Perceptions about Court-Appointed and Privately-Retained Attorney Representation: (How) Do They Differ?

Q2 Social Sciences
Kelsey S. Henderson, Reveka V. Shteynberg
{"title":"Perceptions about Court-Appointed and Privately-Retained Attorney Representation: (How) Do They Differ?","authors":"Kelsey S. Henderson, Reveka V. Shteynberg","doi":"10.54555/ccjls.5382.56908","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Since Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), discussions about and research on the dichotomy between court-appointed and privately-retained attorneys have been pervasive, most frequently casting court-appointed attorneys in a negative light (e.g., work for the “state,” overworked and under-resourced) relative to their privately-retained counterparts (e.g., work for the “client,” autonomous and self-sufficient). In our survey, we re-visit these perceptions and include an exploratory experimental test in which we varied attorney resumes by attorney type. Consistent with prior research, participants had more positive attitudes of privately-retained attorneys and believed that they were more likely to generate favorable case outcomes than court-appointed attorneys. These attitudes were informed by participants’ perceptions about the attorneys’ resource amounts (caseload considerations, time, and energy), questions of adversarial allegiance, and sentiments of respect and altruism. In the experimental test, there were no differences in attorney ratings between participants “represented” by a public defender and those “represented” by a private defense attorney; rather, it was when asked to compare types of attorneys did these attitudes diverge. Overall, these results suggest that negative attitudes of court-appointed attorneys are somewhat engrained; however, there is now an increasing awareness of the systemic constraints that court-appointed attorneys face, as well as an appreciation for the work they do for indigent and under-served populations and society.","PeriodicalId":36774,"journal":{"name":"Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society","volume":"34 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.54555/ccjls.5382.56908","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since Gideon v. Wainwright (1963), discussions about and research on the dichotomy between court-appointed and privately-retained attorneys have been pervasive, most frequently casting court-appointed attorneys in a negative light (e.g., work for the “state,” overworked and under-resourced) relative to their privately-retained counterparts (e.g., work for the “client,” autonomous and self-sufficient). In our survey, we re-visit these perceptions and include an exploratory experimental test in which we varied attorney resumes by attorney type. Consistent with prior research, participants had more positive attitudes of privately-retained attorneys and believed that they were more likely to generate favorable case outcomes than court-appointed attorneys. These attitudes were informed by participants’ perceptions about the attorneys’ resource amounts (caseload considerations, time, and energy), questions of adversarial allegiance, and sentiments of respect and altruism. In the experimental test, there were no differences in attorney ratings between participants “represented” by a public defender and those “represented” by a private defense attorney; rather, it was when asked to compare types of attorneys did these attitudes diverge. Overall, these results suggest that negative attitudes of court-appointed attorneys are somewhat engrained; however, there is now an increasing awareness of the systemic constraints that court-appointed attorneys face, as well as an appreciation for the work they do for indigent and under-served populations and society.
对法院指定律师和私人聘请律师代理的看法:(如何)不同?
自1963年吉迪恩诉温赖特案(Gideon v. Wainwright)以来,关于法院指定律师和私人聘请律师之间二分法的讨论和研究一直很普遍,最常见的是将法院指定律师与私人聘请律师(例如,为“国家”工作,过度劳累和资源不足)相对于为“客户”工作,自主和自给自足)。在我们的调查中,我们重新审视了这些看法,并包括一个探索性的实验测试,我们根据律师类型改变了律师简历。与先前的研究一致,参与者对私人聘请的律师持更积极的态度,并相信他们比法院指定的律师更有可能产生有利的案件结果。这些态度是由参与者对律师资源数量(案件数量、时间和精力)、对抗性忠诚问题、尊重和利他主义情绪的看法所决定的。在实验测试中,由公设辩护人“代表”的参与者与由私人辩护律师“代表”的参与者对律师的评分没有差异;相反,当被要求比较不同类型的律师时,这些态度才出现分歧。总的来说,这些结果表明,法院指定的律师的消极态度是根深蒂固的;然而,现在人们越来越意识到法院指定的律师所面临的系统限制,并对他们为贫困和服务不足的人口和社会所做的工作表示赞赏。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society
Criminology, Criminal Justice, Law and Society Social Sciences-Sociology and Political Science
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
11
审稿时长
12 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信