THE “END” OF MARRIAGE*

This article addresses four different meanings of the “end” of marriage. It rejects the broad interpretive assertion that Lawrence v. Texas and Goodridge v. Department of Public Health signal the destruction of the institution of marriage, though both are criticized for politicization and feeble legal analysis. Those decisions have provoked a backlash that may contribute to a rediscovery of and re‐valuation of the importance of the institution of (conjugal) marriage, as passage of state marriage amendments suggests. If Goodridge and Lawrence show that genderless unions are the ultimate form of marriage, they would lead to the end of democratic society as well as of the institution of marriage. The fragmentation of marriage by reduction to functional relationships is myopic. While current developments may make it harder for the institution of marriage to thrive, the institution of marriage is “here to stay.”     

AN EXPLICIT TEST OF PLEA BARGAINING IN THE “SHADOW OF THE TRIAL”

Bargaining in the “shadow of the trial,” which hinges on the expectations of trial outcomes, is the primary theory used by noncriminologists to explain variation in the plea discount given to defendants who plead guilty. This study develops a formal mathematical representation of the theory and then presents an empirical test of the theory using an innovative online survey with responses to a hypothetical case from 1,585 prosecutors, defense attorneys, and judges. The key outcomes are the probability that the defendant will be convicted at trial, the sentence for the defendant if convicted, and the best plea that the respondent would accept or offer. Variation in the outcomes is created through experimental variation in the information presented to the respondents. Structural regression models are estimated to fit the formal theoretical models, and the instrumental variables method is used to correct for measurement error in the estimate for probability of conviction. The data support the basic shadow model, with minor modifications, for only prosecutors and defense attorneys. Controlling for the characteristics of the individual actors and their jurisdictions adds explanatory value to the model, although these control variables did not affect the key coefficients from the shadow model.     

WHEN “WHAT WORKS” NEVER DID: DODGING THE “SCARLET M” IN CORRECTIONAL REHABILITATION

相似文献   

THE (DE)CONSTRUCTION OF CONFLICT IN DIVORCE LITIGATION: A DISCURSIVE CRITIQUE OF “PARENTAL ALIENATION SYNDROME” AND “THE ALIENATED CHILD”

In high‐conflict divorce litigation involving custody and access, mental‐health professionals are often used to assess the case and make recommendations. Using Foucauldian theories of discourse, this article suggests that these assessments, which are intended to resolve the conflict or offer profitable information, often participate in the conflict by constructing assessments and diagnoses that fit with legal discourse, and thus with the outcomes of adversarial‐styled rulings and ideologically driven interests. This article suggests that so long as such professionals are driven by the privileged discourse of law and psychology/psychiatry, the best interests of those at the center of the conflict can have their experience co‐opted by the iatrogenic features of these discourses.