Reentry and Removal: Implications for Juvenile Confinement Facilities

An important national initiative in juvenile justice is Juvenile Offender Reentry (JOR). The renewed emphasis on offender reintegration has generated significant attention to juvenile justice practices, with the notable exception of juvenile confinement facilities. Juvenile detention and, to a lesser degree, juvenile corrections practitioners are involved but not invested in reentry, having made very few programmatic changes to accommodate JOR initiatives largely because these initiatives have been external to the institution and its staff. Yet, reentry is a powerful concept for juvenile facility practitioners, and the application of reentry principles could have a profound impact on daily operations. This article addresses a range of issues about investing juvenile institutions in reentry practices. Several reentry models are discussed along with their implications for daily operations and programs.     

Forensic psychiatry and malpractice

This paper concerning the last 87 malpractice cases referred to the Department of Psychiatry and Law, Menninger Clinic, includes 57 suits against mental health practitioners and/or institutions, and 30 nonpsychiatric suits against general hospitals, surgeons, obstetricians, etc. A patient was available for interview in only 12 percent of the psychiatric cases; in 88 percent we reviewed medical records and consulted with attorneys. In the psychiatric cases the crucial question was whether a generally accepted standard of care was breached. The inherent problems of applying appropriate criteria to standards of care by practitioners and institutions are discussed. In half the psychiatric cases we found no significant deviation from acceptable clinical performance; in half we concluded that negligent practice had occurred. We did see a litigant for evaluation in 90 percent of the nonpsychiatric cases. The main issue involving them concerned harm or disability related to presumed negligence by medical personnel. How we evaluate such cases and apply disability criteria is discussed.     

Garcia and the Political Safeguards of Federalism: Is There a Better Solution to the Conundrum of the Tenth Amendment?

In Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority (1985),Justice Harry Blackmun held that the Tenth Amendment does notprevent the Congress from subjecting state and local governmentsto the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act, concludingthat the "political safeguards offederalism" are generally adequateto protect state interests on the national scene. This articleexamines the intellectual foundations of the "political safeguardsof federalism" and finds them inadequate. It then surveys thepost-Garcia scholarship to ascertain whether an alternativetheory of the Tenth Amendment has emerged. Concluding that ithas not, the author suggests the need for afresh approach inview of the hints contained in Justice Sandra Day O'Connor'sopinion in Gregory v. Ashcroft (1991) that five justices maybe ready to reexamine the central thesis of Garcia.     

Impersonal influence: Effects of representations of public opinion on political attitudes

Many phenomena of interest to political scientists involve what may be termed impersonal influence; that is, influence that derives from individuals' perceptions of others' attitudes, beliefs, or experiences. Others in this case refers not to the close friends and acquaintances that concerned the authors of classics such asThe People's Choice andPersonal Influence, but rather to the anonymous others outside an individual's realm of personal contacts. Modern mass media facilitate the influence of anonymous others by devoting considerable time and attention to portraying trends in mass opinion. This study explores the rationale for theories of impersonal influence, synthesizing existing research findings falling under this general theoretical framework, and investigating its psychological underpinnings using experiments embedded in representative surveys.