排序方式： 共有227条查询结果，搜索用时 15 毫秒
61.
Stephen M. Gavazzi Ji-Young Lim Courtney M. Yarcheck Jennifer M. Bostic Scott D. Scheer 《Journal of youth and adolescence》2008,37(9):1071-1084
Greater empirical attention directed toward gender-sensitive assessment strategies that concentrate on family-specific factors
is thought to be both timely and necessary, especially with regard to outcome variables associated with mental health and
substance abuse in at-risk adolescent populations. A sample of 2,646 court-involved adolescents was used to test two competing
models regarding relationships among disruptive family processes, mental health (as both internalizing and externalizing problems),
and substance abuse issues according to gender. The results of multiple group structural equation modeling procedures indicated
that disrupted family processes were significantly associated with higher levels of internalizing problems, externalizing
problems, and substance abuse in both male and female youth. For females, however, disrupted family processes were more related
to internalizing problems and substance abuse than externalizing problems. Further, the relationship between disrupted family
processes and substance abuse was not mediated by mental health issues, indicating a lack of support for the alternative model
tested in this study. Together, the findings underscore the primacy of the family’s impact on issues related to adolescent
development and well-being in tandem with the need for a more gender sensitive approach to the needs of court-involved males
and females.
Stephen M. Gavazzi is a Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Science, and is Co-Director of the Center for Family Research at The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. in Family Science from the University of Connecticut. His major research interests include identifying the impact of family dynamics on youth development, psychopathology, and problem behavior. Ji-Young Lim is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Studies and Social Work at Miami University of Ohio. She received her Ph.D. in Family Science from The Ohio State University. Her major research interests include gender and ethnic differences in risks and needs among court-involved youth, parent–adolescent relationships across cultures, and the influence of neighborhood settings on peer and family risks among juvenile delinquents. Courtney M. Yarcheck is the Program Director at The Ohio State University Center for Family Research. She received her M.S. in Family Science from The Ohio State University. Her major research interests include gender-specific issues in the assessment of court-involved youth and the use of the Internet in training juvenile justice professionals. Jennifer M. Bostic is the Program Manager at The Ohio State University Center for Family Research. She received her M.S. in Counselor Education from The Ohio State University. Her major research interests include the impact of gender and race on the mental health of court-involved youth. Scott D. Scheer is an Associate Professor and State Extension Specialist in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development, and is Co-Director of the Center for Family Research at The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. in Family Studies from the University of Delaware. His research interests focus on the protective and risk factors of positive youth development, which include family, youth programs, substance use, and emotional intelligence. 相似文献
| Stephen M. GavazziEmail: |
Stephen M. Gavazzi is a Professor in the Department of Human Development and Family Science, and is Co-Director of the Center for Family Research at The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. in Family Science from the University of Connecticut. His major research interests include identifying the impact of family dynamics on youth development, psychopathology, and problem behavior. Ji-Young Lim is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Family Studies and Social Work at Miami University of Ohio. She received her Ph.D. in Family Science from The Ohio State University. Her major research interests include gender and ethnic differences in risks and needs among court-involved youth, parent–adolescent relationships across cultures, and the influence of neighborhood settings on peer and family risks among juvenile delinquents. Courtney M. Yarcheck is the Program Director at The Ohio State University Center for Family Research. She received her M.S. in Family Science from The Ohio State University. Her major research interests include gender-specific issues in the assessment of court-involved youth and the use of the Internet in training juvenile justice professionals. Jennifer M. Bostic is the Program Manager at The Ohio State University Center for Family Research. She received her M.S. in Counselor Education from The Ohio State University. Her major research interests include the impact of gender and race on the mental health of court-involved youth. Scott D. Scheer is an Associate Professor and State Extension Specialist in the Department of Human and Community Resource Development, and is Co-Director of the Center for Family Research at The Ohio State University. He received his Ph.D. in Family Studies from the University of Delaware. His research interests focus on the protective and risk factors of positive youth development, which include family, youth programs, substance use, and emotional intelligence. 相似文献
62.
63.
James McGuire Charlotte A. L. Bilby Ruth M. Hatcher Clive R. Hollin Juliet Hounsome Emma J. Palmer 《Journal of Experimental Criminology》2008,4(1):21-40
This paper reports the outcome of a 17-month follow-up of structured, community-based, offence-focused, intervention programmes
designed to reduce rates of re-conviction amongst adjudicated offenders under probation supervision. Three separate programmes
were examined, all derived from a cognitive social learning model of risk factors for repeated involvement in crime. Using
a quasi-experimental design, the study compared male offenders who had completed programmes (n = 215) with a non-completion group (n = 181), a group allocated to programmes but who had not commenced them (n = 339), and a control sample (n = 194) not allocated to the programmes. Outcome data analysis employed (a) an “intent to treat” between-group comparison,
(b) “treatment received” methodology. In order to take account of selection bias, data were further analysed using instrumental
variables and propensity scores; results suggested a possible treatment effect for moderate and higher-risk cases. Factors
influencing different interpretations of these findings were considered.
James McGuire is Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology and Director of the Doctor of Clinical Psychology programme at the University of Liverpool, UK. He also holds an honorary post as consultant clinical psychologist in Mersey Care NHS Trust. He has conducted research in probation services, prisons, and other settings on aspects of psychosocial interventions with offenders; and has written or edited 14 books and numerous other publications on this and related issues. He worked for some years in a high-security hospital and has carried out psycho-legal work involving assessment of offenders for courts, for hearings of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Parole Board, and for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In addition he has been involved in a range of consultative work with criminal justice agencies in the UK, Sweden, Romania, Canada, Australia and Hong Kong. Charlotte Bilby is a Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the role and politics of evaluation in UK criminal justice policy making, offenders’ experiences of probation and the processes of offender rehabilitation, reform and management. Ruth Hatcher is a Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the evaluation of offending behaviour programmes within community and custodial settings, the investigation of predictors and correlates of attrition from community offending behaviour programmes, bullying behaviour within custodial settings, and the psychological impact of working with forensic populations. Clive R. Hollin is Professor of Criminological Psychology in the School of Psychology at The University of Leicester, UK. He wrote the best-selling textbook Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology (1989, Routledge). His most recent book, edited with Emma Palmer, is Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Application, and Controversies (2006, John Wiley & Sons). He is co-editor of the journal Psychology, Crime, & Law. Alongside his various university appointments, he has worked as a psychologist in prisons, special hospitals, and regional secure units. In 1998 he received The Senior Award for Distinguished Contribution to the Field of Legal, Criminological and Forensic Psychology from The British Psychological Society. Juliet Hounsome graduated with a B.Sc. in Applied Psychology from John Moores University, Liverpool, in 1997 and obtained an M.Sc. in Psychological Research Methods from Lancaster University in 1999. She subsequently worked at the Centre for Public Health, John Moores University, conducting research on the trends of drug misuse in Merseyside over a 10-year period. From 2002 until 2005 she held research posts, first at Liverpool and then as a Fellow at Leicester University, working on a large-scale re-conviction study funded by the Home Office that aimed to evaluate the National Probation Directorate Pathfinder programmes. Her current post is as a systematic reviewer with the Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, conducting assessments for the Health Technology Assessment Programme and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Emma J. Palmer is a Reader in Forensic Psychology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the roles of parenting and social cognition (including moral reasoning) in the development of offending, assessment of offender risk and need, the design and evaluation of interventions for offenders, and interpersonal violence among prisoners. She has recently co-edited a book with Clive Hollin titled Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Applications, and Controversies (2006, Wiley). 相似文献
| James McGuireEmail: |
James McGuire is Professor of Forensic Clinical Psychology and Director of the Doctor of Clinical Psychology programme at the University of Liverpool, UK. He also holds an honorary post as consultant clinical psychologist in Mersey Care NHS Trust. He has conducted research in probation services, prisons, and other settings on aspects of psychosocial interventions with offenders; and has written or edited 14 books and numerous other publications on this and related issues. He worked for some years in a high-security hospital and has carried out psycho-legal work involving assessment of offenders for courts, for hearings of the Mental Health Review Tribunal, the Parole Board, and for the Criminal Cases Review Commission. In addition he has been involved in a range of consultative work with criminal justice agencies in the UK, Sweden, Romania, Canada, Australia and Hong Kong. Charlotte Bilby is a Lecturer in Criminology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the role and politics of evaluation in UK criminal justice policy making, offenders’ experiences of probation and the processes of offender rehabilitation, reform and management. Ruth Hatcher is a Lecturer in Forensic Psychology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the evaluation of offending behaviour programmes within community and custodial settings, the investigation of predictors and correlates of attrition from community offending behaviour programmes, bullying behaviour within custodial settings, and the psychological impact of working with forensic populations. Clive R. Hollin is Professor of Criminological Psychology in the School of Psychology at The University of Leicester, UK. He wrote the best-selling textbook Psychology and Crime: An Introduction to Criminological Psychology (1989, Routledge). His most recent book, edited with Emma Palmer, is Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Application, and Controversies (2006, John Wiley & Sons). He is co-editor of the journal Psychology, Crime, & Law. Alongside his various university appointments, he has worked as a psychologist in prisons, special hospitals, and regional secure units. In 1998 he received The Senior Award for Distinguished Contribution to the Field of Legal, Criminological and Forensic Psychology from The British Psychological Society. Juliet Hounsome graduated with a B.Sc. in Applied Psychology from John Moores University, Liverpool, in 1997 and obtained an M.Sc. in Psychological Research Methods from Lancaster University in 1999. She subsequently worked at the Centre for Public Health, John Moores University, conducting research on the trends of drug misuse in Merseyside over a 10-year period. From 2002 until 2005 she held research posts, first at Liverpool and then as a Fellow at Leicester University, working on a large-scale re-conviction study funded by the Home Office that aimed to evaluate the National Probation Directorate Pathfinder programmes. Her current post is as a systematic reviewer with the Liverpool Reviews and Implementation Group, conducting assessments for the Health Technology Assessment Programme and the National Institute of Health and Clinical Excellence. Emma J. Palmer is a Reader in Forensic Psychology at the University of Leicester. Her research interests include the roles of parenting and social cognition (including moral reasoning) in the development of offending, assessment of offender risk and need, the design and evaluation of interventions for offenders, and interpersonal violence among prisoners. She has recently co-edited a book with Clive Hollin titled Offending Behaviour Programmes: Development, Applications, and Controversies (2006, Wiley). 相似文献
64.
龙艳 《云南警官学院学报》2003,(1):71-74
未成年人可塑性大 ,易走向犯罪深渊 ,也易改造。因此 ,在未成年人犯罪的法律适用方面 ,应根据我国法律对未成年人特殊保护的精神 ,坚持教育为主、处罚为辅的原则 ,实行教育、感化、挽救的方针 ,为他们回归社会创造更好的社会环境 相似文献
65.
马建立 《山东行政学院学报》2006,(6):70-72
时代特点和新时期青少年思想道德建设的形势和任务,要求弘扬青少年的主体性。青少年道德教育的实践反思,确证了道德教育与道德学习的辨证关系。我国青少年道德教育要实现从“重教”向“重学”的视域转换,由“教会顺从”转向促进青少年主体性道德人格的生成,由成人化设计转向为青少年量身定做,由重说教转向重青少年的体验,由单向控制型师生关系转向多(双)向互动交往型师生关系。 相似文献
66.
兰琴 《北京青年政治学院学报》2010,19(2):19-22
在非犯罪化思潮影响之下,未成年人犯罪领域的非犯罪化趋势在我国已经有所体现,这是对未成年犯罪人司法保护的新突破。实现未成年人犯罪领域的非犯罪化具有重要的价值意义。在具体制度建构上,可以在实体法上减少未成年人罪名规定或规定未成年人特殊情形;在司法程序上,则应建立未成年人刑事和解和不起诉制度。 相似文献
67.
朱道华 《山西省政法管理干部学院学报》2010,23(1):42-46
现阶段,我国处置未成年人犯罪存在矫正措施单一、监禁刑的适用比例过高、非监禁刑基本处于空置状态、缓刑适用率不高、对非本地户籍的未成年犯罪人基本不适用缓刑等缺陷。应实事求是地从未成年人既容易受惑犯罪、又易于矫治的立场出发,从既要“惩罚”他们,更要教育、拯救他们的立场出发,建立科学的刑罚体系、取消未成年人犯罪无期徒刑的适用、扩大非监禁刑的适用比例、设立未成年人犯罪前科消灭制度。 相似文献
68.
Suman Majumdar 《Journal of Ethnicity in Criminal Justice》2017,15(2):99-116
The objective of this study was to decompose racial disparity in juvenile justice decision-making into a part explained by differing characteristics of racial groups, and an unexplained part often attributed to discrimination. Individual case-level data from Alabama and logistic regression were used to model detention, petition, and disposition decisions in the juvenile justice system. Decomposition of racial disparity between white and black juveniles using the nonlinear Blinder-Oaxaca methodology suggested that about a half to three fourths of the racial gaps in the three juvenile justice decision points were caused either by discrimination or unobserved predictors. Decomposition of racial disparity in juvenile justice can help devise effective public policy by quantifying the extent to which specific policies can reduce disproportionate minority contact. 相似文献
69.
70.
J⊘rn Vestergaard 《Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology & Crime Prevention》2013,14(1):62-84
Under the label ‘youth sanction’ (ungdomssanktion) a new type of sentence for juvenile offenders has been enacted by a 2001 amendment to the Danish Penal Code. The study reported here is an analysis of the 55 sentences imposed over the first year. Widespread disparity and disproportionality in sentencing was found. Statutory requirements regarding the seriousness of the individual case have not in all instances been satisfactorily established. The emergence of the new sanction implies a considerable increase in the intensity of intervention. Being based on a revitalized treatment ideology, the new criminal sanction legitimizes a vast widening of the control measures directed against troubled youth, in particular such offenders who has another ethnic background than Danish. No comprehensive programme or coherent vision regarding treatment methods has been stipulated, and professionals are bewildered and in disagreement regarding such issues. Nothing indicates that the costly efforts will prove to be adequate as rehabilitative and crime preventive tools. The introduction of the youth sanction is part of a contemporary criminal policy agenda dominated by a broad political coalition with an urge to demonstrate ability and readiness to cope with juvenile street crime by employing more ‘consequent’ measures, involving tougher and swifter punishment combined with coerced rehabilitation. 相似文献