The effect of child support on welfare exits and re‐entries

Much of the literature on welfare dynamics has focused on the effects of recipient characteristics and state‐level characteristics such as welfare benefits and economic conditions; there has been very little analysis on the effects of child support. This paper, using the 1979‐1996 National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, examines whether child support affects the likelihood of leaving and re‐entering welfare. The results indicate that strong child support enforcement is important in helping young mothers exit and stay off welfare. Women with $1000 child support payments in the previous year were 18 percent more likely to exit welfare and 12 percent less likely to re‐enter welfare. Compared with women in states that pursued child support least vigorously, women in states that had passed extensive child support enforcement legislation and that spent more money on child support enforcement were 79 percent more likely to exit welfare and about 60 percent less likely to re‐enter welfare. © 2002 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.     

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.     

Population genetic studies: is there an emerging legal obligation to share benefits?

It appears that large-scale population genetic studies are the necessary next step in genomics research. Such studies promise to provide correlative data to permit researchers to understand the etiology of a vast array of complex human diseases. Simultaneously, such studies are increasingly seen as yet another mechanism for the developed world to benefit at the expense of the developing world. In fact, a recent World Health Organization Report suggests that "without explicit attention at the international level, the initial technological fruits of genomics are likely to consist primarily of therapeutic and diagnostic applications for conditions affecting large populations in rich countries." (World Health Organization, Genomics and World Health, 2002). In developed and developing countries alike, there are concerns that the pharmaceutical industry stands to gain at the expense of the population(s) from which population genetic data are derived. In light of the current interest concerning ongoing population genetic studies and an increasing interest by many countries, Canada included, in embarking on large-scale population genetic research, it is appropriate to consider the concept of benefit-sharing as a potential mechanism to assuage these concerns. It is the author's position that by virtue of common law equitable principles and developing norms in international law, including the Human Genome Organization Statement on Benefit-Sharing, that there are principled legal and ethical reasons to compel the sharing of benefits that accrue from the commercialization of the resulting data. Using the United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity and the Bonn Guidelines as a model, I suggest that appropriate benefit-sharing mechanisms have been considered in the context of non-human biological materials and that these same mechanisms may be applicable in the context of international and intra-national population genetic studies.     

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.     

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.     

Campbell Collaboration systematic reviews and the Journal of Experimental Criminology: Reflections on the last 20 years

Journal of Experimental Criminology -