Portillo Shannon, Rudes Danielle, Viglione Jill, Nelson Matthew, Taxman Faye
Criminology, Law & Society Department George Mason University 4400 University Dr. MS 4F4 Fairfax, VA 22030 703.993.9896.
Vict Offender. 2013 Jan 1;8(1):1-22. doi: 10.1080/15564886.2012.685220. Epub 2013 Jan 8.
In problem-solving courts judges are no longer neutral arbitrators in adversarial justice processes. Instead, judges directly engage with court participants. The movement towards problem-solving court models emerges from a collaborative therapeutic jurisprudence framework. While most scholars argue judges are the central courtroom actors within problem-solving courts, we find judges are the stars front-stage, but play a more supporting role backstage. We use Goffman's front-stage-backstage framework to analyze 350 hours of ethnographic fieldwork within five problem-solving courts. Problem-solving courts are collaborative organizations with shifting leadership, based on forum. Understanding how the roles of courtroom workgroup actors adapt under the new court model is foundational for effective implementation of these justice processes.
在解决问题型法庭中,法官不再是对抗性司法程序中的中立仲裁者。相反,法官直接与法庭参与者互动。解决问题型法庭模式的发展源自协作性治疗法理学框架。虽然大多数学者认为法官是解决问题型法庭中核心的庭审行为主体,但我们发现,法官在前台是明星,但在后台却扮演着更辅助的角色。我们运用戈夫曼的前台—后台框架,对五个解决问题型法庭中350小时的人种志实地调查进行分析。解决问题型法庭是基于论坛、领导权不断变化的协作性组织。理解庭审工作团队行为主体的角色如何在新的法庭模式下进行调适,是有效实施这些司法程序的基础。