PEACEFUL WARRIORS: CODES FOR VIOLENCE AMONG ADULT MALE BAR FIGHTERS

Considerable theoretical and empirical inquiry has focused on the role codes for violence play in generating crime. A large part of this work has examined the attitudes and codes condoning retaliation and violence as well as the prevalence of these among minorities residing in impoverished neighborhoods. Much about the nature of codes remains unknown, however, and this may in part reflect a narrow interest in beliefs about provocation and uses of violence among the inner‐city poor. In this study, we elaborate on a code of violence as part of a system of order and honor as articulated by a network of White, working‐class males in a southern U.S. city who participate in bar fights. The findings suggest that the code these men use prohibits predatory violence, puts exclusive limitations on situations that warrant violence, and constrains the level of violence in a fight. We detail the contours of this code (e.g., purpose of fighting, the rules of honorable fighting, and justifications for violating these rules) and discuss the code as both a cause and a consequence of behavior.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

THE SELF‐REPRESENTED LITIGANT: IMPLICATIONS FOR THE BENCH AND BAR

It is widely accepted that the number of self‐represented litigants has skyrocketed nationwide, especially in family law cases. Although nationwide comprehensive data on the number of self‐represented litigants do not exist, anecdotal evidence supports the belief that self‐representation is increasing. The challenge for courts and the entire legal profession is how to respond. Most observers in Indiana would agree that the traditional model of family law litigation—both spouses represented by lawyers settling their disputes before a judge—is no longer the norm in family law cases. Judges face a dilemma: assisting a self‐represented litigant to level the playing field against a represented party is seen by many as violating impartiality, even if the assistance is rendered to create a just result. In an effort to address the situation, the Indiana Supreme Court created the Pro Se Advisory Committee in April 2001. This article explores the long‐range implications of the issue of self‐represented litigants on Indiana's court system in hope that it will provide some insight for other jurisdictions. The first part of the article addresses the numbers of self‐represented litigants by tracking growth or declines in self‐represented cases and assessing whether there are any pockets of self‐represented litigants geographically or in certain case types. The second part of the article puts Indiana into context with the rest of the nation and reviews national trends. The third section reviews Indiana's response to self‐represented litigants over the last decade. The fourth section reviews current and ongoing projects in Indiana. The article concludes that the issue of self‐represented litigants will not fade away and that the challenge that guides the legal profession is how we provide equal access to justice for all who enter our courthouses.     

RAISING THE BAR: WHY SUPERVISED VISITATION PROVIDERS SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET STANDARDS FOR SERVICE PROVISION

The New York Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NYSPCC) has provided a supervised visitation program (SVP) for high‐risk families for almost two decades. Parents needing supervised visitation often have histories of domestic violence, child abuse and neglect, mental illness or substance abuse, therefore providers delivering services must be adequately trained and supervised in order to protect the child from further harm during the visitation process. This article describes the need for SVP's, parental issues warranting consideration, the special needs of children in these circumstances, policy recommendations for provider standards, and a certification process to be developed and adopted in New York State.     

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION POLICY REQUIRING LICENSURE,REGULATION, AND MONITORING OF PRIVATELY OPERATED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR AT‐RISK CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Well‐meaning parents send an estimated 10,000 to 14,000 at‐risk children each year to unregulated private residential treatment facilities, which for as much as $3,000 to $5,000 per month promise to modify troublesome behaviors and make bad kids good. The facilities that compose this booming, billion‐dollar business are generally not regulated, licensed, or monitored by state or federal governments; too many aspects of this alternative care system for youth are rife with mistreatment, including physical, sexual, and mental abuse by facility staff. This American Bar Association policy resolution urges state, territorial, and tribal legislatures to pass laws that require the licensing, regulating, and monitoring of residential treatment facilities that are not funded by public or government systems but offer treatment to at‐risk children and youth for emotional, behavioral, educational, or other problems or issues.     

MAKING ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) LESS ALTERNATIVE: THE NEED FOR ADR AS BOTH A MANDATORY CONTINUING LEGAL EDUCATION REQUIREMENT AND A BAR EXAM TOPIC

Divorce proceedings have had a negative reputation due to their adversarial nature. Litigation in the family law field has exacerbated an already emotionally charged atmosphere. Alternative dispute resolution (ADR) has grown in importance over the past three decades and has helped to alleviate some of the animosity which accompanies divorce and child custody matters. Parents in particular are aided by the benefits of options such as mediation and collaborative divorce, obtaining increased control over their agreements in situations where the relationships will be continuous due to shared parenting responsibilities. However, much more could be done to increase the use of ADR in family law proceedings. Current family law practitioners could fill many roles, including mediator, advocate during mediation, collaborative negotiator, arbitrator, and counselor regarding which process to implement. Knowledge about these different roles, with their attendant skills and ethical issues, has become imperative. This Note will advocate for a mandatory continuing legal education requirement in ADR for matrimonial attorneys, as well as for the inclusion of ADR as a topic on state bar examinations. An increased knowledge of ADR will benefit divorcing parents and their children, ease an overcrowded court system, and lead to greater personal and professional satisfaction for the family law practitioner.     

Ybarra. Ugh.

The last time the Ninth Circuit decided an exclusionary land use control case, there was no clear-cut victory for either side, the result in Southern Alameda Spanish Speaking Organization v. Union City, 424 F.2d 291, 22 ZD 246 (9th Cir. 1970) being that the Chicano, low-income housing group did not get to use the site it wanted, but the court opined that Union City had to provide some sites somewhere. But in Ybarra v. City of Town of Los Altos Hills, 503 F.2d 250, 26 ZD 426 (9th Cir. 1974) the plaintiff Chicano group lost all.