A Tribute to Murray A. Straus

This article offers a brief tribute to the father of the field of family violence, Murray A. Straus, Ph.D. Murray spent the bulk of his career at the University of New Hampshire, where he studied partner violence, corporal punishment, developed the Conflict Tactics Scales, and mentored thousands of students, post-doctoral research fellows, and colleagues alike. His productivity and the significant impact that he had on the field and the public at large, in addition to his warmth and good humor, are noted here.     

A MODEL FOR A SUPERVISED VISITATION PROGRAM

This article describes the Supervised Visitation Project run by the Victim Assistance Program of Akron, Ohio, a project that enables children to meet safely on a regular basis with their otherwise inaccessible noncustodial parents. This article establishes a need for supervised visitation, offers a structure for such a program, profiles clientele and staff, explains the available services–visitation, evaluation, mediation, and therapy/support–and presents conclusions based on the experience of the Akron program and the comparison and contrast of three other existing programs.     

USING A JURY SIMULATION AS A CLASSROOM EXERCISE

The authors' empirical research project considers the effects of differences in actual legal rules on jury decisions and, concurrently, gives business students the opportunity to participate in a realistic jury experience. The project uses actual trial evidence to produce a videotaped simulated trial presentation thereby insuring that the testimony, legal arguments, jury instructions and facts are realistic. To date, approximately 2,000 business students have participated in the simulation, under the supervision of 13 different Academy members at 11 different universities. This article describes the project and its curricular benefits within the context of an introductory course in law.     

A comment on methodological concerns: A rejoinder

This rejoinder to Professor Cohen's Comment is intended to elaborate on approaches we utilized in our original paper. Some of our specification was necessitated by data availability (e.g., the specification of the sanction process). We attempt to clarify our approach in regard to the intervention process. We provide an explanation of the modeling that could underly a test of the hypothesis that the control effect is a product of the arrest process—a test that we had regarded as informative but peripheral to our main points. As noted, a significant part of that test utilizes the full range of control variables available to us. Finally, we enumerate what we felt to be the main points of our paper—points we are afraid might otherwise be lost in this discussion of methodology.     

A PERSPECTIVE

This is an excerpt from a paper presented at the Institute on Non Narcotic Drug Abusc, May 15–19, 1967 under the auspices of the Center For Study of Crime, Delinquency and Correction at Southern Illinois University.     

DAMAGES FOR LOST AMENITIES: FOR A FOOT,A FEELING OR A FUNCTION?

“The rational principles upon which damages … are to be assessed … tend … to be obscured by familiar phrases which lawyers use but seldom pause to analyse.” (Diplock L.J. in Wise v. Kay).     

A PROSPECTIVE TEST OF A CRIMINAL CAREER MODEL*

In an earlier article in this journal, Barnett, Blumstein, and Farrington (1987) formulated a model that described the criminal careers of the multiple offenders in a cohort of London males that had been studied from their 10th to 25th birthdays. That model involved two subpopulations of offenders (denoted as “frequents” and “occasionals”), each characterized by a constant annual conviction rate (μ) and a constant probability (p) of terminating the career following a conviction. This article describes the results of a prospective and predictive test of the model using new data collected on the same offenders from their 25th to 30th birthdays. The original model accurately predicted the number of recidivists, the degree of recidivism risk, the total number of recidivist convictions, and the time intervals between recidivist convictions. However, the predictions for the frequents suffered some distortions introduced by a few “intermittent” offenders who seemed to have terminated their careers, but who re-initiated offending during the test period after a long gap.