Influences of Neighborhood Context,Individual History and Parenting Behavior on Recidivism Among Juvenile Offenders

This study examined the effects of neighborhood context on juvenile recidivism to determine if neighborhoods influence the likelihood of reoffending. Although a large body of literature exists regarding the impact of environmental factors on delinquency, very little is known about the effects of these factors on juvenile recidivism. The sample analyzed includes 7,061 delinquent male juveniles committed to community-based programs in Philadelphia, of which 74% are Black, 13% Hispanic, and 11% White. Since sample youths were nested in neighborhoods, a hierarchical generalized linear model was employed to predict recidivism across three general categories of recidivism offenses: drug, violent, and property. Results indicate that predictors vary across the types of offenses and that drug offending differs from property and violent offending. Neighborhood-level factors were found to influence drug offense recidivism, but were not significant predictors of violent offenses, property offenses, or an aggregated recidivism measure, despite contrary expectations. Implications stemming from the finding that neighborhood context influences only juvenile drug recidivism are discussed.     

Revisiting Adjusted ADA Scores for the U.S. Congress, 1947-2007

Philip Habel Department of Political Science, Southern Illinois University Carbondale, Mailcode 4501, Carbondale, IL 62901 This paper replicates and extends Groseclose, Levitt, and Snyder,"Comparing Interest Group Scores Across Time and Chambers: AdjustedADA Scores for the U.S. Congress," which appeared in the AmericanPolitical Science Review (1999/93:33–50). We replicatethe most recent unpublished extension by Dr. Groseclose andresearch assistants for years 1947–1999, and then we extendthe analysis to include years 2000 through 2007. We make availableinflation-adjusted ADA scores from 1947 through 2007, allowingscholars to incorporate the most recent interest group scoresinto their analyses. Author's Note: Authors are listed alphabetically. The authorswish to thank Tim Groseclose for making available both the nominalADA scores from 1947 to 1999 and the Matlab program files usedin this analysis. SA gratefully acknowledges the support ofthe Hoover Institution during her time there as the 2006–07W. Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo-Campbell National Fellowand the Robert Eckles Swain National Fellow. PH wishes to thankboth the Dirksen Congressional Center and the National ScienceFoundation, doctoral dissertation improvement division grant493469, for their generous support. He also wishes to acknowledgethe valuable research assistance of James Lewis, Joshua Mitchell,and Matt Bergbower. Special thanks to J. Tobin Grant, ScottMcClurg, and Wendy Tam Cho for their helpful feedback and assistance.All errors are the responsibility of the authors. Replicationmaterials and programs are available on the Political AnalysisWeb site.     

Norms Are What States Make of Them: The Political Psychology of Norm Violation

I examine why states violate norms they embrace as members of international society. The rationalist answer, that norms are violated whenever they conflict with interests, is underspecified and empirically challenged. Constructivists cannot address violations well from their structural, sociological perspective. I argue from political psychology that violations stem from the motivated biases of actors who face a moral dilemma between personal desires and social constraints. These biases compel leaders to interpret norms and situations in a manner that justifies violation as socially acceptable. The ability to do so depends on the norm and the situation. The more parameters a norm possesses, and the more ambiguous those parameters are, the easier it is for actors to interpret them favorably to justify violation. Oftentimes norms are what states make of them. If the situation is plausible for states to claim exemption, they violate; otherwise they are constrained. The U.S. invasion of Panama illustrates these dynamics.     

从宪法角度看社会行动者对国家决定的影响

本文在通过分析社会、国家决定和宪法立法的概念,通过德国法学思想区分国家和社会两个概念的历史,在当代德国宪法确立的国家和社会相分离的基础上,讨论了社会行动者对国家立法、行政、司法三方面决定的影响,着重从规范和政治评价的角度,分析了与这些影响密切相关的机会和风险,表明宪法在维持机会和风险之间平衡具有不可或缺的地位。本文作者希望德国的经验对中国建设法治国家有所帮助。     

Foreign Policy in Transition? Human Rights, Democracy, and U.S. Arms Exports

During the Cold War, U.S. foreign policy was dominated by the strategic goal to contain Communism. Human rights and democracy were of secondary importance. In the post-Cold War period, the promotion of human rights and democracy as foreign policy concerns rose in prominence. In the spirit of Andrew Pierre, who once characterized arms transfers as "foreign policy writ large ," this study questions whether the transfer of U.S. arms mirrors America's foreign policy goals. To what extent do U.S. arms transfers reflect a concern for human rights and democracy? As a foreign policy instrument, do U.S. arms transfer patterns mark a transition between Cold War and post-Cold War worlds? To address these questions, I examine the empirical linkage between U.S. foreign policy goals and arms export agreements with developing countries for the years 1981–2002. I use a two-stage model to evaluate the decision-making process. The first-stage addresses whether a country is eligible to receive U.S. arms. If a country successfully passes through the selection stage, it progresses to the second stage where a decision is made about the amount of arms transferred. I use a Heckman model to estimate empirically the determinants of arms at both the initial selection stage and the subsequent amount stage. The findings indicate that during the Cold War years, human rights were not a significant determinant of arms transfers—although democracy was positively linked to U.S. arms in the selection stage. In the post-Cold War period, both human rights and democracy had a meaningful impact in determining the eligibility of a country to receive arms.     

Improvisation and Negotiation: Expecting the Unexpected

Negotiators must improvise. As the negotiations process unfolds, they work with new information, continually making decisions along the way to achieve favorable results. Skilled improvisational jazz musicians and actors perform in similar ways: they repeatedly practice song chord progressions and notes or scene guidelines before a performance; then, during the performance, they work with the information or the music they hear in order to react and respond, making decisions along the way to produce dazzling music or a compelling scene. In this article, two experts in negotiation, a jazz-improvisation scholar, a former member of an improvisational theater troupe, and a psychotherapist versed in therapeutic improvisational techniques explore the improvisational nature of negotiation.
Several aspects of negotiation are similar to improvisation. Both negotiators and improvisational performers need to have a similar mind-set to be successful, both need to recognize and/or change that mind-set at times, and both must craft creative solutions. But there are some significant differences between improvisational performance and negotiation practice, which this article also notes. For example, personal charisma ("star quality") is a common attribute of successful performers, but not something negotiators may always rely on. Similarly, improvisational artists usually work as a team, while a negotiator is often on his or her own. Nonetheless, the incorporation of improvisation techniques into the negotiation skills repertoire holds great promise for practicing negotiators and is a worthy topic of future negotiation research and teaching.     

Intoxicated Consent in Rape: Bree and Juror Decision-Making

The article examines the recent Court of Appeal judgment in Bree, in which the court considered the guidance that should be given to a jury when the complainant is intoxicated at the time of an alleged rape. As well as analysing the reasoning of the court in Bree, the judgment is placed in context by examining factors, such as social attitudes, that influence juror decision-making in rape cases. It also examines the suggestion made by the court in Bree that further law reform in this area would represent 'patronising interference' in the lives of women.