What's Gender Got to Do with It? Incivility in the Federal Courts

The current study examines experiences of interpersonal mistreatment in federal litigation among a random sample of 4,608 practicing attorneys. Using both quantitative and qualitative survey data, we documented the nature and interplay of general incivility, gender-related incivility, and unwanted sexual attention. Nearly 75% of female attorneys had experienced some form of this misconduct in the previous five years, compared to half of male attorneys. An in-depth examination of instigators revealed that not only fellow attorneys but also federal judges, court personnel, marshals, and court security officers instigated the inappropriate behavior. We further found that most attorneys responded to this mistreatment with avoidance and denial; few used or trusted existing reporting mechanisms. The current study surpassed simple prevalence estimates to document effects of interpersonal mistreatment on the professional well-being of targeted attorneys. We discuss implications of these results, drawing on theories of social dominance, sex-role spillover, cognitive stress, organizations, and intervention.     

The effects of treatment exposure on prison misconduct for female prisoners with substance use,mental health,and co-occurring disorders

Inmates with mental health and co-occurring mental health and substance use disorders present difficult challenges for correctional institutions and treatment providers. The complex nature of co-occurring disorders further exacerbates these difficulties and is associated with poor treatment compliance and increased likelihood of engaging in institutional misconduct. The current study examines whether exposure to prison-based treatment reduces involvement in prison misconduct among a sample of female prison inmates controlling for disorder types (i.e. mental health disorder only, substance use disorder only, and co-occurring mental and substance use disorders). Findings revealed that with exposure of more than 181?days of treatment, the odds of misconduct involvement among females with co-occurring disorders more than doubled compared to receiving no treatment. This finding is at odds with treatment retention literature that suggests that a minimum period of time in treatment is needed to affect post-treatment success. Possible explanations for these findings and policy implications are discussed.     

A face in the crowd: The influences of familiarity and delay on preschoolers’ recognition

Abstract

Preschoolers’ abilities to recognize former caregivers were examined. Participants were 35 children from three preschool classes. Caregivers volunteered in the classes over a 7-week period. At an initial assessment, children were asked to select former caregivers from a line-up of five photographs, and to rank-order the caregivers by personal preference. Recognition was assessed again after 3 months. Although older toddlers performed at chance levels, clear age-related increases in recognition performance were observed, with older preschoolers recognizing 86% of the volunteers at time 2. Younger children responded less consistently over time than older children. Preference for individual caregivers affected recognition performance among younger, but not older, preschoolers. Implications for children's eyewitness testimony are considered.     

Provocateurs

When a provocateur intentionally provokes a deadly affray, the law of self-defense holds that the provocateur may not use deadly force to defend himself. Why is this so? Provocateurs are often seen as just one example of the problem of actio libera in causa, the causing of the conditions of one’s defense. This article rejects theories that maintain a one-size-fits-all approach to actio libera in causa, and argues that provocateurs need specific rules about why they forfeit their defensive rights. This article further claims that provocateurs need to be distinguished from their cousins, initial aggressors, as initial aggressors engage in conduct that grounds the permissibility of the defender’s behavior whereas the provocateur’s behavior does not justify the respondent’s use of force against him. In addition, this article rejects that the basis of this forfeiture can be found in the doctrines surrounding when and why mitigation for provocation is appropriate for the respondent. Provocateurs forfeit their defensive rights for the very simple reason that they start the fight. This forfeiture occurs when they behave culpably, meaning that they subjectively appreciate that they are running the risk of causing force to be used against them and they engage in this behavior without justification or excuse. The question of when the provocateur’s behavior is justified is incredibly complex. It requires analysis of when it is that one is justified in increasing the risk of another’s wrongdoing. Any analysis of this justification must take seriously the liberty rights of the potential provocateur to engage in otherwise permissible behavior. Moreover, the determination of whether the provocateur is justified will turn on whether the later acts that he puts into motion are themselves justified. Thus, when Charles Bronson in the movie Death Wish presents himself as a victim so that muggers will attack him, the justifiability of his conduct in appearing as a vulnerable victim will turn on whether he is entitled to engage in this conduct, intending to later defend himself. This article argues that in Death Wish-type cases, the reason that the provocateur is not justified is because he becomes a vigilante, thereby usurping the role of the state and undermining rule of law values.