EXPANDING FORENSICALLY INFORMED EVALUATIONS AND THERAPEUTIC INTERVENTIONS IN FAMILY COURT

As the field of forensic family law has become more empirical and in need of novel behavioral health services, it has become necessary to broaden the duties of practitioners, to clarify forensic roles, and to develop more comprehensive court orders. This article introduces the application of Forensically Informed Evaluations and Therapeutic Interventions in family court; a constellation of evaluations and interventions developed to better meet the needs of children and families during and after dissolution or reconstitution. These family court appointments also meet the growing demands of the court and contribute to the trend toward discriminative application of empirically informed behavioral health services in forensic family law.     

Thinking strategically about ASEM: The subsidiarity question

Abstract

Aficionados of arcane European Union politics will know the importance of the term ‘subsidiarity’, for it relates to perhaps the most fundamental question facing any federal enterprise. Subsidiarity is supposed to be simple ‐ the notion that issues should be handled at the most effective level of authority ‐ but the devil is in the debate about what is ‘most effective’. The notion of subsidiarity, in all its complexity, is in fact most appropriate for those considering the shape of the agenda for the next Asia‐Europe Meeting (ASEM) in London in 1998. With the proliferation of meetings and organizations devoted to the next ASEM agenda, the time has come to pose and begin to answer the subsidiarity question. That question for ASEM would ask, ‘what is best done at the ASEM level’, as opposed to at a global, other regional, national, or even corporate, local or individual level? If officials and analysts feel that such a question is too tough for the ASEM process, perhaps they would be happier with a subsidiary subsidiarity question: ‘what can also be usefully done at the ASEM level'? If there are good answers to the main question, there is a good basis on which to engage in the ASEM process. If there are only good answers to the subsidiary question, the ASEM agenda will be less ambitious and perhaps even appear contrived.     

For Better or Worse? Gender and Perceptions of Formal and Informal Justice Systems in Afghanistan

We draw on survey data from a national probability sample of 6,406 Afghan adults (aged 18 years and older) to explore gender differences in the perceptions of formal and informal justice systems. The study utilizes binary logistic regression to probe whether men and women differ in their attitudes and the extent to which other factors may mediate both within– and across–ethnic group differences. We find that women have more confidence in the formal system than their male counterparts, whereas the opposite is true for the informal system. The scholarly and policy implications of these results are discussed.     

Does the death penalty save lives?

Research Summary Economists have recently reexamined the “capital punishment deters homicide” thesis using modern econometric methods, with most studies reporting robust deterrent effects. The current study revisits this controversial question using annual state panel data from 1977 to 2006. Employing well‐known econometric procedures for panel data analysis, our results provide no empirical support for the argument that the existence or application of the death penalty deters prospective offenders from committing homicide. Policy Implications Although policymakers and the public can continue to base support for use of the death penalty on retribution, religion, or other justifications, defending its use based solely on its deterrent effect is contrary to the evidence presented here. At a minimum, policymakers should refrain from justifying its use by claiming that it is a deterrent to homicide and should consider less costly, more effective ways of addressing crime.