As would be expected, judges of limited jurisdiction courts (district justices, Philadelphia Municipal Court judges, Philadelphia Traffic Court judges, and judges of the Pittsburgh Magistrates Court) experienced more incidents than judges of general jurisdiction, and judges on active assignment had more problems than senior judges The detailed results are shown in Table 1, which shows, for each type of judge, how many reported receiving an “inappropriate communication,” a “threatening communication,” an “inappropriate approach,” a “physical assault,” or “any threatening action” (i.e., any one or more of the types already listed).
正如所料,有限管辖权法院的法官(地区法官、费城地方法院法官、费城交通法院法官、匹兹堡治安法庭法官)与普通管辖权法院的法官相比经历过更多偶发事件,在分配上代理法官面临比高级法官面临更多的问题。详细结果如表1显示所示详细的结果,列出每一类型的法官有多少报告过收到“不恰当通讯”、“恐吓通知”、“不当接近”、“身体攻击”或“任何恐吓行为”(比如,也就是说,已列出所列任一或多种类型类型中的任一或多个行为)。 Notably, more than half (52%) of responding judges had experienced one or more incidents of various types.
值得注意的是,受调查法官中超过一半(52%)都经受过一次或多次不同类型的恐吓行为。
While not surprising, it is important to look at the differences in incident rates based upon the jurisdiction of the judge.
重要的是,基于法官权限来看偶发事件发生概率的差异,也就不足为奇了。 Most judges of limited jurisdiction serve in a location other than the county courthouse and generally have less protection than judges of general jurisdiction.
大部分有限管辖权的法官在地方法院而非县级法院工作,自然比具有一般管辖权的法官少了一些保障。 Additionally, active judges experienced higher rates of the surveyed incidents than senior judges.
此外,能动法官代理法官比高级法官经受受调查类型恐吓行为的可能性更高。 Senior judges are typically judges age 70 and over who work on an as needed basis.
高级法官一般都是根据需要工作的法官,年龄在70岁以上。 Because senior judges generally do not work as often as active judges, they are exposed to fewer opportunities to be endangered due to their professional responsibilities.
高级法官工作时间一般比能动法官代理法官少,因此降低了因职业责任让他们处于危险的可能性。
Table 1 :
表1: Pennsylvania Judicial Safety Survey Type of Judicial Jurisdiction by Type of Threatening Action
宾夕法尼亚州司法管辖权的司法安全调查类型——按恐吓行为类型划分
Type of Judge
法官类型 Number of
受调查法官
Judges Responding
的数量 Inappropriate Communication
不恰当通讯 Threatening Communication
恐吓通知 Any Inappropriate Approaches
任何不当接近 Physical Assaults
身体攻击 Threatening Action
恐吓行为
All Responding Judges
回应法官总数 1,000 440 - - 42.8% 238 - - 23.1% 268 - - 26.0% 12 - - - 1.2% 533- - 51.8%
Judges of the Courts of General Jurisdiction
一般管辖权法院法官 355 154 - - 43.4% 80 - - 22.5% 64 - - 18.0% 2 - - 0.6% 184- - 51.8%
Senior Judges of the Courts of General Jurisdiction
一般管辖权法院高级法官 75 12 - - 16.0% 5 - - - 6.7% 6 - - - 8.0% 0 - - 0.0% 15- - 20.0%
Judges of Limited Jurisdiction Courts
有限管辖权法院法官 530 267 - - 50.4% 147 - - 27.7% 187 - - 3.3% 9 - - 1.7% 320- - 60.4%
Senior Judges of Limited Jurisdiction Courts
有限管辖权法院高级法官 69 7 - - 10.1% 6 - - - 8.7% 11 - - 15.9% 1 - - 1.4% 14- - 20.3%
All Judges of the Courts of General Jurisdiction
一般管辖权法院全部法官 430 166 - - 38.6% 85 - - 19.8% 70 - - 16.3% 2 - - 0.5% 199- - 46.3%
All Judges of Limited Jurisdiction Courts
有限管辖权法院全部法官 599 274 - - 45.7% 153 - - 25.5% 198 - - 33.1% 10 - - 1.7% 334- - 55.8%
All Active Judges
全部代理法官 885 421 - - 47.6% 227 - - 25.6% 251 - - 28.4% 11 - - 1.2% 500- - 56.9%
All Senior Judges
全部高级法官 144 19 - - 13.2% 11 - - - 7.6% 17 - - 11.8% 1 - - 0.7% 29- - 20.1%
Table 2 details the number of judges reporting threatening actions by locale (i.e., whether they were inside or outside the courthouse) and whether the judge reported the threatening actions to law enforcement.
表2详细列出说明了当场报告不同场所(即,他们是在法院内还是在法院之外)发生(即,包括法院内外的人员)恐吓行为的法官数量以及该法官是否将恐吓行为报告到执法机关的法官数量。 Of those judges receiving inappropriate communications, 85% reported at least one incident that had taken place inside the courthouse, while 27% reported at least one incident that had occurred outside the courthouse.
85%的收到不恰当通讯的法官报告说此类事件在法院内至少遭遇过一次,27%说在法院外至少遭遇过一次。 Law enforcement was notified of inappropriate communications by 44% of the judges.
44%的法官会将不恰当通讯报告到执法机关。 Between 72% and 100% of the judges said that a threatening communication, an inappropriate approach, or a physical assault had occurred inside the courthouse; between 17% and 44% of the judges indicated that these same types of actions had occurred outside the courthouse.
72%到100%的法官说法院内发生过恐吓通知、不当接近或身体攻击,17%到44%的法官表示相同类型事件在法院外也发生过。 Law enforcement was notified by between 44% to 100% of the judges about these incidents, with the highest percentages for physical assaults.
44%到100%的法官会将这些事件上报到执法机关,其中身体攻击的上报率最高。 As these percentages show, the largest number of threatening actions occurred inside the courthouse.
正如数据显示,恐吓行为大多发生在法院内。 With the exception of the physical assaults, which are the most serious threatening actions, a substantial number of each type of threatening action was not reported to law enforcement.
除身体攻击外,这是最严重的恐吓行为,每一类恐吓行为都有很多未报告到执法机关。
Judicial functioning was affected because of these incidents.
司法职能因这些事件受到了影响。 As a result of threats, inappropriate approaches, or assaults against themselves, 25% of the judges “somewhat” altered the way they conducted judicial business, and another 5% altered their conduct “a great deal.”
由于对法官进行恐吓、不当接近或攻击,25%的法官“稍微”改变了执行司法事务的方式,另外5%则进行了“大幅”改变。 As a result of acts against one of their associates, 21% “somewhat” altered their business, and another 4% altered their conduct “a great deal.”
对法官同事的恐吓让21%的法官“稍微”改变了执行司法事务的方式,另外4%则进行了“大幅”改变。 Overall, more than one in three judges (35%) changed their judicial conduct “somewhat” or “a great deal” because either they or one of their associates had experienced one of these incidents.
总体来说,超过三分之一(35%)的法官因自身或其同事经受过这些事件而“稍微”或“大幅”改变了司法执行方式。
Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to frame meaningful comparisons of these levels, or of the overall consequences of non-lethal violence, to other occupational groups because so
不幸的是,由于此领域的研究匮乏,这点,很难进行这些层面或非致命暴力行为的整体后果与其他职业类别之间的有意义比较。
Table 2 :
表2: Inside or Outside the Courthouse:
法院内外: Number of Judges Experiencing One or More Incidents and the Number of Judges Reporting Incidents to Law Enforcement
一次或多次经受恐吓行为的法官数量及将事件报告到执法机关的法官数量
Inappropriate Communication
不当通知 Threatening Communication
恐吓通知 Inappropriate Approaches
不当接近 Physical Assault
身体攻击
Number
数量 Percent
百分比 Number
数量 Percent
百分比 Number
数量 Percent
百分比 Number
数量 Percent
百分比
Number of Respondents Reporting Incidents
上报事件的法官数量 440 238 268 12
Occurred Inside Courthouse
法院内部发生的 375 85.2% 175 73.5% 193 72.0% 12 100.0%
Occurred Outside Courthouse
法院外部发生的 117 26.6% 67 28.2% 119 44.4% 2 16.7%
Law Enforcement Notified
通知执法机关的数量 193 43.9% 144 60.5% 119 44.4% 12 100.0%
Note:
注: Each respondent may report multiple incidents; thus, percentages sum to more than 100 as several judges reported incidents in both locales.
每个受调查者可以报告多个恐吓行为,因而总百分比超过100%,因为一部分法官同时在两个地方进行过报告。
little research has been done in this area.
很难将这些级别的事件或非致命暴力所造成的后果与其他职业群体进行有效对比这方面的研究尚为较少。 Only a few studies could be located that are broadly comparable to the Pennsylvania survey of trial judges.
只有少数研究与宾夕法尼亚州的审判法官调查大致相同。
|