Transforming Public Health Law: The Turning Point Model State Public Health Act

Law is an essential tool for improving public health infrastructure and outcomes; however, existing state statutory public health laws may be insufficient. Built over decades in response to various diseases/conditions, public health laws are antiquated, divergent, and confusing. The Turning Point Public Health Statute Modernization National Collaborative addressed the need for public health law reform by producing a comprehensive model state act. The Act provides scientifically, ethically, and legally sound provisions on public health infrastructure, powers, duties, and practice. This article examines (1) how statutory law can be a tool for improving the public's health, (2) existing needs for public health law reform, (3) themes and provisions of the Turning Point Act, and (4) how it is being used by public health practitioners.     

Reintegrative Shaming, Procedural Justice, and Recidivism: The Engagement of Offenders' Psychological Mechanisms in the Canberra RISE Drinking-and-Driving Experiment

Advocates of restorative justice (RJ) hypothesize that the diversion of criminal cases to RJ conferences should be more effective in lowering the rate of reoffending than traditional prosecution in court processing because the conferences more effectively engage the psychological mechanisms of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice. This study uses longitudinal data from the drinking-and-driving study in the Australian Reintegrative Shaming Experiments (RISE) to evaluate the long-term impact of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice on support for the law and on later recidivism as assessed through the use of police records and by self-report. Analysis first suggests that there is no direct effect of experimental condition on later recidivism. However, it further suggests that both traditional court-based prosecution and RJ conferences increase support for the law and lower the rate of future reoffending when they engage the social psychological mechanisms of reintegrative shaming and procedural justice and thereby increase the legitimacy of the law. Hence, the results argue for the potential value of procedures such as the RJ conference but indicate that those procedures will only achieve their objectives if they are effectively designed and implemented.     

A 'Radical Humanist' Approach to the Concept of Solidarity

'Solidarity' conjures up positive images of the strength of togetherness and community, but in practice it is experienced by groups when confronted by a real or perceived threat from other groups. The ideal of a universal human solidarity appears tenuous and flimsy. However, Richard Rorty and Axel Honneth have attempted, in different ways, to bring this ideal under philosophical consideration. Their treatment of human solidarity is flawed by their a priori rejection of the normative idea of a common human nature. Such an idea, termed 'radical humanism', is reconstructed from the work of Erich Fromm, and one of its chief implications – the rejection of liberal nationalism – is proposed as part of a radical challenge to contemporary social and political theory.     

THE ELUSIVE PURSUIT OF SOLOMON: FALTERING STEPS TOWARD THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD

This article provides a brief critique of presumptions about parenting and children seen through the lens of family law. It argues that, historically, decisions largely followed gender‐based and/or moral presumptions of the day and that sometimes these were in tension with each other. Sometimes, too, as in the biblical story of Solomon's judgment, biological parenthood was contested and/or gender did not provide a ready answer. The article argues that, as children's rights and the best interests of the child increasingly came to dominate the decision‐making rhetoric, a Solomon‐like belief has nonetheless persisted, that judicial ingenuity and sophisticated investigative resources can determine the underlying truth of a dispute and lead to the correct outcome. The evidence, however, points in the direction of significant predictive limitations to the legal, social, and psychological knowledge bases supporting most postseparation parenting decisions. It is argued that what is needed is a formal shift in emphasis from a somewhat idealized commitment to discovering the truth in most contested cases to a focus on good decision‐making processes. It is suggested that most transitional families are best served by an emphasis on good, respectful processes associated with good‐enough decisions that formally acknowledge the limitations of our capacity to predict. Good processes and good‐enough decisions are in turn best supported by a clear emphasis on children as individual agents, who, though dependent on adults, are entitled to the full panoply of human rights.