Juvenile Delinquency in the Netherlands: Trends and Perspectives

A comparison is made, on several levels, of the laws of various states in the United States and the State of Israel concerning the crime of rape as personally committed by a husband upon his wife, known as “marital rape.” Among the fifty states, there is a sharp division whether such an act is criminal at all. The majority of states have held the act not criminal based primarily upon the common law doctrine of marital immunity first enunciated in England by Lord Hale. Some of these states have followed the Model Penal Code and codified the immunity concept within their criminal law.

Those states which have rejected Hale's immunity concept include New York, New Jersey, Alabama, and others. Upon judicial review, New York invalidated its statutory immunity for husbands by declaring it unconstitutional and a violation of the fourteenth amendment of the U.S. Constitution. New Jersey, as an example, statutorily eliminated the defense of marital immunity for rape, while other states simply rejected Hall's doctrine altogether. In 1980, Israel judicially rejected the defense of marital immunity insofar as a Jewish married couple was concerned by selectively utilizing Jewish religious law. It later enacted legislation eliminating the defense of marital immunity for rape for all persons regardless of religion.     

HOW CITIZENS ASSESS JUST PUNISHMENT FOR POLICE MISCONDUCT*

In their dealings with citizens, police in most jurisdictions across the country are prohibited from using unnecessary force, abusing their authority, discourteous behavior, and offensive language. This study examines the factors that contribute to citizens' judgments of fair punishment for police misconduct. Using a factorial survey, citizens are asked to judge vignettes of police misconduct that describe encounters between officers and civilians in detail. The findings show that citizens do weigh the officer's behavior, particularly the unnecessary use of force, and mitigating evidence, particularly the degree to which the civilian is injured. Also, the findings show that respondents' social status, including their race, does not explain ratings, but that respondents' political orientation, that is, liberal versus conservative orientation, does make a significant difference. The findings demonstrate a normative consensus among respondents about the factors to weigh in judging a fair punishment for police misconduct as well as a consensus about the relative severity of appropriate punishment. There is some disagreement among citizens, however, about how to translate judgments of relative severity into a specific punishment for a particular case.     

The Strange Budgetary Politics of Agricultural Research Earmarks

This article explores how members of the House and Senate Subcommittees on Agricultural Appropriations use the appropriations process to earmark special grants for agricultural research projects without forming a majority logroll. It also shows how subcommittee members coerce the USDA into administering individual earmarked research grants even though the precise allocation of these grants does not have the force of law. This article makes an important contribution because it analyzes an institutional development within the appropriations process that has not been explored in the existing literature, and it examines the consequences that this development has had on the quality of USDA‐funded agricultural research.