The study of public opinion about the courts is closely tied to concerns that date back to the Constitutional Convention. Then, and subsequently, it has been noted that while the executive branch has the power of the sword and the legislative branch the power of the purse, for compliance with its orders, the judiciary uniquely must rely on the public’s belief in its legitimacy.
今天,关于美国最高法院的公众舆论与对另一个“下级”法院的公众舆论不同;美国最高法院始终享有更高的信心,支持和忠诚度。这通常是通过参考政治和法律社会化来解释的,政治和法律社会化灌输了对最高法院的忠诚。其他法院似乎没有从这种社会化中受益。对于公众可以直接联系的初审法院,公众具有适中的信心,忠诚和支持。下级法院需要不断证明他们应通过公众认为公平的程序做出决策,应得出公众的遵守情况。与其他团体的成员相比,非洲裔美国人被说服使用公平程序。
The Public’s Image of the Courts
The level of public support for and confidence in the courts is best assessed in comparison with other public institutions. Both the U.S. Supreme Court and the lower courts tend to be ranked higher than the executive or legislative branches of government. The relative advantage is considerable for the U.S. Supreme Court and modest for other courts. Other courts tend to be rated lower than the police and similar to local schools and executive bodies but higher than legislative bodies and the mass media. The public is most critical of how courts handle juvenile and family cases and generally of the processing of cases in high-volume court venues such as traffic and small claims. The jury system is the most highly rated component of the courts. Former jurors, in turn, are the group most likely to hold positive views about the courts.
一般而言,公众对法院的工作方式一无所知,并且不关心有关法院的问题。在过去的30年中,关于法院的许多公众舆论调查几乎所有有关审判法院的调查,都是关于审判法院的。从信心调查结果的积累中产生的是一种国家刻板印象,在州到州或从十年到下一个十年都不大。刻板印象是对“法院”的简要描述,这些描述是人们的头部出现的 - 通常持有的图像,有些是积极的,有些则是负面的。
从积极的一面来看,人们倾向于相信法官符合条件和诚实,捍卫人们的权利,并以尊严和尊重对待人们。近年来,很明显,诸如仲裁和调解之类的替代性争议解决方法,并且对解决问题(毒品和家庭暴力)法院的特征高度积极。
On the negative side, the list is longer. People report that courts are slow, difficult, and costly to access; do not allow people to participate meaningfully in court proceedings; and are out of touch with community sentiment. The presumed leniency of judges in sentencing offenders is another negative characteristic but one that may now be declining in significance. The majority of the public believes that the courts produce less favorable outcomes if you are a member of a minority group, on a low income, or a non-English speaker. Finally, studies indicate that African Americans have less confidence in the courts, on average, than do other Americans. This does not extend to all minority groups; Asian Americans generally have a positive view of the courts, while the position of Latinos depends on the specific context and topic under consideration.
In an important sense, the lower courts have two publics. One consists of the slightly more than half of all adults with one or more direct experiences of the courts. The most common form of such experience is serving as a member of a jury, applicable to about one adult in four. That proportion has been rising in recent decades in response to jury source list reform and the reduction in occupational exemptions.
具有直接法院经验的公众往往会记住几十年来的相遇,无论客观上多么微不足道,在评估法院时会大大吸引他们。在有法院经验的人中,对法院的媒体代表性的暴露程度,对判决的司法宽大处理的看法以及政治意识形态是对法院信心或支持法院的信心的不良预测指标。对于没有直接经验的人来说,情况恰恰相反,他们似乎借鉴了国家而不是当地形成的法院形象。
证据表明,法院经验本身的一般影响略有负面影响,但根据一个人在案件中扮演的角色而有所不同。在陪审团中服役的个人(而不是被召唤而不是作为陪审员坐下的基本中性影响)是最积极的,而民事诉讼人往往是最负面的。
Explaining Opinions about the Court
那些有兴趣解释对美国最高法院支持的来源的人主要依赖于合法性理论,该理论强调机构忠诚度。美国最高法院的研究试图解释两种类型的支持及其相互关系的来源。弥漫性支持是一种愿意接受法院作为合法的裁决,这是法院有权决定宪法解释问题的信念。具体的支持,另一方面是指对法院发布的个人决定的回应。
当个人对广为公开的决策做出反应时,具体的支持上升和下降。弥漫性支持往往很小。即使是Bushv。Gore(2000)中的两极分化决定也没有减少法院的商誉储备。在决定之后,民主党人对法院的支持急剧下降,共和党人的支持也同样急剧增加。随着时间的流逝,人们在有争议的裁决之前恢复了他们对美国最高法院的忠诚或弥漫性支持。研究表明,美国最高法院比政府的其他部门更有效地利用其认为合法性遵守不受欢迎的裁决,并且比下级法院更大。
关于下级法院的公众舆论的早期研究集中在社会经济和人口背景对特定案件和法院的满意度上的影响。预计观点会根据一个人的教育程度,性别,种族和种族,政治意识形态和法院知识而有所不同。
Starting in the mid-1970s, social psychologists took a different direction by focusing on perceptions of the fairness of court procedures. A substantial body of research applying a variety of methodologies in a wide range of adjudicatory contexts, and in many countries, established that the perception of procedural fairness is the most important influence on a court user’s satisfaction with the courts. People who lose in the courtroom can nonetheless leave satisfied with their day in court, confident in the courts, and likely to comply with the court’s decisions.
汤姆·泰勒(Tom Tyler)和他的同事的工作为预期这一发现提供了理论基础。他们认为,公众的担忧与“关系”问题有关,而不是与“工具性”因素(例如绝对或相对结果)。群体价值理论解释了这一期望:人们重视自己在社会群体中的成员身份,并寻求证据表明他们确实被这些群体重视。法官或其他决策者的行为提供了确认。
程序公平性包括各种“符号标准”,人们可以在评估如何对待时寻找这些标准:
- 尊重:受到尊严并受到尊重的权利
- 中立:诚实和公正的决策者,谁在事实上做出决定
- Voice: Having the opportunity to express one’s viewpoint to the decision maker
- 值得信赖的:有动力公平对待您的仁慈和关怀的决策者真诚地关注您的需求,并考虑您的故事
声音是法院倾向于相对于行政部门和立法部门最低的程序公平性的要素。中立性是他们倾向于得分最高的地方。具有直接经验的人倾向于专注于他们可以用来决定法官的可信赖性。在没有这种经验的情况下,重点是有关中立的线索。
程序公平的意义在于,当对法院满意度的预测模型中进行衡量并置于社会人口统计学特征,包括种族和政治意识形态在内,往往在统计学上微不足道。换句话说,如果非裔美国人对法院的满意程度不那么满意,那是因为他们认为法院的程序公平性比其他团体更少。与法院绩效的实际方面相关的因素,例如成本和案件延迟,也往往远不如公平感知。在有法庭案件经验的人们中尤其如此。没有法院经验的人更加关注法院行动的实际方面,但是他们对程序公平的看法仍然是影响他们对法院支持的主要因素。研究人员比没有这种经验的人更成功地预测具有法院经验的人的意见。
There is an important exception to this general pattern. Judges and lawyers generally tend to attach greater importance to the fairness of outcomes than to procedural fairness. There may be a practical dimension to this reverse of the pattern found in the public at large. Judges are able to evaluate the fairness of legal decisions and are less concerned about confirming their value to the group. The public, however, is poorly equipped to assess legal decisions and therefore focuses on whatever clues it can find on how it and others are being treated by the decision maker.
Thus, perceptions of procedural fairness assume an overwhelming importance in shaping public responses to specific court decisions or broader opinions on the courts in general. Procedural fairness can be used to explain reactions to U.S. Supreme Court decisions. The majesty and mystery with which the Court surrounds its decision-making process appears to conform to the symbols people associate with a fair process. Consequently, some observers have questioned whether the public is being too generous in its esteem for the Supreme Court.
参考:
- Bushv。Gore,531 U.S. 98(2000)。
- Gibson,J.,Calderia,G。,&Spence,L。K.(2003)。衡量对美国最高法院的态度。《美国政治学杂志》,第47(2)期,354-367。
- Heuer,L。(2005)。什么是刑事司法系统?心理观点。法律与政策杂志,13(1),209-228。
- Hibbing,J。R.和Theiss-Morse,E。(2001)。过程偏好和美国政治:人民希望政府成为什么。《美国政治科学评论》,95(1),145-153。
- Maccoun,R。(2005)。声音,控制和归属:程序公平的双刃剑。年度法律和心理学评论,1,171-201。
- Tyler, T. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
- Tyler,T。(2001)。公众对法律当局的信任和信心:多数和少数群体成员希望对法律和法律机构有什么?行为科学与法律,19(2),215-235。
返回概述试用咨询在Forensic Psychology。