Morgan Robert D, Mitchell Sean M, Thoen Megan A, Campion Kelsey, Bolaños Angelea D, Sustaíta Michael A, Henderson Steven
Department of Psychological Sciences, Texas Tech University.
Institute for Forensic Science, Texas Tech University.
Psychol Serv. 2016 Aug;13(3):246-253. doi: 10.1037/ser0000085.
The effectiveness of specialty courts has been well established in the literature; however, previous studies have not taken into account referral biases that may exist based on offenders' race, socioeconomic status (SES), attorney status, and so forth. The current study hypothesized that (a) Participants who are racially diverse, of lower SES, and represented by privately retained attorneys would be referred less frequently to specialty courts, and (b) Participants in specialty courts would evidence reductions in missed court appointments and failed urinary analyses (UAs) compared with peers not enrolled in specialty courts. Participants (N = 274) were probationers who were involved in 1 of 3 specialty court programs (i.e., drug, driving while intoxicated [DWI], or reentry courts) or a matched sample of probationers not in specialty court services. Results indicated that, in general and with few exceptions, specialty courts did not have differential referral rates based on offender demographics including race, ethnicity, SES, or attorney status (court appointed vs. privately retained). Results examining the effectiveness of the specialty courts were mixed. Participants in the in-prison treatment program reentry court missed a greater proportion of scheduled court meetings than did their matched sample counterparts; however, the other specialty court programs did not significantly differ from their matched-sample counterparts. Participants in the DWI court had a significantly smaller proportion of UA failures to total UAs than did their matched sample peers; however, the drug court and reentry court programs did not significantly differ from their matched sample counterparts. Implications, future directions, and limitations are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record
专业法庭的有效性在文献中已得到充分证实；然而，以往的研究并未考虑到可能因罪犯的种族、社会经济地位（SES）、律师身份等存在的转介偏差。当前的研究假设：（a）种族多样、SES较低且由私人聘请律师代理的参与者被转介到专业法庭的频率会更低；（b）与未参加专业法庭的同龄人相比，专业法庭的参与者在错过庭审预约和尿液分析（UA）未通过方面会有所减少。参与者（N = 274）是缓刑人员，他们参与了3个专业法庭项目中的1个（即毒品法庭、酒后驾车[DWI]法庭或重返社会法庭），或为未接受专业法庭服务的缓刑人员匹配样本。结果表明，总体而言且几乎没有例外，专业法庭在基于包括种族、民族、SES或律师身份（法庭指定与私人聘请）等罪犯人口统计学特征的转介率上没有差异。检验专业法庭有效性的结果喜忧参半。参与监狱治疗项目重返社会法庭的参与者错过预定庭审的比例高于其匹配样本中的对应人员；然而，其他专业法庭项目与匹配样本中的对应人员没有显著差异。DWI法庭的参与者UA未通过次数占总UA次数的比例显著低于其匹配样本中的同龄人；然而，毒品法庭和重返社会法庭项目与其匹配样本中的对应人员没有显著差异。文中讨论了研究的意义、未来方向和局限性。（PsycINFO数据库记录）
