CJDATS CO-OCCURRING DISORDERS SCREENING INSTRUMENT (CODSI) FOR MENTAL DISORDERS (MD): A Validation Study

Three standardized screening instruments-the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs Short Screener (GSS), the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview-Modified (MINI-M), and the Mental Health Screening Form (MHSF)-were compared to two shorter instruments, the 6-item Co-Occurring Disorders Screening Instrument for Mental Disorders (CODSI-MD) and the 3-item CODSI for Severe Mental Disorders (CODSI-SMD) for use with offenders in prison substance-abuse treatment programs. Results showed that the CODSI screening instruments were comparable to the longer instruments in overall accuracy and that all of the instruments performed reasonably well. The CODSI instruments showed sufficient value to justify their use in prison substance-abuse treatment programs and to warrant validation testing in other criminal justice populations and settings.     

HUNTER‐GATHERER COLLABORATIVE PRACTICE

This article describes the development of a practice group based on a hunter‐gatherer model, with the mission of providing high quality collaborative divorce services, with an emphasis on protecting children and divorcing partners, and expanding access to middle‐ and lower‐income families. The practice group professional disciplines include law, mental health divorce coaching, co‐parent coaching, financial analysis, and case administration. These professionals have collectively associated their individual practices to address challenges facing their collaborative practices. With common purpose, the practice group builds skills, generates client base, nurtures trust, and lays a common knowledge base. Collaborative divorce teams formed from its members serve divorcing families with efficient, cost‐conscious, interest‐based negotiation processes that protect children and help parties productively move on with their lives.     

Emotional Substrates of White Racial Attitudes

A steep decline in biologically based racial animus over the past four decades has not led to a softening of opposition to race‐conscious policies such as affirmative action. One explanation for this is that a new racial belief system—referred to as symbolic racism or racial resentment—has replaced “old‐fashioned racism.” Another is that nonracial values such as ideology and a preference for small government now drive policy opinions. Our theory suggests that whereas disgust once accompanied ideas about “biologically inferior” groups, anger has become fused to conservative ideas about race in the contemporary period. As a result, anger now serves as the primary emotional trigger of whites’ negative racial attitudes. We experimentally induce disgust, anger, or fear using an apolitical task and find anger is uniquely powerful at boosting opposition to racially redistributive policies among white racial conservatives. Nonracial attitudes such as ideology and small government preference are not activated by any of these negative emotions.     

State Constitutions, Freedom of Expression, and Search and Seizure: Prospects for State Court Reincarnation

This article examines the decisions of ten state high courtsin the areas of access to private property for expressive purposesand exclusion of the fruits of illegal searches and seizures.The analysis centers on two questions. First, are some statesrelying on their own constitutions to resolve individual rightsissues while other continue to follow the United States SupremeCourts interpretation of the federal Constitution? Second, havethe states that do rely on their own constitutions to resolveindividual rights issues developed an independently based stateconstitutional jurisprudence, or have they simply attemptedto circumvent decisions of the Burger Court? The authors findlittle evidence that the state high courts examined here havebegun, as yet, to develop an independent approach to state constitutionalanalysis.     

Expertise,Experience, and Ideology on Specialized Courts: The Case of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

What roles do prior expertise and accumulated experience play in shaping ideologically consistent voting on a specialized court? Using a dataset of obviousness patent cases from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit spanning 1997–2007, we show that prior expertise enhances the influence of ideology on judicial decisionmaking, but that accumulated experience does not. In addition, we build on previous work and show that ideology is a factor in decisionmaking in technical areas of law, contrary to the received wisdom on patent cases.