In Search of the Responsible Subject: History, Philosophy and Social Sciences in Criminal Law Theory

This paper examines the way in which English criminal law's conception of responsibility has changed since the eighteenth century, and explores the relationship between changes in legal framework, changes in processes of criminalisation and punishment, and broader social, political and economic changes. It argues that the development of ideas of individual responsibility for crime are responses to problems of co-ordination and legitimation faced by systems of criminal law, and that these problems can be expected to change according to the environment in which the system operates, with important factors including the distribution of political interests and economic power; the prevailing cultural and intellectual environment; the organisation and status of relevant professional groups and the vigour of alternative means of social ordering. Substantively, the paper explores the hypothesis that criminal responsibility has shifted from a conception founded in ideas of character to a capacity-based conception over the relevant period. Methodologically, the aim is to historicise the structure as well as the content of criminal law within a socio-theoretic framework, constructing a dialogue between criminal law theory of a doctrinal and philosophical temper and socio-historical studies of criminal justice.     

Investigating Sub-groups of Harassers: The Roles of Attachment,Dependency, Jealousy and Aggression

The study aimed to classify non-harassers, minor, and severe harassers based on responses to measures of jealousy, dependency, attachment, perpetration, and victimization of relationship aggression, and harassment victimization, in a convenience sample of undergraduate students. Respondents (n = 177) replied on the following scales: Unwanted Pursuit Behaviors Inventory (UPBI: Langhinrichsen-Rohling et al., Violence and Victims 15:73–89, 2000), Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS: Straus, Journal of Marriage and the Family 41:75–88, 1979, measuring physical and verbal aggression for respondents and their partners), Sexual Jealousy Scale (SJS: Nannini and Meyers, The Journal of Sex Research 37:117–122, 2000), Interpersonal Dependency Inventory (IDI: Hirschfeld et al., Journal of Personality Assessment 41:610–618, 1997), and the Relationship Questionnaire (RQ: Bartholomew and Horowitz, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 61:226–244, 1991, measuring adult attachment). Discriminant Function Analysis (DFA), with responses to these measures entered as predictors, produced significant differences between the groups in the univariate results on measures of: preoccupied attachment, jealousy, emotional reliance, verbal aggression and harassment victimization, and physical aggression perpetration. The functions identified by the DFA correctly classified 61% of cases, and identified the important roles of jealousy, dependency, attachment, and relationship aggression in harassment. Differing responses to the measurement of these can theoretically distinguish between non-, minor, and severe harassers.     

Does Controlling Behavior Predict Physical Aggression and Violence to Partners?

Using data obtained from women’s shelter residents, male and female students, and male prisoners, this study investigated the association between non-violent controlling behaviors, physical aggression, and violence towards a spouse (N = 264). It was predicted that only men and women involved in intimate terrorism (Johnson, Violence Against Women, 11(12):1003–1018, 2006) would use controlling aggression, and that physical aggression used by those involved in situational couple violence would be unrelated to controlling behavior. Contrary to predictions derived from Johnson’s theory, regression analysis showed that control accounted significant proportions of the variance in the use of physical aggression for all three relationship categories. Some support was provided, however, as it was found that the pattern of both interrelationships of the five types of controlling behaviors, and control and physical aggression, supported Johnson’s distinction.     

Parent–Child Interaction Therapy with Domestic Violence Populations

Domestic violence continues to be a significant social problem impacting our society. Battered women and their children experience a myriad of negative consequences as a result of domestic violence. Of the possible negative sequelae that mothers and children experience, the disrupted parent–child relationship has received relatively little attention in the literature. Though psychosocial interventions are available to treat women who experience violence and children who witness violence, few interventions focus on the parent–child relationship. This article describes parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT), a relationship-based intervention. Although not initially developed to treat domestic violence, PCIT has unique characteristics that make it a promising intervention with this population. A rationale for the use of PCIT with battered women and their children is presented.