Crime,criminology and human rights: Towards an understanding of state criminality

This paper explores issues related to the analysis of a type of criminality frequently ignored in criminological literature: crimes of the state. It explores the potential of critical criminology to deal with state criminality via investigation of such issues as state interventions, overlapping activities of criminal versus non-criminal organizations and the distinction between individual and state actors. The paper specifically examines state criminality via analysis of the activities of the CIA and FBI in the United States. These activities include methods of surveillance, wiretapping, mail tampering, and the use of agents provocateurs. It also examines issues related to relativity in the definition of terrorism and the use of terrorism by the state. It is argued that, unless criminologists begin to address these issues, criminologists may find themselves in the awkward position of aiding the criminalization of non-criminal peoples around the world.     

Mandates, Powers, and Policies

Elections provide a mandate to pursue a set of policies. Party label provides a concise ideological cue for voters to choose among candidates, and research on industrial democracies verifies a link between the parties voters elect and subsequent policy outcomes. The combination of inchoate party systems and economic vulnerability elsewhere may weaken the link between voter choice and policy. When examining economic policies in Latin America, there is some controversy as to whether governments carried out "reform by surprise"—promising one thing during a campaign while implementing another in office. We test whether the ideological reputations of executives' and legislators' parties explain whether they adopt market-oriented policies. We find that the future behavior of presidential candidates is difficult for voters to predict. However, the ideological reputation of legislators is a reliable predictor of policy outcomes, and the relationship is clarified by the prospects of collective action by legislative delegations.     

The invention of health law

By default, the courts are inventing health law. The law governing the American health system arises from an unruly mix of statutes, regulations, and judge-crafted doctrines conceived, in the main, without medical care in mind. Courts are ill-equipped to put order to this chaos, and until recently they have been disinclined to try. But political gridlock and popular ire over managed care have pushed them into the breach, and the Supreme Court has become a proactive health policy player. How might judges make sense of health law's disparate doctrinal standards? Scholars from diverse ideological starting points have converged toward a single answer: the law should look to deploy medical resources in a systematically rational manner, so as to maximize the benefits that every dollar buys. This answer bases the orderly development of health care law upon our ability to reach stable understandings, in myriad circumstances, of what welfare maximization requires. In this Article, I contend that this goal is not achievable. Scientific ignorance, cognitive limitations, and normative disagreements yield shifting, incomplete, and contradictory understandings of social welfare in the health sphere. The chaotic state of health care law today reflects this unruliness. In making systemic welfare maximization the lodestar for health law, we risk falling so far short of aspirations for reasoned decision making as to invite disillusion about the possibilities for any sort of rationality in this field. Accordingly, I urge that we define health law's aims more modestly, based on acknowledgement that its rationality is discontinuous across substantive contexts and changeable with time. This concession to human limits, I argue, opens the way to health policy that mediates wisely between our desire for public action to maximize the well being of the many and our intimate wishes to be treated noninstrumentally, as separate ends. I conclude with an effort to identify the goals of health law, so constructed, should pursue and to suggest how a strategy of accommodation among these goals might apply to a variety of legal controversies.     

Measuring Street Cleanliness: A Comparison of New York City's Scorecard and Results from a Citizen Survey

Public administrators at the local level often rely on citizen surveys to measure the outcomes or accomplishments of their service delivery efforts. However, many remain skeptical about the value of survey-based measures of local government performance, in large part because of the low empirical correlation between objective and subjective performance measures reported in the literature. Using data from New York City's street cleanliness scorecard, a well-established outcome measure, combined with responses from more than 4,000 respondents to a citizen survey, the authors find a clear and consistent correlation between the scorecard and citizen ratings of street cleanliness in their neighborhoods. Moreover, the street cleanliness scorecard is a much stronger predictor of citizen ratings than demographic factors, trust in government, or contextual effects. These results demonstrate that citizen judgments about government performance can correspond closely with more objectively measured outcomes—and that citizen surveys can provide valid and useful performance measures, at least for some local government services.     

A simple checklist,that is all it takes: a cluster randomized controlled field trial on improving the treatment of suspected terrorists by the police

Journal of Experimental Criminology - When it comes to interviewing suspected terrorists, global evidence points to harsh interrogation procedures, despite the likelihood of false positives. How...     

Sexually violent predators and civil commitment: is selection evidence based?

Sexual offenses represent an alarming proportion of crimes committed yearly. To address these concerns, several states, including South Carolina (SC), have enacted laws requiring sexually violent predators (SVPs) to be civilly committed to treatment. To date, no published study has examined sexual offenders recommended for treatment in SC. This study used a specially designed statewide database (SC-SVP research database) to determine which offender and offense characteristics were associated with increased likelihood of being recommended for civil commitment. Factors correlated with being more likely to be recommended included: being of a younger age at time of evaluation, prior sex convictions, having related and unrelated victims, a higher number of victims, frequent substance use, and a history of suicide attempts. Prior sex convictions, having both related and non-related victims, and a higher total number of victims align with characteristics associated with sexual recidivism. Frequent substance abuse and a history of suicide attempts do not mirror previous findings regarding sexual recidivism. These findings present new information regarding the civil commitment process of offenders being committed to the SC-SVP treatment program, characterize types of offenders committed to SC-SVP treatment program, and provide a foundation for using a computerized database in conducting sex offender research.     

FITTING THE FORUM TO THE FAMILY FUSS

This article analyzes advantages and disadvantages of mediation, collaborative law, and cooperative law based on the parties' capabilities, attitudes about professional services, and assessments of and preferences about the risks of various procedures. Each of these procedures has virtues and there is great value in providing clients and practitioners with a choice of procedures. Under collaborative and cooperative law, lawyers and clients agree to focus exclusively on negotiation from the outset the case, typically using a problem-solving process. Collaborative law involves a written "disqualification agreement" between all the parties and their lawyers under which lawyers are disqualified from representing parties in litigation if either party chooses to litigate. Cooperative law is similar but does not use the disqualification agreement. Because most communities do not have lawyers offering cooperative law, collaborative law groups should encourage at least some of their members to offer clients the option of cooperative law.