Freedom to think – the value of multiple clinical narratives in women’s prisons†

Abstract

The merits of being multi-lingual are widely recognised. This paper considers the application of this metaphor to the conceptualisation of clinical work in a women’s prison. We suggest that sharing ‘languages’ from different theoretical orientations in open fora enables teams to build deep and nuanced understandings of clinical and systemic complexity, of particular value in secure settings. This discussion reflects the service model developed and used within HMP/YOI Holloway, a large women’s prison in London, which has recently been closed. We utilise a case example, with formulations and recommendations from several perspectives, to illustrate the value of maintaining a rich, inclusive discourse. We describe the benefits of such an approach to staff teams, to institutions and to those we serve, and consider the implications for organisation of services to maximise potential for change and recovery.     

Thatcherism and the Conservative Party

Neither spatial models of party competition nor the 'Westminster' model of British politics explain the phenomenon of Thatcherism. One explanation of its success, examined by Crewe and Searing, suggests that Mrs Thatcher sought to convert the Conservative party and the wider electorate to her distinctive brand of liberal Whiggism and traditional Toryism. They found little evidence of the success of this, however, among the British electorate as a whole. In this paper, data from the first national survey of Conservative party members demonstrates that she had little success in converting the Conservative party to these ideas either, although she did have a secure ideological base within the party. The results also suggest that her successor, John Major, has a rather different support base within the party from that of Mrs Thatcher. The implications of these findings for spatial models of party competition and the Westminster model of British politics are discussed.     

The Competence-Related Abilities of Adolescent Defendants in Criminal Court

Increasing numbers of youths are being tried in criminal court because of statutory measures that have decreased the use of judicial review as the primary mechanism for transfer. The relative immaturity of adolescents suggests that transferred youths might have impaired competence-related abilities compared to adults. To test this hypothesis, we compared the competence-related abilities and developmental characteristics of a sample of direct-filed 16-17-year-olds charged in criminal court in the state of Florida (Direct File sample) to a sample of 18-24-year-old adults charged in criminal courts (Adult Offender sample) and to a separate sample of 16-17-year-olds charged in juvenile court (Juvenile Court sample). Results indicated that there were few differences between the Direct File youths and Adult Offenders. The differences that were observed suggested that the Direct Filed youths performed slightly better than the Adult Offender group and the Juvenile Court youths charged in juvenile court. These findings suggest that as a group, 16-17-year-old Direct File adolescents do not have significant deficits in competence-related abilities due to age or immaturity.     

Survey of stalking at WPI

The purpose of this study was to ascertain the amount of stalking taking place on the Worcester Polytechnic Institute (WPI) campus in which computers play such a huge role in the lives of the students. Our results were then compared with those reported in a stalking study done at West Virginia University (WVU). Surprisingly (to us), a smaller percentage of both females and males were stalked at WPI. The use of the Internet did not play a major role in stalking as we had expected. Results reported in a TV news report and a newspaper article indicate, however, that much less stalking occurs among the general population than does at WVU and WPI.     

Asking the Gatekeepers: A National Survey of Judges on Judging Expert Evidence in a Post-Daubert World

Drawing on the responses provided by a survey of state court judges (N = 400), empirical evidence is presented with respect to judges' opinions about the Daubert criteria, their utility as decision-making guidelines, the level to which judges understand their scientific meaning, and how they might apply them when evaluating the admissibility of expert evidence. Proportionate stratified random sampling was used to obtain a representative sample of state court judges. Part I of the survey was a structured telephone interview (response rate of 71%) and in Part II, respondents had an option of completing the survey by telephone or receiving a questionnaire in the mail (response rate of 81%). Survey results demonstrate that judges overwhelmingly support the gatekeeping role as defined by Daubert, irrespective of the admissibility standard followed in their state. However, many of the judges surveyed lacked the scientific literacy seemingly necessitated by Daubert. Judges had the most difficulty operationalizing falsifiability and error rate, with only 5% of the respondents demonstrating a clear understanding of falsifiability and only 4% demonstrating a clear understanding of error rate. Although there was little consensus about the relative importance of the guidelines, judges attributed more weight to general acceptance as an admissibility criterion. Although most judges agreed that a distinction could be made between scientific and technical or otherwise specialized knowledge, the ability to apply the Daubert guidelines appeared to have little bearing on whether specific types of expert evidence were designated as science or nonscience. Moreover, judges' bench philosophy of science seemed to reflect the rhetoric, rather than the substance, of Daubert. Implications of these results for the evolving relationship between science and law and the ongoing debates about Frye, Daubert, Joiner, and Kumho are discussed.