Hearing parties' voices in Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (CFDR): An Australian pilot of a family mediation model designed for matters involving a history of domestic violence

This paper discusses the Coordinated Family Dispute Resolution (family mediation) process piloted in Australia in 2010–2012. This process was evaluated by the Australian Institute of Family Studies as being ‘at the cutting edge of family law practice’ because it involves the conscious application of mediation where there has been a history of family violence, in a clinically collaborative multidisciplinary and multi-agency setting. The Australian government's failure to invest resources in the ongoing funding of this model jeopardises the safety and efficacy of family dispute resolution practice in family violence contexts, and compromises the hearing of the voices of family violence victims and their children.     

The Ecological Distribution of Community Advantage and Disadvantage: Power Structures,Political Economy,Communities, and Green-State Crime and Justice

Certain forms of criminology such as social disorganization theory examine how community characteristics influence crime. That approach, however glosses over the fact that the distribution of community advantages and disadvantages (CAD) has structural origins, and that the distribution of CAD is also an indicator of the kinds of social, economic and ecological injustice communities face. Building on observations recently made by Moloney and Chambliss concerning the integration of state and green criminological research, this article explores the structural origins of CAD, how taking a political economic view of CAD relates to the distribution of crime and injustice in communities, and how a CAD approach promotes the integration of state crime, radical criminological and green criminological research.     

Under the quasi-judicial state: H-1B employment rights in an era of judicial retrenchment

Foreign workers holding H-1B visas gained recourse to federal employment rights under the Immigration & Nationality Act (INA) for the very first time when Congress passed the Immigration Act of 1990 (IMMACT90). This paper examines H-1B employment rights enforcement under the INA as it has intersected with broader features of the American legal system: what political scientists call judicial retrenchment and the quasi-judicial state. I first show how H-1B rights, already limited by the domestic politics that shaped the IMMACT, became subject to judicial retrenchment when the federal courts confined H-1B disputes under the INA to the quasi-judicial state at the Department of Labor (DOL). I then use published data on DOL investigation outcomes, published and unpublished administrative case records, and judicial cases reviewing agency action to examine the extent to which and how H-1B workers can use the quasi-judicial state to solve workplace problems. My empirical findings contribute to a new understanding of the relationship between rights retrenchment, the judiciary, and the rise of alternatives to court in immigration and employment law and point to possible fine-grained changes for future immigration reform.     

Reanalysis of the Trotter Tibia Quandary and its Continued Effect on Stature Estimation of Past‐Conflict Service Members

Forensic casework from past‐conflicts relies on the corrected historical Trotter data for stature estimation in Fordisc. For roughly 10 years’, stature estimation using this data has produced point estimates for the tibia that are on average 1.25 inches less than the other long bones. This issue was identified after applying the equations derived from Fordisc to the USS Oklahoma commingled assemblage. Reevaluation of Fordisc revealed that a correction factor of 20 mm, instead of 10 mm, was mistakenly applied to the Trotter tibia data. Historical forensic anthropology reports written at the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency were utilized to identify that the overcorrection is isolated to Fordisc 3 with an error rate of 5% of known antemortem statures falling outside of the prediction intervals that relied on the tibia. Further evaluation of the Oklahoma sample indicates the 10 mm correction is still producing point estimates less than the other long bones.     

The Power of Exclusion using Automated Osteometric Sorting: Pair‐Matching,

This study compares the original pair‐matching osteometric sorting model (J Forensic Sci 2003 ;48:717) against two new models providing validation and performance testing across three samples. The samples include the Forensic Data Bank, USS Oklahoma, and the osteometric sorting reference used within the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency. A computer science solution to generating dynamic statistical models across a commingled assemblage is presented. The issue of normality is investigated showing the relative robustness against non‐normality and a data transformation to control for normality. A case study is provided showing the relative exclusion power of all three models from an active commingled case within the Defense POW/MIA Accounting Agency. In total, 14,357,220 osteometric t‐tests were conducted. The results indicate that osteometric sorting performs as expected despite reference samples deviating from normality. The two new models outperform the original, and one of those is recommended to supersede the original for future osteometric sorting work.     

Crack as Proxy: Aggressive Federal Drug Prosecutions and the Production of Black–White Racial Inequality

In this article, we empirically examine jurisdictional variations in federal crack prosecutions to measure whether aggressive crack prosecutorial practices are associated with racial inequality in federal caseload characteristics and outcomes. Building on theories that address the production of inequality in institutional settings, we hypothesize that U.S. Attorneys’ offices that are more proactive in charging defendants with crack, relative to other kinds of drugs, and relative to case strength and seriousness, will demonstrate higher rates of black–white racial inequality in case outcomes across the entire criminal caseload. Consistent with theories of institutional racism, our findings demonstrate that aggressive crack prosecutions at the district level are a strong predictor of black–white inequality in conviction rates across the entire criminal caseload, and a much more modest predictor of inequality in final sentence outcomes. We conclude by discussing the importance of organizational‐level empirical analyses for more effectively uncovering the conditions under which inequality can and does flourish in legal settings, and suggest possible future lines of inquiry along these lines.     

Court Sentencing Patterns for Environmental Crimes: Is There a “Green” Gap in Punishment?

Objectives

This study examines sentencing patterns for environmental crimes and tests the assumption that “green” offenders receive more lenient treatment from criminal courts than non-environmental offenders.

Methods

We present two sets of analyses. First, we present an empirical portrait of environmental felony offenses convicted in a single state (Florida) over a fifteen-year period and the resulting criminal sanctions. Second, we use a precision matching analysis to assess whether environmental offenders receive more lenient treatment when compared to non-environmental offenders with the same characteristics and offense severity scores.

Results

Findings indicate that an overall small percentage of felony convictions in state courts stem from environmental crimes. We also find that punishments for environmental crimes are more lenient than sanctions assigned to comparable non-environmental offenses when the environmental crime is ecological, but that punishments are sometimes harsher when the environmental crime involves animals.

Conclusions

The findings provide general support for the argument that courts and other formal institutions of social control treat environmental crimes more leniently than non-environmental crimes. This paper also raises important questions about citizen and state actors’ perceptions of crimes against the environment and, more generally, about the ways in which theories of court sentencing behaviors apply to environmental crime sanctioning decisions.

     

Death Qualification in Black and White: Racialized Decision Making and Death‐Qualified Juries

Death qualification has been shown to have a number of biasing effects that appear to undermine a capital defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a fair jury. Attitudes toward the death penalty have shifted modestly but consistently over the last several decades in ways that may have changed the overall impact of death qualification. Specifically, the very large gap between black and white Americans' current support for capital punishment raises the question of whether death qualification procedures disproportionately exclude African Americans from capital jury participation. In order to examine this possibility, we conducted two countywide death penalty attitude surveys in the California county that has the highest percentage of African American residents in the state. Results show that death qualification continues to have a number of serious biasing effects—including disproportionately excluding death penalty opponents—which result in the significant underrepresentation of African Americans. This creates a death‐qualified jury pool with the potential to be significantly more likely to ignore and even misuse mitigating factors and to rely more heavily on aggravating factors in their death penalty decision making. The implications of these findings for the fair administration of capital punishment are discussed.