ASSESSMENTS FOR POSTSEPARATION PARENTING DISPUTES IN CANADA

There is controversy in Canada about the use of assessments by mental health professionals to assist in the resolution of postseparation disputes between parents about their children. Although the principles developed by the Supreme Court of Canada to govern the admission of expert evidence in criminal law cases provides guidance for judges in family law cases, in deciding whether to order an assessment or admit expert evidence, family law judges must also take account of the child-related context. Mental health professionals can provide valuable information that would otherwise be unavailable when making prospective decisions about children. Court-appointed assessors also have a significant institutional role in the family law cases that has no equivalent in the criminal law context. Assessors are important not only for the relatively rare cases that go to trial, but they also play a central role in helping to resolve the much larger number of cases that are settled.     

Political culture,postmaterial values,and the new environmental paradigm: A comparative analysis of Canada and the United States

This study investigates the relationship between postmaterial values and the New Environmental Paradigm in Canada (Ontario) and the United States (Michigan). Based on survey data collected among both citizens and environmental activists, it is evident that among both Canadian and American respondents of both citizen and activist type the two value dimensions are similarly multidimensional and separate. Rather than reflecting a single larger dimension of value orientation, as claimed by some, it is clear that the Inglehart postmaterialist value measure and the Dunlap and Van Liere NEP index are separate constructs in the thinking of the Canadians and Americans surveyed. While these findings were parallel in the Canadian and American settings, a number of cross-national differences in how these values influence attitudes and behaviors are reported. In general, these findings underscore the need to continue to focus on variations in the cultural context of citizen responses to postindustrial change.     

Effects of Judicial Instructions and Case Characteristics in a Mock Jury Trial of Battered Women Who Kill

This study examined the effects of judicial instructions on the outcome of a mock jury trial that involved a woman who pleaded self-defense after killing her abusive spouse. Jurors were instructed to adopt either an objective or a subjective standard of reasonableness when reaching a verdict. Within objective/subjective instruction conditions, half of the juries viewed a case in which the woman killed her abuser while he was attacking her (confrontational) and the remaining half viewed a case in which she killed him while he was asleep (no confrontation). Juries in the subjective conditions returned significantly more not guilty verdicts than jurors in the objective conditions. At the individual juror level, participants hearing subjective instructions were significantly more likely to rate the defendant as not guilty than jurors given objective instructions when the abuse was nonconfrontational.