Matching Items (2)
Description
Immigration courts fail to live up to courtroom ideals. Around 2009, proposals were offered to address the problems of these troubled courts. My study illustrates the inevitable linkage between court reform proposals and conceptions of fairness and efficiency, and ultimately justice. I ask: (1) From the perspective of attorneys defending immigrants' rights, what are the obstacles to justice? How should they be addressed? And (2) How do proposals speak to these attorneys' concerns and proposed resolutions? The proposals reviewed generally favor restructuring the court. On the other hand, immigration (cause) lawyers remain unconvinced that current proposals to reform the courts' structure would be successful at addressing the pivotal issues of these courts: confounding laws and problematic personnel. They are particularly concerned about the legal needs and rights of immigrants and how reforms may affect their current and potential clients. With this in mind, they prefer incremental changes - such as extending pro bono programs - to the system. These findings suggest the importance of professional location in conceptualizing justice through law. They offer rich ground for theorizing about courts and politics, and justice in immigration adjudication.
ContributorsAbbott, Katherine R (Author) / Provine, Doris M. (Thesis advisor) / Cruz, Evelyn H. (Committee member) / Johnson, John M. (Committee member) / Zatz, Marjorie S. (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2013
Description
Prosecutors played an important role in the rise of mass incarceration and the perpetuation of racial and ethnic disparities in the criminal legal system in the United States. The progressive prosecution movement emerged as a response to those issues and, although the movement has sparked significant debate, there has been relatively little empirical research examining whether progressive lead prosecutors reduce excess punishment and alleviate disparities. In this dissertation, I partnered with two prosecutors’ offices with progressive lead prosecutors to help fill that gap. Using case processing records obtained from both offices (all adult criminal cases initiated between 2017-2022), I found that prosecutors under progressive lead prosecutors tended to be less punitive in charging and plea-bargaining, but their less punitive approach did not eliminate disparities. While larger plea-discounts under one of the progressive lead prosecutors eliminated the racial disparity in that decision point, disparities in case declination/dismissal, diversion, and felony downgrade decisions remained, even under the more progressive administrations. From interviews with line prosecutors, supervisors, and the lead prosecutors in both jurisdictions (N=43), I found that prosecutors in these offices faced barriers to implementing reform both from within their office, in the form of the principal-agent and mid-level manager problems, and from outside of the office, in the form of resistance from judges, law enforcement, and some segments of the public, as well as a lack of cooperation from defense attorneys. Broadly, my findings highlight the fluid nature of power within courts and the tendency of court communities to seek homoeostasis and minimize reforms, even when those reforms originate from within the court community.
ContributorsBowman, Rachel (Author) / Gould, Jon (Thesis advisor) / Spohn, Cassia (Thesis advisor) / Mitchell, Ojmarrh (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2024