Political Science of Criminal Justice: Models and Methods
Instructor and Researcher Profile
The course is taught by Harry, a pre-doctoral researcher at USC/NA.
Research Focus: 95\text{%} of Harry's work involves analyzing body-worn camera footage from the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD). This extensive analysis allows him to generate insights into the dynamics of police-civilian interactions.
Objective: He uses this data to construct theoretical and statistical models of police behavior, civilian interactions, and their implications for democratic accountability. This process encompasses both quantitative and qualitative analyses to derive nuanced understandings of power dynamics in policing.
Additionally, Harry integrates varied methodologies, including statistical analysis of trends over time and direct observations of interactions, to inform his academic work and contribute to discussions on public policy and reform.
Pedagogical Philosophy: Models vs. Case Law
The course deviates from traditional criminal justice classes that focus on legal precedent and judicial doctrine. Unlike many courses that emphasize rote memorization of statutes and case law, this class values critical thinking and understanding frameworks.
A standard class might require memorizing hundreds of cases and proving that knowledge in a Blue Book exam, pushing students towards knowledge acquisition rather than analytical application.
The Model Approach: This class focuses on building theoretical and empirical models of the social world. In political science, the goal is to develop simple explanations supported by empirical data to inform policy and accumulate knowledge.
Definition of a Model: A model is a representation of reality, such as a map, which simplifies complex interactions to enhance understanding.
The Subway Map Metaphor: A map of a subway system is an object, not a logical statement. It cannot be "true" or "false" in the way a statement can; it is either "helpful" or "unhelpful." For example, if you are above ground and don’t want the subway, the map is unhelpful; conversely, if you are navigating the transit system, it is beneficial.
Students are encouraged to challenge models critically, as the goal is to identify where they fail to build better ones, fostering a culture of inquiry and improvement in the learning environment.
The Umpire Model of Judicial Behavior
The Concept: Chief Justice John Roberts famously compared judges to umpires during his Senate appointment hearings. This analogy captures the essence of judicial objectivity in the application of law.
Official Quote: "Judges and justices are servants of the law, not the other way around. Judges are like umpires. Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them." This statement underscores the expected impartiality and adherence to legal frameworks within the judiciary.
The Role of an Umpire: They sit behind home plate, watch the game, and decide on strikes or fouls. They do not create the rules of baseball; instead, they are responsible for enforcing them with fairness and accuracy.
Critique of the Umpire Model
Interpretive Element: The model is factually incorrect because the Supreme Court's fundamental purpose is to interpret the law. This interpretation is inherently subjective, shaped by judges' unique backgrounds and experiences.
Lawmaking Power: Because of the principle of precedent, one interpretation requires future adherence, effectively making the judicial process a lawmaking or policymaking process. Judges do not merely apply existing rules; they actively shape their interpretations, which can have wide-ranging legal implications.
Empirical Evidence (The Siegel and Cover Study)
This -page article published in a top journal utilized a model to test the influences on judicial decision-making, demonstrating that outcomes can vary widely based on contextual factors that diverge from pure application of rule. This empirical evidence challenges the notion of a uniformly objective judiciary and opens discussions about inherent biases.