Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T15:00:36.793Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Courthouse Size and Its Impact on Judicial Performance

Insights from Weber’s Theory of Rationality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 October 2022

Sven Smith ,
Robert Askew ,
Emily Lang  and
Justin Smith
Sven Smith*
Affiliation:
Stetson University
Robert Askew
Affiliation:
Stetson University
Emily Lang
Affiliation:
Harvard Law School
Justin Smith
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina–Wilmington
*
Contact the corresponding author, Sven Smith, at [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Sectors of the criminal justice system have bureaucratized to such an extent that their management has supplanted the values for which they were created. Weber predicted this phenomenon, arguing that substantive rationality would be replaced by formal rationality as organizations grew. We test the relationship between size and these two types of rationality with the use of judicial performance checks in arraignments created from conversations with administrative courthouse staff and pilot observations at courthouses. We measure judicial performance through arraignment checklists (n = 481). Findings from multilevel models suggest that there is a positive relationship between size and formal rationality and a negative relationship between size and substantive rationality, even when controlling for workload by research design. Results suggest that abundance of formal rationality or substantive rationality facilitates injustice. These results begin a discourse encouraging quantitatively measuring formal and substantive rationality and that size be considered regarding judicial administrative policy.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Law and Courts , Volume 7 , Issue 2 , Fall 2019 , pp. 215 - 240
Copyright
© 2019 by the Law and Courts Organized Section of the American Political Science Association. All rights reserved.

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

Abrams, David S., Marianne, Bertrand, and Sendhil, Mullainathan. 2012. “Do Judges Vary in Their Treatment of Race?” Journal of Legal Studies 41 (2): 347–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Albers, P. 2008. “Quality of Courts and the Judiciary: European Experiences and Global Developments.” Paper for seminar “Public and Private Justice,” Dubrovnik, May.Google Scholar
Barclay, Scott and Thomas, Birkland. 1998. “Law, Policymaking, and the Policy Process: Closing the Gaps.” Policy Studies Journal 26 (2): 227–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benson, M. L., and Walker., E. 1988. “Sentencing the White-Collar Offender.” American Sociological Review 53 (2): 294–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blau, P. M. 1958. The Dynamics of Bureaucracy: A Study of Interpersonal Relations in Two Government Agencies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Brubaker, R. 1984. The Limits of Rationality: An Essay on the Social and Moral Thought of Max Weber. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Danziger, Shai, Jonathan Levav and Liora, Avnaim-Pesso. 2011. “Extraneous Factors in Judicial Decisions.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 108 (17): 6889–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Djankov, S., La Porta, R., Lopez-de-Silanes, F., and Shleifer., A. 2003. “Courts: The Lex Mundi Project.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118 (2): 453–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Etzioni-Halevy, E. 1985. “Has the New Right Curbed the Growth of Bureaucracy?” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 13 (2): 283–96.Google Scholar
Evans, P., and Rauch., J. E. 1999. “Bureaucracy and Growth: A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of ‘Weberian’ State Structures on Economic Growth.” American Sociological Review 64 (5): 748–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ewing, S. 1987. “Formal Justice and the Spirit of Capitalism: Max Weber’s Sociology of Law.” Law and Society Review 21 (3): 487–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feeley, M., and Simon., J. 1992. “The New Penology: Notes on the Emerging Strategy of Corrections and Its Implications.” Criminology 30 (4): 449–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glendon, M. A. 1994. A Nation under Lawyers. New York: Farrar, Straus & Giroux.Google Scholar
Griffin, C. L., Sloan, F. A., and Eldred., L. M. 2014. “Corrections for Racial Disparities in Law Enforcement.” William & Mary Law Review 55:1365–1427.Google Scholar
Hall, P. M. 1995. “The Consequences of Qualitative Analysis for Sociological Theory: Beyond the Micro Level.” Sociological Quarterly 56 (2): 397–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hashimoto, E. 2007. “The Price of Misdemeanor Representation.” William & Mary Law Review 49 (1): 461–83.Google Scholar
Horwitz, Allan and Michael, Wasserman. 1980. “Formal Rationality, Substantive Justice, and Discrimination.” Law and Human Behavior 4 (1–2): 103–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, P. K. 2011. The Death of Common Sense: How Law Is Suffocating America. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Hoy, W. K., and Sweetland., S. R. 2000. “School Bureaucracies That Work: Enabling Not Coercive.” Journal of School Leadership 10 (6): 525–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jaskyte, K. 2012. “Boards of Directors and Innovation in Nonprofit Organizations.” Nonprofit Management and Leadership 22 (4): 439–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaiser, Kimberly A., and Cassia, Spohn. 2014. “‘Fundamentally Flawed?’ Exploring the Use of Policy Disagreements in Judicial Downward Departures for Child Pornography Sentences.” Criminology and Public Policy 13 (2): 241–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalberg, S. 1980. “Max Weber’s Types of Rationality: Cornerstones for the Analysis of Rationalization Processes in History.” American Journal of Sociology 85 (5): 1145–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, John H., and Anthony, J. Scirica. 1986. “Complex Policy Choices: The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing.” Federal Probation Journal 50:15–23.Google Scholar
Kronman, A. T. 1983. Max Weber. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Lee, V., and Smith., J. 1997. “High School Size: Which Works Best and for Whom?” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 19 (3): 205–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levine, D. N. 1981. “Rationality and Freedom: Weber and Beyond.” Sociological Inquiry 51 (1): 5–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lounsbury, M., and Carberry., E. 2005. “From King to Court Jester? Weber’s Fall from Grace in Organizational Theory.” Organization Studies 26 (4): 501–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mills, Charles Wright. 1963. Power, Politics, and People: The Collected Essays of C. Wright Mills. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Muraven, Mark and Roy, F. Baumeister. 2000. “Self-Regulation and Depletion of Limited Resources: Does Self-Control Resemble a Muscle?” Psychological Bulletin 126 (2): 247–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newmann, Fred M., Robert, A. Rutter, and Marshall, S. Smith. 1989. “Organizational Factors That Affect School Sense of Efficacy, Community, and Expectations.” Sociology of Education 62 (4): 221–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Portes, A., and Smith., L. D. 2012. Institutions Count: Their Role and Significance in Latin American Development. Berkeley: University of California Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rawls, J. 1971. A Theory of Justice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rhode, D. L. 1998. “The Professionalism Problem.” William & Mary Law Review 39 (2): 283–326.Google Scholar
Rogers, K., Roux, D., and Biggs., H. 2000. “The Value of Visions and Art of Visionaries.” Conservation Ecology 4 (1). https://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol4/iss1/resp1/.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rubin, A. B. 1980. “Bureaucratization of the Federal Courts: The Tension between Justice and Efficiency.” Notre Dame Law Review 58 (5): 648–59.Google Scholar
Savelsberg, J. 1992. “Law That Does Not Fit Society: Sentencing Guidelines as a Neoclassical Reaction to the Dilemmas of Substantivized Law.” American Journal of Sociology 97 (5): 1346–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scott, R. W., and Blau., P. M. 1962. Formal Organizations: A Comparative Approach. New York: Chandler.Google Scholar
Steffensmeier, D., and Hebert., C. 1999. “Women and Men Policymakers: Does the Judge’s Gender Affect the Sentencing of Criminal Defendants?” Social Forces 77 (3): 1163–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stinchcombe, A. 1965. Organizations and Social Structure. Skokie, IL: Rand McNally.Google Scholar
Sudnow, D. 1965. “Normal Crimes: Sociological Features of the Penal Code in a Public Defender Office.” Social Problems 12 (3): 255–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tepperman, F. 1973. “The Effect of Court Size on Procedure.” Canada Review of Sociology and Anthropology 10 (4): 346–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thibaut, John, Walker, Laurens, LaTour, Stephen and Pauline, Houlden. 1973. “Procedural Justice as Fairness.” Stanford Law Review 26:1271–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonry, M. 1992. “Mandatory Penalties.” Crime and Justice 16:243–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tonry, M., and Coffee., J. 1987. “Enforcing Sentencing Guidelines: Plea Bargaining and Review Mechanisms.” In The Sentencing Commission and Its Guidelines, ed. Andrew von Hirsch, Michael H. Tonry, and Kay A. Knapp, 142–76. Boston: Northeastern University Press.Google Scholar
Ulmer, J. T., and Kramer., J. H. 1996. “Court Communities under Sentencing Guidelines: Dilemmas of Formal Rationality and Sentencing Disparity.” Criminology 34 (3): 383–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, S., Spohn, C., and DeLone., M. 2012. The Color of Justice: Race, Ethnicity, and Crime in America. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Wallace, W. L. 1990. “Rationality, Human Nature, and Society in Weber’s Theory.” Theory and Society 19 (2): 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weber, M. 1921/1978. “The Definition of Sociology and Social Action.” In Economy and Society, 4–26. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Weber, M. 1978. Economy and Society: An Outline of Interpretive Sociology. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Westby, David L. 1991. The Growth of Sociological Theory: Human Nature, Knowledge, and Social Change. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
Zorza, R. 2010. “Access to Justice: The Emerging Consensus and Some Questions and Implications.” Judicature 94 (4): 156–67.Google Scholar