Judicial Definitions of Equity and Fairness in Arkansas District Courts: A Qualitative Exploration

• In Event: Policy Evaluation Surrounding Courts and Sentencing

Abstract

Background: The processes that contribute to race and class disparity in CJ outcomes (e.g., pre-trial detention decisions), often remain hidden, particularly in district courts which resolve most criminal and civil cases. The current study elucidates judges’ perceptions of fairness in these hitherto unexplored spaces. To supplement a systematic social observation of Arkansas district court proceedings, we interviewed 25 district court judges about the role of district courts, professionalism, equity and fairness, and their in-court procedures and practices. Method: We qualitatively analyzed interviews to assess how judges define fairness and equity, and to what extent they perceived district courts as fair and equitable. Findings: Most judges described courts as fair and equitable, perceiving themselves and peers as fair arbiters of the law. Explicit definitions of “fairness” tended to invoke individual level treatment and decisions, such as “treating all defendants the same,” and “hearing both sides of the story.” Few judges offered systemic definitions of “fairness,” such as unequal allocation of resources across districts, despite several noting this was a problem. Implications: Judges could be powerful advocates for reforms. However, limited recognition of unfairness at the individual level combined with a failure to consider systemic contributions to unfairness may hinder reforms.

Authors

• Suzanne St. George, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

• Anastasia Boles, University of Arkansas at Little Rock

• Zoya Miller, University of Arkansas at Little Rock