Internal reliability and construct validity of the Novaco Anger Scale-1998-S in a sample of violent prison inmates in Sweden

Abstract

In this study, the internal reliability and construct validity of the recently adapted Swedish version of the Novaco Anger Scale (NAS-1998-S; Lindqvist, Dåderman, & Hellström, Social Behavior and Personality, 8, 773–788, 2003), as well as its scale correlations with demographic and criminality variables, were investigated. Construct validity was established by assessing the correlation pattern of the scales of NAS-1998-S with concurrent scales of similar and distinct constructs. Ninety-five male violent prisoners, ranging in age from 18 to 67 years, participated. The results demonstrated good internal reliability, consistent intrascale relationships, and appropriate construct validity of NAS-1998-S. The number of previous convictions had a moderate negative relationship with the capacity of control. Age and education correlated negatively with the NAS-1998-S scales, except Regulation. In addition to psychometric issues, the results were discussed from a clinical perspective on the offender population.     

Individualizing the Reasonable Person in Criminal Law

Criminal law commonly requires judges and juries to decide whether defendants acted “reasonably.” Nevertheless, issues of reasonableness fall into two distinct categories: (1) where reasonableness concerns events and states, including risks of which an actor is conscious, that can be justly assessed without regard to the actor’s individual traits, and (2) where reasonableness concerns culpable mental states and emotions that cannot justly be assessed without reference to the actor’s capacities. This distinction is significant because, while the “reasonable person” by which category-1 cases are assessed is a disembodied and impersonal ideal that consists of nothing but the uncompromising values of the jurisdiction, the reasonable person by which category-2 cases are measured must necessarily incorporate some of an actor’s individual traits or risk blaming the blameless. Courts and commentators have thus far approached the task of individualizing or subjectivizing reasonableness in category 2 by trying to determine in advance which individual traits are generally relevant and which are not. I propose an alternative approach that, in addition to applying to negligence and voluntary manslaughter cases alike, derives its content from the social practice of blaming. I propose that a reasonable person in category-2 cases consists of every physical, psychological, and emotional trait an actor possesses, with one exception—the exception being that he possesses proper respect for the values of the people of the state as reflected and incorporated in the statute at hand.

Gender,Culture and the Law: Approaches to ‘Honour Crimes’ in the UK

This article examines the debate on whether to analyse ‘honour crimes’ as gender-based violence, or as cultural tradition, and the effects of either stance on protection from and prevention of these crimes. In particular, the article argues that the categorisation of honour-related violence as primarily cultural ignores its position within the wider spectrum of gender violence, and may result in a number of unfortunate side-effects, including lesser protection of the rights of women within minority communities, and the stigmatisation of those communities. At the same time it is problematic to completely dismiss any cultural aspects of violence against women, and a nuanced approach is required which carefully balances the benefits and detriments of taking cultural factors into account. The article examines the issues within the context of the legal response to cases involving honour-related violence, arguing that although the judiciary has in a number of cases inclined towards viewing ‘honour’ as primarily cultural rather than patriarchal, in some cases they have begun to take a more gender-based or ‘mature multiculturalism’ approach.

Gender and the law of provocation in the long twentieth century

ABSTRACT

Provocation was an important common law doctrine, separating murder from manslaughter: a matter of life and death. It was particularly significant in the context of ‘domestic violence’. This article examines the doctrine as a lens through which to view gender relations in the long twentieth century. The doctrine developed from its origins in the early modern period until mid-twentieth century. Throughout this lengthy period provocation was narrowly confined for both genders. However, case law developments in mid-twentieth century gave rise to a doctrine which was unforgiving for abused women. At about the same time, statutory and case law changes produced a much broader partial defence of provocation available to men who had killed their wives. It was not until the very end of the century, and the beginning of the twenty-first century, that a more gender-neutral concept of provocation began to emerge as a result of feminist campaigning.     

Provocation and Pluralism

What is the best way to reflect human diversity in the structure of the provocation defence, and similar excusatory defences in the criminal law? The House of Lords recently concluded that the right way is to allow the jury to personalise and thereby qualify the apparently uniform ‘reasonable person’ standard mentioned in section 3 of the Homicide Act 1957. In this paper we argue that this is not the right way at all. We argue that the reasonable person standard, unqualified, already accommodates the only variations between people that the law should want to accommodate in an excusatory defence. To defend this view we revive the common law's tripartite analysis of the ‘objective’ (or impersonal) issues in the provocation defence: first, was there an action capable of constituting a provocation? second, how provocative was it? and third, how much self‐control should have been exhibited in the face of it? We show that these questions each have a built‐in sensitivity to certain variations between different defendants' situations, but that this does not detract from their objectivity (or impersonality). We argue that no more sensitivity is needed in the name of human diversity, and what is more that no more sensitivity is desirable.     

陷害教唆与警察圈套的刑法学思考

陷害教唆和警察圈套不仅是理论中的一个难题,在实践中更是一个存在较多争议的问题。陷害教唆必须从“教唆”和“陷害”两方面来界定其内涵和基本要件,并以此为出发点来对陷害教唆犯的可罚性问题进行考察。同时,由于警察圈套行为和教唆行为的紧密联系,在具体适用时,为达到防卫社会和保障人权功能的两者和谐统一,要对警察圈套在司法实践中的运用标准和具体条件进行严格的限定。