JUST: a measure of jury system trustworthiness

ABSTRACT

Three studies developed and tested a new measure of the perceived trustworthiness of the jury system, the 23-item Jury System Trustworthiness (JUST) scale, and assessed the scale’s convergent and discriminant validity. Study 1 assessed the scale’s factor structure and relation to other relevant constructs. In Studies 2 and 3, the JUST scale was administered to participants in two separate mock juror studies. The results of all three studies supported the hypothesized factor structure of the measure but showed that a simplified, 7-item measure was also effective. Overall, participants’ perceptions of juries were moderately positive, and the JUST scale was related to attitudes toward the police, authoritarianism, belief in a just world, juror bias, preference for a jury (vs. a bench) trial, and intention to respond to a jury summons. It also explained a unique portion of the variance in jury-specific beliefs and behavioral intentions, such as preference for a jury trial and response to a summons, beyond that accounted for by other legal attitudes. The JUST scale was not related to verdict decisions in either mock trial after controlling for authoritarianism. Several individual differences (e.g. age, race/ethnicity) were also related to attitudes toward the jury system.     

Power in Aggressor-Victim Relationships: Exploring Social,Physical, Gender- and Ethnicity-Based Power

Journal of Youth and Adolescence - Theory highlights power in aggressor-victim relationships, yet empirical work assessing dyadic power is largely absent. Variability in power balance versus...     

A face in the crowd: The influences of familiarity and delay on preschoolers’ recognition

Abstract

Preschoolers’ abilities to recognize former caregivers were examined. Participants were 35 children from three preschool classes. Caregivers volunteered in the classes over a 7-week period. At an initial assessment, children were asked to select former caregivers from a line-up of five photographs, and to rank-order the caregivers by personal preference. Recognition was assessed again after 3 months. Although older toddlers performed at chance levels, clear age-related increases in recognition performance were observed, with older preschoolers recognizing 86% of the volunteers at time 2. Younger children responded less consistently over time than older children. Preference for individual caregivers affected recognition performance among younger, but not older, preschoolers. Implications for children's eyewitness testimony are considered.     

Provocateurs

When a provocateur intentionally provokes a deadly affray, the law of self-defense holds that the provocateur may not use deadly force to defend himself. Why is this so? Provocateurs are often seen as just one example of the problem of actio libera in causa, the causing of the conditions of one’s defense. This article rejects theories that maintain a one-size-fits-all approach to actio libera in causa, and argues that provocateurs need specific rules about why they forfeit their defensive rights. This article further claims that provocateurs need to be distinguished from their cousins, initial aggressors, as initial aggressors engage in conduct that grounds the permissibility of the defender’s behavior whereas the provocateur’s behavior does not justify the respondent’s use of force against him. In addition, this article rejects that the basis of this forfeiture can be found in the doctrines surrounding when and why mitigation for provocation is appropriate for the respondent. Provocateurs forfeit their defensive rights for the very simple reason that they start the fight. This forfeiture occurs when they behave culpably, meaning that they subjectively appreciate that they are running the risk of causing force to be used against them and they engage in this behavior without justification or excuse. The question of when the provocateur’s behavior is justified is incredibly complex. It requires analysis of when it is that one is justified in increasing the risk of another’s wrongdoing. Any analysis of this justification must take seriously the liberty rights of the potential provocateur to engage in otherwise permissible behavior. Moreover, the determination of whether the provocateur is justified will turn on whether the later acts that he puts into motion are themselves justified. Thus, when Charles Bronson in the movie Death Wish presents himself as a victim so that muggers will attack him, the justifiability of his conduct in appearing as a vulnerable victim will turn on whether he is entitled to engage in this conduct, intending to later defend himself. This article argues that in Death Wish-type cases, the reason that the provocateur is not justified is because he becomes a vigilante, thereby usurping the role of the state and undermining rule of law values.     

Being Superwoman: Low Income Mothers Surviving Problem Drinking and Intimate Partner Violence

We elucidate ways mothers think about behavior change related to heavy drinking and violent relationships. A purposive sample of 32 women, predominantly black and low income, were identified as engaging in both problem drinking on the AUDIT and experiencing severe partner violence on the Conflict Tactic Scale. Narratives from audiotaped Motivational Interviewing sessions conducted in an urban emergency department were transcribed, inductively coded and examined through the lens of feminist standpoint theory. Our analysis suggests motherhood is a powerful motivator for positive change, but multiple barriers combine to prevent self-protection and modification of adverse behaviors among this vulnerable population. Interventions to help low-income mothers dealing with relationship violence and substance abuse should also address the structural violence and substantive barriers these mothers face. Further work should examine the power of personal narratives related to being a good mother on women’s ability to improve life circumstances for themselves and their children.     

The effects of treatment exposure on prison misconduct for female prisoners with substance use,mental health,and co-occurring disorders

Inmates with mental health and co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders present difficult challenges for correctional institutions and treatment providers. The complex nature of co-occurring disorders further exacerbates these difficulties and is associated with poor treatment compliance and increased likelihood of engaging in institutional misconduct. The current study examines whether exposure to prison-based treatment reduces involvement in prison misconduct among a sample of female prison inmates controlling for disorder types (i.e. mental health disorder only, substance use disorder only, and co-occurring mental and substance use disorders). Findings revealed that with exposure of more than 181?days of treatment, the odds of misconduct involvement among females with co-occurring disorders more than doubled compared to receiving no treatment. This finding is at odds with treatment retention literature that suggests that a minimum period of time in treatment is needed to affect post-treatment success. Possible explanations for these findings and policy implications are discussed.     

Edward Banfield on the Promise of Politics and the Limits of Federalism

Edward Banfield is generally considered to be a conservative,but this assumption is problematic. This essay examines hisviews on federalism and local politics in an attempt to betterunderstand his orientation. While he holds views on federalismand localism that are not liberal, by post-Second World WarAmerican standards, his lack of interest in constitutional rules,acceptance of national expansion, and lack of enthusiasm aboutlocal government put him at odds with mainstream conservatism.Ultimately, Banfield's suggestion that politics (local and national)can improve the character of human beings places him outsideboth conservatism and liberalism, and within an older tradition.