新世纪党的建设的纲领性文献——深刻领会江泽民同志"七一"讲话精神实质

江泽民同志在庆祝中国共产党成立80周年大会上的讲话,以马克思列宁主义、毛泽东思想、邓小平理论为指导,全面回顾和科学总结了我们党80年的光辉历程和基本经验,系统阐述了"三个代表"重要思想的科学内涵,深刻回答了在充满希望和挑战的21世纪,建设一个什么样的党和怎样建设党的问题,进一步阐明了党在新世纪的历史任务和奋斗目标.江泽民同志的"七一"讲话是指导我们加强和改进党的建设的纲领性文献,是对马克思主义建党学说的新发展.认真学习和深刻领会江泽民同志"七一"讲话精神,对全面推进党的建设具有重大而深远的意义.     

Everyday Life and Legal Values: A Concept Paper

This concept paper emerged from a Law and Human Behavior (LHB) Workshop, that was called by the journal's Editor, Richard Wiener, and held at St. Louis University on March 19–21, 1999. This workshop, which brought together 22 scholars and researchers in legal psychology, was part of James Ogloff's Presidential Initiative Project for the American Psychology/Law Society, and was supported by St. Louis University and an NSF grant. Prior to our arrival, each participant answered queries from the Editor about LHB and the field of psychology and law, and each was asked to offer five topics that were underrepresented in the journal or that we would like to see addressed in future issues. At the workshop, we were assigned to small groups, and the authors of this paper constituted one such group. The charge for all groups was to develop plans for encouraging submissions in areas of psycholegal scholarship that continue to be infrequent topics of investigation, and then to develop a concept paper. The direction our group took is captured by our title, Everyday Life and Legal Values, and within this paper we explicate the topic, identify a number of underrepresented research areas, suggest some research paradigms for investigating them, and present this within a perspectival directions frame that ties established lines of research to the newer ones we propose.     

Reducing Maltreated Children's Reluctance to Answer Hypothetical Oath-Taking Competency Questions

Before allowing child witnesses to testify, courts routinely require children to describe what would happen to them if they lied. However, young children often refuse to reason hypothetically if they view the premises as implausible or undesirable, and might be more willing to discuss the consequences of lying if they are asked about another child rather than themselves. On the other hand, children might view themselves as invulnerable to punishment, and therefore believe that whereas other children will be punished for lying, they will not be. In this study, 64 maltreated 5- and 6-year-old children were asked to describe the consequences of lying to three professionals (a judge, a social worker, and a doctor). Participants in the self condition were asked what would happen to them if they lied, whereas participants in the other condition were asked to describe what would happen to a story child if he or she lied. Asking children about other children increased responsiveness, and did not reveal perceptions of invulnerability. The results suggest that young children's understanding that they will be punished for lying may make them reluctant to discuss the consequences of lying, leading to underestimation of their oath-taking competency.     

Outside the brackets: Why school administrators fail to see gendered harassment within an antibullying law

Much of school bullying involves students policing the gender roles and sexuality of other students. The proliferation of antibullying laws presents an opportunity to formally punish and mark gendered harassment as unacceptable. However, when this form of peer policing involves girls, administrators often consider it to fall outside the purview of the law. We use bracketing theory to understand how middle school administrators in New Jersey assess whether student behavior violates a statewide harassment, intimidation, and bullying law. We find that, according to administrators, violations require relational asymmetry between an aggressor and victim: an imbalance of power and disproportionate participation. Administrators rarely see gendered harassment as bullying because of the relational stereotypes they attach to girl students, which often preclude interpretations of relational asymmetry. We discuss how gender beliefs among administrators and “bracketing failures” explain the ways antibullying laws allow hegemonic beliefs about gender and sexuality to remain untroubled.     

Improving the Budget Process in Fragile and Conflict‐Ridden States: Two Modest Lessons from Afghanistan

Both the donor community and scholars have created a cottage industry studying “fragile” states. International nongovernmental organizations that have developed indexes measuring corruption or governance have been unkind to Afghanistan. One index suggests a different and more optimistic story. The International Budget Partnership measures transparency every two years with its Open Budget Index. Afghanistan demonstrated dramatic improvement on this index between 2008 and 2012. The authors use the improvement in Afghanistan's transparency score as an entry point to explore how donors try to intervene and promote transparency as part of broader efforts in public financial management development and how legislative strengthening has also contributed to budget reform. The analysis offers a modest corrective to the overly pessimistic assessments of fragile states by showing that a fragile state can improve its budgetary transparency and enhance governance by strengthening the legislature's involvement in the budget process.     

Juvenile Competency and Pretrial Due Process: A Call for Greater Protections in Massachusetts for Juveniles Residing in Procedural Purgatory

While juvenile courts continue to balance and reevaluate the dual goals of community safety and rehabilitation of youth, juveniles who are not competent to stand trial have been left without sufficient procedural protections. This paper examines Massachusetts’ approach to juvenile competency, due process, and pretrial procedure, within a national context. The inadequacies of the Massachusetts juvenile competency laws are not unique. Currently there are nineteen states that either entirely lack juvenile‐specific competency legislation or merely incorporate inapposite adult criminal statutes and standards into the juvenile context—making it difficult or impossible for those juvenile courts to dismiss or divert a delinquency petition following an incompetency finding. Massachusetts and states similarly situated should adopt explicit statutory language to delineate the basis for a juvenile incompetency finding and the grounds for dismissing delinquency complaints pretrial after an incompetency finding has been made. This paper proposes that Massachusetts adopt a timeline for effecting such dismissals based in part on the amount of time a juvenile could face if committed to the juvenile correctional authority following an adjudication of delinquency. The paper also recommends best practices of states that are pioneering juvenile legislative reforms like dismissal timelines and incompetency presumptions. Finally, we suggest a more stringent regulatory framework be put in place governing the pretrial detention of youths who have been found not competent to stand trial—a framework that recognizes and preserves the juvenile's substantive rights to education, mental health and rehabilitative services. Without legislation, juveniles found not competent to stand trial remain subject to the prospect of indefinite locked detention, often without access to the necessary services that contribute to future success as well as attainment of competency. This lack of due process runs counter to the foundational goals of the juvenile justice system.     

Domestic Judicial Institutions and Human Rights Treaty Violation

Democratic and autocratic states routinely violate their international agreements protecting human rights. Scholars typically link ratification and compliance behavior theoretically but test their models separately; however, if the behaviors are jointly determined then we should treat them that way empirically. We consider how domestic judiciaries influence the joint choice to ratify and comply with international human rights regimes. Using data on the ratification status of states under the Convention Against Torture (CAT), states' torture practices, and a series of measures of judicial effectiveness, we examine whether legal institutions are likely to constrain state behavior and by implication raise the costs of ratification.