The Empirical Frequency of a Pivotal Vote

Public Choice - Some economic theories of voting suggestthat competition leads to close elections,and that election closeness is a factor forbringing voters to the polls. How often infact are civic...     

Adversarial Mythologies: Policy Assumptions and Research Evidence in Family Law

This article contrasts policy advocacy of alternative dispute resolution, and demonization of lawyers and court proceedings in family law, with research evidence that calls those policy positions into question. The research demonstrates, broadly, that restrictions on the availability of publicly funded legal representation do not necessarily lead parties to choose alternative resolution processes, that lawyers are much less adversarial than self–representing litigants, and that lawyer representation and litigation may produce more satisfactory and appropriate outcomes than mediation in some kinds of family disputes. The article argues that legal aid policies should respond to these realities rather than clinging to adversarial mythologies.     

Divergent Expectations and Experience: An Empirical Study of the Use Children's Contact Services in Australia

In this article, an overview of the key findings from the Children'sContact Services Project is presented. Children's Contact Services(CCSs) assist separated parents to manage contact arrangementswith their children through the provision of supervised visitationand changeover services. The aims of this project were to investigatethe use of CCSs in Australia by referring agencies (eg. courtsand legal practitioners), and clients of contact services (parentsand children), and to consider the views and expectations ofthese key stakeholders regarding those usages. This approachwas based on the assumption that there are currently conflictingusages and expectations of contact services, and that this situationcould compromise children's well-being. The findings were derivedfrom two studies. The first study involved conducting 142 in-depthinterviews with representatives from the Australian Government,the courts and legal practitioners who referred families toCCSs, CCS staff and management, as well as parents and childrenwho used CCSs. The second study comprised a quantitative analysisof client data collected by CCS staff from 396 families whohad used a government funded CCS in August 2003. The findingsdemonstrated that in Australia, CCSs provided an invaluableservice that was viewed positively by government, referral agents,CCS staff and management, and by the parents and children whoused them. Despite this generally positive view, there wereconflicting expectations of CCSs that, under certain circumstances,compromised children's well-being and that of their parents,particularly their residence mothers.     

The Balm of Gilead: Is the Provision of Treatment to those Who Seroconvert in HIV Prevention Trials a Matter of Moral Obligation or Moral Negotiation?

Must treatment be provided to subjects who acquire HIV during the course of a prevention study? An analysis of ethical foundation, regulation, and recent argumentation provides no basis for the obligation. We outline an alternative approach to the problem based on moral negotiation.