Battered mothers who physically abuse their children

The purpose of this study is to understand why some battered mothers physically abuse their children. Mothers who were battered and physically abused their children (the co-occurrence group) were compared with mothers who were neither battered nor physically abused, who were only battered, and who only abused (N = 184). The mothers in the co-occurrence group were more likely than the mothers who did not physically abuse their children to have been severely assaulted by their own mothers as children, have had poorer quality relationships with and receive less support from their mothers, have more stressors, and have known their partners for less time. These differences were not found between the mothers in the co-occurrence and abuse-only groups. In the multivariate analysis, having been assaulted by one's own mother as a child--not being battered by one's partner--was the most potent predictor for whether a mother physically abused her child.     

Here comes the judge: the influence of judge personal characteristics on federal sexual harassment case outcomes

This study explored the effects of judges' personal characteristics (gender, race, age, and political affiliation) and case characteristics on the outcomes of federal cases of hostile environment sexual harassment. Results revealed that even after controlling for the effects of relevant case characteristics (e.g., severity of the harassment), judges' personal characteristics influenced case outcomes. Specifically, younger judges and Democrat judges were more likely to find for the plaintiff (the alleged victim of harassment). The probability that the decision would favor the plaintiff was only 16% when the case was heard by an older judge but 45% when heard by a younger judge. The probability that the decision would favor the plaintiff was only 18% when the case was heard by a judge who had been appointed by a Republican president but 46% when the judge had been appointed by a Democrat president.     

Some implications of the Human Rights Act 1998 for the medical treatment of children

Although the Gillick decision was hailed as an important step in the furtherance of respect for children's autonomy, subsequent judgments seemed to undermine this important principle. While it would be difficult to criticise the outcomes of some of the key cases, the reasoning by which these were achieved is rather more contentious. There have been some interesting discussions suggesting more constructive approaches but there is still a great deal of anecdotal evidence indicating that conservative assessments of children's ability to be involved in decisions about their medical treatment remain the norm. The new Department of Health consent forms should help to create a climate where assessment of a child's competence will become more sophisticated. This paper will argue that the Human Rights Act 1998 offers another opportunity to reassess more traditional approaches to children's capacity; indeed, this could be violation, inter alia, of the right not to be subject to inhuman and degrading treatment under Article 3 in extreme circumstances and the right to private and family life enshrined in Article 8. Clearly, it is not always practicable to carry out assessments rigorously and some health professionals may feel they do not have the expertise to do this, but some basic criteria could assist here; courts are not likely to expect more than a demonstration that best endeavors have been employed in reasoned decision-making. Additionally, other privacy rights may have implications for the medical decision-making process as it affects children and their carers particularly where conflict arises. Disputes may also ensue from the right to manifest religion and other beliefs",' under the Act. This paper will explore how such challenges to those responsible for the medical treatment of children may fare.     

Lineup Administrators' Expectations: Their Impact on Eyewitness Confidence

This research focuses on how lineup a administrators influence eyewitnesses' postidentification confidence. What happens to witness confidence when a witness makes an identification that confirms the lineup administrator's expectations; what happens when this expectation is not confirmed? In Experiment 1, participant interviewers (n = 52) administered target-absent photo lineups to participant witnesses (n = 52). The interviewers did not view the simulated crime, but were told the thief's position in the lineup. In every instance this information was false (we used a target-absent lineup). A one-way ANOVA revealed that eyewitness identification confidence was malleable as a function of interviewers' beliefs about the thief's identity. In Experiment 2, participant jurors (n = 80) viewed 40 testimonies of Experiment 1 witnesses (2 participants viewed each testimony). Participant jurors judged all participant witnesses as equally credible despite their varying levels of postidentification confidence.

     

The Effects of Juror Anonymity on Jury Verdicts

This study examined the effects of anonymity on jurors' verdicts and on jurors' feelings of accountability for their jury's verdicts. Twenty four-person anonymous juries and 20 four-person nonanonymous juries rendered individual and group verdicts for three student defendants charged with selling drugs on a school campus. When unanimous guilty verdicts were reached, juries imposed one of five punishments. Finally, jurors completed postdeliberation opinion and accountability questionnaires. As predicted, anonymous juries showed a higher rate of conviction (70%) than did nonanonymous juries (40%) when the evidence against the defendant was strong, supporting the hypothesis that anonymity would have a greater effect for situations in which there was relatively strong evidence of the defendant's guilt. Anonymous juries imposed the harshest punishment (expulsion) significantly more often than did nonanonymous juries. Contrary to predictions from differential self-awareness theory, anonymous juries did not report feeling less accountable than did nonanonymous juries. However, anonymous juries did see the process as significantly more fair than did identifiable juries.     

US Appeals Court reminder: threats of litigation made during TTAB settlement discussions may support jurisdiction for declaratory judgment

The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that jurisdictionwas proper in a declaratory judgment action brought to establishtrade mark non-infringement, when the plaintiff had a reasonableapprehension of litigation based on threatening statements madeduring the course of discussions to settle disputes pendingbefore the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) that wereotherwise subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 408, which typicallymakes statements made during settlement inadmissible for establishingliability but not for other purposes.