David B. Rottman

Understanding contemporary Ireland : state, class and development in the Republic of Ireland

Preface - Introduction: The Transformation of Irelands Social Structure - The Evolution and Structure of the Irish State - The Transformation of the Class Structure: Occupations, Opportunities and Occupants - The State and the Distribution and Redistribution of Income - State, Class and Family - Education: The Promise of Reform and the Growth of Credentialism - Employment, Unemployment and Industrial Policy - Industrial Relations and the State - Agriculture: Policy and Politics - The Ebbing Tide - References - Index

The Predictability of Punitive Damages

Using one year of jury trial outcomes from 45 of the nations most populous counties, this article shows a strong and statistically significant correlation between compensatory and punitive damages. These findings are replicated in 25 years of punitive damages awards from Cook County, Illinois, and California. In addition, we find no evidence that punitive damages awards are more likely when individuals sue businesses than when individuals sue individuals. With respect to award frequency, juries rarely award punitive damages and appear to be especially reluctant to do so in the areas of law that have captured the most attention, products liability and medical malpractice. Punitive damages are most frequently awarded in business/contract cases and intentional tort cases. The frequency‐of‐award findings are consistent with all major studies of punitive damages.

Therapeutic jurisprudence in the courts.

Therapeutic jurisprudence is an emerging field of law and social science inquiry that explores the role of the law in fostering therapeutic or antitherapeutic outcomes. This article considers the relationship between therapeutic jurisprudence and court performance goals, examines applications of therapeutic jurisprudence in court settings, discusses the steps involved in incorporating therapeutic jurisprudence principles into the work of courts, outlines the pros and cons associated with practicing therapeutic jurisprudence primarily in specialized courts, and offers suggestions for fostering continued experimentation by courts.

Problem-Solving Courts: Models and Trends

In 2004, the Conference of Chief Justices and the Conference of State Court Administrators reaffirmed their commitment to advance the study, evaluation, and integration of problem-solving methods and principles into the administration of justice. This article describes four of the most prominent American problem-solving court models in terms of their origins, key practices, variety, and success to date, noting specific features or issues that are distinctive to each model. It concludes with twelve trends that provide insight into where these courts now stand and appear to be headed in the future.

Who trusts the trial courts, to what extent, and why?

Considerable effort has been expended on explaining the high and steady level of trust enjoyed by the US Supreme Court despite its intervention into some of the most controversial issues of our time. The possession of “diffuse support,” a reservoir of goodwill unrelated to the outcome of specific court decisions, and the Court’s ability to conceal its decision-making process from public view have emerged as prominent explanations. Trial courts have neither advantage. Trust in trial courts is shaped by three characteristics: their identity with a locality, pervasive and persuasive fictional depictions of how courts operate, and the personal contact most Americans have had with trial courts. Direct experience is of particular significance. People with direct court experience look at trial courts differently than those without. But the consequences of court experience for trust are not straightforward, being shaped by the specific details of what transpired. Jurors, for example, are more trusting in courts if they served on a criminal rather than a civil jury, which in turn depends on specific factors that affect the quality of trial deliberations. Perceived procedural justice is the main predictor of trust in trial courts, with the effect being considerably stronger for those able to draw upon personal court experience. Personal experience also suppresses the influence of exposure to media-provided information about trial courts, while perceived procedural justice explains why levels of trust in trial courts differ among racial and ethnic groups. All in all, when explaining trust in trial courts, the devil is in the details of what happens in the courthouse and the medium through which information on the courts is obtained. This makes trial courts a challenging subject for students of trust in public institutions.

Education: the Promise of Reform and the Growth of Credentialism

Two related concerns — equality of educational opportunity and the link between education and the labour demands of a modern capitalist economy — lay at the root of many of the major changes brought about in public education by Western governments during the post-war period. These changes have led to a rapid expansion of both the provision and the utilisation of public education, with a concomitant growth in educational expenditure.1

The Verdict Is In: Judge and Administrator Perceptions of State Court Governance

The court unification movement has progressed in fits and starts over the decades. Recent proposals have been put forth that attempt to continue the move toward a state court structure that utilizes a more coherent approach to governance. Drawing on a survey of court personnel who were asked about a set of proposed governance principles, this article examines how state court judges and administrators view their roles and responsibilities in the court system, the current need for court reform, the importance of future trends, and whether they are confident in the performance of their respective court system. Three hundred and seventy-five judges and administrators answered sixty-two questions regarding principles governing state court procedures and measures of their confidence in the court system. Participants overwhelmingly agreed that changes in court governance are necessary, although the degree of change for specific principles and trends was moderated by career, age, and time working for the courts. Results indicate that perceptions of court performance are not uniform among court professionals, perhaps signifying that current court governance emphases should be reexamined.

From the Special Issue Editors

The origins, processing, and consequences of lawsuits seeking compensation for a wide range of alleged harms remain lively topics of public debate and discussion. Questions cut to the heart of concerns about the efficacy of our legal system, the power of interest groups, and the health of our economy. Is the amount of litigation too large, too small, or just about right? Are lawyers encouraging the filing of frivolous cases, or are individuals taking their lumps without seeking relief in the courts? What happens when individuals and corporations decide to slug it out in court? Who wins? Who loses? And how can patterns of verdicts and awards be understood in the context of tort reform? Are trial verdicts final, or do litigants and appeals courts render the trial verdict only one step on the road toward an ultimate resolution?

The Evolution and Structure of the Irish State

The structure of the Irish State and its development after Independence bear the marks of the post-colonial, semi-peripheral experience. Certainly nationalism and economic vulnerability were influential in shaping the role of the State. Of these influences, nationalism was perhaps dominant, as it often directed State policies down paths which economic interest did not justify. Irish nationalism however, was untypically an agent of stability rather than upheaval. Though the new nation drifted immediately into civil war, the split in the nationalist movement served in practice to shore up constitutional democracy, so that by 1926 the early ‘crisis of legitimacy’ was permanently resolved (Pyne, 1969, p. 50). Such an initial foundation of stability is rare in post-colonial societies and made continuity rather than change the defining characteristic of independent Ireland in its early decades.

Industrial Relations and the State

The shift away from a residual State role in industrial relations was a direct response to the problems created by the industrialisation strategy pursued in Ireland. Free trade and the heavy reliance on attracting foreign investment made it imperative to maintain stable industrial relations and wage competitiveness (Hardiman, 1986; Roche 1982; Stanton, 1979) and in these respects, the traditional role of the State in industrial relations could no longer suffice. The new State role in the 1960s brought the Government, trade union and employer representatives together in a variety of bodies established to facilitate the programme of economic development. The next decade brought another role for the State; as a ‘partner’ to a series of National Wage Agreements. It was that extension of the State’s role that ultimately blurred the boundary between the economic and the political in Ireland. Industrial policy, industrial relations, wages and taxes all entered the political arena — and remained there, despite the gradual dissolution of tripartite arrangements.