Deconstructing “Force and Fraud”: An Empirical Assessment of the Generality of Crime

Gottfredson and Hirschi (A General Theory of Crime, Stanford University Press, Stanford, CA, 1990) have proposed a general theory of crime to explain a set of behaviors they refer to as acts of force and fraud. Central to their theory is the claim that force and fraud are both manifestations of the individual's unrestrained pursuit of short-term gratification. At the same time, research from numerous disciplines suggests that the correlates of violence differ somewhat from those of property crime. The present study therefore uses data from the National Youth Survey to explore whether force and fraud can legitimately be viewed as manifestations of a single underlying construct among American adolescents. Overall, findings from confirmatory factor analyses suggest that they cannot. Rather, they suggest that multi-factor models of force and fraud improve significantly upon the fit of single-factor models and that force and fraud may therefore reflect overlapping, but empirically distinct, constructs.     

The New Zealand Model of Family Group Conferencing

The Family Group Conference (FGC) originated in New Zealand where it is the foundation stone of the Youth Justice system introduced in 1989. A significant feature of that system is the way in which it enables restorative justice principles to be implemented in an integrated manner in a statutory framework supervised by the courts and applicable to all young offenders throughout New Zealand. FGCs are used both as a diversionary technique (pre-adjudication) and at a (post-adjudication) pre-sentencing stage. In addition this type of model is now being applied in a voluntary way but on a small scale with adults. A significant feature of the FGC model is its greater use of community-based solutions with a consequent reduction in the number of young persons in state institutions.     

Changing views of jury power

This article highlights the major events and empirical research in the continuing debate over the power and competence of the jury in civil and criminal trials. The concept ofjury nullification, the power of the jury to return a verdict based upon their moral conscience despite the evidence and the law, is used as a convenient filter to discuss the legal and behavioral assumptions about jury power and performance. The legal, historical, and even behavioral contexts reflect a bipolar theme in the level of trust Americans have exhibited towards the jury system. One pole reflects the notion that juries lack predictability and rationality in their verdicts and are moved by emotional concerns. Antipodally, juries have been thought to reflect an historical competence at applying common sense notions of equity and rationality to conflicted and ambiguous cases. This article traces the history of these two views of jury power and competence. A critical review of the empirical research that may inform the debate about the jury's competence in both criminal and civil arenas is provided.     

Why Medical Child Support is Important—and Complex

Courts resolving child support cases involving separated, divorced, and non‐marital children are charged with defining responsibility for health care coverage for the children under that order. This article explores historical and current medical child support requirements under Title IV‐D of the Social Security Act—the national child support enforcement (“IV‐D”) program. It analyzes legal requirements and policy recommendations, and provides a practical tool judges may use to determine whether health care coverage available to either or both parents is appropriate—that is, comprehensive, accessible, and affordable.     

A Judicial‐Mental Health Partnership to Heal Young Children in Juvenile Court

In this article, we describe the background and issues to be addressed related to dependent children in juvenile court. In an important effort to systematically examine developmental functioning and treatment needs in maltreated and violence‐exposed young children, the Prevention and Evaluation of Early Neglect and Trauma (PREVENT) initiative of the Dependency Court Intervention Program for Family Violence, a national demonstration project in the Miami‐Dade Juvenile Court, developed a program to evaluate all infants, toddlers, and preschoolers who are adjudicated dependent by the court. The goal of the intervention is to raise awareness of the needs of infants and toddlers in juvenile court and to work toward healing the child. The PREVENT program involved the evolution of a judicial‐mental health partnership designed to assist the court in making more informed decisions about the best interest of the child by adding scientific knowledge about development, prevention, intervention, evaluation, and treatment. The outcome of the partnership and multidisciplinary approach is illustrated through presenting a case vignette of a mother and baby showing the challenges and strengths of intervention. Finally, we consider overall outcomes of the intervention and directions for the future.     

Effects of notetaking on verdicts and evidence processing in a civil trial

Examined the effect of notetaking on juror decision making and cognitive processing of evidence in a complex tort trial. Jury eligible participants either took notes during the trial and had access to those notes during decision making, took notes without access, or did not take notes. Those who took notes during the trial performed more competently than did nonnotetakers. Notetakers made correct distinctions in assigning liability and compensatory awards among four differentially worthy plaintiffs and recalled significantly more probative evidence than nonnotetakers. The almost identical performance of the notes-access group and the notes without access group suggests that notetaking had its impact at the encoding stage rather than at retrieval. We discuss possible motivational differences that may account for the results and constraints on generalizing the findings.This research was supported by National Science Foundation under grant No. SBR 9311922 awarded to Irwin A. Horowitz.