An Objective Measure of Splitting in Parental Alienation: The Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire

Both clinicians and forensic practitioners should distinguish parental alienation (rejection of a parent without legitimate justification) from other reasons for contact refusal. Alienated children—who were not abused—often engage in splitting and lack ambivalence with respect to the rejected parent; children who were maltreated usually perceive the abusive parent in an ambivalent manner. The purpose of this study was to assess the usefulness of the Parental Acceptance–Rejection Questionnaire (PARQ) in identifying and quantifying the degree of splitting, which may assist in diagnosing parental alienation. Results showed that severely alienated children engaged in a high level of splitting, by perceiving the preferred parent in extremely positive terms and the rejected parent in extremely negative terms. Splitting was not manifested by the children in other family groups. The PARQ may be useful for both clinicians and forensic practitioners in evaluating children of divorced parents when there is a concern about the possible diagnosis of parental alienation.     

Parental Postconflict Explanations: Implications for Children's Adjustment Outcomes

The Post Conflict Explanations (PCE) scale is a compilation of behaviors commonly seen in parent‐child postconflict communications. Following exploratory factor analysis, the PCE emerged as a four‐dimension scale with adequate subscale internal consistency and intercorrelations: Dismissive (α = 0.86), Emotion Dysregulation (α = 0.85), Constructive (α = 0.97), and Blaming (α = 0.77). The PCE and its subscales were further validated through moderate‐to‐strong associations with established scales of family conflict, emotional security, and adjustment outcomes. The identification of these postconflict explanations represents a step forward in distinguishing constructive and destructive conflict behaviors.     

Responding to Terrorism? Human Rights Organization Shaming and Terrorist Attacks

Why do Human Rights Organizations (HROs) target or “shame” countries for human rights abuses? The literature using country-level factors to explain why one country is likely to be targeted over another is growing but many questions still remain. Terrorist activity in a country should have a positive effect on the amount of shaming directed at a country. HROs are in the publicity business and have organizational interests to shame states already receiving attention. Findings show that there is a connection between certain types of transnational terrorist incidents occur in a country and the amount of HRO shaming of governments, even after accounting for the human rights practices within the state.     

What is Restorative Justice? Fresh Answers to a Vexed Question

Abstract

It has become commonplace to say that restorative justice cannot be defined. I argue that restorative justice can and must be defined concretely as a justice mechanism. I develop this argument with four points: (1) restorative justice is not a type of justice, it is a justice mechanism; (2) retributive justice is not a type of justice or a justice mechanism; (3) restorative justice is one of many justice mechanisms under an innovative justice umbrella; and (4) restorative justice can be defined. The way forward is to assess and compare a variety of justice mechanisms, which reside on a continuum from conventional to innovative. In time, the justice mechanisms studied may come to matter more than the concept of restorative justice.     

The juvenile death penalty and the Eighth Amendment

The present study investigated the Eighth Amendment tests of societal consensus and proportionality as applied to juvenile death penalties. A sample of former jurors (N=179) voted on whether to execute the defendant in a hypothetical case. Defendant's age (10, 15, 16, or 19) and level of remorse were varied. A large percentage of participants voted to execute the defendant in each condition, but the defendant's age and the participant's attitude toward juvenile culpability significantly predicted the likelihood of execution. Implications for the constitutionality of the juvenile death penalty and future research directions are discussed.