Journal of Legal Research Methodology

Unified Search, Analysis, and Reporting Protocols in United States Policy Surveillance: A Guide and Call-to-Action

2024-07-05T09:30:52+00:00

Multi-jurisdictional legal research is an important area of study for understanding the United States’s (U.S.) legal landscape, including the impact of this landscape on social issues (e.g., overdose response, violent victimization). However, underexplored within the extant literature is unified and systematic guidance on conducting such research. Accordingly, the goal of the current paper is to construct a guide and call to action on bringing policy surveillance methods into focus. First, a systematized review of the extant empirical literature on multi-jurisdictional domestic violence policy surveillance is employed by inputting a search phrase—(statut* OR legisl* OR law* OR “policy” OR “policies”) AND “content analysis” AND “United States” AND (violen* OR abus*)—into three scholarly databases: Criminal Justice Abstracts, Academic Search Premier, and Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts. Second, a systematized review of the extant literature on policy surveillance methodology more broadly is employed by inputting a search phrase—“policy surveillance”—into the scholarly database, Web of Science. After inclusion/exclusion and data abstraction processes, as well as with the information gained from the systematized reviews more broadly, the current work (a) constructs a series of common methodological practices in policy surveillance and (b) develops a call-to-action on necessary future steps to ensure wide usage of unified policy surveillance guidance. Overall, the importance of the current work is embodied in an empirically-informed set of options for searching, analysis, and reporting of multi-jurisdictional policy surveillance research.

Ethnic Disparities in Sentencing in England and Wales: Review of Recent Findings

2025-03-07T11:40:46+00:00

Following the 2017 Lammy Review, research into ethnic disparities in sentencing in England and Wales has intensified. This article reviews the main findings from recent studies, focusing on the robustness of evidence, areas where disparities are most prevalent, gaps in the literature, and potential solutions.

Ethnic disparities are less severe and more offence-specific than previously reported. There are no substantial differences in custodial sentence length, while for the probability of receiving a custodial sentence, disparities are concentrated primarily among drug offences. However, such disparities cannot be fully explained by statistical bias, suggesting a degree of direct or indirect sentencing discrimination.

Sentencing disparities appear consistent across most minority groups. However, intersectional analyses reveal nuanced patterns; for instance, white male offenders require over 50% longer criminal records than black male offenders before crossing the custody threshold, while no significant differences are observed between black and white female offenders. Notably, socioeconomic factors, such as area deprivation, do not seem directly linked to ethnic disparities, although deprivation independently influences sentencing outcomes.

Several gaps remain in the literature. Multivariate analyses focused on magistrates’ courts, where most sentences are imposed, are lacking. Qualitative research is also needed to explore disparities in areas like drug offences, male ethnic minority offenders, and assessments of mitigating factors.

Current efforts to mitigate disparities should be expanded to include more structural solutions, such as increasing funding for legal aid, improving the quality of pre-sentence reports, and ensuring community services for addiction, mental health, and employment are universally accessible.

Reviewing Grievances of Automated Decisions in UK Administrative Justice: Qualitative Documentary Analysis Methodology

2025-07-21T22:12:20+00:00

AI and other advanced technologies are increasingly deployed in governmental decision-making, including for fundamentally important decisions. Traditional methods of redress for grievances, such as ombudsmen and judicial review, were designed to focus on processes of human decision making, which might not be applicable in cases involving components or whole decisions made by automated processes. There is a dearth of legal precedents for such issues, and theoretical implications of law in this area are typically lagging behind rapid technological and governmental developments. More timely and comprehensive insights are needed to understand emerging administrative justice issues. This paper explores the utilisation of empirical qualitative documentary analysis as a viable methodology to categorise the challenges in reviewing administrative automated decisions grievances, demonstrating the application of systematic review and thematic analysis to derive insights for legal development.