Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-l4dxg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-05T19:59:47.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

1 - Adversarial Bias and the Criminal Process: Infusing the Organizational Perspective on Criminal Courts with Insights from Behavioral Science

from Part I - The Process Is the Punishment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  18 April 2019

By
Hadar Aviram
Edited by
Rosann Greenspan ,
Hadar Aviram  and
Jonathan Simon
Rosann Greenspan
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Hadar Aviram
Affiliation:
University of California, Hastings College of the Law
Jonathan Simon
Affiliation:
University of California, Berkeley
Get access

Summary

Generations of criminal courtroom scholars were raised on Malcolm Feeley’s book The Process Is the Punishment (1979b) as the gold standard of criminal courtroom ethnography. In the book, and in some of his other work from the 1970s and early 1980s (Feeley 1973; Feeley 1977; Feeley, 1982), Feeley examined lower criminal courts from an organizational perspective, a view that shaped several of the classic criminal court studies, such as Eisenstein and Jacob’s Felony Justice (1978) and Nardulli’s The Courtroom Elite (1978). In the first of Feeley’s works in this vein, “Two Models of the Criminal Process: An Organizational Perspective” (1973), he offered a sociological counterpart to Herbert Packer’s The Limits of the Criminal Sanction (1968) and a primer on courts as organizations.

Type
Chapter
Information
The Legal Process and the Promise of Justice
Studies Inspired by the Work of Malcolm Feeley
 , pp. 19 - 35
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References

Alexander, M. 2010. The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness. New York: The New Press.Google Scholar
Amsterdam, A. G. 1984. “Clinical Legal Education–A 21st Century Perspective.” Journal of Legal Education 34 (4): 612–18.Google Scholar
Aviram, H. 2011. “Packer in Context: Formalism and Fairness in the Due Process Model.” Law & Social Inquiry 36 (1): 237–61.Google Scholar
Aviram, H. 2012. “What Would You Do? Conducting Web-Based Factorial Vignette Surveys.” In Handbook of Survey Methodology for the Social Sciences, edited by Gideon, Lior, 463–73. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
Aviram, H. 2013. “Legally Blind: Hyperadversarialsm, Brady Violations, and the Prosecutorial Organizational Culture.” St. John’s Law Review 87 (1): 1–46.Google Scholar
Aviram, H., Dyer, D., and Thomas, S. C. 2015. “Check, Pleas: Toward a Jurisprudence of Defense Ethics in Plea Bargaining.” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly 41 (4): 775–843.Google Scholar
Bedau, H. A. and Radelet, M. L. 1987. “Miscarriages of Justice in Potentially Capital Cases.” Stanford Law Review 40 (1): 21–179.Google Scholar
Bibas, S. 2004. “Plea Bargaining Outside the Shadow of Trial.” Harvard Law Review 117 (8): 2463–547.Google Scholar
Bibas, S. 2012. The Machinery of Criminal Justice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blumberg, A. S. 1967a. “The Practice of Law as Confidence Game: Organizational Cooptation of a Profession.” Law & Society Review 1 (2): 15–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blumberg, A. S. 1967b. Criminal Justice. Chicago: Quadrangle Books.Google Scholar
Blumberg, A. S. 1969. “Book Review: The Limits of the Criminal Sanction.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 117 (5): 790–94.Google Scholar
Bowen, G. A. 2005. “Preparing a Qualitative Research-Based Dissertation: Lessons Learned.” The Qualitative Report 10 (2): 208–22.Google Scholar
Bugliosi, V. and Gentry, C. 2001 [1974]. Helter Skelter: The True Story of the Manson Murders. New York: W. W. Norton and Company.Google Scholar
Burke, A. S. 2006. “Improving Prosecutorial Decision Making: Some Lessons of Cognitive Science.” William & Mary Law Review 40: 1587–633.Google Scholar
Burke, A. S. 2007. “Neutralizing Cognitive Bias: An Invitation to Prosecutors.” N.Y.U. Law and Liberty Journal 2: 512–30 (symposium).Google Scholar
Burke, A. S. 2010. “Prosecutorial Agnosticism.” Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law 8: 79–100 (symposium).Google Scholar
Butler, J. 2013. “DNA Mixture Interpretation: History, Background, Thresholds, Statistical Methods, and SWGDAM.” New York: National Institute of Standards and Technology, available at: www.cstl.nist.gov/strbase/pub_pres/FordhamLaw-June2013.pdf (accessed on July 23, 2015).Google Scholar
Cole, S. A. 2002. Suspect Identities: A History of Fingerprinting and Criminal Identification. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cole, S. A. 2008. “The ‘Opinionization’ of Fingerprint Evidence.” BioSocieties 3: 105–13.Google Scholar
Davis, A. J. 2007. Arbitrary Justice: The Power of the American Prosecutor. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dershowitz, A. 1996. Reasonable doubts: The OJ Simpson Case and the Criminal Justice System. New York: Simon and Schuster.Google Scholar
Eisenstein, J. and Jacob, H. 1977. Felony Justice: An Organizational Analysis of Criminal Courts. Boston: Little, Brown.Google Scholar
Emmelman, D. S. 1996. “Trial by Plea Bargain: Case Settlement as a Product of Recursive Decisionmaking.” Law & Society Review 30 (2): 335–60.Google Scholar
Emmelman, D. S. 2003. Justice for the Poor: A Study of Criminal Defense Work. Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. 1973. “Two Models of the Criminal Justice System: An Organizational Perspective.” Law & Society Review 7: 407–26.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. 1978. “Pleading Guilty in Lower Courts.” Law & Society Review 7: 461–66.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. 1979a. “Perspectives on Plea Bargaining.” Law & Society Review 13 (2): 199–209.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. 1979b. The Process is the Punishment: Handling Cases in a Lower Criminal Court. New York: Russel-Sage.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. 1982. “Plea Bargaining and the Structure of the Criminal Process.” The Justice System Journal 7: 338–54.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. 2013 [1983]. Court Reform on Trial: Why Simple Solutions Fail. New York: Quid Pro Quo.Google Scholar
Feeley, M. M. and Simon, J. 1992. “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Limitations.” Criminology 30 (4): 449–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Findley, K. A. and Scott, M. S. 2006. “The Multiple Dimensions of Tunnel Vision in Criminal Cases.” Wisconsin Law Review 2006: 291–397.Google Scholar
Fiss, O. 1984. “Against Settlement.” Yale Law Journal 93 (6): 1073–90.Google Scholar
Friedrich, J. 1993. “Primary Error Detection and Minimization (PEDMIN) Strategies in Social Cognition: A Reinterpretation of Confirmation Bias Phenomena.” Psychological Review 100 (2): 298–319.Google Scholar
Frohmann, L. 1997. “Convictability and Discordant Locales: Reproducing Race, Class, and Gender Ideologies in Prosecutorial Decisionmaking.” Law & Society Review, 31 (3): 531–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galanter, M. 1974. “Why the Haves Come Out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law & Society Review 9 (1): 95–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ganzach, Y. and Schul, Y. 1995. “The Influence of Quantity of Information and Goal Framing on Decision.” Acta Psychologica 89: 23–36.Google Scholar
Griffiths, J. 1969. “Ideology in Criminal Procedure or a Third ‘Model’ of the Criminal Process.” Yale Law Journal 79 (3): 359–417.Google Scholar
Heumann, M. 1968. Plea Bargaining: The Experiences of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Attorneys. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. and Braman, D. 2008. “The Self-Defensive Cognition of Self-Defense.” American Criminal Law Review 45 (1): 1–65.Google Scholar
Kahan, D. 2010. “Culture, Cognition, and Consent: Who Perceives What, and Why, in ‘Acquaintance Rape’ Cases.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 158: 729–98.Google Scholar
Kahan, D., Hoffman, D., and Braman, D. 2009. “Whose Eyes Are You Going to Believe? Scott v. Harris and the Perils of Cognitive Illiberalism.” Harvard Law Review 122 (3): 838–904.Google Scholar
Kassin, S. M. and Kiechel, K. M. 2005. “The Social Psychology of False Confessions: Compliance, Internalization, and Confabulation.” Psychological Science 7 (3): 125–28.Google Scholar
Kotkin, M. J. and Rivkin, D. H. 2010. “Clinical Legal Education at a Generational Crossroads: Reflections from Two Boomers.” Clinical Law Review 17: 197.Google Scholar
Klayman, J. 1995. “Variaties of Confirmation Bias.” In Decision Making from a Cognitive Perspective: Advances in Research and Theory, edited by Busemeyer, Jerome and Hastie, Reid, 385–418. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kramer, T. H., Buckhout, R., and Eugenio, P. 1990. “Weapon Focus, Arousal, and Eyewitness Memory: Attention Must Be Paid.” Law and Human Behavior 14 (2): 167–84.Google Scholar
Leo, R. 1996. “Miranda’s Revenge: Police Interrogation as a Confidence Game.” Law & Society Review 30 (2): 259–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leo, R. 2009. Police Interrogation and American Justice. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leo, R. and Ofshe, R. 1998. “Consequences of False Confessions: Deprivations of Liberty and Miscarriages of Justice.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 88 (2): 422–96.Google Scholar
Levine, K. L. 2005. “The New Prosecution.” Wake Forest Law Review 40 (4): 1125–214.Google Scholar
Levine, K. L. 2007. “Can Prosecutors Be Social Workers?” Studies in Law, Politics and Society 40: 127–54.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. and Hoffman, H. G. 1989. “Misinformation and Memory: The Creation of New Memories.” Journal of Experimental Psychology 118 (1): 100–04.Google Scholar
Loftus, E. F. 2005. “Planting Misinformation in the Human Mind: A 30-year Investigation of the Malleability of Memory.” Learning and Memory 12: 361–66.Google Scholar
Macdonald, S. 2008 “Constructing a Framework for Criminal Justice Research: Learning from Packer’s Mistakes.” New Criminal Law Review 11 (2): 257–311.Google Scholar
Markman, S. J. and Cassell, P. G. 1988. “Protecting the Innocent: A Response to the Bedau-Radelet Study.” Stanford Law Review 41 (1): 121–60.Google Scholar
Maynard, D. 1984. Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
McBarnet, D. 1981. Conviction: Law, the State, and the Construction of Justice. London: Macmillan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, L. J. 1988. The Public Defender: The Practice of Law in the Shadows of Repute. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Medwed, D. S. 2009. “The Prosecutor as a Minister of Justice: Preaching to the Unconverted from the Post-Conviction Pulpit.” Washington Law Review 84: 35–66.Google Scholar
Medwed, D. S. 2012. Prosecution Complex: America’s Race to Convict and Its Impact on the Innocent. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. 1998. “Confirmation Bias: A Ubiquitous Phenomenon in Many Guises.” Review of General Psychology 2 (2): 175–220.Google Scholar
Nardulli, P. 1978. The Courtroom Elite: An Organizational Perspective on Criminal Justice. New York: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Packer, H. 1968. The Limits of the Criminal Sanction. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Pfaff, J. F. 2011. “The Micro and Macro Causes of Prison Growth.” Georgia State University Law Review 28 (4): 1237–71.Google Scholar
Pfaff, J. F. 2017. Locked In: The True Causes of Mass Incarceration – And How to Achieve Real Reform. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Robinson, R. 2011. “Does Prosecutorial Experience ‘Balance Out’ a Judge’s Liberal Tendencies?” Justice System Journal 32 (2): 146–68.Google Scholar
Shelton, D. 2015. “Closing the Gate on Biased Expert Testimony: The Judicial Perspective.” Paper presented at the annual meeting for the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Orlando, Florida, February 16–21.Google Scholar
Skolnick, J. 2011 [1968]. Justice Without Trial: Law Enforcement in Democratic Society. New York: Quid Pro.Google Scholar
Simon, D., Stenstrom, D., and Read, S. J. 2009. “Partisanship and Prosecutorial Decisionmaking: An Experiment.” Paper presented at the annual conference for Empirical Legal Studies, Ithaca, NY.Google Scholar
Simon, D. 2012. In Doubt: The Psychology of the Criminal Justice Process. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sudnow, D. 1965. “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender’s Office.” Social Problems 12 (3): 255–76.Google Scholar
Swisher, K. 2012. “Prosecutorial Conflicts of Interest in Post Conviction Practice.” Hofstra Law Review 41 (1): 181–215.Google Scholar
Tarrow, S. 1995. “Bridging the Quantitative-Qualitative Divide in Political Science.” American Political Science Review 89 (2): 471–74.Google Scholar
Teichman, D., and Zamir, E. 2013. “Judicial Decisionmaking: A Behavioral Perspective.” In Oxford Handbook of Behavioral Economics and the Law, edited by Zamir, Eyal and Teichman, Doron, 664–702. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thomson, D. I. C. 2014. “Defining Experiential Legal Education.” University of Denver Legal Studies Research Paper no. 14–50, available at: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2497505 (last accessed July 23, 2015).Google Scholar
Thompson, W. C. 2015. “A Setback for Forensic Science.” The Washington Post, May 8, 2015, available at: www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a- setback-for-forensic-science/2015/05/08/540273f2-f350-11e4-84a6-6d7c67c50db0_story.html (last accessed July 23, 2015).Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1974. “Judgment Under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases.” Science 185 (4157): 1124–31.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. and Kahneman, D. 1981. “The Framing of Decisions and the Psychology of Choice.” Science 211 (4481): 453–58.Google Scholar
Wells, G. L. and Bradfield, A. L. 1998. “‘Good, You Identified the Suspect’: Feedback to Eyewitnesses Distorts Their Reports of the Witnessing Experience.” Journal of Applied Psychology 83 (3): 360–76.Google Scholar
Whitebread, C. H. and Slobogin, C. 2007. Criminal Procedure: An Analysis of Cases and Concepts. New York: Foundation Press.Google Scholar
Wright, R. F. and Levine, K. L. 2015. “The Cure for Young Prosecutor’s Syndrome.” Arizona Law Review 56: 1066–128.Google Scholar

Cases

Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963)

Connick v. Thompson, 563 U.S. 51 (2011)

Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966)

Additional Sources

The University of Michigan’s National Registry of Exonerations (www.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx)Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×