RECONSIDERING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SES AND DELINQUENCY: CAUSATION BUT NOT CORRELATION*

Many theories of crime have linked low levels of socioeconomic status (SES) to high levels of delinquency. However, empirical studies have consistently found weak or nonexistent correlations between individuals' SES and their self-reported delinquent behavior. Drawing upon recent theoretical innovations (Hagan et al., 1985; Jensen, 1993; Tittle, 1995), we propose that this apparent contradiction between theory and data may be reconciled by recognizing that SES has both a negative and a positive indirect effect upon delinquency that, in tandem, results in little overall correlation between the two. We tested this proposal with longitudinal data from the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Study. We used measures of parental SES recorded at study members' birth through age 15, social-psychological characteristics at age 18, and self-reported delinquency at ages 18 and 21. We found that low SES promoted delinquency by increasing individuals' alienation, financial strain, and aggression and by decreasing educational and occupational aspirations, whereas high SES promoted individuals' delinquency by increasing risk taking and social power and by decreasing conventional values. These findings suggest a reconciliation between theory and data, and they underscore the conceptual importance of elucidating the full range of causal linkages between SES and delinquency.     

ALMOST,BUT NOT QUITE: THE FAILURE OF NEW YORK'S GET STATUTE

The quandary of Jewish women unable to remarry because of their husbands’ refusal to grant them religious divorces is a real problem affecting real people. Husbands are wielding this lopsided power to “extort” money from their wives, obtain favorable child custody settlements, property settlements, and child support payments. The burgeoning divorce rate is certain to exacerbate this problem. Already, this situation has garnered international attention. In the wake of New York's legislative attempt to remedy this problem, countries, including the United Kingdom and Australia, have promulgated legislative solutions to this dilemma. New York is the only state in the United States to pass such a statute. Unfortunately, New York's statute is flawed because it is of limited applicability and still allows for situations in which the Jewish wife is civilly divorced but religiously married. This Note proposes amending New York's statute to make it applicable to any and all divorce proceedings and to any barrier to remarriage. This Note will further recommend that the proposed amended statute should be adopted worldwide.     

WHEN DOES AN OPTIONAL TARIFF NOT LEAD TO A PARETO IMPROVEMENT? THE AMBIGUOUS EFFECTS OF SELF-SELECTING NONLINEAR PRICING WHEN DEMAND IS INTERDEPENDENT OR FIRMS DO NOT MAXIMIZE PROFIT

Optional or self-selecting tariffs allow customers to choosebetween an established tariff and an alternative outlay schedule.The possibility of making the vendor and at least one consumerbetter off, without making any other consumer worse off, makesoptional tariffs appealing to both economists and regulators.In economic terms, the introduction of optional tariffs makespossible a Pareto improvement in the allocation of resources.Unfortunately, the presumed desirability of such tariffs dependscrucially on assumptions that may not be fulfilled in the caseof a state-owned enterprise—in particular, profit-seekingbehavior on the part of the monopoly vendor and independenceof consumer demand functions. We analyze the economic implicationsand potential consequences, in general, of introducing negotiatedrate and service terms available to a sole user into a preexistingregulatory regime of uniform tariff rates and conditions ofservice. We identify the conditions under which it is economicallydesirable to introduce declining-block rates or other rate structuresthat discriminate among users of the affected services, withor without any basis in identifiable cost differences. We addressthe specific economic implications and potential consequencesof introducing negotiated rate and service terms available toa sole user where the affected service is provided under a monopolyestablished by federal statute, taking into account that suchnegotiated arrangements may include preferential pricing terms;that access to the negotiated terms may be limited to a smallnumber of users for administrative or other reasons; and thatcompetition may exist among users of the affected service orservices. Finally, we identify and describe regulatory measuresthat might be taken to accommodate potential concerns regardingthe impact of such negotiated rate and service arrangementson fairness in regulation and competition. We conclude thatit is not possible to derive sweeping propositions about theefficiency of optional tariff offerings. Instead, the welfareeffects of such pricing plans must be evaluated empiricallyon an individual basis. Our analysis has practical significancefor pricing policies in network industries, particularly thoseindustries served by state-owned enterprises that enjoy statutorymonopolies.     

THE STATE IS STRONG BUT I AM WEAK: WHY THE IMMINENT LAWLESS ACTION STANDARD SHOULD NOT APPLY TO TARGETED SPEECH THAT THREATENS INDIVIDUALS WITH VIOLENCE

Surely there is a profound difference between inciting to arson by the use of words and inciting to revolution by the use of words. We do not have a ready word for the distinction, yet it is a deep and obvious one.—Harry Kalven, Jr.     

TO RECOMMEND OR NOT TO RECOMMEND: THAT IS NOT THE QUESTION

Tippins and Wittmann provide a cogent argument for custody evaluators not to make recommendations to the court. From their forensic and scientific perspectives, they have identified some important issues, which will certainly stimulate interesting discussion among custody evaluators. In response to their article, it is my view that public sector custody evaluations offer a philosophical and procedural alternative to forensic evaluations. This article proposes that recommendations should be viewed as part of the process of evaluations rather than the outcome. Based on a qualitative and interpretive model, recommendations are judged based on their applicability, transferability, and transparency. Recommendations viewed in qualitative terms provide parents with opportunities to step out of litigation and provide guidance for parents' ongoing roles postseparation.     

JUVENILE CRIME AND WHY WAIVER IS NOT THE ANSWER

Many states deal with the issue of juvenile crime by charging juveniles as adults. This is done by a method of waiver. Waiver allows adult criminal courts to have the power to exercise jurisdiction over juveniles.¹ In effect, a juvenile is tried and sentenced as an adult when his or her case is waived (removed) from the juvenile court to the adult court. Waiver in juvenile (youths seventeen and younger) cases should never be allowed because juvenile offenders are too immature and incompetent to appreciate the nature of their crimes and because the juvenile justice system is a more appropriate place to rehabilitate juvenile offenders.     

A NOT SO MODEST PROPOSAL TO HUMANIZE THE LEGAL PROFESSION

This article first appeared in the Los Angeles County Bar Association's Family Law Section quarterly , News and Review. In a very personal and insightful way, the author examines the change which women have brought to the practice of family law .     

THE FEDERAL JUDICIAL SYSTEM

Since Chief Justice Taft's highly activist tenure, many people have looked to the Supreme Court for leadership in efforts to modernize federal judicial administration. This article reviews the role of the Chief Justice of the United States in federal judicial administration. as well as organizational and procedural improvements in court management at all three tiers of the federal court system, as seen by one trained in public administration Although improvement is apparent. other needed steps include less emphasis on the number of judgeships and more careful long-range planning and experimentation with new techniques     

REASONS FOR REPORTING AND NOT REPORTING DOMESTIC VIOLENCE TO THE POLICE*

The National Crime Victimization Survey is used to examine factors that encourage and inhibit victims of domestic violence from calling the police. Victims of domestic violence are less likely than victims of other types of violence to call the police because of their privacy concerns, their fear of reprisal, and their desire to protect offenders, but they are more likely to call for self‐protection and because they perceive domestic assaults as more serious. As a result of these and other offsetting factors, victims of domestic violence are just as likely as other victims of assault to call the police.     

PAROLEES' PERCEPTION OF THE JUSTICE SYSTEM

The parolees in this sample viewed the police rather negatively, were reluctant to label contacts with the police as harassment, and experienced a great deal of pluralistic ignorance about the extent of the police harassment of ex-offenders. They also had a very negative opinion of the courts and lawyers. When asked general questions about the courts and police harassment, blacks responded more negatively than whites; but when asked about their personal experiences with these organizations, no racial differences were found. Those interviewed were somewhat positive toward the parole system and very positive toward their parole agents. Possibly this is because the agents employ a strategy of ingratiation in that they do not enforce all of the existing rules, or possibly it is because the Illinois parole agents are doing a good job of being counsellors rather than policemen. This study also found: (1) on opinions of the police and the courts, the black-white differences which have been found in the community were also found here; namely, blacks were more negative than were whites. (2) On opinions of lawyers and the parole system, no black-white differences existed among respondents. (3) There was no evidence of a disconfirmed expectancy effect; that is, in no case was there more negativity among white parolees than among black due to whites' higher expectations of the justice system.