THE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES OF BEING STOPPED OR ARRESTED: AN EXPLORATION OF THE LABELING MECHANISMS THROUGH WHICH POLICE CONTACT LEADS TO SUBSEQUENT DELINQUENCY

Much debate has taken place regarding the merits of aggressive policing strategies such as “stop, question, and frisk.” Labeling theory suggests that police contact may actually increase delinquency because youth who are stopped or arrested are excluded from conventional opportunities, adopt a deviant identity, and spend time with delinquent peers. But, few studies have examined the mechanisms through which police contact potentially enhances offending. The current study uses four waves of longitudinal data collected from middle‐school students (N = 2,127) in seven cities to examine the deviance amplification process. Outcomes are compared for youth with no police contact, those who were stopped by police, and those who were arrested. We use propensity score matching to control for preexisting differences among the three groups. Our findings indicate that compared with those with no contact, youth who are stopped or arrested report higher levels of future delinquency and that social bonds, deviant identity formation, and delinquent peers partially mediate the relationship between police contact and later offending. These findings suggest that programs targeted at reducing the negative consequences of police contact (i.e., poor academic achievement, deviant identity formation, and delinquent peer associations) might reduce the occurrence of secondary deviance.     

The dangers of constitutional identity

This article purports to expose the dangers of the concept of constitutional identity – a doctrine shaped by apex state courts to shield areas of the national legal systems from the influence of European law. First, the article overviews the use of the concept of constitutional identity in the case law of national and supranational courts, mapping the growing expansion of this doctrine. Second, the article seeks to reconstruct the genealogy of the concept of constitutional identity, tracing its legal origins. Third, the article advances a normative criticism of the concept of constitutional identity, explaining how the doctrine suffers from an incurable lack of determinacy, which inevitably results in arbitrariness in its use. Moreover, the article points out how the practical use of a defensive concept such as constitutional identity is poised to weaken, if not undermine tout court, the process of European integration.     

“Who Is a Homosexual?”: The Consolidation of Sexual Identities in Mid‐Twentieth‐Century American Immigration Law

This essay uses court records to trace the federal government's attempts to regulate homosexuality among immigrants in the mid-twentieth century, asserting that such attempts illustrate the state's struggle to make homosexuality visible, to produce a homosexuality that could be both detected and managed. I focus on the process by which two competing paradigms for understanding homosexuality (status and conduct) were consolidated into a single model in which homosexual identity could be deduced from homosexual acts. Federal officials and the courts initially treated homosexuality as a form of conduct, most commonly deporting homosexual aliens for having committed crimes of moral turpitude. Later, these same government entities relied on status provisions, deporting immigrants charged with homosexuality as aliens "afflicted with psychopathic personality." While the "psychopathic personality" terminology supported the notion that the homosexual was a kind of person rather than a set of behaviors, it also depended upon psychiatrists to support the claim that homosexuals were by definition psychopathic. When many psychiatrists distanced themselves from that idea, the government refused psychiatric opinion that differentiated psychopaths from homosexuals by arguing that these terms connoted legal-political rather than medicalized identity categories. While this conception arose out of a conservative impulse by immigration officials and the courts to fix homosexuality as identity so that it could be regulated (by bureaucrats rather than psychiatrists), I argue that the emphasis on legal-political identity categories licensed a conception of the homosexual as a kind of citizen that had some emancipatory as well as repressive effects.     

The Influence of Dating Relationships on Friendship Networks,Identity Development,and Delinquency

Prior research has documented general associations between dating and delinquency, but little is known about the specific ways in which heterosexual experiences influence levels of delinquency involvement and substance use. In the current study, we hypothesize that an adolescent's level of effort and involvement in heterosexual relationships play a significant role in forming the types of friendship networks and views of self that influence the likelihood of delinquency involvement and substance use. Analyses based on a longitudinal sample of adolescent youth (n = 1,090) show that high levels of dating effort and involvement with multiple partners significantly increases unstructured and delinquent peer contacts, and influences self‐views as troublemaker. These broader peer contexts and related self‐views, in turn, mediate the path between dating relationships, self‐reported delinquency, and substance use. Findings also document moderation effects: among those youths who have developed a troublemaker identity and who associate with delinquent peers, dating heightens the risk for delinquent involvement. In contrast, among those individuals who have largely rejected the troublemaker identity and who do not associate with delinquent friends, dating relationships may confer a neutral or even protective benefit. The analyses further explore the role of gender and the delinquency of the romantic partner.     

Peer‐Reviewed Forensic Consultation in Practice: Multidisciplinary Oversight in Common Expertise

The fallibility of forensic science consultation is an ongoing and major justice concern. Prospective peer‐reviewed forensic consultation has over 10 years of application in American criminal and civil courts, adapting from the traditional oversight of teaching hospitals, rules of evidence and discovery, conventions of testimony of expert witnesses, and attorneys' overall trial strategy. In systematizing heightened oversight, this process ensures greater accountability in forensic science consultation. The integration of peer reviewers' complementary expertise and experience enhances the sophistication and overall quality of assessment. Forensic examination frequently involves the interface of different specialties. Multidisciplinary peer review augments expert proficiency with that of professional peers having different vantage points from relevant scientific disciplines. This approach ensures greater sophistication of a case inquiry, built‐in accountability, and streamlined processes when multiple experts are necessitated. Here, the authors present examples of several cases and the primary and secondary benefits of this collaborative, rigorous, cross‐disciplinary exercise.     

Equality Law and the Protected Characteristics

UK anti‐discrimination law is founded on a grounds‐based system of protected characteristics. For this system to function as a legitimate and workable legal framework the characteristics must satisfy three conditions: they must have some definitional and categorical stability, they must broadly reflect people's understanding of social reality and lived experiences and they must align with the most significant axes of discrimination in society. This article argues that all three conditions are becoming increasingly difficult to satisfy as a result of dramatic shifts in social configurations of identity and the ongoing failure to include socio‐economic status as a legally protected characteristic. The future of the legislative framework may depend on the willingness of courts and policy‐makers to adopt a more context‐based approach to the protected characteristics. This would require them to interrogate claims of individual instances of discrimination in the context of wider, but also more particular substantive group disadvantage.     

Looking Inside the Black Box of Drug Courts: A Meta‐Analytic Review

There has been a rapid proliferation of drug courts over the past two decades. Empirical research examining the effectiveness of the model has generally demonstrated reduced rates of recidivism among program participants. However, relatively little is known about the structure and processes associated with effective drug courts. The current study seeks to address the issues by exploring the moderating influence of programmatic and non‐programmatic characteristics on effectiveness. The methodology goes beyond previous meta‐analyses by supplementing published (and unpublished) findings with a survey of drug court administrators. Consistent with previous research, the results revealed drug courts reduce recidivism by 9% on average. Further analyses indicated target population, program leverage and intensity, and staff characteristics explain the most variability in drug court effectiveness. These findings are discussed within the context of therapeutic jurisprudence and effective interventions.     

Pluralism,Deference and the Margin of Appreciation Doctrine

In this article it will be argued that good use of the instrument of deference might help the EU courts to deal with the situation of pluralism that is currently visible in the European legal order. By means of deferential judicial review, the EU courts can pay due respect to national constitutional traditions and to national legislative and policy choices, thus preventing situations of real conflict. In addition, deference enables the EU courts to take into account the intricacies related to judicial review of norms drafted by co‐equal institutions or by national elected bodies. Although the EU courts already make use of some form of deferential review, they may use the instrument in a clearer and more structured manner. As a basis for the development of a European ‘doctrine of deference’, a comparison will be made with the margin of appreciation doctrine devised by the European Court of Human Rights. Although this doctrine is certainly not fault‐free, it offers a number of advantages in terms of clarity and controllability. If improved and adapted on the basis of theoretical notions of procedural democracy, the doctrine might be put to good use by the EU courts.     

Judicial empowerment expanded: Political determinants of national courts' cooperation with the CJEU

Scholars in EU studies have developed diverse justifications for explaining why national judges cooperate with the Court of Justice of the European Union. In this regard, judicial empowerment theories have stressed the strategic importance of cooperation for empowering national courts vis‐à‐vis high courts and political actors. Nevertheless, these explanations have been restricted to the use of preliminary references by lower courts. This contribution expands the explanatory power of these approaches by exploring other potential scenarios and instruments that national judges can use to challenge the position of their governments and judicial superiors, for example, by emphasising the importance of CJEU precedent for their strategic behaviour. By offering new data collected from case‐law and surveys, this article offers a more systematic assessment of the relevance of cooperation for national judges to reinforce their authority against other institutions. The findings call for a revision of the traditional understanding of judicial empowerment theories.     

Transforming Land‐Taking Disputes in Socialist Asia: Engaging an Authoritarian State

Few studies have responded to the calls by sociolegal scholars to explore how disputes evolve. This article takes up the challenge by examining how intermediaries in socialist Asia resolve land‐taking disputes that are intractable for administrative appeals and courts. Exploring alternatives to state‐based dispute resolution is a pressing issue for conflicts that pit citizens against authoritarian regimes. Using in‐depth interviews, this article investigates how intermediaries such as retired state officials navigate in and around authoritarian regimes, flattening power asymmetries between citizens and land officials. This analysis draws from, links, and advances three literatures that examine dispute resolution in different ways: the sociolegal “naming, blaming, and claiming” literature examines the trajectory of disputes, regulatory studies use legitimacy expectations to analyze how disputants evaluate and prioritize competing regulatory frameworks, and the collective identity literature analyzes how communities respond to disputes. This article contributes to the literature by developing a theoretical framework that explains how intermediaries circumvent conceptual differences and transform disputes. The findings compel researchers to consider the use of intermediaries as an alternative to state‐sponsored dispute resolution in authoritarian settings.     

Lessons Learned from Developing a Trauma Consultation Protocol for Juvenile and Family Courts

Juvenile and family courts hold a unique position among the many stakeholders that comprise a healing community for persons experiencing adversity or trauma. Specifically, judges and other court leaders can promote the implementation of screening for trauma, the alignment of appropriate and effective treatment for trauma when indicated, and the accountability of systems for coordination and support of such services. To that end, the National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges undertook a field‐based project — consisting of multiple semi‐structured court surveys — to elucidate the key features of a trauma‐informed court and how to assist courts in becoming more trauma‐responsive for both consumers and staff. With the assistance of courts in 11 pilot sites across the nation, the project has led to the development of a protocol called trauma consultation or trauma audit, which is outlined here. Our work in developing the consultation protocol highlighted the need to better understand (1) the prevalence and impact of secondary traumatic stress in court staff, (2) the potential for environment to contribute to traumatic stress reactions, and (3) the importance of consistent trauma screenings and subsequent use of findings. Practical suggestions for courts to become more trauma‐informed are also provided.     

国际法在非洲国家国内法中的地位和作用

国际法在国内法中的地位问题对致力于宪政改革的非洲国家来说,具有重要的意义。国际法与国内法的关系在理论上存在着分歧。在实践中,各国通常采用采纳或转化方式使国际法在国内法院中得以适用。非洲国家在实践中主要遵循了英国和法国的做法。南部非洲的一些国家不但在宪法中规定了国际法在国内法中的地位,而且还规定国内法院在对宪法或其他法律进行解释时,要利用或考虑到国际法。而其他许多非洲国家不愿将国际法直接纳入到它们的宪法中。不过,即使宪法中没有规定国际法地位的非洲国家,它们的法院在审理案件时也常会参照有关国际法的规定。     

Sameness and selfhood: The efficiency of constitutional identities in EU law

This article enquires into the formal dimension of constitutional identity by focusing not on what it consists of but on how it is expressed in the different discursive practices developed by constitutional courts. Contrasting constitutional identity as sameness and constitutional identity as selfhood shows that domestic courts can favour either a substantive determination of core constitutional features or a performative approach where the reflexive ability to define oneself prevails. Such a choice conditions the judicial strategies developed in the interactions with the Court of Justice, and their effectiveness. From this perspective, the accommodation in EU law, in light of the respect for Member States' national identity affirmed in Article 4(2) TEU, of these domestic identity claims rooted in the supremacy of the Constitution, depends less on what is asked for than on how it is asked for.     

DECOMPOSING THE PEER EFFECT ON ADOLESCENT SUBSTANCE USE: MEDIATION,NONLINEARITY, AND DIFFERENTIAL NONLINEARITY*

Although the correlation between peer delinquency and delinquency is one of the most consistently demonstrated findings in delinquency research, researchers have focused primarily on the direct, linear, and additive effects of peers in statistical models, rather than on empirically modeling mediating, nonlinear, and moderating processes that are specified by theory. To address these issues, we measure respondent delinquency and peer delinquency with illegal substance use and then decompose the effect of peer substance use on self‐reported substance use. Logistic hierarchical models on a sample of adolescents from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN) indicate that the effect of peer substance use on self‐reported substance use is partially mediated by perceptions of the health risks of substance use. In addition, the direct statistical effect of peers is nonlinear: On average, the peer effect decreases at higher values of peer substance use, which is consistent with a “saturation” effect. We also find that the functional form of the peer substance use/substance use relationship is dependent on the neighborhood context. In neighborhoods with more opportunities for crime, the peer effect is initially strong but decreases as peer substance use increases, which is consistent with a saturation effect. Conversely, in neighborhoods with fewer opportunities for crime, the effect of peers is initially small, but as delinquent peer associations increase, the peer effect increases multiplicatively.     

Beyond Therapy: Problem‐Solving Courts and the Deliberative Democratic State

Problem‐solving courts (drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts, and mental health courts), unlike traditional courts, attempt to get at the root of the individual and social problems that motivate criminal behavior. Theoretical understandings of problem‐solving courts are mostly Foucauldian; proponents argue that these new institutions employ therapeutic techniques that encourage individuals to self‐engineer in ways that subtly increase state power. The Foucauldian approach captures only some elements of problem‐solving courts and does not fully theorize the revolution in justice that these courts present. Problem‐solving courts, domestic violence courts in particular, orient not just around individual change but also around social change and cultural transformation. Combining the Foucauldian idea of a therapeutic state (as developed by James Nolan) with an understanding of the deliberative democratic mechanisms of larger‐scale structural transformation (found in Habermas and others) leads to a more balanced and empirically open orientation to the actual motivations, goals, and achievements of problem‐solving courts.     

Problem‐Solving Courts: A Brief Primer

This essay traces the history of problem‐solving courts (including drug courts, community courts, domestic violence courts and others), outlines problem‐solving principles, and answers a basic set of questions about these new judicial experiments: Why now? What forces have sparked judges and attorneys across the country to innovate? What results have problem‐solving courts achieved? And what – if any – trade‐offs have been made to accomplish these results?     

Offenders' lies and truths: an evaluation of the Supreme Court of Sweden's criteria for credibility assessment

Abstract

The criteria used by Swedish courts for assessing credibility of plaintiffs' accounts were for the first time scientifically evaluated. Furthermore, unlike much previous deception detection research, we used offenders as participants instead of college students. False and truthful confessions by 30 offenders were analysed, and few significant effects were obtained. Truthful confessions were rated as having a higher degree of clarity than false confessions. Women's truthful confessions were rated as more credible than their false confessions. The offenders who were most experienced in being interviewed by the police gave a stronger impression of talking about something self-experienced in their false than in their truthful confessions; hence, it seems that offenders with more police interview experience have developed a kind of expertise in telling a convincing lie about crime. Overall, the criteria for credibility assessment used by Swedish courts had very limited usefulness in discriminating truthful and false confessions. A critique of the current status of evaluating statements in Swedish courts is provided.     

Changing How the System Responds to Status Offenders: Connecticut's Families with Service Needs Initiative

Concerned by the number of status offenders in secure detention and the processing of noncriminal behavior through the juvenile and family courts, Connecticut began efforts to reform their approach to troubled and troublesome youth in 2005 (Weithorn, 2005). Between 2005 and 2007, Connecticut enacted a series of legislative changes to both improve services for troubled youth and Families with Service Needs (FWSN), and achieve systematic reforms for processing status offenses. At a systems level, the reforms sought to divert non‐criminal behaviors from formal court processing and prevent secure confinement for status offenders who violated court orders related to their behavior. Connecticut's attempt at second‐order, or system change, is the focus of this outcome evaluation.     

TRIAL COURTS AS ORGANIZATIONS: A Critique and Synthesis

This article has two purposes: (1) to suggest that the informal workgroup is the most appropriate concept from organization theory to explain both participant behavior occurring in criminal trial courts and trial court outputs; and (2) to use the informal workgroup framework to structure the findings generated by previous studies of trial courts. The informal workgroup proves to be a useful way to account for the disjuncture between the adversarial expectations and regularized individual behavior patterns researchers find in criminal trial courts. Furthermore, this concept provides a vehicle to explain the development of uniformities in output such as a classification of criminals, the categorization of crime, and sentencing yardsticks. The conclusion discusses the implications of the informal workgroup for efforts aimed at court reform.     

Court Management of AIDS Disputes: A Sociolegal Analysis

Historically, disease scares reveal contradictions in the social order. We postulate that courts focus on depoliticizing social tensions revealed by AIDS, legitimating the routines of dominant parties in the AIDS sociolegal network. At the same time, courts deviate from their normal practices try upholding the claims of subordinate parties in this network, particularly people living with AIDS (PWAs) and their allies. Our analysis of 36 AlDS-related court rulings, published during the formative years of AIDS litigation in the United States, supports the notion that courts operate as "double-edged" institutions. To explain the duality of judicial decision making, we concentrate on the powers of social and cultural factors rather than on the doctrinal judgments of the courts. We trace how relational attributes, evident in contestants' characteristics (e.g., plaintiff/defendant, status differentials) and the nature of claims (i.e., restrictive/expansive), combine to account for wins for dominant parties and how other combinations of these attributes define wins for subordinate parties. We also show how judges combine specific interpretational attributes in the text of their rulings (e.g., use of divisive AIDS metaphors, deference to medical authority) to justify wins. We consolidate these findings to discuss how PWAs and their allies might use the courts to their advantage and point out the ways in which the changing epidemiology of AIDS in the United States limits the use of courts.