Target congruence theory and Latino youth victimization

While a number of studies have found that immigrant youth are less likely to engage in delinquency, they are more likely to report victimization. Scholars have traditionally attributed this finding to American cultural norms that may generate marginalization and culture conflict that, in return, increases the likelihood of victimization. However, few studies have applied victimization theories to this study population. Therefore, the purpose of this study is to apply Target Congruence Theory to test its capability to explain victimization among Latino youth. Data collected from the Dating Violence Among Latino Adolescents (DAVILA) Study shows that a target’s vulnerability, gratifiability, and antagonism modestly predicted their victimization. Results, as well as the study’s limitations and suggestions for future research, are discussed.     

Reducing Domestic Violence and Improving Outcomes for Children: Funding Civil Legal Aid to Maximize Impact

Domestic violence survivors and children in foster care often experience significant unmet civil legal needs. Legal aid services, when adequately funded, can help close the justice gap for these two populations while improving safety, stability, and court efficiencies. However, despite ample literature demonstrating how legal aid can improve outcomes, almost half of those seeking legal aid services are turned away due to lack of resources. This article reviews the research and data about how legal aid can improve outcomes for people in the domestic violence and child welfare contexts. It also discusses how several state‐administered federal funding opportunities—including the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA) Victim Assistance Formula Grant Program, Title IV‐D child support funds, and Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) basic block grants—can fund the needed civil legal help.     

Guiding Principles for Family Justice Programs

The Association of Family and Conciliation Courts and Relate, UK, co‐convened a 24‐hour consultation at St George's House, Windsor, UK, on modern family justice issues across Europe. This article identifies a preliminary set of guiding principles for family justice programs developed by consultation participants.     

Ancestral analysis of a Native American Ecuadorian family with congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis

Congenital insensitivity to pain with anhidrosis (CIPA) is an extremely rare autosomal recessive disorder characterized by self-mutilating behavior, unexplained fever, inability to sweat and intellectual disability. CIPA pathogenesis is associated with genetic loss-of-function mutations of the NTRK1 gene, which is auto phosphorylated activating intracellular signaling transduction such as cell survival, growth and differentiation. CIPA occurs with an incidence of 1 in 125 million newborns, and only some hundreds of cases have been reported worldwide. Most of cases have been reported in Asian countries. Here, we estimate the ancestral proportions of a family with consanguinity background affected with CIPA, who carries the missense pathogenic mutations rs80356677 (Asp674Tyr) in the kinase domain of NTRK1 and rs324420 (Pro129Thr) in the FAAH gene. The ancestral proportion was calculated through 45 ancestry informative markers (AIMs) and the comparison was done through the Human Genome Diversity Project panel. The resulting allele frequencies in CIPA family indicate a prevalence of the Native American ancestral component with 87.9%, and minor proportion for the European (8.9%) and African (3%) components. In conclusion, the genetic variations expressing CIPA in a Native American Ecuadorian family could have been caused by the insertion of certain genetic characteristics, which have been passed down from common ancestors as consequence of migration towards South America.     

JUDICIAL ROTATION AS CENTRIPETAL FORCE: SENTENCING IN THE COURT COMMUNITIES OF SOUTH CAROLINA*

Courts as communities theory emphasizes the sentencing differences that can arise between localities within a single state. The results of published studies have highlighted how local differences emerge based on informal sociological and political processes defined by the communities perspective. The findings from recent quantitative studies from South Carolina have revealed notably less county variation in sentencing than has been observed elsewhere. I use qualitative interviews with 13 South Carolina trial judges to investigate sentencing processes and to shed light on these findings. The interviews explore the state's legal structure and culture, including the practice of circuit rotation in which judges travel among counties holding court. The results suggest rotation serves as a centripetal force of sentencing culture, homogenizing what might otherwise be a more varied collection of county‐specific norms. Rotation leads to increased uniformity through judge shopping and the cross‐pollination of ideas and norms. Defendants can strategically judge shop and plead in front of a lenient judge—a process that gives rise to the term “plea judge,” which is a label for the most lenient judges who sentence a large number of defendants. Rotation also increases the interactions among judges and prosecutors, expanding networks and grapevines, and leading to cross‐pollination and the sharing of ideas.