Prisons or Problem-Solving: Does the Public Support Specialty Courts?

ABSTRACT

Recently, “problem-solving” courts have been developed as an alternative to imprisonment. They are often called “specialty” courts because they process and divert into treatment programs offenders who are seen as different from the general criminal population, such as those with mental health or drug problems, those who are homeless or veterans, and those who engage in domestic violence. Based on a 2017 national survey of 1,000 respondents, the current study examines overall public support for rehabilitation as a goal of corrections and then focuses specifically on support for different types of specialty courts. The analysis reveals that the American public endorses not only the rehabilitative ideal but also the use of problem-solving courts. Further, with only minimal variation, strong support for these courts appears to exist regardless of political orientation and sociodemographic characteristics.     

Applying Moral Foundations Theory to the Explanation of Capital Jurors’ Sentencing Decisions

Abstract

This study applies moral foundations theory to capital juror decision making. We hypothesized that binding moral foundations would predict death qualification and punitive sentencing decisions, whereas individualizing moral foundations would be associated with juror disqualification and a leniency effect. Additionally, we considered whether moral foundations can explain differences in death penalty application between conservatives and liberals. Respondents from two independent samples participated in a mock-juror task in which the circumstances of a hypothetical defendant’s case varied. Results revealed moral foundations were strong predictors of death qualification. The binding and individualizing foundations were related to sentencing decisions in the expected ways. Supporting our contention that moral foundations operate differently across different types of cases, heterogeneity in the effects of moral foundations was observed. Finally, we found support for the hypothesis that the relationship between sentencing decisions and conservatism would be attenuated by moral foundations.     

The Emperor’s new clothes? Perceptions of the EU’s strategic partnerships in Asia

Asia Europe Journal - In order to adapt to a changing global order, the European Union (EU) has established an important mechanism for cooperating with some of the world’s most influential...     

The war on coal is over: assessing Obama-era regulations and the Trump Administration’s efforts to date

Abstract

For nearly a decade, Republicans accused Democrats and the Obama Administration of waging a “war on coal” and Democrats has cited economics as the primary cause of the industry’s troubles. Now that President Trump has declared the war on coal to be over, it is time to examine the regulations promulgated during the Obama Administration and their impact on the industry. This article will discuss the coal industry prior to, during, and after the Obama Administration with particular attention to Obama-era regulations that impacted the industry and President Trump’s efforts to repeal and replace the same.     

Congressional Vote Options

Numerous accounts reveal that congressional leaders often secure “hip‐pocket votes” or “if you need me” pledges from rank‐and‐file legislators. These are essentially options on votes. Leaders exercise sufficient options—pay legislators to convert to favorable votes—when those options will yield victory. Otherwise, they release the options. A model shows that this optimal strategy for leaders produces many small victories, few small losses, and losses that are, on average, larger than victories. We find precisely these patterns, hence strong evidence for vote options, in Congressional Quarterly key votes from 1975 through 2001 and in non‐key votes from the 106th Congress (1999–2000).     

Maltreatment and Family Dysfunction in Childhood and the Subsequent Adjustment of Children and Adults

The adjustment problems associated with sexual abuse, physical abuse, psychological maltreatment, neglect, and witnessing family violence during childhood were examined in three studies. Study 1 demonstrated significant overlap between maltreatment types in parent reports (N = 50) of maltreatment experiences of their child aged 5–12 years. Parental sexual punitiveness, traditionality, family adaptability and family cohesion significantly predicted scores on 4 maltreatment scales and children's externalizing behavior problems. Level of maltreatment predicted internalizing, externalizing, and sexual behavior problems. In Study 2, significant overlap was found between adults' retrospective reports (N = 138) of all 5 types of maltreating behaviors. Parental sexual punitiveness, traditionality, family adaptability, and family cohesion during childhood predicted the level of maltreatment and current psychopathology. Although child maltreatment scores predicted psychopathology, childhood family variables were better predictors of adjustment. Study 3 demonstrated that child maltreatment scores predicted positive aspects of adult adaptive functioning (N = 95).     

Criticizing the image of the student as consumer: examining legal trends and administrative responses in the US and UK1

There is widespread concern that higher education is being compromised by being turned into a ‘commodity’ to be ‘consumed’. This article represents an initial attempt to explore the trends in both the UK and US, and considers how the law has responded to them. It argues, however, that there is an important distinction to be drawn between ‘commodification’ and ‘consumerism’. Education has always been a commodity to be bought and sold; the true danger lies in the move to a ‘rights-based’ culture where students (and politicians) see education merely as something to be ‘consumed’ rather than as an activity in which to participate. Whilst the law seems thus far to have been something of a bulwark against this movement, it remains an open question as to whether this will continue to be the case if HEIs do not themselves act more proactively in challenging this damaging view of higher education.