RELIGION,ATTRIBUTION STYLE,AND PUNITIVENESS TOWARD JUVENILE OFFENDERS*

A growing body of research shows that adherents to conservative Christian beliefs are more punitive than others in their response to crime. A frequently offered but still untested explanation is that such beliefs promote a dispositional attribution style—the idea that crime results from the offender's character, not from unfortunate or unjust environmental influences. With punitiveness toward juvenile offenders as the dependent variable, the present study directly tests the hypothesis that a tendency to attribute crime to dispositional factors is the intervening variable linking conservative religious beliefs to punitiveness. The analysis provides strong support for the hypothesis.     

Juvenile Justice in Pennsylvania: Mission‐Driven; Performance‐ Based; Outcome‐Focused

Since 1995, Pennsylvania's Balanced and Restorative Justice Mission has been the driving force behind Pennsylvania's reform and system improvement efforts. Pennsylvania has made strong and steady progress towards advancing this statutory mission and the related operational goals through policy, practice and programmatic enhancements over these past 20+ plus years. Three key events spurred forth this advancement: the legislative passage of Act 33 in 1995 that statutorily established the goals of Balanced and Restorative Justice (BARJ), the Models for Change Juvenile Justice Reform Initiative–Additional Reform Momentum (2004) and the Juvenile Justice System Enhancement Strategy–Evidence‐based Approach to the Reforms (2010).What follows is the story of how it all unfolded.     

The relationship between crime and “objective” versus “subjective” strains

Agnew's (2001, 2006) general strain theory makes a distinction between “objective” strains, which refer to events and conditions which are disliked by most people in a given group, and “subjective” strains, which refer to events and conditions which are disliked by the people who have experienced them. Agnew argues that there is only partial overlap between objective and subjective strains, since many people do not subjectively evaluate the objective strains they experience in a negative manner. Further, Agnew argues that subjective strains should be more strongly associated with crime, since they are more likely to generate the negative emotions that lead to crime. This article tests Agnew's arguments with data from a sample of Italian youth. The results provide some support for Agnew, suggesting that many people do not evaluate the objective strains they experience in a negative manner and that subjective strains are more strongly associated with crime than are objective strains. These findings have important implications for the research on general strain theory.     

<Emphasis Type="Italic">Ayam aham asmīti</Emphasis>: Self-consciousness and Identity in the Eighth Chapter of the <Emphasis Type="Italic">Chāndogya Upanişad</Emphasis> vs. Śankara’s <Emphasis Type="Italic">Bhāşya</Emphasis>

The article offers a close reading of the famous upanişadic story of Indra, Virocana and Prajāpati from the eighth chapter of the Chāndogya-Upanişad versus Śankara’s bhāşya, with special reference to the notions of suşupti and turīya. That Śankara is not always loyal to the Upanişadic texts is a well-known fact. That the Upanişads are (too) often read through Śan-kara’s Advaitic eyes is also known. The following lines will not merely illustrate the gap between text and commentary but will also reveal an unexpected Upanişadic depiction of ‘dreamless sleep’ and ‘transcendental consciousness’. Suşupti is described here as ‘one step too far’, as a ‘break’ or discontinuity in one’s consciousness; whereas turīya is depicted positively, and surprisingly even in wordly terms. Unlike the third state of consciousness in which there is no ‘world’ nor ‘me’, and which is described through Indra’s character as ‘total destruction’ (vināśa); in turīya, the world ‘comes back’, or rather the ‘renouncer’ returns to the world. Sankara’s position, as far as the story under discussion is concerned, is radically different. For him, the Upanişadic story illustrates the continuity of consciousness in all its states. For him, the identification with merely one of the consciousness-states is an error (adhyāsa) which causes suffering. Consciousness prevails even in suşupti, and turīya has nothing to do with ‘coming back to the world’, since there is nowhere to come back from or to. Turīya, as seen by the Advaitin, consists of all the other states of consciousness together, or as K. C. Bhattacharyya puts it, ‘It is not only a stage among stages; it is the truth of the other stages’. The article is dedicated to Prof. Daya Krishna (1924-2007).     

BETWEEN PROPORTIONALITY & IMPUNITY: Confrontation⇒ Truth⇒ Prevention

The ideal of punishment proportionate to wrongdoing creates a criminal justice system that deters prevention. An alternative ideal is that crime should always be confronted with a presumption for mercy that is conditional upon participation in a truth-seeking process that identifies paths to prevention. Informally rewarding reconciliation and prevention is the basis of a more compelling rational choice account of crime control than proportionate formal punishment. A rational and emotionally intelligent criminal justice system might look something like the airline safety system.     

Defending <Emphasis Type="Italic">Why</Emphasis><Emphasis Type="Italic">Law</Emphasis><Emphasis Type="Italic">Matters:</Emphasis> Responses to Commentaries

Why Law Matters examines various legal and political institutions and procedures and argues that the desirability of these institutions and procedures is not contingent and does not hinge (only) on the prospects that these institutions are conducive to the realization of valuable ends. Instead, various legal institutions and legal procedures that are often perceived as contingent means to facilitate the realization of valuable ends matter as such.