Looking Up at the Ivory Tower: Juvenile Court Judges’ and Attorneys’ Perceptions of Research Use

Abstract

Objectives: Explore how judges and attorneys define, acquire, interpret (i.e., determine the accuracy and relevancy), and use research in their decision-making in delinquency cases. Methods: We conducted semi-structured interviews with 30 judges, 15 prosecutors, and 13 defense attorneys. We used stratified purposeful sampling, stratifying participants by region of the U.S. and urbanicity. Results: Judges and attorneys have a sound understanding of how research can enhance their work. Typically, judges and attorneys acquire research from intermediaries. Beyond being a conduit for research, intermediaries play an important role in vetting the quality of research and identifying viable recommendations for practice. While practitioners are willing to use research, they feel that their ability to do so is limited by factors such as state policy, funding, and inaccessibility of research. Conclusions: While we caution generalization of the findings, this study contributes to the evidence-base on the use of research by documenting that judges and attorneys most often use research conceptually (i.e., research changes their perspective which then changes their behavior). Although respondents also reported using research-based tools to make specific decisions (instrumental use), many reported overriding research when they felt it conflicted with their judgment, suggesting that political use of research may be prevalent.

RETRACTED: Foreign experience in prosecutor's participation institution development in Kazakhstan civil procedure

“…13 The powers (rights) are a means of ensuring the performance of the function, as well as an integral part of the function, and must be provided to the extent necessary for the performance of the function. 14 That is why:…”

“…In the district (city) and equivalent courts, a procedural prosecutor in the interests of the state may participate in civil proceedings as a procedural representative of the claimant state, filing a claim against the defendant in the interests of the state, or as a procedural representative of the respondent state, when a claim is filed to recover money from the republic's budget on the grounds provided by law. 10 Interestingly, the change in the procedural status is mainly objectively conditioned by the stage-based nature of civil proceedings and does not require a separate decision. 11 At the same time, such change may be caused by the necessity of including the prosecutor of the highest level/replacing the prosecutor in the procedure.…”