基于ABA警察临战保障效率评价方法的构造

警察临战保障效率是警察临战保障资源的配置水平,目前对其评价的方法普遍具有较大的局限性。本文创新性地构造了ABA方法,并应用于警察临战保障效率评价中。这种方法既对警察临战保障过程进行均衡选点,又实现了警察临战保障环节的持续考核;既尊重规范分析的经验度,又依托于实证分析的科学值,可以尽快判定警察临战保障效率的强弱。     

SUMMIT ON UNIFIED FAMILY COURTS: SERVING CHILDREN AND FAMILIES EFFICIENTLY,EFFECTIVELY, AND RESPONSIBLY

As president of the American Bar Association when the “Summit on Unified Family Courts” convened in May 2007, Karen J. Mathis welcomed summit attendees. Recounting the many reasons children wind up in court, Mathis observed that society is lucky if these problems even come before the courts. Too often, she said, the underlying problems of destructive behavior among youth are lost in the shuffle of too many lawyers, case workers, and judges. “Many times they’re ignored by the professionals among us who are not trained to be aware that the problems even exist,” she said. The solution to this fragmented approach is unified family courts, she concluded.     

THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION ADDRESSES THE NATIONAL PROBLEM OF YOUTH AT RISK

During the 2006–2007 American Bar Association (ABA) year, a special ABA Presidential Youth at Risk Initiative has addressed several important topics: addressing the needs of juvenile status offenders and their families; foster children aging out of the foster care system; increases in girls, especially girls of color, in the juvenile justice system; the need to better hear the voices of youth in court proceedings affecting them; and improving how laws can better address youth crossing over between juvenile justice and child welfare systems. Lawyers are encouraged to use their skills to improve the systems addressing at‐risk youth and their families and to help facilitate coordination of youth‐related community efforts. Learning how to effectively communicate with youth is an important skill attorneys must learn. Through the Youth at Risk Initiative, the ABA has held continuing legal education programs, hosted community roundtables among youth‐serving stakeholders, and developed projects on: juvenile status offenders; lawyer assistance to youth transitioning from foster care; educating young girls on violence prevention, conflict resolution, and careers in law and justice; and provision of useful information to youth awaiting juvenile court hearings. New ABA policy has addressed services and programs to at‐risk youth, assuring licensing, regulation, and monitoring of residential facilities serving at‐risk youth, enhanced support for sexual minority foster and homeless youth, juvenile status offenders, and improving laws and policies related to youth exiting the foster care system.     

AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION POLICY REQUIRING LICENSURE,REGULATION, AND MONITORING OF PRIVATELY OPERATED RESIDENTIAL TREATMENT FACILITIES FOR AT‐RISK CHILDREN AND YOUTH

Well‐meaning parents send an estimated 10,000 to 14,000 at‐risk children each year to unregulated private residential treatment facilities, which for as much as $3,000 to $5,000 per month promise to modify troublesome behaviors and make bad kids good. The facilities that compose this booming, billion‐dollar business are generally not regulated, licensed, or monitored by state or federal governments; too many aspects of this alternative care system for youth are rife with mistreatment, including physical, sexual, and mental abuse by facility staff. This American Bar Association policy resolution urges state, territorial, and tribal legislatures to pass laws that require the licensing, regulating, and monitoring of residential treatment facilities that are not funded by public or government systems but offer treatment to at‐risk children and youth for emotional, behavioral, educational, or other problems or issues.     

Mitigation Evidence and the Ethical Role of a Defense Attorney in a Capital Case

In 1972, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Furman v. Georgia. This landmark case changed the death penalty in the United States. In Gregg v. Georgia (1976), the Supreme Court made it clear that mitigating factors were to be heard before sentencing to ensure individualized sentencing. Every defendant has a story, a family, a childhood, trauma, and celebration—a reason their life should be spared from execution. In a capital case, a defense attorney’s ethical role is to craft that story and articulate it in a way that enables the jury to have a complete picture of the defendant’s background and character as they decide his punishment. Mitigating factors are not an excuse for the defendant’s behavior, but rather an insight into who the defendant is and what has shaped his life. A defense attorney’s ethical duty in a capital case is to argue the case on all legal points and to present a thorough investigation of mitigating evidence. A thorough investigation of all such evidence is required by case law and explained by the standards set forth by the ABA guidelines.