A Pre-Trial Domestic Violence Intensive Supervision Unit: Exploring Case Seriousness and Successful Disposition

This study measures the seriousness of domestic violence cases from the population of cases (N = 96) sentenced to a pre-trial domestic violence intensive supervision unit in one county probation office in Florida from April 1, 2006, to April 30, 2007. No significant differences were found in seriousness across sex, self-reported drug use, or attorney type. Furthermore, no relationship was found between the number of special conditions imposed by the court and the seriousness index value for a case. However, non-Whites had a significantly higher mean case seriousness index than Whites. Findings suggest that using the seriousness index presented in this study, some of the cases examined were not serious enough to warrant being sentenced to the pre-trial domestic violence intensive supervision unit. Implications for future research, including the use of lethality assessments, are addressed.     

Etiological Similarities Between Psychological and Physical Aggression in Intimate Relationships: A Behavioral Genetic Exploration

Previous research has consistently shown that there is a strong association between psychological and physical aggression in intimate relationships. Theories as to why this association exists include that they have a single underlying etiology with differing thresholds, or they have separate etiologies and there is a two-step process by which psychological aggression moves to physical. The current study suggests that these two theories are not necessarily competing theories. The genetic and environmental covariance between psychological and physical intimate partner aggression were examined in 134 monozygotic (MZ) and 41 dizygotic (DZ) twin pairs. Results showed that psychological and physical aggression have largely the same genetic etiology, and any differences between the two are a function of differing nonshared environmental influences.     

CONFLICTING ROLES IN CHILD CUSTODY MEDIATION

This article will first discuss the conflict in the mediator's role as a neutral and impartial third party with no interest in the outcome and his or her role as guardian or advocate for the best interests of the child. That discussion will define terms, consider the legal standard for the best interests of the child as it is used by the courts, and lay out how the legal standard is problematic in general but even more so for mediators. Part 3 will discuss options for mediators attempting to resolve this conflict by looking at a continuum of alternatives, using examples of opening statements that illustrate positions ranging from extreme nonintervention to complete inte mention. An assessment follows each example.     

The Role of Suggestibility in Determinations of Miranda Abilities: A Study of the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales

Traditionally, high levels of suggestibility have been widely assumed to be linked with diminished Miranda abilities, especially in relationship to the voluntariness of waivers. The current investigation examined suggestibility on the Gudjonsson Suggestibility Scales in a multisite study of pretrial defendants. One important finding was the inapplicability of British norms to American jurisdictions. Moreover, suggestibility appeared unrelated to Miranda comprehension, reasoning, and detainees’ perceptions of police coercion. In testing rival hypotheses, defendants with high compliance had significantly lower Miranda comprehension and ability to reason about exercising Miranda rights than their counterparts with low compliance. Implications of these findings to forensic practice are examined.     

How to Think (Like a Lawyer) About Rape

From the American Law Institute to college campuses, there is a renewed interest in the law of rape. Law school faculty, however, may be reluctant to teach this deeply debated topic. This article begins from the premise that controversial and contested questions can be best resolved when participants understand the conceptual architecture that surrounds and delineates the normative questions. This allows participants to talk to one another instead of past each other. Accordingly, in this article, we begin by diffusing two non-debates: the apparent conflict created when speakers use “consent” to mean two different things and the question of whether rape law ought to be formulated in terms of consent or force. From here, we turn to the conceptual apparatuses that surround the normative questions of freedom from force, knowledge, and capacity. Here, we suggest how better understanding these concepts can frame the underlying discussions as to what sorts of coercion undermine consent, what kinds of deception invalidate consent, and when the victim is too incapacitated to consent. Finally, we turn to different formulations of consent, demonstrating that one conception better captures the harm of rape but that other formulations may better protect victims. We show how clarifying these questions allows discussants to see why different formulations are valuable and to debate the best all-things-considered formulation. Although this article is framed as a question of how (to teach students) to think like lawyers about rape, its ambition is to set forth a framework that is useful to reformers as well.     

Testing a measure of organizational learning capacity and readiness for transformational change in human services

Transformative organizational change requires organizational learning capacity, which we define in terms of (1) internal and (2) external organizational systems alignment, and promoting a culture of learning, including (3) an emphasis on exploration and information, (4) open communication, (5) staff empowerment, and (6) support for professional development. We shortened and adapted Watkins and Marsick's Dimensions of Learning Organizations Questionnaire into a new 16-item Organizational Learning Capacity Scale (OLCS) geared more toward nonprofit organizations. The OLCS and its subscales measuring each of the above 6 dimensions are unusually reliable for their brevity. ANOVAs for the OLCS and subscales clearly and consistently confirmed extensive participant observations and other qualitative data from four nonprofit human service organizations and one local human service funding organization.     

Probing the Depths of the Responsible Corporate Officer’s Duty

Many criminal law scholars have criticized the responsible corporate officer doctrine as a form of strict and vicarious liability. It is neither. It is merely a doctrine that supplies a duty in instances of omissions. Siding with Todd Aagaard in this debate, I argue that a proper reading of the cases yields that the responsible corporate officer doctrine is just duty supplying, and does not allow for strict liability when the underlying statute requires mens rea. After analyzing Dotterweich, Park, and their progeny, I probe the depths of this duty-supplying doctrine, including to whom the duty is owed, whether the duty is grounded in statute, cause of peril, or contract, and what the content of the duty is. Although the responsible corporate officer doctrine unveils questions we may have about duty generally, it is no more problematic than other duty-supplying doctrines in the criminal law.     

Beliefs about secondary confession evidence: a survey of laypeople and defense attorneys

We surveyed students, community members, and defense attorneys regarding beliefs about secondary confession evidence (i.e. when a third party tells authorities that a person has confessed to him or her) from jailhouse informants and other sources. Results indicated that laypeople perceive secondary confessions as less credible than other types of evidence (e.g. forensics, DNA, eyewitness testimony), and they are knowledgeable about factors that may influence the veracity of secondary confessions, such as incentives or previous testimony. However, they underestimated or were uncertain about how persuasive secondary confessions would be to themselves or other jurors. Compared to laypeople, defense attorneys were more sensitive about issues affecting the reliability of secondary confessions.     

A critical review of published competency-to-confess measures

The development of standardized assessments for competency-to-confess evaluations has remained largely neglected for the last several decades. Groundbreaking research was conducted on Miranda waivers during the late 1970s, but researchers have failed to sustain programmatic research. This critical review focuses on four published Miranda measures (Comprehension of Miranda Rights, Comprehension of Miranda Rights-Recognition, Comprehension of Miranda Vocabulary, and Function of Rights in Interrogation). When evaluated by contemporary standards, the validation of these measures is very limited. Major improvements are needed for interrater reliability, test-retest reliability, content validity, construct validity, and criterion-related validity.     

Conservative Perspectives on American Federalism: Introduction

Conservatives were regularly criticized by liberals and othersfor their approach to federalism throughout the twentieth century.This trend began during the Progressive era, when the justicesof the "Lochner Court" were vilified for using national judicialpower to strike down local regulations. Several decades later,conservative opposition to New Deal programs was seen as insensitiveand elitist. Arguments for constitutional limitations on executivepower in the 1930s were attributed to the greed of businessmenand corporations. During the 1950s and 1960s, the conservativedefense of states' rights was explained by other unpleasantmotivations. Opposition to national civil rights laws was, formany, analogous to fondness for Jim Crow and other forms ofracial subjugation. Since the 1980s, conservative members ofthe Rehnquist Court have been denounced from various quartersfor their federalist perspectives. According to the Court'scritics, specious arguments about state sovereignty have beenused to rescind national rights and benefits.