Who Governs Japan? Politicians and Bureaucrats in the Policy-making Processes

The long-running debate about who governs Japan has been given a new twist by 'rat-choicers' who argue that Japan has been governed for the last thirty years or more neither by bureaucrats nor by a 'conservative coalition' of bureaucrats, politicians and businessmen but by the Liberal Democratic Party alone. This article examines their arguments and sets them in the context of other competing and conflicting explanations. It is argued that more relevant and researchable questions are what is governed and how, an approach calling for a more nuanced analysis of policy making in order to observe the impact on different policies and policy-processes of the role of the state and its institutional structures and their embedded 'collective identities'.     

Sexual asphyxia in siblings

We present an accidental autoerotic asphyxiation of a 24-year-old man. Further investigation revealed that 18 years earlier, his brother, then 13, had been found dead, hanging in the family bathroom. Although that death had been ruled a suicide, reevaluation of the death scene indicates that this was also an autoerotic asphyxiation. This is the first reported case of sexual asphyxia involving siblings.     

Outsourcing – Financial Services Authority report on offshoring

This article evaluates the 2005 Financial Services Authority report into offshore outsourcing with specific reference to experience in India. It concludes that, on the whole, the findings are positive and that UK business methods appear to transfer well.     

Managing incidental findings in human subjects research: analysis and recommendations.

No consensus yet exists on how to handle incidental findings (IFs) in human subjects research. Yet empirical studies document IFs in a wide range of research studies, where IFs are findings beyond the aims of the study that are of potential health or reproductive importance to the individual research participant. This paper reports recommendations of a two-year project group funded by NIH to study how to manage IFs in genetic and genomic research, as well as imaging research. We conclude that researchers have an obligation to address the possibility of discovering IFs in their protocol and communications with the IRB, and in their consent forms and communications with research participants. Researchers should establish a pathway for handling IFs and communicate that to the IRB and research participants. We recommend a pathway and categorize IFs into those that must be disclosed to research participants, those that may be disclosed, and those that should not be disclosed.     

Positive Resolution of Childhood Sexual Abuse Experiences: The Role of Coping,Benefit-Finding and Meaning-Making

Resolution of the trauma of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), and the current adjustment of 60 adult female CSA survivors were explored through qualitative and quantitative analyses of their coping strategies, perceived benefits, and meaning-making attempts. While the majority of the women (87%) perceived at least some benefit resulting from coping with the CSA experience, many (29%) found it impossible to make any meaning of their trauma. Specific benefits that were associated with various aspects of positive adjustment (marital satisfaction, better physical health, less isolation) included improved relationships with others, religious or spiritual growth, and improved parenting skills. Some perceived benefits were actually associated with a negative outcome. Increased knowledge of sexual abuse was associated with more isolation and lower marital satisfaction. When positive meaning could be derived from the coping process, the women reported less isolation. Avoidant coping was strongly associated with more depressive symptoms and poorer resolution of abuse issues. Results highlight the importance of considering coping strategies and cognitive restructuring efforts in designing therapeutic interventions with this population. Portions of this paper were presented at the annual meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association, May 2004, Chicago, IL.     

Quiescent Leviathan? Citizenship and National Security Measures in Late Modernity

The systematic study of political trials and national security measures tends to be associated with the old-fashioned genre of ‘state trials’. Although whiggish or critical reductionism has since tended to prevail, recent social historical work on protest movements, ideology, and rights struggles opens up fresh approaches. The current scholarly shift of attention away from the repressive powers of the state to plural sites of power, while representing an advance, also threatens to relegate the area to neglect. The modern renewal of national security measures can in fact be seen as part of a more complex deployment of law and linked to current debates around state formation, governmentality, and citizenship. As the late modern state is eroded from above by globalization, and from below by demands of identity politics and differentiated citizenship, will such repressive measures be revealed as an anachronism or continue as a final resource of the state in crisis?     

Three Strikes Legislation and Sentencing Commission Objectives

Between 1993 and 1997, state legislatures across the country passed legislation popularly known as "three strikes and you're out" laws. These laws appeared at a time when sentencing commissions existed in many states, and the commissions were involved in the legislative debates leading to the votes on three strikes laws. Thus, the passage of three strikes laws can shed light on one type of interaction between sentencing commissions and legislatures. This article posits a variety of objectives for sentencing commissions during three strikes debates, each a response to the recurring "pathologies" that appear when legislative, judicial, and executive branch officials create sentencing policy. A survey of states that have passed three strikes laws indicates that sentencing commissions have not made any systematic difference in the legislative debates on these statutes. Commissions have little reason to oppose these laws absolutely, and could lose political credibility by doing so. Commissions have incentives instead to argue for limiting the scope of these statutes. Where commissions have been involved in the debates about habitual felon legislation, they have emphasized limits on judicial discretion, focused on the quality of legislative deliberations rather than on legislative outcomes, and devoted little attention to prosecutorial charging decisions.