Difference between revisions of "Lee2005"

From emcawiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with "{{BibEntry |BibType=ARTICLE |Author(s)=Seung-Hee Lee; |Title=The scales of justice: Balancing neutrality and efficiency in plea-bargaining encounters |Tag(s)=EMCA; Courtroom...")
 
 
Line 1: Line 1:
 
{{BibEntry
 
{{BibEntry
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
 
|BibType=ARTICLE
−
|Author(s)=Seung-Hee Lee;  
+
|Author(s)=Seung-Hee Lee;
−
|Title=The scales of justice: Balancing neutrality and efficiency in plea-bargaining encounters
+
|Title=The scales of justice: balancing neutrality and efficiency in plea-bargaining encounters
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Courtroom Interaction; Neutrality; Efficiency; Plea Bargaining
 
|Tag(s)=EMCA; Courtroom Interaction; Neutrality; Efficiency; Plea Bargaining
 
|Key=Lee2005
 
|Key=Lee2005
Line 8: Line 8:
 
|Journal=Discourse & Society
 
|Journal=Discourse & Society
 
|Volume=16
 
|Volume=16
−
|Pages=33-54
+
|Number=1
 +
|Pages=33–54
 
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926505048229
 
|URL=http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0957926505048229
 +
|DOI=10.1177/0957926505048229
 
|Abstract=This article examines how the judge balances the normative obligation of neutrality with the bureaucratic demand for efficiency in recorded plea-bargaining encounters. The analysis demonstrates three kinds of judicial conduct by employing the methodology of conversation analysis. First, the judge displays an attitude or an outlook toward the accused or aspects of the case in an embedded manner. Second, the judge facilitates the bargaining process. The judge organizes an opening and a closing of the bargaining encounters, and elicits bargaining activities from the attorneys. Third, the judge moves the bargainers toward resolution. The judge may overtly suggest a bargaining proposal, subtly intervene in the bargaining positions to show approval or disapproval, and press the bargainers to overcome obstacles. The analysis shows that the judge’s conduct influences the bargaining processes and outcomes. The implication of this article is twofold. On the one hand, justice in plea bargaining is implemented in practice and is shaped by the practical ways in which judges manage their role in the interactions. On the other hand, the judge’s role is shaped by the normative obligation of neutrality as reconciled with the practical demands for efficiency. Therefore, the administration of justice in plea bargaining both shapes and is shaped by the judge’s conduct as balanced between neutrality and efficiency.
 
|Abstract=This article examines how the judge balances the normative obligation of neutrality with the bureaucratic demand for efficiency in recorded plea-bargaining encounters. The analysis demonstrates three kinds of judicial conduct by employing the methodology of conversation analysis. First, the judge displays an attitude or an outlook toward the accused or aspects of the case in an embedded manner. Second, the judge facilitates the bargaining process. The judge organizes an opening and a closing of the bargaining encounters, and elicits bargaining activities from the attorneys. Third, the judge moves the bargainers toward resolution. The judge may overtly suggest a bargaining proposal, subtly intervene in the bargaining positions to show approval or disapproval, and press the bargainers to overcome obstacles. The analysis shows that the judge’s conduct influences the bargaining processes and outcomes. The implication of this article is twofold. On the one hand, justice in plea bargaining is implemented in practice and is shaped by the practical ways in which judges manage their role in the interactions. On the other hand, the judge’s role is shaped by the normative obligation of neutrality as reconciled with the practical demands for efficiency. Therefore, the administration of justice in plea bargaining both shapes and is shaped by the judge’s conduct as balanced between neutrality and efficiency.
−
 
−
Alschuler, A. (1976) ‘The Trial Judge’s Role in Plea Bargaining’ , Columbia Law Review 76: 1059-1154 . Google Scholar
 
−
Alschuler, A. (1979) ‘Plea Bargaining and its History’ , Law and Society Review 13: 211-245 . Google Scholar
 
−
Atkinson, J.M. (1992) ‘Displaying Neutrality: Formal Aspects of Informal Court Proceedings’ in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 199-211. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar
 
−
Boyd, E. and Heritage, J. (in press) ‘Taking the Patient’s Personal History: Questioning during Verbal Examination’ in J. Heritage and D. Maynard (eds) Practicing Medicine: Structure and Process in Primary Care Encounters. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
 
−
Clayman, S.E. (1992) ‘Footing in the Achievement of Neutrality: The Case of News-Interview Discourse’ in P. Drew and J. Heritage (eds) Talk at Work: Interaction in Institutional Settings, pp. 163-198. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar
 
−
Clayman, S.E. and Heritage, J. (2002) The News Interview: Journalists and Public Figures on the Air. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press . Google Scholar
 
−
Feeley, M. (1979a) ‘Perspectives on Plea Bargaining’ , Law and Society Review 13: 199-209 . Google Scholar
 
−
Feeley, M. (1979b) ‘Pleading Guilty in Lower Courts’ , Law and Society Review 13: 461-466 . Google Scholar
 
−
Feeley, M. (1979c) The Process Is the Punishment. New York: Russell Sage Foundation . Google Scholar
 
−
Friedman, L.M. (1979) ‘Plea Bargaining in Historical Perspective’ , Law and Society Review 13: 247-259 . Google Scholar
 
−
Garcia, A. (1995) ‘The Problematics of Representation in Community Mediation Hearings: Implications for Mediation Practice’ , Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 22(4): 23-46 . Google Scholar
 
−
Greatbatch, D. and Dingwall, R. (1989) ‘Selective Facilitation: Some Preliminary Observations on a Strategy Used by Divorce Mediators’ , Law and Society Review 23: 613-641 . Google Scholar
 
−
Hagan, J. and Bernstein, I.N. (1979) ‘The Sentence Bargaining of Upperworld and Underworld Crime in Ten Federal District Courts’ , Law and Society Review 13: 467-478 . Google Scholar
 
−
Heinz, A.M. and Kerstetter, W.A. (1979) ‘Pretrial Settlement Conference: Evaluation of a Reform in Plea Bargaining’ , Law and Society Review 13: 349-366 . Google Scholar
 
−
Heritage, J. (1984) Garfinkel and Ethnomethodology. Cambridge: Polity Press . Google Scholar
 
−
Heritage, J. and Sorjonen, M.-L. (1994) ‘Constituting and Maintaining Activities across Sequences: And-Prefacing as a Feature of Question Design’ , Language in Society 23: 1-29 . Google Scholar
 
−
Heumann, M. (1978) Plea Bargaining: The Experience of Prosecutors, Judges, and Defense Lawyers. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press . Google Scholar
 
−
Heumann, M. and Loftin, C. (1979) ‘Mandatory Sentencing and the Abolition of Plea Bargaining: The Michigan Felony Firearm Statute’ , Law and Society Review 13: 393-430 . Google Scholar
 
−
Jefferson, G. (1979) ‘A Technique for Inviting Laughter and its Subsequent Acceptance/Declination’, in G. Psathas (ed.) Everyday Language: Studies in Ethnomethodology, pp. 79-96. New York: Irvington . Google Scholar
 
−
Jefferson, G. (1987) ‘Exposed and Embedded Corrections in Conversation’ in G. Button and J.R.E. Lee (eds) Talk and Social Organization, pp. 86-100. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters . Google Scholar
 
−
Kolb, D. (1981) ‘Roles Mediators Play: State and Federal Practice’ , Industrial Relations 20: 1-17 . Google Scholar
 
−
Langbein, J.H. (1979) ‘Understanding the Short History of Plea Bargaining’ , Law and Society Review 13: 261-272 . Google Scholar
 
−
Lindström, A.K.B. (1997) ‘Designing Social Actions: Grammar, Prosody, and Interaction in Swedish Conversation’, unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California, Los Angeles.
 
−
Maynard, D.W. (1982) ‘Aspects of Sequential Organization in Plea Bargaining Discourse’ , Human Studies 5: 319-344 . Google Scholar
 
−
Maynard, D.W. (1984) Inside Plea Bargaining: The Language of Negotiation. New York: Plenum Press . Google Scholar
 
−
Maynard, D.W. and Manzo, J.F. (1993) ‘On the Sociology of Justice: Theoretical Notes from an Actual Jury Deliberation’ , Sociological Theory 11: 171-193 . Google Scholar
 
−
McDonald, W.F. (1979) ‘From Plea Negotiation to Coercive Justice: Notes on the Respecification of a Concept’ , Law and Society Review 13: 385-392 . Google Scholar
 
−
Mileski, M. (1971) ‘Courtroom Encounters: An Observation Study of a Lower Criminal Court’ , Law and Society Review 5: 473-538 . Google Scholar
 
−
Morris, N. (1974) The Future of Imprisonment. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press . Google Scholar
 
−
Robinson, J.D. (1998) ‘Getting Down to Business: Talk, Gaze, and Body Orientation During Openings of Doctor-Patient Consultations’ , Human Communication Research 25: 97-123 . Google Scholar
 
−
Rosett, A. and Cressey, D.R. (1976) Justice by Consent: Plea Bargains in the American Courthouse. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott . Google Scholar
 
−
Ryan, J.P. and Alfini, J.J. (1979) ‘Trial Judges’ Participation in Plea Bargaining: An Empirical Perspective’ , Law and Society Review 13: 479-507 . Google Scholar
 
−
Sacks, H. , Schegloff, E.A. and Jefferson, G. (1974) ‘A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn-Taking for Conversation’ , Language 50: 696-735 . Google Scholar
 
−
Schegloff, E.A. (1995) ‘Sequence Organization’, unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
 
−
Schegloff, E.A. (in press) A Primer in Conversation Analysis: Sequence Organization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press .
 
−
Whalen, M.R. and Zimmerman, D.H. (1990) ‘Describing Trouble: Practical Epistemology in Citizen Calls to the Police’ , Language in Society 19: 465-492 . Google Scholar
 
−
Vol 16, Issue 1, 2005
 
−
Table of Contents
 
−
Article Metrics
 
−
Related Articles
 
−
 
−
Cite
 
−
 
−
 
−
Permissions
 
−
 
−
 
−
Share
 
−
 
−
Download PDF
 
−
Read the latest issue of Index on Censorship
 
−
 
 
}}
 
}}

Latest revision as of 11:48, 3 November 2019

Lee2005
BibType ARTICLE
Key Lee2005
Author(s) Seung-Hee Lee
Title The scales of justice: balancing neutrality and efficiency in plea-bargaining encounters
Editor(s)
Tag(s) EMCA, Courtroom Interaction, Neutrality, Efficiency, Plea Bargaining
Publisher
Year 2005
Language
City
Month
Journal Discourse & Society
Volume 16
Number 1
Pages 33–54
URL Link
DOI 10.1177/0957926505048229
ISBN
Organization
Institution
School
Type
Edition
Series
Howpublished
Book title
Chapter

Download BibTex

Abstract

This article examines how the judge balances the normative obligation of neutrality with the bureaucratic demand for efficiency in recorded plea-bargaining encounters. The analysis demonstrates three kinds of judicial conduct by employing the methodology of conversation analysis. First, the judge displays an attitude or an outlook toward the accused or aspects of the case in an embedded manner. Second, the judge facilitates the bargaining process. The judge organizes an opening and a closing of the bargaining encounters, and elicits bargaining activities from the attorneys. Third, the judge moves the bargainers toward resolution. The judge may overtly suggest a bargaining proposal, subtly intervene in the bargaining positions to show approval or disapproval, and press the bargainers to overcome obstacles. The analysis shows that the judge’s conduct influences the bargaining processes and outcomes. The implication of this article is twofold. On the one hand, justice in plea bargaining is implemented in practice and is shaped by the practical ways in which judges manage their role in the interactions. On the other hand, the judge’s role is shaped by the normative obligation of neutrality as reconciled with the practical demands for efficiency. Therefore, the administration of justice in plea bargaining both shapes and is shaped by the judge’s conduct as balanced between neutrality and efficiency.

Notes


Retrieved from "https://emcawiki.net/index.php?title=Lee2005&oldid=20257"