September 11: A societal reaction perspective

This article illustratesthe application of the labeling or societalreaction theory regarding the events ofSeptember 11, 2001. It explains thevarious types of labels that societyassigned to ``September 11' and how societalreactions led to governmental and lawenforcement changes. Pertinent opinionpolls were analyzed to indicate the powerof labeling which, in turn, was used todemonstrate how the USA PATRIOT Act waspassed during heightened societalreaction.     

Tasmania and the Secret Ballot

Encyclopaedias and handbooks, etc, all present Tasmania's starting date for implementing the secret ballot as 1858. But this research note argues the correct date was two years earlier in 1856. Moreover, before this, Tasmania's early 1830s participation in the Australia–wide proballot campaign, and its Constitutional inclinations towards the ballot have also been overlooked. To correct this omission relevant background is presented which highlights the riotous behaviour of pre–ballot elections. This is followed by a summary concerning the ballot's starting dates for Victoria and South Australia. Having confirmed these basic facts, further evidence is presented regarding Tasmania's true application of the secret ballot, including citations from a rare copy of the state's 1856 Electoral Act. In short, this "rediscovery" means that Tasmania definitely deserves a new place in the history of Australia's famous democratic innovation.     

Book Review International Environmental Negotiations: The Current State of Empirical and Analytic Study

Negotiation Journal -     

Are disturbed and normal adolescents equally competent to make decisions about mental health treatments?

This study uses a structured vignette procedure to assess competency to make treatment decisions in two groups of adolescents, one at risk for institutional placement and the other a matched community sample. Scores on Factual Understanding (the ability to recall facts), Inferential Understanding (the ability to make inferences about those facts), and Reasoning (the ability to weigh risks and benefits of various treatment options and to make choices based on that reasoning) were compared. Results showed that while at-risk adolescents and their community, counterparts did not differ in their factual and inferential understanding abilities, the at-risk adolescents did significantly less well than the community adolescents in reasoning. This difference could not be fully explained by differences in verbal IQ. Girls, no matter what their risk status, scored higher than boys on the Reasoning scale. Implications for legal policies concerning adolescents are discussed.