“I'll Make Them Shoot Me”: Accounts of Death Row Prisoners Advocating for Execution

About 11% of death‐sentenced prisoners executed in the United States hastened executions by abandoning their appeals. How do these prisoners persuade courts to allow them to abandon their appeals? Further, how do legal structures and processes organize these explanations, and what do they conceal? An analysis of Texas cases suggests that prisoners marshal explanations for their desires to hasten execution that echo prevailing cultural beliefs about punishment and the death penalty. The coherence of these accounts is amplified by a non‐adversarial, unreliable legal process. This article contributes to our understanding of legal narratives, and expands their analysis to include not only hegemonic stories and legal rules, but also the legal process that generates them.     

The Hispanic Experience of the Child Welfare System

As the Hispanic population grows in the United States and the child welfare system, it is necessary to examine how experiences of Hispanic families differ from those of White/Caucasian families and to assess whether Hispanic families’ needs are properly addressed. This literature review will examine research on the outcomes and experiences of Hispanic families in the child welfare system and how case characteristics interact with the experiences of Hispanic families. This article will then explore theories for Hispanic families’ different experiences and conclude by recommending future directions and solutions for improving the experiences of Hispanic families in the child welfare system.     

Attitudes of people with disabilities toward physician-assisted suicide legislation: broadening the dialogue

This article presents the methods, findings, and implications of a participatory action research project that attempted to shed additional light on the debate over death with dignity (DWD) or physician-assisted suicide (PAS) legislation. In-depth, qualitative interviews with forty-five physically disabled residents of the San Francisco Bay Area, conducted by others with disabilities, revealed a wide breadth of opinions about and attitudes toward such legislation. For close to half of the participants, the desire for autonomy in making end-of-life decisions was a primary concern, yet fear that PAS legislation could violate this autonomy in various ways was a deep concern as well. Also reported were widespread accounts of disability-based discrimination and frequent expressions of fear about openly discussing positions that diverge from the official, publicly held opinions of disability leaders who oppose such legislation. The findings support those of a recent Harris poll demonstrating considerable diversity of opinion about PAS legislation among people with disabilities. The findings further suggest the need for additional research on the apparent disjunction between the diversity of attitudes held by those interviewed and the more unified position taken by many disability activists. Use of the study findings to promote greater dialogue within the community and to better position people with disabilities to take their place at the policy table also is discussed. In addition, the findings are seen as reinforcing the need for the public health community to become more engaged in this central ethical debate.     

Participatory Governance into the Future: Roles of the Government and Community Sectors

A paradigm shift is occurring in the way in which the government, business and community sectors relate to each other, challenging each to redefine their respective roles and responsibilities. This paper explores those changing relationships, focussing on how the community sector in particular may move beyond delivering services to be given a greater voice in the government's policy development process. Overseas, especially Canadian experience is drawn upon to suggest a possible participatory framework for progressing collaborative arrangements. Challenges the sectors need to confront are discussed before possible future roles and responsibilities are suggested.     

Creating Stable Agreements in Marine Policy: Learning from the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative

In this article, we examine the California South Coast Marine Life Protection Act Initiative stakeholder process, evaluate its shortcomings, and consider what could have been done differently. Our objective is to make recommendations to improve future multi‐stakeholder marine policy processes. In our view, while the South Coast stakeholder process had many positive outcomes, it failed to reach what we call here a “stable agreement.” Our analysis is based on two of the authors’ involvement (one as a facilitator and the other as a stakeholder representative) in the process and a post‐hoc survey of participants. We find that several ill‐advised process design and management choices significantly destabilized the negotiations, leading to an ultimately unstable agreement. We highlight four major problematic process design and management decisions, including the following: representation on the multi‐stakeholder group was imbalanced, the pre‐meeting caucuses were not paired with training in interest‐based negotiation, adequate incentives to negotiate toward a consensus agreement were not provided, and the use of straw voting at one point in the process was unclear and inconsistent. As a result of these and other process design and management flaws, many stakeholders believed that the process was biased and that their ends would be better achieved by anchoring negotiations and engaging in positional bargaining. Ultimately, this meant that near‐consensus on a single cross‐interest marine protected area proposal was not reached, the scientific guidelines put forth were not fully met, the process was not and is not viewed as fair by the stakeholders directly or indirectly involved, and the marine protected area regulations lack broad‐scale support. These pitfalls of the South Coast stakeholder process could have been avoided had the management and facilitation team consistently followed best practices in dispute resolution. We recommend that future marine planning processes learn from this example, particularly those occurring in highly complex, urban ocean environments.     

Public charge,legal estrangement,and renegotiating situational trust in the US healthcare safety net

US immigration law increasingly excludes many immigrants materially and symbolically from vital safety-net resources. Existing scholarship has emphasized the public charge rule as a key mechanism for enacting these exclusionary trends, but less is known about how recent public charge uncertainty has shaped how noncitizens and healthcare workers negotiate safety-net resources. Drawing on ethnographic observations and interviews with 80 safety-net workers and patients in three US states from 2015 to 2020, I argue that intensifying anti-immigrant rhetoric surrounding public charge has extended a sense of surveillance into clinical spaces in previously unexamined ways. Drawing on theories of medical legal violence, system avoidance, and legal estrangement, I demonstrate how these dynamics undermined immigrants' health chances and compromised clinic workers' efforts to facilitate care. I also reveal how participants responded to this insinuation of legal violence in healthcare spaces by promoting situational trust in specific procedures and institutions.