Long-term success in mediation

This article reports the results of a study of the antecedents of long-term success in community mediation. Seventy-three mediation sessions were recorded and content analyzed. The participants were interviewed at two points: immediately after mediation and 4 to 8 months later. No relationship was found between the quality of the agreements—i.e., the extent to which they solved immediate problems- and long-term success as measured by compliance, improved relations between the parties, and the absence of new problems. On the other hand, joint problem solving by the disputants was related to complainant perceptions of improved relations with the other party. Also respondent perceptions that the mediation had been fair and that all the problems had come out were related to all aspects of long-term success in the eyes of the complainant. The latter results support a procedural justice analysis of mediation and underline the importance of mediator attention to the respondent.     

Juvenile justice reform and the courtroom workgroup: Issues of perception and workload

Criminal justice policies may be enacted, but the actual implementation of those policies depends upon those working on the frontline. Policies that affect how cases are processed in the courtroom can be thwarted by the efforts of courtroom workgroup members. The present study analyzed how courtroom workgroups adjusted to a new juvenile justice policy. Qualitative interviews demonstrated that while there was widespread agreement on the basic tenets of the reform, perceptions of the reform varied by confidence in workgroup membership. Further, the reform inherently increased the workload for some and decreased the workload for others. Those whose workload increased discussed subverting the reform effort in order to continue with business as usual. These findings demonstrated that effective policies must consider the needs of workgroups as adaptation of policies in actual practice depend upon workgroup members' support.     

Governance without a state: Can it work?

In this article we explore how much state is necessary to make governance work. We begin by clarifying concepts of governance and the “shadow of hierarchy” and we follow this clarification with a brief overview of empirical findings on governance research in developed countries. We then discuss the dilemmas for governance in areas of limited statehood, where political institutions are too weak to hierarchically adopt and enforce collectively binding rules. While prospects for effective policymaking appear to be rather bleak in these areas, we argue that governance research has consistently overlooked the existence of functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy. We assert that governance with(out) government can work even in the absence of a strong shadow of hierarchy, we identify functional equivalents to the shadow of hierarchy, and we discuss to what extent they can help overcome issues of legitimacy and effectiveness in areas of limited statehood.     

Comparison of fingernail striation patterns in identical twins.

The fingernail ridge patterns of a pair of identical twins were compared to each other, their parents, and an unrelated subject. The patterns of the twins' nails showed regions of strong similarity but were distinguishable from one another. Fewer similarities were found when comparing the nails to those of the parents and the unrelated control. The twins were shown to be monozygotic by means of DNA profiling. This therefore represents the first demonstration of unique fingernail ridge patterns in subjects shown conclusively to be identical twins. When the fingernail ridge patterns were examined with a scanning electron microscope, the backscattered electron (BEI) images were found to have superior contrast when compared to the secondary electron (SEI) images.     

Reentry and Removal: Implications for Juvenile Confinement Facilities

An important national initiative in juvenile justice is Juvenile Offender Reentry (JOR). The renewed emphasis on offender reintegration has generated significant attention to juvenile justice practices, with the notable exception of juvenile confinement facilities. Juvenile detention and, to a lesser degree, juvenile corrections practitioners are involved but not invested in reentry, having made very few programmatic changes to accommodate JOR initiatives largely because these initiatives have been external to the institution and its staff. Yet, reentry is a powerful concept for juvenile facility practitioners, and the application of reentry principles could have a profound impact on daily operations. This article addresses a range of issues about investing juvenile institutions in reentry practices. Several reentry models are discussed along with their implications for daily operations and programs.