The Impact of Mediating Victim Offender Conflict: An Analysis of Programs in Three States

Abstract This article presents the findings of an analysis of victim offender mediation programs working with the juvenile courts in Albuquerque (NM), Minneapolis (MN) and Oakland (CA). The study is based upon 868 interviews with crime victims and offenders, including pre- and post-mediation interviews and two different comparison groups. The data that emerged from this study indicates that the vast majority of both victims and young offenders experience the mediation process and outcome (restitution agreement) as fair and are satisfied with the program. The mediation process used by the programs in Albuquerque, Minneapolis and Oakland results in greater satisfaction, greater perception of fairness and higher restitution completion rates than found in a matched sample of victims and offenders who were not referred to mediation.     

Jury decision making in the capital penalty phase

There are large bodies of research on the deterrent value of the death penalty and public attitudes towards capital punishment. However, little is known about how jurors decide whether a particular defendant should live or die. This article briefly summarizes the case law that attempts to guide the discretion of jurors in the penalty phase of capital murder trials, reviews empirical research on penalty decision making, suggests a methodological strategy for investigating the penalty phase, and identifies several promising directions for future research. Four broad categories of research are identified: the effects of guiding juror discretion, comparisons of juries that vote for life with those that vote for death, the relationship between guilt and penalty phases, and models of decision making in the penalty phase. Several testable hypotheses are proposed.     

Foreign trading screens in the United States

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below. Key points

• Remote trading screens allow investors to trade onexchanges located in other jurisdictions. The Securities andExchange Commission (‘SEC’) has generally prohibitedthe placement of foreign trading screens in the United Statesunless the associated exchange complies with US regulatory requirements.While the SEC defends its position as an essential investorprotection, European officials complain that SEC requirementsconstitute an unfair barrier to trade.
• This article arguesthat technological advances have largely mooted this contro-versy.Current requirements do not protect US investors as much asthe SEC claims nor do they inhibit competition as much as theSEC's critics assert.
• To the extent that alternative tradingmechanisms already give US investors de facto access to unregulatedforeign exchanges, the SEC may well choose to revisit its positionon foreign trading screens, particularly as US and Europeanfinancial markets become more integrated and disclosure requirementson both sides of . . . [Full Text of this Article]