The role of constitutional courts in deeply divided societies is complicated by the danger that the salient societal cleavages may influence judicial decision‐making and, consequently, undermine judicial impartiality and independence. With reference to the decisions of the Constitutional Court of Bosnia‐Herzegovina, this article investigates the influence of ethno‐national affiliation on judicial behaviour and the extent to which variation in judicial tenure amplifies or dampens that influence. Based on a statistical analysis of an original dataset of the Court's decisions, we find that the judges do in fact divide predictably along ethno‐national lines, at least in certain types of cases, and that these divisions cannot be reduced to a residual loyalty to their appointing political parties. Contrary to some theoretical expectations, however, we find that long‐term tenure does little to dampen the influence of ethno‐national affiliation on judicial behaviour. Moreover, our findings suggest that this influence may actually increase as a judge acclimates to the dynamics of a divided court. We conclude by considering how alternative arrangements for the selection and tenure of judges might help to ameliorate this problem.

Intensive supervision probation (ISP) has proven generally ineffective for youth. In this article we argue that mentorship, an intervention with increasing empirical support in the literature, is a missing treatment component. We test this proposition with results from the Spotlight Serious Offender Services Unit, an urban-based Canadian ISP program that targets high-risk gang youth. Unique to Spotlight is their adoption of street mentors to work with youth in the community. Our study incorporated quantitative and qualitative approaches: client interviews and researcher observation of street mentors coupled with comparison of recidivism outcomes between a comparison group (N = 85) of high-risk young offenders and Spotlight (N = 57) clients, matched via a propensity score matching (PSM) procedure. Spotlight cases did significantly better than the comparison group on all recidivism outcomes examined. Qualitative interview and observation data supported mentorship efficacy. Given the lack of effectiveness of other ISPs observed in the literature, we argue that mentorship makes a difference.

Margit Cohn and Mordechai Kremnitzer developed a multidimensional 17-parameter model, in 2005, to measure the judicial discourse in the decisions of constitutional courts. A court rendered a decision that was activist when it made a decision outside the traditional scope of judicial constraints on government action and that was restrained when they adhered to the principles of traditional adjudication roles. Previously, this model was successfully operationalized, by Jochelson et al. (2012), to analyse significant changes in the interpretation of search and seizure law in the judicial discourse of the Supreme Court of Canada, before and after 9/11. We now use the model to expand that analysis to section 24(2) exclusion of evidence cases under the Charter. By using a 1–10 Likert scale for each Cohn/Kremnitzer indicium of analysis, a value was assigned to each variable of every case and then the pre-9/11 case group were compared to the post-9/11 one. Our data analysis shows increased restraint on the part of the Supreme Court in 7 of the 13 variables of judicial discourse measured after 9/11, even when factoring in the landmark decision in R v Grant (2009). These changes are consistent with the post-9/11 literature on securitization: 9/11 was a moment when the state was given excuses to control, using security as justification for precautionary and risk-averse actions. While we cannot assert any causal relationships between these changes and 9/11, the caveats still permit significant findings, the most intriguing being that the Court has shifted, in its discourse on the exclusion of evidence, toward an ethic of more restraint. These findings stand alongside other studies that have found similarly in the area of search and seizure law.

No abstract

No abstract