Dr. James P. Levine

Position: Professor, Former Dean of Graduate Studies and Research at John Jay College of Criminal Justice
Campus Affiliation: John Jay College of Criminal Justice
E-mail: 
Research Interests: Public policy, law, criminal justice

Prof. Levine is also a member of the Government department. From 1993 to 1999, he served as Executive Officer of the Doctoral Program in Criminal Justice of the City University of New York located at John Jay College. He received his doctorate in political science from Northwestern University, winning the Edward S. Corwin Award given by the American Political Science Association for the best dissertation in the field of public law completed in 1968. Prior to coming to John Jay he served on the faculties of Michigan State University, the University of Oregon, and Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. Professor Levine has published two textbooks on criminal justice (co-authored with Michael Musheno and Dennis Palumbo): Criminal Justice: A Public Policy Approach (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1980) and Criminal Justice in America: Law in Action (New York: John Wiley, 1986). He is the co-author, with David Abbott, of Wrong Winner: The Coming Debacle in the Electoral College (New York: Praeger, 1991). His most recent book is Juries and Politics (Pacific Grove, CA: Wadsworth, 1992). Professor Levine has published numerous articles on criminal justice institutions, criminal justice policy, and research methodology; his research has focused on jury behavior in recent years. His work has appeared in such journals as Judicature, Criminal Law Bulletin, Criminal Justice Ethics, Journal of Criminal Justice, Legal Studies Forum, Law and Social Inquiry, Crime and Delinquency, Social Science Quarterly, Criminology, Public Policy, Law and Society Review, and Polity.

Books

jury ethicsJohn Kleinig and James P. Levine, Jury Ethics: Juror Conduct and Jury Dynamics (Routledge, 2016)

Trial by jury is one of the most important aspects of the U.S. legal system. A reflective look at how juries actually function brings out a number of ethical questions surrounding juror conduct and jury dynamics: Do citizens have a duty to serve as jurors? Might they seek exemptions? Is it acceptable for jurors to engage in after-hours research? Might a juror legitimately seek to “nullify” the outcome to express disapproval of the law? Under what conditions might jurors make a valid choice to hold out against or capitulate to their fellow jurors? Is it acceptable to form alliances? After trial, are there problems with entering into publishing contracts? Unfortunately, questions such as these have received scant attention from scholars. This book revives attention to these and other issues of jury ethics by collecting new and insightful essays along with responses from leading scholars in the field of jury studies. Is it acceptable for jurors to engage in after-hours research? Might a juror legitimately seek to “nullify” the outcome to express disapproval of the law? After trial, are there problems with entering into publishing contracts? Unfortunately, questions such as these have received scant attention from scholars. This book revives attention to these and other issues of jury ethics by collecting new and insightful essays along with responses from leading scholars in the field of jury studies. Contributors: Jeffrey Abramson, B. Michael Dann, Shari Seidman Diamond, Norman J. Finkel, Paula Hannaford-Agor, Valerie P. Hans, Julie E. Howe, Nancy J. King, John Kleinig, James P. Levine, Candace McCoy, G. Thomas Munsterman, Maureen O’Connor, Steven Penrod, Alan W. Scheflin, Neil Vidmar

James Levine and David Abbott, Wrong Winner: The Coming Debacle in the Electoral College (New York: Praeger, 1991).

An analysis of the American electoral college with its complicated set of procedures, this book analyzes the significant consequences of the winning of a presidential election by a candidate with fewer votes than his or her opponent. Effective remedies for the modification of the electoral college’s deficiencies are presented by Abbott and Levine. They conclude that the only satisfactory solution to the inadequacies of the current electoral system is the complete elimination of the electoral college, and a change to direct popular election of the president.

Skip to toolbar