人人享有正义:关于贫困辩护的新实证研究文集

IF 0.7 4区 社会学 Q3 Social Sciences
A. Davies, Janet Moore
{"title":"人人享有正义:关于贫困辩护的新实证研究文集","authors":"A. Davies, Janet Moore","doi":"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2085494","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"It was our honor and pleasure to work with Dr. Amy Steigerwalt to present this special issue of Justice System Journal dedicated to empirical research on indigent defense. We are thankful to all the authors who contributed their work for consideration and are indebted to the reviewers who helped to ensure that this issue represents the diversity and quality of a vibrant research field. We are also mindful that this issue emerges amidst an epistemic crisis in which the concept of shared, verifiable knowledge is subject not only to justifiable critique but also to unwarranted attack. Indeed, as is increasingly true across organizations, institutions, and systems, the practice of indigent defense itself is rife with political battles in which research and data are often deployed as weapons. We view this crisis as an opportunity to celebrate science—the co-production of knowledge through iterative application and improvement of research principles and methods, grounded in commitments to transparency regarding the content, implications, and limitations of resulting data. We do so with this compilation of new research on indigent defense. These volumes have been a focus of our work since 2014, when we co-convened the Indigent Defense Research Association (IDRA) to build new connections among researchers in the field. Since then, IDRA’s conferences, monthly webinars, and listserv have provide a unique space for robust discussion and advancement of research on indigent defense. As was the case with prior volumes, the results of these discussions inform a collection of papers that readers are unlikely to find elsewhere. Some pieces are critical of indigent defense systems and the lawyers that work in them. Other work focuses exclusively on perfecting research methods. Some are animated by goals such as policy improvement, exposure of inequity, or liberation from oppression. But a common thread runs across these pieces: the shared desire to understand indigent defense more deeply and to describe it more accurately. We divide the seven studies in this volume into three groups. We begin with two studies that examine the experiences of people receiving indigent defense services. Each raises questions about what people want and need from indigent defense, and how often they are satisfied. We then move on to three further studies of professionals in indigent defense systems – attorneys and judges – which lead us to wonder about how well their work and goals match what service recipients want. And finally, we present two studies that look at indigent defense services at a jurisdictional level, each asking different questions about the benefits and adequacy of the systems under examination.","PeriodicalId":45509,"journal":{"name":"Justice System Journal","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.7000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Justice for All: A Collection of New Empirical Research on Indigent Defense\",\"authors\":\"A. Davies, Janet Moore\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/0098261X.2022.2085494\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"It was our honor and pleasure to work with Dr. Amy Steigerwalt to present this special issue of Justice System Journal dedicated to empirical research on indigent defense. We are thankful to all the authors who contributed their work for consideration and are indebted to the reviewers who helped to ensure that this issue represents the diversity and quality of a vibrant research field. We are also mindful that this issue emerges amidst an epistemic crisis in which the concept of shared, verifiable knowledge is subject not only to justifiable critique but also to unwarranted attack. Indeed, as is increasingly true across organizations, institutions, and systems, the practice of indigent defense itself is rife with political battles in which research and data are often deployed as weapons. We view this crisis as an opportunity to celebrate science—the co-production of knowledge through iterative application and improvement of research principles and methods, grounded in commitments to transparency regarding the content, implications, and limitations of resulting data. We do so with this compilation of new research on indigent defense. These volumes have been a focus of our work since 2014, when we co-convened the Indigent Defense Research Association (IDRA) to build new connections among researchers in the field. Since then, IDRA’s conferences, monthly webinars, and listserv have provide a unique space for robust discussion and advancement of research on indigent defense. As was the case with prior volumes, the results of these discussions inform a collection of papers that readers are unlikely to find elsewhere. Some pieces are critical of indigent defense systems and the lawyers that work in them. Other work focuses exclusively on perfecting research methods. Some are animated by goals such as policy improvement, exposure of inequity, or liberation from oppression. But a common thread runs across these pieces: the shared desire to understand indigent defense more deeply and to describe it more accurately. We divide the seven studies in this volume into three groups. We begin with two studies that examine the experiences of people receiving indigent defense services. Each raises questions about what people want and need from indigent defense, and how often they are satisfied. We then move on to three further studies of professionals in indigent defense systems – attorneys and judges – which lead us to wonder about how well their work and goals match what service recipients want. And finally, we present two studies that look at indigent defense services at a jurisdictional level, each asking different questions about the benefits and adequacy of the systems under examination.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45509,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Justice System Journal\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/0098261X.2022.2085494\",\"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.2022.2085494","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: 0

摘要

我们很荣幸也很高兴能和Amy Steigerwalt博士一起为《司法系统杂志》献上这期特刊致力于贫困辩护的实证研究。我们感谢所有投稿的作者,感谢审稿人,他们帮助确保本期杂志代表了一个充满活力的研究领域的多样性和质量。我们还注意到,这个问题出现在一场认知危机之中,在这场危机中,共享的、可验证的知识的概念不仅受到合理的批评,而且还受到毫无根据的攻击。事实上,正如在组织、机构和系统中越来越真实的那样,贫困防御的实践本身就充斥着政治斗争,研究和数据经常被用作武器。我们将这场危机视为庆祝科学的一个机会——通过反复应用和改进研究原则和方法来共同生产知识,并以对结果数据的内容、含义和局限性的透明度的承诺为基础。我们在此汇编了关于贫困防御的新研究。自2014年以来,这些书籍一直是我们工作的重点,当时我们共同召集了贫困防御研究协会(IDRA),在该领域的研究人员之间建立新的联系。从那时起,IDRA的会议、每月的网络研讨会和列表服务为贫困防御的研究提供了一个独特的讨论和推进空间。与前几卷的情况一样,这些讨论的结果为读者提供了一组不太可能在其他地方找到的论文。有些作品是对贫穷的辩护系统和在其中工作的律师的批评。其他工作则专注于完善研究方法。有些人是为了改善政策、揭露不平等或从压迫中解放出来等目标。但贯穿这些文章的是一条共同的主线:更深入地理解贫困防御并更准确地描述它的共同愿望。我们将本卷中的七项研究分为三组。我们从两项研究开始,这两项研究检查了接受贫困辩护服务的人的经历。每个问题都提出了人们想要和需要从贫穷的国防中得到什么,以及他们多久得到满足的问题。然后,我们继续对贫困辩护系统中的专业人士——律师和法官——进行进一步的研究,这让我们想知道他们的工作和目标与服务对象的需求匹配程度如何。最后,我们提出了两项研究,在司法管辖区层面上研究贫困的辩护服务,每项研究都提出了关于所审查系统的利益和充分性的不同问题。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Justice for All: A Collection of New Empirical Research on Indigent Defense
It was our honor and pleasure to work with Dr. Amy Steigerwalt to present this special issue of Justice System Journal dedicated to empirical research on indigent defense. We are thankful to all the authors who contributed their work for consideration and are indebted to the reviewers who helped to ensure that this issue represents the diversity and quality of a vibrant research field. We are also mindful that this issue emerges amidst an epistemic crisis in which the concept of shared, verifiable knowledge is subject not only to justifiable critique but also to unwarranted attack. Indeed, as is increasingly true across organizations, institutions, and systems, the practice of indigent defense itself is rife with political battles in which research and data are often deployed as weapons. We view this crisis as an opportunity to celebrate science—the co-production of knowledge through iterative application and improvement of research principles and methods, grounded in commitments to transparency regarding the content, implications, and limitations of resulting data. We do so with this compilation of new research on indigent defense. These volumes have been a focus of our work since 2014, when we co-convened the Indigent Defense Research Association (IDRA) to build new connections among researchers in the field. Since then, IDRA’s conferences, monthly webinars, and listserv have provide a unique space for robust discussion and advancement of research on indigent defense. As was the case with prior volumes, the results of these discussions inform a collection of papers that readers are unlikely to find elsewhere. Some pieces are critical of indigent defense systems and the lawyers that work in them. Other work focuses exclusively on perfecting research methods. Some are animated by goals such as policy improvement, exposure of inequity, or liberation from oppression. But a common thread runs across these pieces: the shared desire to understand indigent defense more deeply and to describe it more accurately. We divide the seven studies in this volume into three groups. We begin with two studies that examine the experiences of people receiving indigent defense services. Each raises questions about what people want and need from indigent defense, and how often they are satisfied. We then move on to three further studies of professionals in indigent defense systems – attorneys and judges – which lead us to wonder about how well their work and goals match what service recipients want. And finally, we present two studies that look at indigent defense services at a jurisdictional level, each asking different questions about the benefits and adequacy of the systems under examination.
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