Veto Players and Civil War Duration

Civil wars show a remarkable variation in how long they last. Some end within days; others continue for decades. What explains the extreme intractability of some wars while others are resolved quickly? This article argues that conflicts with multiple actors who must approve a settlement (veto players) are longer because there are fewer acceptable agreements, information asymmetries are more acute, and shifting alliances and incentives to hold out make negotiation more difficult. This veto player approach to explaining variation in civil war duration is tested using a new dataset containing monthly data on all parties to each civil war begun since World War II. The statistical analysis shows a strong correlation between the number of veto players and the duration of civil war.     

Key longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology

Following the tradition of Joan McCord's work, this paper reviews longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology with community samples of at least 100 persons, follow-up periods of at least 5 years, personal interviews, and measures of offending. The main advantages of such studies are in investigating both the natural history of development (including the effects of risk/protective factors and life events) and the impact of interventions on offending. This paper also reviews advantages and problems of prospective longitudinal surveys, randomized experiments, and longitudinal-experimental studies in criminology. Four key longitudinal-experimental studies were conducted by Joan McCord, Richard Tremblay, Lawrence Schweinhart and David Olds. Other studies have been conducted, or are currently under way, but no criminological study has yet been published with several years of personal data on participants both before and after an intervention.Joan McCord Award Lecture given at the American Society of Criminology, Toronto, Canada.     

The UN Human Rights Norms for Corporations: The Private Implications of Public International Law

Though many years in the making, the UN Human Rights Norms forCorporations only registered on the radars of most states, corporationsand civil society organisations in August 2003 when they beganto move up the ladder of the United Nation's policy-making processes.Since then they have been subject to intense, and sometimesintemperate, debate, scrutiny and controversy. A particularlegal feature of the deliberations has been the focus on theclosely related questions of the legal standing of the Normsin their present format (namely, an imperfect draft, and therefore,of no direct legal force), and what they might become (possibly—thoughnot likely soon—a treaty that speaks to corporations butbinds states). A potent mix of distrust and suspicion, vestedinterests, politics and economics has given rise to a greatdeal of grand-standing and cant concerning these questions andhow they might be answered. In this article, the authors explorethe history of the Norms and the form and content of the debatethat surrounds them, in their attempt to disentangle the legalfrom the rest. That said, the article also focuses on the realpoliticking of the circumstances in which the Norms now findthemselves and it seeks to offer some guidance as to where theNorms—or at least their substance, if not their form—mightgo from here.     

Fraud: The Characteristic Crime of the Twenty-First Century

In the same way that larceny characterized much of twentieth century, fraud will likely characterize the twenty-first century. Larceny remains the most common oi all serious crimes, but fraud may overtake larceny as the crime of choice in the future, because of changes in our ownership, storage, and movement of property. Fraud involves purposely obtaining the property of another through deception, and its popularity as a crime of choice is growing. Entrusting property to the custody oi others, storing property at remote locations, and electronic movement of property are shown to be major changes in the way we treat property and increase opportunities for theft. The connection between fraud and many of the serious crimes of the twenty-first century are shown in the facts of recent cases. The motivation of thefl behind many frauds is also shown to be used to fund larger criminal objectives, such as illegal immigration and terrorism. The points of view expressed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position or policies of the U.S. Department of Justice. Dr. Albanese is chief of the International Center at NIJ on leave from his position as professor of Government and Public Affairs at Virginia Commonwealth University.     

NO COMMUNITY IS AN ISLAND: THE EFFECTS OF RESOURCE DEPRIVATION ON URBAN VIOLENCE IN SPATIALLY AND SOCIALLY PROXIMATE COMMUNITIES*

The link between resource deprivation and urban violence has long been explored in criminological research. Studies, however, have largely ignored the potential for resource deprivation in particular communities to affect rates of violence in others. The relative inattention is notable because of the strong theoretical grounds to anticipate influences that extend both to geographically contiguous areas and to those that, though not contiguous, share similar social characteristics. We argue that such influences—what we term spatial and social proximity effects, respectively—constitute a central feature of community dynamics. To support this argument, we develop and test theoretically derived hypotheses about spatial and social proximity effects of resource deprivation on aggregated and disaggregated homicide counts. Our analyses indicate that local area resource deprivation contributes to violence in socially proximate communities, an effect that, in the case of instrumental homicides, is stronger when such communities are spatially proximate. We conclude by discussing the implications of our findings for theories focused on community‐level social processes and violence, and for policies aimed at reducing crime in disadvantaged areas.     

THE POTENTIAL OF THE FAMILY LAW EDUCATION REFORM PROJECT FOR FAMILY LAWYERS1

Family lawyers are major beneficiaries of the reforms set out in the Family Law Education Reform Project (FLER) Report. This commentary from a veteran family law practitioner explores the needs of the family law bar for the training of law students in practical, interdisciplinary, client‐centered lawyering that goes beyond the traditional case method. I trace many of the current innovations evolving in family law practice and how FLER reforms will not only benefit law schools but also have a major impact in the courts and private practice sector.     

An experimental study of a therapeutic boot camp: Impact on impulses, attitudes and recidivism

Two hundred thirty four adult male inmates entering prison were randomly assigned to an early release program in either a correctional boot camp or a large, traditional prison in the Maryland state correctional system. Boot camp releasees had marginally lower recidivism compared to those released from the traditional prison. A pre-test, post-test self report survey indicated the boot camp program had little impact on criminogenic characteristics except for a lowering of self control. In contrast, inmates in prison became more antisocial, lower in self control, worse in anger management, and reported more criminal tendencies by the end of their time in prison. Criminogenic attitudes and impulses were significantly associated with recidivism. The impact of the boot camp diminished to non-significance when antisocial attitudes or anger management problems were added to the models predicting recidivism. Implications for jurisdictions considering whether to operate correctional boot camps are discussed.     

Race as a factor in university admissions

In two recent cases, Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306. (2003) and Gratz v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 244. (2003), the Supreme Court held that the Equal Protection Clause permitted state schools to use race-sensitive admissions in order to obtain the educational benefits that flow from a diverse student body. The diversity-based argument for race-sensitive admissions, scholarships, awards, and other opportunities at universities should have been rejected because it does not consider the full range of costs and benefits and because the more narrow educational effects probably weigh against such programs. However, this does not suggest that applicants’ race, ethnicity, and gender should be ignored. Rather the same consideration that led to the defeat of the diversity argument, i.e., reasoning capacity, supports the consideration of demographic factors. However, attention to such factors further undermines the consequentialist case for affirmative action.