Prisons or Problem-Solving: Does the Public Support Specialty Courts?

ABSTRACT

Recently, “problem-solving” courts have been developed as an alternative to imprisonment. They are often called “specialty” courts because they process and divert into treatment programs offenders who are seen as different from the general criminal population, such as those with mental health or drug problems, those who are homeless or veterans, and those who engage in domestic violence. Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 respondents, the current study examines overall public support for rehabilitation as a goal of corrections and then focuses specifically on support for different types of specialty courts. The analysis reveals that the American public endorses not only the rehabilitative ideal but also the use of problem-solving courts. Further, with only minimal variation, strong support for these courts appears to exist regardless of political orientation and sociodemographic characteristics.     

End of the Lone Wolf: The Typology that Should Not Have Been

This research note argues that the “lone wolf” typology should be fundamentally reconsidered. Based on a three-year empirical research project, two key points are made to support this argument. First, the authors found that ties to online and offline radical milieus are critical to lone actors' adoption and maintenance of both the motive and capability to commit acts of terrorism. Second, in terms of pre-attack behaviors, the majority of lone actors are not the stealthy and highly capable terrorists the “lone wolf” moniker alludes to. These findings not only urge a reconsideration of the utility of the lone-wolf concept, they are also particularly relevant for counterterrorism professionals, whose conceptions of this threat may have closed off avenues for detection and interdiction that do, in fact, exist.     

Public or Personal Character in Election Campaigns: A Review of the Implications of the Judgment in Watkins v Woolas

Reviewing the Election Court's decision that a candidate's parliamentary election literature was unlawful under the Representation of the People Act, the Divisional Court held that statements could either be about a candidate's public character or his personal character but not both. Though the legislation was compatible with the ECHR if it penalised only the latter, the question for the courts is really a matter of whether statement impugns a candidate's character more than merely as a necessary implication of an allegation regarding conduct such as the breaking of election promises.     

What If? The Historian and the Counterfactual

This essay lays out why many scholars, particularly historians, are inherently skeptical of counterfactuals. It highlights several of the most obvious errors that are often made by those undertaking counterfactual reasoning. It also highlights how these articles go a long way toward developing effective rules for the appropriate and most effective use of counterfactuals.     

The Physician-Patient Relationship and a National Health Information Network

The growing use of interoperable electronic health records is likely to have significant effects on the physician-patient relationship. This relationship involves two-way trust: of the physician in patients, and of the patients in their providers. Interoperable records opens up this relationship to further view, with consequences that may both enhance and undermine trust. On the one hand, physicians may learn (from additional records) that information from their patients is — or is not — to be trusted. On the other hand, patients may learn from the increased oversight made possible by electronic records that their trust in their physicians is — or is not — warranted. Release of information through new methods of surveillance may also undermine patient trust. The article concludes that because trust is fragile, attention to transparency and confidentiality in the use of interoperable electronic records is essential.