IDEOLOGIES OF JOINT CUSTODY

This article discusses the way that the ideological endorsement of joint custody as being in the chilďs best interests has resulted in significant issues, especially those more likely to be raised by mothers, being marginalized or suppressed. Although more commentators and researchers are now taking issue with some of the problems inherent in joint custody arrangements, many New Zealand professionals working with separating families continue to view the arrangement very positively. As a consequence, there has been little evaluation of those family situations where joint custody is not in the chilďs best interests, especially those where there is ongoing hostility between parents.     

JOINT CUSTODY AND THE PRESCHOOL CHILD

A longitudinal study of 25 families, with children aged 14 months—5 years, in joint custody, is reported. Varying motivations that lead divorcing parents to undertake and sustain joint custody are discussed, together with the stresses and gratifications of these arrangements for the parents and children. Findings are that where both parents are motivated primarily by interest in the child, where the parenting is sensitive and where the child is shielded from interparental conflict, young children do well. Such families were not the majority in this study. Significant differences emerged in the adjustment of the 1–3 age group as compared with the 3–5 age group which point to greater difficulties for the 3–5 year-olds.     

JOINT WORK PLAN 2003–2005

Between

The Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) and the Secretariat of the Convention on the Conservation of Migratory Species of Wild Animals (CMS)

And Between

The Bureau of the Convention on Wetlands (Ramsar, Iran, 1971) and the Secretariat of the Agreement on the Conservation of African-Eurasian Migratory Waterbirds (AEWA)     

ADVERSARIAL AND NONADVERSARIAL JUSTICE: A COMPARISON OF GUILTY PLEAS AND TRIALS*

Despite the frequency of guilty pleas, researchers disagree about the ability of plea bargaining to provide justice. Critics argue that plea bargaining deprives defendants of due process rights and procedural safeguards Proponents argue that guilty pleas save resources for cases that require trial and allow officials flexibility to tailor justice to individual defendants. This article explores these issues by examining the effect of defendant and case characteristics on sentence severity for 3,269 male robbery and burglary defendants who either pled guilty or were tried in six U.S. jurisdictions, three of which had recently attempted to eliminate or greatly reduce plea bargaining and three with few restrictions on plea bargaining. The results confirm some criticisms of plea bargaining, but refute others. More criminally experienced defendants and defendants who pled guilty at the earliest opportunity did not receive sentencing leniency. Moreover, to a large extent, the same variables predict sentence severity for guilty pleas and trials. In contrast, the results show that defendants convicted at trial received more severe sanctions than defendants who pled guilty, controlling for case severity, evidence, and offender characteristics The results also suggest that the jurisdictions which attempted to control plea bargaining through more centralized control of assistance succeeded in tightening the fit between case characteristics and sentences for both cases adjudicated by guilty plea and trial.