Bargaining and Strategic Voting on Appellate Courts

Many appellate courts and regulatory commissions simultaneously produce case dispositions and rules rationalizing the dispositions. We explore the properties of the American practice for doing this. We show that the median judge is pivotal over case dispositions, although she and others may not vote sincerely. Strategic dispositional voting is more likely when the case location is extreme, resulting in majority coalitions that give the appearance of less polarization on the court than is the case. The equilibrium policy created in the majority opinion generically does not coincide with the ideal policy of the median judge in either the dispositional majority or the bench as a whole. Rather, opinions approach a weighted center of the dispositional majority but often reflect the preferences of the opinion author. We discuss some empirical implications of the American practice for jointly producing case dispositions and rules.

Responding to Crossover Youth: A Look Beyond Recidivism Outcomes

Crossover youth are involved in both child welfare and juvenile justice systems. The Crossover Youth Practice Model (CYPM) promotes collaboration between these systems to inform decision making between the two agencies and better serve these youth. Yet, few outcome evaluations of the CYPM exist, especially those that assess outcomes beyond recidivism, such as case dispositions, case closure, or placement or living situations. This study examined whether the CYPM ( n = 210) decreased recidivism and increased system/case responses and positive outcomes among youth within 9–18 months after the youth’s initial arrest relative to a comparison group of crossover youth ( n = 425) who were arrested 1 year before the CYPM was implemented. Overall, the findings suggest that the CYPM in the jurisdiction under study dismisses or diverts crossover youth more often, closes delinquency cases more often, and leads to more home placements than was previously done in the jurisdiction, but it does not significantly reduce recidivism.

Trials and Bargains

Almost every criminal conviction in the United States is achieved by guilty plea, and the system of plea bargaining that creates this outcome is closely examined in this chapter and briefly compared with case dispositions in inquisitorial systems. Adversarial and inquisitorial trials as ways to determine criminal liability and liability prices are compared, and the origins of plea bargaining in rising caseloads and elaborate rights and procedures in adversarial trials are discussed. How plea bargaining works and whether it puts a price on the right to trial are examined, and the Supreme Court’s effort to regulate it for efficiency and fairness is reviewed. Bargaining in the United States and England are compared, and European approaches to rising caseloads are considered in light of the imperatives of inquisitorial procedure. Plea bargaining is a window on criminal liability everywhere, a last give-and-take over price in a system of involuntary entitlement exchange.