Involuntary outpatient treatment as “desintitutionalized coercion”: The net-widening concerns

In American jurisprudence, two justifications have traditionally been put forth to support the government's social control of persons with mental illness: police power and parens patriae. As public mental hospitals became less available as loci in which to exercise these functions, governments sought alternative means to achieve the same ends. One prominent but quite controversial means is involuntary outpatient treatment (IOT). While the concerns about IOT have been myriad, one often alluded to but never documented is that of “net-widening.” That is, once IOT became available, it would be applied to an ever greater number of individuals, progressively expanding the margins of the designated population to whom it is applied, despite the formal standard for its application remaining constant. We tested the net-widening belief in a naturalistic experiment in Massachusetts. We found that net-widening did not occur, despite an environment strongly conducive to that expansion. At this time, whatever the arguments against IOT might be, net-widening should not be one of them.     

Righting Domestic Violence

For too long human rights have been used to support a legalapproach to domestic violence which is non-interventionist.This article discusses the ways in which human rights can beused to compel an approach to cases of domestic violence whichrequires state action to protect those harmed by domestic abuse.It argues that the state has an obligation to protect its citizensfrom torture, inhuman and degrading treatment and this obligationis heightened in respect of vulnerable adults and particularlychildren. Further, correctly understood, rights to respect forprivate and family life, rather than being a barrier to stateintervention can be seen as justifying it.     

Comparative proportionality review: A nationwide examination of reversed death sentences

A required part of the appellate review of death sentences in many capital punishment jurisdictions is comparative proportionality review. This procedure requires the court to compare the death sentence under review with sentences in similar cases to determine whether it is excessive. This article examines those death sentences from across the country that have been reversed on comparative proportionality grounds. Relatively few death sentences have been reversed on these grounds, and the number of reversals is decreasing. The reviews that reverse sentences infrequently compare only to other death sentences, commonly use a method that requires more than a mere common aggravating factor for selecting comparison cases, and rarely use the frequency method of comparative proportionality review.     

The use of simulation in criminal justice policy evaluation

The criminal justice system is administered at the local level by many independent agencies and departments, often without regard to each other's objectives and often at the expense of overall effectiveness. This study has attempted to relate the primary system goal of crime control to a set of policy alternatives distributed over each criminal justice sector. Specifically, a simulation model based on the techniques of “industrial dynamics” was developed to evaluate combinations of the following policies: speedy trial, no plea bargaining, and restricted bail. Data obtained from the District of Columbia's criminal justice agencies were used to validate the model. The results of the analysis indicate that the system is basically insensitive to small perturbations, but is susceptible to disruption from large changes in input and procedure. Under the given set of assumptions, continuation of current practices will lead to a gradual deterioration in performance that can only be stemmed by large expenditures on manpower and facilities.     

The uncertain relationship between transparency and accountability

The concepts of transparency and accountability are closely linked: transparency is supposed to generate accountability. This article questions this widely held assumption. Transparency mobilises the power of shame, yet the shameless may not be vulnerable to public exposure. Truth often fails to lead to justice. After exploring different definitions and dimensions of the two ideas, the more relevant question turns out to be: what kinds of transparency lead to what kinds of accountability, and under what conditions? The article concludes by proposing that the concept can be unpacked in terms of two distinct variants. Transparency can be either ‘clear’ or ‘opaque’, while accountability can be either ‘soft’ or ‘hard’.