Gender Differences in Specialization in Intimate Partner Violence: Comparing the Gender Symmetry and Violent Resistance Perspectives

Research on male domestic violence offenders has typically considered them to be highly specialized offenders, and specialized theories and policies have been developed to address this type of offending. Some scholars have suggested that intimate partner violence is not as specialized as has been previously assumed. Especially in terms of gender differences, intimate partner violence research and theory suggest some variability in the level of specialization apparent for offenders. The current study uses the gender symmetry and violent resistance perspectives of women’s use of intimate partner violence to examine gender differences in specialization among a sample of intimate partner violence arrestees. Analyses employed multivariate models estimating the diversity index as a measure of specialization in general and multilevel item response theory to assess specialization in intimate partner violence specifically. Results indicate that female arrestees demonstrate significantly greater levels specialization as compared to male arrestees, providing support for the violent resistance perspective. Implications of these results and directions for future research are discussed.     

Implications of Partner Agreement of IPV for the Gender Symmetry Controversy

Because romantic partners frequently disagree on the violence in their relationship, relying on nondyadic data for perpetration and victimization rates, especially to inform the gender symmetry controversy, is problematic. In order to have a more nuanced understanding of gender symmetry, we urge researchers to be cautious when drawing symmetry conclusions from non-dyadic samples. Furthermore, using both partners, we suggest that researchers employ more qualitative approaches to ascertain IPV agreement, note times in which either partner reports IPV as an indicator of the presence of violence, and investigate the extent to which conclusions regarding gender symmetry stem from participant selection bias.     

The Controversies Over the Customary Prohibition on the Use of Force: A Methodological Debate

Controversies about the rule prohibiting the use of force havemainly focused on issues such as the conditions for self-defenceor the existence of a right to humanitarian intervention. Beyondthe question of the validity or relevance of each substantialargument, a comprehensive analysis of the doctrine reveals thatthe debate is actually more about methodology than substance.Hence, those who stand for an enlarged conception of the rightto self-defence or who support a right of humanitarian interventiontend to adopt a particularly loose method in defining the contentof the customary rule.     

Farewell to the Exclusive-Inclusive Debate

In recent years there has an ongoing debate between two versionsof legal positivism. According to one, called exclusive positivism,whenever the law refers to morality, the law necessarily directsits subjects to an external, non-legal, standard, because thereis a conceptual impossibility in incorporating moral standardsinto the law. According to the rival inclusive positivist position,such incorporation is possible, and therefore moral standardscan be (although they need not be) part of the law. In thisarticle I argue that both views are mistaken since they bothassume that whenever words like ‘equality’, ‘justice’etc. appear in the law they refer to moral standards. Rather,I argue, these words refer to legal standards, which are differentfrom the moral standards. As a result the question of the possibilityof incorporation can be avoided, and the debate between exclusiveand inclusive positivists put to rest.     

Rediscovering the Relative Deprivation and Crime Debate: Tracking its Fortunes from Left Realism to the Precariat

Critical Criminology - This article revisits the concept of relative deprivation and asks whether it is still useful for criminology. The article traces the way relative deprivation has been used...     

ADR程序群及其启示

ADR是一程序群,是非诉讼非仲裁的选择性争议解决方式的概括性的统称。ADR的主要类型包括有调解、中立听者协议、小型审理、租借法官等。ADR程序群具有非正式性、灵活性、非强制性等特点。ADR的兴起及发展取决于多种因素。我国应吸收并借鉴ADR技术。 ADR为英文“Alternative Dispute Resolution”的缩写,其中文含义为“选择性的争议解决方式”,它实际上是相对于传统诉讼而言的争议解决方式的统称。ADR是世界民商事领域内(也有一些适用于轻微刑事案件)越来越引人关注的争议解决方式。从20世纪70年代起,ADR在美国得到发展,加拿大、澳大利亚、欧洲国家及日本、韩国等国家竞相效仿与采纳。ADR业已成为民商事争议解决方式体系中的重要成员。     

The Role of Symmetry between the Revenue and the Expenditure Side of the Government Budget in the Debate about the Potential Negative Effects of Tax Competition

The effects of capital tax competition are reconsidered in this paper incorporating the argument that the expenditure structure of public budget should reflect its revenue structure. The paper offers a small open economy model where capital and labour tax revenues are used exclusively on the provision of public inputs. It is shown that if the revenue side of the government budget exactly matches the expenditure side that is if industrial public goods are financed by both private production factors with the weights reflecting the contributions of public inputs to the private factor productivity then public inputs are provided optimally even in the presence of tax competition.     

二元法治观的价值困境及方法论应对

价值诉求的不同造成了形式法治与实质法治之间的反复辩驳,也造成了二元法治观的价值困境。形式法治追求法的安定性价值,排除了正确性价值;实质法治虽给予法的正确性以足够关注,却无法提供平衡法律体系封闭与开放、安定性与正确性之间的方法。解决二元法治观的价值困境,既要认识到法治是内涵双重价值的整全性实践,还要在方法论上证成法治,在立法和司法上借由法律方法的理性论证最大限度地实现安定性价值与正确性价值的平衡。     

类型思维及其法学方法论意义——以传统抽象思维作为参照

传统抽象思维在取舍事物特征的过程中易于导向“抽象化过度”的极端,因此,此种思维难以照顾到法律上的个别正义,同时它又易使法律本身趋于僵化。而类型思维恰好可以克服上述弊端,在抽象与具体之间找到一种权衡。韦伯创生理想类型的目的也在于此。可以说,类型是介于抽象与具体之间的一个中介物,类型思维是一种或多或少式的归类思维。当然,抽象并非一无是处,另一方面,类型也不是无所不能。因此,科学的做法是在使法律思维适当地向类型思维转换的同时,将上述两种思维有机地结合起来。     

克莱因与客体关系学派的创立与发展

精神分析学家大多关注婴儿与其抚养者之间的关系,并力图通过对这种早期客体关系的探讨,分析婴儿心理病理现象的根本原因.精神分析学家们对客体关系理论的关注正在成为一个新的研究热点,并且在世界很多国家和地区产生着重要的学术影响.除了对于精神分析的革命性意义,以及对于精神病学和心理咨询、心理治疗领域的巨大的冲击之外,克莱因及其客体关系理论还在儿童心理学、社会学、人类学和文艺批评等诸多学科中产生了不同程度的反响.     

The Ongoing Debate Regarding the Duty to Defend and the Use of Extrinsic Evidence

Most courts agree that the duty to defend is broader than the duty to indemnify. Many courts also agree that the duty to defend should be determined by the four or eight corners rule. There is not agreement, however, whether extrinsic evidence may be used to expand, narrow, or eliminate the duty to defend. This article provides an overview of the issue and contends that extrinsic evidence is only appropriate in circumstances where a policyholder seeks to establish a defense obligation or where the insurer is aware of information independent of the complaint that confirms a defense obligation.     

Approaches to Gender and the Law: Research and Applications

Three paradigms for gender research are reviewed, illustrated by examples from employment discrimination law to highlight issues in research on gender and the law. Next, an agenda for research on gender, social science, and the law is outlined, and the five articles in this special issue are reviewed in terms of that agenda. Finally, research ideas for the future and practical applications of the research presented in the five articles are considered, specifically, the use of the reasonable woman standard and expert testimony in sexual harassment cases, and the influence of sex roles and sex stereotypes in producing gender effects.     

沉默权的是非之争与正当根据(下)

英美国家关于沉默权的争论并没有完全否定沉默权的意思 ,而只是对沉默权的具体规则有不同意见。沉默权是一项有充分道德基础的个人权利 ,它既有重要的诉讼价值 ,又可能需要付出一定的代价 ,但一些国家出于保护公共利益的需要对它进行的限制均附带有严格的条件 ,沉默权的基本精神并没有受到损害。坚持和发展沉默权制度 ,仍然是当今世界刑事司法领域的一种基本趋势。