

Hurst

(2006). Juvenile justice reform and the courtroom workgroup: Issues of perception and workload. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34(4), 425–433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2006.05.008

21.

Hagan

Hewitt

Alwin

(1979). Ceremonial justice: Crime and punishment in a loosely coupled system. Social Forces, 58(2), 506–527. https://doi.org/10.2307/2577603

22.

Haynes

Ruback

Cusick

(2010). Courtroom workgroups and sentencing: The effects of similarity, proximity, and stability. Crime & Delinquency, 56(1), 126–161. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128707313787

23.

Kim

(1994). Systems thinking tools: A user’s reference guide. Pegasus Communications.

24.

King

Johnson

McGeever

(2010). Demography of the legal profession and racial disparities in sentencing. Law & Society Review, 44(1), 1–32. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/40783637

25.

Kramer

Ulmer

(2002). Downward departures for serious violent offenders: Local court “corrections” to Pennsylvania’s sentencing guidelines. Criminology, 40(4), 2002–2932. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2002.tb00977.x

26.

Kumu. (2024). Relationship mapping software. https://kumu.io

27.

Kutateladze

B. L.

Andiloro

N. R.

Johnson

B. D.

(2016). Opening Pandora’s box: How does defendant race influence plea bargaining? Justice Quarterly, 33(3), 398–426. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2014.915340

28.

Kuznecova

Romagnoli

(2014, May 22–24). System dynamics approach within the context of city resilience and urban metabolism [Conference session]. The 9th International Conference “Environmental Engineering,” Vilnius. https://dx-doi-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/10.3846/enviro.2014.125

29.

Kvale

(1996). InterViews: An introduction to qualitative research interviewing. Sage.

30.

Labrecque

R. M.

Smith

(2017). Does training and coaching matter? An 18-month evaluation of a community supervision model. Victims and Offenders, 12, 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2015.1013234

31.

Labrecque

R. M.

Viglione

Caudy

(2022). The impact of community supervision officer training programs on officer and client outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 40(4), 587–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2120062

32.

Latimer

Dowden

Muise

(2005). The effectiveness of restorative justice practices: A meta-analysis. The Prison Journal, 85(2), 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505276969

33.

Lipsky

(1980). Street-level bureaucracy: Dilemmas of the individual in public service. Russell Sage Foundation.

34.

Littlejohns

L. B.

Baum

Lawless

Freeman

(2018). The value of a causal loop diagram in exploring the complex interplay of factors that influence health promotion in a multisectoral health system in Australia. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16, 126. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-018-0394-x

35.

Lovins

B. K.

Cullen

F. T.

Latessa

E. J.

Jonson

C. L.

(2018). Probation officer as a coach: Building a new professional identity. Federal Probation: A Journal of Correctional Philosophy, 82(1), 13–19. https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-probation-journal/2018/06/probation-officer-coach-building-new-professional-identity

36.

Lutze

(2014). Professional lives of community corrections officers: The invisible side of reentry. Sage.

37.

Macdonald

Baroody-Hart

(1999). Communication between probation officers and judges: An innovative model. Federal Probation, 63(1), 42–50. https://www.uscourts.gov/federal-probation-journal/1999/06/communication-between-probation-officers-and-judges-innovative

38.

Mackey

Appleton

C. J.

Skidmore

Lee

Taxman

F. S.

(2022). At the intersection of research and practice: Constructing guidelines for a hybrid model of community supervision. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 63, 1359–1789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101689

39.

Matheny

(1980). Negotiation and plea bargaining models: An organizational perspective. Law & Policy, 2(3), 267–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9930.1980.tb00216.x

40.

Maxwell

J. A.

(2005). Qualitative research design: An interactive approach (2nd ed.). Sage.

41.

Mays

G. L.

(2012). American courts and the judicial process (1st ed.). Oxford University Press.

42.

Menger

van der Heijden

Keuning

van Mil

Nibbeling

Pot

Erinkveld

(2019). Practical wisdom in probation: Portrait of the working alliance with mandated clients. HU University of Applied Sciences, Research Centre Social Innovation. https://husite.nl/werkalliantie/wp-content/uploads/sites/254/2020/04/Practical-wisdom-in-probation_nav-DEFDEF.pdf

43.

Metcalfe

(2016). The role of courtroom workgroups in felony case dispositions: An analysis of workgroup familiarity and similarity. Law & Society Review, 50(3), 637–673. https://doi.org/10.1111/lasr.12217

44.

Neubauer

(1979). The dynamics of courthouse justice: A critical review of the literature. The Justice System Journal, 5(1), 70–78. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/20877579

45.

Olson

Lurigio

Albertson

(2001). Implementing the key components of specialized drug treatment courts: Practice and policy considerations. Law & Policy, 23(2), 171–196. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9930.00109

46.

Paparozzi

Gendreau

(2005). An intensive supervision program that worked: Service delivery, professional orientation, and organizational supportiveness. The Prison Journal, 85(4), 445–466. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885505281529

47.

Petersilia

(1997). Probation in the United States. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 22, 149–200. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/449262

48.

Skolnick

(1967). Social control in the adversary system. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 11(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/002200276701100105

49.

Sterman

(2000). Business dynamics: Systems thinking and modeling for a complex world. Irwin/McGraw Hill.

50.

Strauss

Corbin

(1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.). Sage.

51.

Taxman

F. S.

(2008). No illusions: Offender and organizational change in Maryland’s proactive community supervision efforts. Criminology and Public Policy, 7(2), 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2008.00508.x

52.

Taxman

F. S.

Smith

Rudes

D. S.

(2020). From mean to meaningful probation: The legacy of intensive supervision programs. In Lattimore

Huebner

Taxman

F. S.

(Eds.), Handbook on moving corrections and sentencing forward: Building on the record (pp. 61–78). Routledge.

53.

Taxman

F. S.

Thanner

Weisburd

(2006). Risk, Need, and Responsivity (RNR): It all depends. Crime & Delinquency, 52(1), 28–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011128705281754

54.

Thompson

J. D.

(1967). Organizations in action: Social science bases of administrative theory. McGraw Hill.

55.

Tracy

(2013). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact. Wiley-Blackwell.

56.

Ulmer

J. T.

(1995). The organization and consequences of social pasts in criminal courts. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 587. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1533-8525.1995.tb00455.x

57.

Ulmer

J. T.

(2019). Criminal courts as inhabited institutions: Making sense of difference and similarity in sentencing. Crime and Justice, 48(1), 483–522. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/701504

58.

Walsh

(1985). The role of the probation officer in the sentencing process: Independent professional or judicial hack? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 12(3), 289–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854885012003002

59.

Warren

R. K

. (2007). Evidence-based practices and state sentencing policy: Ten policy initiatives to reduce recidivism. Indiana Law Journal, 82(5), Article 13. https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/ilj/vol82/iss5/13

60.

Wright

Levine

(2018). Career motivations of state prosecutors. The George Washington Law Review, 86, 1667. https://ssrn.com/abstract=3388228

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB