Judicial Wisdom: The Process of Constructing Wise Decisions

REFERENCES

• Ardelt, M. (2004). Wisdom as expert knowledge system: A critical review of a contemporary operationalization of an ancient concept. Human Development, 47, 257–285. doi: 10.1159/0000779154.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bales, W.D., & Miller, C.H. (2012). The impact of determinate sentencing on prisoner misconduct. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 394–403. doi: 10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2012.06.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baltes, P.B., & Staudinger, U.M. (2000). Wisdom: A metaheuristic (pragmatic) to orchestrate mind and virtue toward excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 122–136. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Burke, K., & Leben, S. (2007). Procedural fairness: A key ingredient in public satisfaction. Court Review, 44, 4–25.
   Google Scholar
• Cascardi, M., Poythress, N.G., & Hall, A. (2000). Procedural justice in the context of civil commitment: An analogue study. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 18, 731–740.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Darcy, J.J. (2004). Guarantees and limits of the independence and impartiality of the judge. San Diego Law Review, 41, 997–1010.
   Google Scholar
• DeCremer, D., & Tyler, T.R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 639–649.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DesRosier, N. (2000). From telling to listening: A therapeutic analysis of the role of courts in minority-majority conflicts. Court Review, 37, 54–62.
   Google Scholar
• Dunnavant, B., & Levitt, H.M. (in press). Developing wisdom in judicial decision-making: The integration of values that are not your own. The Humanistic Psychologist.
   Google Scholar
• Elliott, R., Fischer, C.T., & Rennie, D.L. (1999). Evolving guidelines for publication of qualitative research in psychology and related fields. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 38, 215–229. doi: 10.1348/014466599162782.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Fassinger, R.E. (2005). Wisdom in public policy. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Jordan (Eds.), A handbook of wisdom: Psychological perspectives (pp. 272–296). New York: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Finigan, M.W., Carey, S.M., & Cox, A. (2007). Impact of a mature drug court over 10 years of operation: Recidivism and costs (Executive summary). Rockville, MD: National Institute of Justice.
   Google Scholar
• Frank, J. (1973). Courts on trial: Myth and reality in American justice. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Giorgi, A. 1985: Phenomenology and psychological research. Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Greenberg, L.S. (1986). Change process research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 54, 4–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harmon, M.G. (2013). “Fixed” sentencing: The effect on imprisonment rates over time. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 369–397. doi: 10.1007/s10940-012-9182-x.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hobbs, P. (2007). Judges’ use of humor as a social corrective. Journal of Pragmatics, 39, 50–68.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holmes, M.D., Hosch, H.M., Daudistel, H.C.A. Perez, D.A., & Graves, J.B. (1993). Judges’ ethnicity and minority sentencing: Evidence concerning Hispanics. Social Science Quarterly, 74, 496–506.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jorgensen, G. (2006). Kohlberg & Gilligan: Duet or duel? Journal of Moral Education, 35, 179–196. doi: 10.1080/03057240600681710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kunzmann, U., & Baltes, P.B. (2003). Wisdom-related knowledge: Affective, motivational, and interpersonal correlates. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1104–1119. doi: 10.1177/0146167203254506.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind, E.A., Maccoun, R.J., Ebener, P.A., Felstiner, W.L. F., Hensler, D.R., Resnik, J., & Tyler, T.R. (1990). In the eye of the beholder: Tort litigants’ evaluations of their experience in the civil justice system. Law & Society Review, 24, 953–971.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lind, E.A., Walker, L., Kurtz, S., Musante, L., & Thibaut, J.W. (1980). Procedure and outcome effects on reactions to adjudicated resolution of conflicts of interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 643–653. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.39.4.643.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McKeown, M. (2011). To judge or not to judge: Transparency and recusal in the federal system. Review of Litigation, 30, 653–669.
   Google Scholar
• Meekins, T.M. (2008). “Specialized justice”: The over-emergence of specialty courts and the threat of a new criminal defense paradigm. In B.J. Winick & D.B. Wexler (Eds.), Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts (pp. 46–90). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. (Reprinted from Suffolk University Law Review, 40 (2006), 1–55.)
   Google Scholar
• Melé, D. (2010). Practical wisdom in managerial decision-making. Journal of Management Development, 29, 637–645. doi: 10.1108/02621711011059068.
   Google Scholar
• Menkel-Meadow, C. (1996). The trouble with the adversary system in a post-modern multicultural world. William & Mary Law Review, 5, 38.
   Google Scholar
• Neimeyer, R.A., & Cabanillas, W.E. (2004). Epistemology and psychotherapy: A constructivist conversation. In J.D. Raskin & S.K. Bridges (Eds.), Studies in meaning 2: Bridging the personal and social in constructivist psychology (pp. 69–83). New York: Pace University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Nolan-Haley, J.M. (1992). Alternative dispute resolution in a nutshell ( 3rd ed.). St. Paul, MN: Thomson-West.
   Google Scholar
• O’Brien, M.T. (2011). Facing down the gladiators: Addressing law school's hidden adversarial curriculum. Monash University Law Review, 37, 43–56.
   Google Scholar
• Palermo, G.B. (2010). The Nevada mental health courts. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 33, 214–219.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Palmer, V. (2010). The recusal of American judges in the post-Caperton era: An empirical assessment of the risk of actual bias in decisions involving campaign contributors. Global Jurist, 10, 6.
   Google Scholar
• Raskin, J.D., & Bridge, S.K. (Eds.). (2002). Studies in meaning: Exploring constructivist psychology. New York: Pace University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, D.L. (1994a). Clients’ accounts of resistance in counselling: A qualitative analysis. Canadian Journal of Counselling, 28, 43–57.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, D.L. (1994b). Storytelling in psychotherapy: The client's subjective experience. Psychotherapy, 31, 234–243.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rennie, D.L. (2002). Experiencing psychotherapy: Grounded theory studies. In D.J. Cain & J. Seeman (Eds.), Humanistic psychotherapies: A handbook of research and practice (pp. 117–144). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Rennie, D.L. (2012). Qualitative research as methodical hermeneutics. Psychological Methods, 17, 385–398.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ronner, A., & Winick, B.J. (2000). Silencing the appellant's voice: The antitherapeutic per curiam affirmance. Seattle University Law Review, 24, 499–507.
   Google Scholar
• Schma, W. (2003). Judging for the new millennium. In B.J. Winick & D.B. Wexler (Eds.), Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts (pp. 87–92). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. (Reprinted from Court Review (Spring 2000), 4–6.)
   Google Scholar
• Spohn, C. (1990). The sentencing decisions of black and white judges: Expected and unexpected similarities. Law & Society Review, 24, 1197–1216.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staudinger, U.M., Maciel, A., Smith, J., & Baltes, P.B. (1998). What predicts wisdom-related knowledge? A first look at the role of personality, intelligence, and facilitative experiential contexts. European Journal of Personality, 12, 1–17. doi: 10.1002/(SICI)1099-0984(199801/02)12:1<1::AID-PER285>3.0.CO;2-9.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Steffensmeir, D.B., & Britt, C.L. (2001). Judges’ race and judicial decision making: Do black judges sentence differently? Social Science Quarterly, 82, 749–764.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R.J. (1998). A balance theory of wisdom. Review of General Psychology, 2, 347–365.
   Google Scholar
• Stolle, D.P., & Wexler, D.B. (1997). Therapeutic jurisprudence and preventive law: A combined concentration to invigorate the everyday practice of law. Arizona Law Review, 39, 25–33.
   Google Scholar
• Tamanaha, B.Z. (2010). Beyond the formalist-realist divide: The role of politics in judging. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T.R. (1992). The psychological consequences of judicial procedures: Implications for civil commitment hearings. SMU Law Review, 96, 433.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T.R. (2007). Procedural justice in the courts. Court Review, 44, 26–31.
   Google Scholar
• Tyler, T.R. (2009). New approaches to justice in the light of virtues and problems of the penal system. In M.E. Oswald, S. Bieneck, & J. Hupfeld-Heinemann (Eds.), Social psychology of punishment of crime (pp. 19–37). New York: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Warren, R.K. (2003). Public trust and procedural justice. In B.J. Winick & D.B. Wexler (Eds.), Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts (pp. 132–135). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press. (Reprinted from Court Review (Fall 2000), 12–16.)
   Google Scholar
• Wexler, D.B. (2001). Robes and rehabilitation: How judges can help offenders “make good.” Court Review (Spring), 18–23.
   Google Scholar
• Wexler, D.B. (2008). Two decades of therapeutic jurisprudence. Touro Law Review, 24, 17–29.
   Google Scholar
• Wexler, D.B., & Winick, B.J. (2008). Therapeutic jurisprudence. Principles of Addiction Medicine, 4, 1–10.
   Google Scholar
• Winick, B.J., & Wexler, D.B. (Eds.). (2003). Judging in a therapeutic key: Therapeutic jurisprudence and the courts (pp. 132–135). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
   Google Scholar