Privacy as Autonomy vs. Privacy as Familial Attachment: A Conceptual Approach to Right to Privacy Cases

This article explains why the Supreme Court's privacy jurisprudence has become deeply problematic for addressing emerging reproductive and sexual choice issues, focusing on abortion funding, minors seeking abortions, adults engaging in consenting homosexual sex, and pregnant women accused of abusing their fetuses. The article makes two arguments. First, it contends that what is private about the rights asserted in cases like Eisenstadt v. Baird and Roe v. Wade has never been fully articulated nor defended, leaving these central decisions conceptually unpersuasive. Second, the article shows that "privacy" is used in two very different senses in Supreme Court constitutional right-to-privacy decisions: one rooted in respect for marriage and the family, the other in notions of personal autonomy. Although both senses deserve to be protected, the court has tended to prefer the familial sense of privacy to the autonomy one, with serious consequences for privacy concerns that are not connected to family relationships or that are perceived as undercutting "family values."     

Trepidation among the “keepers”: Gendered Perceptions of Fear and Risk of Victimization among Corrections Officers

Determining the attitudes of correctional officers relative to their level of fear and risk of victimization is important to investigate due to the relationship of the conditions of confinement and the care and custody of offenders. Furthermore, consideration of such attitudes by gender may uncover differences because of the unique obstacles female corrections officers face. This study examines the level of fear and risk of both inmate and staff related victimization by gender through administering a survey to all corrections officers employed in the adult prisons within one-state. The overall analysis indicated some level of apprehension among officers regarding their fear and risk of victimization for inmate-precipitated victimization more than staff-to-staff victimization. Female officers were also more likely to demonstrate a higher level of perceived fear and risk of inmate-precipitated and staff-precipitated victimization. In addition, race and security level were shown to be significant as predictors of both fear and perceived risk of victimization among officers.     

‘She Said,He Said’: Credibility and sexual harassment cases in Australia

Feminist research and theory show how substance and process of law are substantially affected by its patriarchal context. Accordingly, a number of Australian studies have identified how gendered myths and other factors impact on the assessment of victim credibility in sexual assault hearings. In this article we look at sexual harassment cases in Australia lodged under the Commonwealth Sex Discrimination Act (SDA) between 2000 and 2006 and the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Discrimination Act from 2001 to 2005 to see if similar variables to those in rape cases play a role in the perception of witness believability. We find that credibility is more likely to correlate with being Anglo, very young, a rational (masculine) demeanor/presentation in giving evidence, corroborative witnesses and legal representation. In addition, respondents' counsel in federal harassment hearings or respondents themselves in correspondence to the ACT Commissioner, just as defence barristers in rape trials, attempt to make the victim appear as an incredible witness through highlighting evidentiary inconsistencies and/or delayed reporting. Also evidence about sexual history or behavior that evokes an image of provocation may be adduced. We identify a varied response to these myths and to measurement of credibility by the individual ‘gatekeepers’ — the Federal Magistrates, judges and the ACT Discrimination Commissioner.