GENDER AND SOUTHERN PUNISHMENT AFTER THE CIVIL WAR*

Recent scholarship raises two questions about the historical relationship between gender and official responses to criminality. First, to what extent has the formal social control of women changed in the past two centuries? Second, to what extent can changes in the presence of women within the criminal justice system be traced to the same factors that account for the changing presence of men? To address these questions, I focus on women incarcerated for felonies in a southern state (Georgia) between 1870 and 1940. Along with a comparable sample of male offenders, this population forms the basis of a time-series analysis that compares, and seeks to account for, trends in admission rates. The analysis yields little evidence that women disappeared from formal system of punishment. Instead, there were gender similarities in punishment trends and in explanations for those trends. Concluding the paper is a discussion of its implications for further research on gender differences in punishment.     

Forensic neuropsychology and the criminal law

This article explores theoretical and empirical issues in the application of clinical neuropsychological evidence to forensic issues in the criminal law. The nature of forensic neuropsychological evaluations is discussed with reference to issues of competency to stand trial, criminal responsibility, and other competencies in the criminal process. Examples of specific disorders relevant to criminal law standards are presented, together with data estimating the prevalence of brain dysfunction in criminal and forensic populations. Research is also reviewed on the role of neuropsychological brain dysfunction in the etiology of violence and criminally relevant behavior. Finally, empirical and ethical issues concerning the applicability and admissibility of forensic neuropsychological data in the criminal context are discussed.     

Regulatory Risk Management of Psychoactive Substances

Congress and the Drug Enforcement Administration have assigned certain psychoactive substances to one of five schedules, based on assumed or demonstrated abuse potential. Although formidable difficulties exist in assessing the hazards of drug use, some of these assignments do not appear consistent with empirical estimates. This mismatch of assignment and abuse potential -possibly due to "radical" political ideology - obscures significant differences in drug effects, and therefore stifles meaningful public participation in evaluating the benefits, risks, and proper use (if any) of available psychoactive substances.