Social Exclusion and the Welfare of the Child

The 'best interests of the child' is a pervasive notion in law, and the welfare discourse within which it acquires meaning has become increasingly dominant in our culture's stock of 'common sense'. Because this discourse positions children as dependent and vulnerable, it underpins images of children that can perpetuate the social, legal, and political marginalization of children. This paper uses the area of children and divorce to explore the ways in which this exclusion of children persists alongside both an ostensible commitment to the welfare of children and an increasingly strong rights discourse. We argue that constructions of the child as victim have both political and psychological dimensions: they serve to legitimize state intervention into 'private' family life, and they help assuage social anxieties about the alleged demise of 'the family'. At an individual level, they facilitate a process whereby children can become the repository for feelings with which adults cannot cope. We then suggest that two fundamental changes are required in order to address children's exclusion: the development of a more psychodynamically informed view of personhood and a new image of the child to inform policies.     

Disaster victim identification: new applications for postmortem computed tomography

Abstract:  Mass fatalities can present the forensic anthropologist and forensic pathologist with a different set of challenges to those presented by a single fatality. To date radiography has played an important role in the disaster victim identification (DVI) process. The aim of this paper is to highlight the benefits of applying computed tomography (CT) technology to the DVI process. The paper begins by reviewing the extent to which sophisticated imaging techniques, specifically CT, have been increasingly used to assist in the analysis of deceased individuals. A small scale case study is then presented which describes aspects of the DVI process following a recent Australian aviation disaster involving two individuals. Having grided the scene of the disaster, a total of 41 bags of heavily disrupted human remains were collected. A postmortem examination was subsequently undertaken. Analysis of the CT images of all body parts ( n  = 162) made it possible not only to identify and side differentially preserved skeletal elements which were anatomically unrecognizable in the heavily disrupted body masses, but also to observe and record useful identifying features such as surgical implants. In this case the role of the forensic anthropologist and CT technology were paramount in facilitating a quick identification, and subsequently, an effective and timely reconciliation, of body parts. Although this case study is small scale, it illustrates the enormous potential for CT imaging to complement the existing DVI process.     

How do Traditional Bullying and Cyberbullying Victimization Affect Fear and Coping among Students? An Application of General Strain Theory

School bullying victimization represents an important type of strain (or stressful event) experienced by individuals because it usually occurs frequently, over a long period of time, and is an intentional violation against another person. The current study utilizes the 2009 School Crime Supplement (SCS) of the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) to assess the effect of bullying victimization on avoidance behaviors and carrying weapons to school. This study also examines how bullying victimization affects fear and whether this emotion mediates the relationship between victimization and outcomes. As expected, traditional bullying and cyberbullying increase the likelihood of fear. In addition, traditional bullying and cyberbullying victimization increase the likelihood of avoidance behaviors and bringing a weapon to school. Contrary to expectations, fear did not mediate the relationship between bullying and coping behaviors.     

The Rule of Law or the Rule of Politics? Harmonizing the Internal and External Views of Supreme Court Decision Making

Law professors and political scientists generally subscribe to opposed theories of Supreme Court decision making. Law professors, to a great degree, adhere to an internal view: Supreme Court justices decide cases according to legal rules, principles, and precedents. Political scientists follow an external view: justices decide cases according to their political ideologies or preferences. This article develops an interpretive-structural theory that harmonizes these seemingly opposed views. This interpretive-structural theory not only explains why the internal and external views often are both effective but also why, sometimes, one approach might be more effective than the other. The article concludes by comparing the interpretive-structural theory with the "new institutionalism" that is emerging in political science.     

An Interpretation of Max Weber's Theory of Law: Metaphysics, Economics, and the Iron Cage of Constitutional Law

Among legal scholars, Anthony T. Kronman and David M. Trubek have provided the leading interpretations of Weber's theory of law. Kronman and Trubek agree on two important points: Weber's theory is fundamentally contradictory, and Weber's theory relates primarily to private law subjects such as contracts. This article contests both of these points. Building on a foundation of Weber's neo-Kantian metaphysics and his sociological categories of economic action, this article shows that Weber's theory of law is not fundamentally inconsistent; rather it explores the inconsistencies that are inherent within Western society itself, including its legal systems. Furthermore, Weber's insights can be applied to modern constitutional jurisprudence. Weberian theory reveals that modern constitutional law is riddled with irreconcilable tensions between process and substance—between formal and substantive rationality. In the context of racial discrimination cases involving equal protection and the Fifteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court's acceptance of John Hart Ely's theory of representation-reinforcement demonstrates the Court's resolute pursuit of formal rationality, which insures that the substantive values and needs of minorities will remain unsatisfied.     

Methods and motives: Exploring links between transnational organized crime and international terrorism

The nexus with transnational organized crime is increasingly a focus for security planners in their analyses of terror groups. Their approach is best described by the phrase “methods, not motives.” While the motives of terrorists and organized criminals remain divergent most often, our research indicates this is not always the case. For that reason, this report argues that such a general approach has become too restrictive and can be misleading since the interaction between terrorism and organized crime is growing deeper and more complex all the time. In short, the lines of separation are no longer unequivocal. The report analyzes the relationship between international organized crime and terrorism in a systematic way in order to highlight the shortcomings of the “methods, not motives” argument. In so doing, the report considers the factors that most closely correspond to crime-terror interaction and identifies those regions of developed and developing states most likely to foster such interactions. Likewise, the paper will suggest an evolutionary spectrum of crime-terror interactions that serves as a common basis for discussion of such often used terms as “nexus.” The centerpiece of the report is a groundbreaking methodology for analysts and investigators to overcome this growing complexity, identify crime-terror interactions more quickly and to assess their importance with confidence. The approach is derived from a standard intelligence analytical framework, and has already proven its utility in law enforcement investigations. The report is the product of a recently concluded and peer-reviewed 18-month NIJ sponsored research project, and includes empirical evidence drawn from numerous case studies developed in the course of the research program. This project was supported by Grant No. 2003-IJ-CX-1019 awarded by the National Institute of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. Points of view in this document are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position or policies of the US Department of Justice. Research assistance on this project was provided by Allison Irby, Douglas M. Hart, Patricia A. Craig-Hart, Dr. Phil Williams, Steven Simon, Nabi Abdullaev, and Bartosz Stanislawski. Drafting and editing help was provided by Laura Covill.