The Impact of Post-Enactment Review on Anti-Terrorism Laws: Four Jurisdictions Compared

This paper examines a significant legislative challenge in many jurisdictions around the world a decade on from the events of 11 September 2001. Using Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom as case studies, it aims to assess the relative effectiveness of regular and extraordinary review mechanisms at the national level in leading to the improvement of anti-terrorism laws. That such mechanisms often appear to meet with only muted success says something about their institutional weakness and also the tension that inheres in legislatures as simultaneously legal and political institutions. Further, it reflects the authority and legitimacy to which national security law quickly lays claim in a political culture. This makes it resistant to reform, even when aspects of it can be said to be part of the terrorist problem rather than its solution.     

Corporate environmental violence and racism

Drawing upon a social justice framework, this analysis expands and integrates issues relating to corporate violence and environmental justice to investigate the spatial distribution of chemical accidents across census tracts in Hillsborough County, Florida. To test the hypothesis that corporate environmental violence (CEV) is more likely to impact blacks and Hispanics, data from the 1990 census was combined with chemical accident data obtained from the U.S. EPA under the Accidental Release Information Program (ARIP). The results of our bivariate analysis suggest that blacks and Hispanics reside closer to chemical facilities reporting accidents than their white counterparts. A multivariate analysis of the problem reveals that racial sub-populations are much more likely to be proximate to these accidents even when facility location and urbanization are controlled. We discuss the implications of our findings and point out that any solutions to the unequal distribution of CEV must lie outside the traditional criminal justice response. This revised version was published online in August 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.     

A Systematic Approach to Domestic Abuse–Informed Child Custody Decision Making in Family Law Cases

This article introduces an approach to domestic violence–informed decision making developed under the auspices of the National Child Custody Differentiation Project, a cooperative undertaking among the Battered Women's Justice Project, the Association of Family & Conciliation Courts, the National Council of Juvenile & Family Court Judges, Praxis International, and the U.S. Department of Justice Office on Violence Against Women. This approach has four essential elements: (1) identifying domestic abuse; (2) understanding the nature and context of domestic abuse; (3) determining the implications of abuse; and (4) accounting for the nature, context, and implications of abuse in all custody‐related recommendations and decisions.

Key Points for the Family Court Community:
• Applying a systematic approach to domestic violence can help practitioners identify, understand, and account for abuse in family law cases.
• The approach recommended here is suitable for use by anyone who is involved in a contested child custody case at any stage of the proceeding.
• The specific application of the recommended approach will vary depending upon the practitioner's role and function in the case, relationship to the parties, and access to information, as well as the nature of the proceeding and the issues to be decided.

     

How Law Rules: Torture,Terror, and the Normative Judgments of Iraqi Judges

We present a factorial survey experiment conducted with Iraqi judges during the early military occupation of Iraq. Because U.S. soldiers are immune from prosecution in Iraqi courts, there is no opportunity for these judges to express their views regarding highly publicized torture cases. As legally informed representatives of an occupied nation, however, Iraqi judges arguably have a strong claim to a normative voice on this sensitive subject. We are able to give voice to these judges in this study by using a quasi‐experimental method. This method diminishes social desirability bias in judges' responses and allows us to consider a broad range and combination of factors influencing their normative judgments. We examine why and how the U.S. effort to introduce democracy with an indeterminate rule of law produced unintended and inconsistent results in the normative judgments of Iraqi judges. A critical legal perspective anticipates the influences of indeterminacy, power, and fear in our research. More specifically, we anticipated lenient treatment for guards convicted of torture, especially in trouble cases of Coalition soldiers torturing al Qaeda prisoners. However, the results—which include cross‐level, judge‐case interaction effects—were more varied than theoretically expected. The Iraqi judges responded in disparate and polarized ways. Some judges imposed more severe sentences on Coalition guards convicted of torturing al Qaeda suspects, while others imposed more lenient sentences on the same combination of guards and suspects. The cross‐level interactions indicate that the judges who severely sentenced Coalition guards likely feared the contribution of torture tactics to increasing violence in Iraq. The judges who were less fearful of violence were more lenient and accommodating of torture by Coalition forces. The implication is that the less fearful judges were freed by an indeterminate law to advance Coalition goals through lenient punishment of torture. Our analysis suggests that the introduction of democracy and the rule of law in Iraq is a negative case in the international diffusion of American institutions. The results indicate the need for further development of a nuanced critical legal perspective.     

The extraction of surplus value,crime and punishment: A preliminary examination

Crime, Law and Social Change -     

Mock Juror Gender Biases and Perceptions of Self-Defense Claims in Intimate Partner Homicide

Findings are reported from an experiment that examined mock jurors’ gender biases regarding intimate homicide case adjudications. Mock jurors were more likely to convict a man than a woman who had killed an abusive partner, which was partially mediated by sympathy toward both the victim and defendant. Analyses revealed an abuser height and abuser gender interaction such that conviction rates for women defendants were higher when her abuser was taller compared to when he was shorter than she; abuser height did not influence conviction rates for men. Findings also suggested that when given information about a child being present, mock jurors perceived the killing of the abusive partner as an act to protect that child. The results are discussed in relation to how extra-legal factors impact juror perceptions of domestic violence cases in the courtroom.