美国律师协会提高被告注意附带后果的有效性:对南卡罗来纳州辩护律师的调查

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 Social Sciences
Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Hunter M. Boehme, Gary Zhang
{"title":"美国律师协会提高被告注意附带后果的有效性:对南卡罗来纳州辩护律师的调查","authors":"Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Hunter M. Boehme, Gary Zhang","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences of conviction, the American Bar Association published advisory standards and other online compendium resources aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, no study has explored defense attorney awareness of these efforts or their perceived effectiveness. The current study fills this gap with a survey of South Carolina criminal defense lawyers. Results indicate that the majority of respondents felt that non-binding standards were ineffective, and most were unaware of an ABA standard aimed at increasing notice of collateral consequences. Further, a significant number of respondents were unaware of electronic sources that provided comprehensive lists of collateral consequences. These results indicate that non-binding standards may not be effective at changing attorney practices with regard to providing notice of collateral consequences. Jurisdictions may need to consider implementing binding standards and additional training meant to educate defense attorneys about the availability of electronic legal source material that provides comprehensive lists of collateral consequences.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2019-09-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Effectiveness of the ABA’s Efforts to Increase Defendant Notice of Collateral Consequences: A Survey of South Carolina Defense Attorneys\",\"authors\":\"Peter Leasure, John D. Burrow, Hunter M. Boehme, Gary Zhang\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences of conviction, the American Bar Association published advisory standards and other online compendium resources aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, no study has explored defense attorney awareness of these efforts or their perceived effectiveness. The current study fills this gap with a survey of South Carolina criminal defense lawyers. Results indicate that the majority of respondents felt that non-binding standards were ineffective, and most were unaware of an ABA standard aimed at increasing notice of collateral consequences. Further, a significant number of respondents were unaware of electronic sources that provided comprehensive lists of collateral consequences. These results indicate that non-binding standards may not be effective at changing attorney practices with regard to providing notice of collateral consequences. Jurisdictions may need to consider implementing binding standards and additional training meant to educate defense attorneys about the availability of electronic legal source material that provides comprehensive lists of collateral consequences.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-09-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"Social Sciences\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Justice System Journal","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2019.1654949","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

认识到定罪附带后果的负面影响,美国律师协会发布了咨询标准和其他在线概要资源,旨在提高被告在认罪前对此类后果的注意。然而,没有研究探讨辩护律师对这些努力的认识或他们的感知效果。目前的研究通过对南卡罗来纳州刑事辩护律师的调查填补了这一空白。结果表明,大多数受访者认为非约束性标准是无效的,大多数人都不知道ABA标准旨在增加对附带后果的注意。此外,相当数量的答复者不知道提供附带后果综合清单的电子来源。这些结果表明,在提供附带后果通知方面,非约束性标准可能无法有效地改变律师的做法。司法管辖区可能需要考虑实施具有约束力的标准和额外的培训,旨在教育辩护律师了解电子法律源材料的可用性,这些材料提供了附带后果的综合清单。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The Effectiveness of the ABA’s Efforts to Increase Defendant Notice of Collateral Consequences: A Survey of South Carolina Defense Attorneys
Abstract Recognizing the negative impacts of collateral consequences of conviction, the American Bar Association published advisory standards and other online compendium resources aimed at increasing defendant notice of such consequences before pleading guilty. However, no study has explored defense attorney awareness of these efforts or their perceived effectiveness. The current study fills this gap with a survey of South Carolina criminal defense lawyers. Results indicate that the majority of respondents felt that non-binding standards were ineffective, and most were unaware of an ABA standard aimed at increasing notice of collateral consequences. Further, a significant number of respondents were unaware of electronic sources that provided comprehensive lists of collateral consequences. These results indicate that non-binding standards may not be effective at changing attorney practices with regard to providing notice of collateral consequences. Jurisdictions may need to consider implementing binding standards and additional training meant to educate defense attorneys about the availability of electronic legal source material that provides comprehensive lists of collateral consequences.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
14.30%
发文量
29
期刊介绍: The Justice System Journal is an interdisciplinary journal that publishes original research articles on all aspects of law, courts, court administration, judicial behavior, and the impact of all of these on public and social policy. Open as to methodological approaches, The Justice System Journal aims to use the latest in advanced social science research and analysis to bridge the gap between practicing and academic law, courts and politics communities. The Justice System Journal invites submission of original articles and research notes that are likely to be of interest to scholars and practitioners in the field of law, courts, and judicial administration, broadly defined. Articles may draw on a variety of research approaches in the social sciences. The journal does not publish articles devoted to extended analysis of legal doctrine such as a law review might publish, although short manuscripts analyzing cases or legal issues are welcome and will be considered for the Legal Notes section. The Justice System Journal was created in 1974 by the Institute for Court Management and is published under the auspices of the National Center for State Courts. The Justice System Journal features peer-reviewed research articles as well as reviews of important books in law and courts, and analytical research notes on some of the leading cases from state and federal courts. The journal periodically produces special issues that provide analysis of fundamental and timely issues on law and courts from both national and international perspectives.
×
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