Search results

The purpose of this paper is to explore how judges perceive High Functioning Autistic Spectrum Disorders (hfASDs) and the disorders’ effects on an offender's ability to formulate criminal intent and control behaviour.

Semi-structured interviews on topics related to offenders with hfASDs were conducted with 21 California Superior Court Judges. A coding scheme was developed and an iterative qualitative coding process was used for analysis.

Analysis yielded three major themes on how an hfASD diagnosis affects an offender's ability to regulate actions and criminal behaviour. Interviewed judges reported beliefs that hfASD offenders view the world in a different way and that much of their behaviour is not under their direct control. Judges reported these perceptions likely affect how they criminally process and make legal decisions regarding offenders with hfASDs.

The sample size was small and therefore no statistical significance can be drawn from results; findings cannot be applied to perceptions or experiences of the entire California Superior Court Judge population.

Past academic research reports that individuals with hfASDs that offend often do so because of specific symptoms associated with the disorder. This presents a complex dilemma for the criminal justice system regarding how best to understand the disorder and process these offenders. This study and its findings aim to shed light on issues judges encounter in determining these offenders’ responsibility and sentencing, in what ways this information might be integrated into judicial decision making, and areas where future research is needed.

Individuals with an autism spectrum condition (ASC) represent a small proportion of patients detained in high-secure psychiatric care (HSPC) with specific difficulties and needs. To date there has been little exploration of how these needs are viewed by staff or if staff have unmet needs with regard to working with ASCs. The paper aims to discuss these issues.

A questionnaire examining specific views (on vulnerability, benefits from therapy and making adjustments to practise), knowledge and training needs linked to ASC was distributed to staff who directly worked with patients.

In total, 206 questionnaires were returned (approximately 60 per cent distributed). Most staff reported making adjustments in their practise and believed patients with an ASC were more vulnerable than other patient groups. Half of staff expressed the view, that whilst patients with an ASC benefited from therapies, they were unaware if an individual’s difficulties were considered in their care. Half of staff believed individuals with an ASC should be managed in a different way. Most staff reported not having adequate skills to work with ASC, a wish for more training and that such training should be mandatory. Other than psychiatrists most staff were unaware of the Autism Act (2009). The need for a specialist ASC ward within HSPC was also highlighted by several staff.

The survey highlights differences in staff experiences of patients with an ASC and view that autism training should be mandatory.

Whilst progress has been made with implementing the government’s Autism Strategy (2010) within HSPC, more awareness training is required in promoting staff confidence to work with this group of patients.

Investigates the differences in protocols between arbitral tribunals and courts, with particular emphasis on US, Greek and English law. Gives examples of each country and its way of using the law in specific circumstances, and shows the variations therein. Sums up that arbitration is much the better way to gok as it avoids delays and expenses, plus the vexation/frustration of normal litigation. Concludes that the US and Greek constitutions and common law tradition in England appear to allow involved parties to choose their own judge, who can thus be an arbitrator. Discusses e‐commerce and speculates on this for the future.

Purpose – This study tracks the legal control of the problem of substance abuse.

Methodology/Approach – The chapter explores the “natural history” of the evolution of the social construction of drug use and our collective response to it. Over the past 100 years, our understanding of drug use/abuse and the system for handling drug problems have gone through a series of changes. In the past 20 years or so, provision of treatment for drug offenders within the criminal justice system has rapidly expanded. California's recently enacted Proposition 36 (Prop 36) initiates for the first time on a mass basis the court-supervised drug treatment that began a decade earlier on a much smaller scale with the original drug courts. This chapter compares the Prop 36 program for diverting nonviolent drug offenders into court-supervised treatment with the original drug courts.

Findings – The research shows how court-supervised drug treatment has evolved from a personalized care program in the original drug courts to a mass processing operation under Prop 36. The research finds that the social problem solution of offering treatment to more drug defendants created its own unanticipated consequences and problems, including significant standardization in the operations of the court and a dilution of many useful features that defined the early drug courts.

Practical implications – “Farming out” drug defendants to probation and treatment makes case-processing and treatment potentially less effective therapeutically. The chapter raises questions about how social control can extend its domain without “breaking the bank” and what the consequences are for how social problems are handled.

The very contextual nature of most mitigating evidence runs counter to America’s individualistic culture. Prior research has found that capital jurors are unreceptive to most mitigating circumstances, but no research has examined the capital sentencing decisions of trial judges. This study fills that gap through a content analysis of eight judicial sentencing opinions from Delaware. The findings indicate that judges typically dismiss contextualizing evidence in their sentencing opinions and instead focus predominately on the defendant’s culpability. This finding calls into question the ability of guided discretion statutes to ensure the consideration of mitigation and limit arbitrariness in the death penalty.

This article focuses on one court case concerning the regulation of Anti-Abortion protesting and asks: (1) Do the various actors involved in this case recognize a tension between their actions and their broader beliefs concerning the regulation of political protests? (2) If this tension is recognized, how do the actors resolve it, and if it is not recognized, why is it not? While concerned with legal consciousness and cognitive dissonance, the article is framed by broader questions concerning tolerance and the interaction of law and political passions.

Workplace violence has become a national issue in recent years. Statistics have shown an alarming trend of workers injuring or killing other workers. Amid this chaos, a new legal concept is emerging called “negligent hiring”. This law requires employers to thoroughly investigate the background of job applicants to determine if candidates have propensity for violence. Employers are negligent if they fail to follow this requirement. Nevertheless, as a law, negligent hiring is flawed. In substance, it is vague and broad, and in application, it lacks the flexibility to adopt into dynamic of the employment market. Compounding this deficiency are the judges’ lack of concern for the unintended impact of their rulings. These two problems could mean that the law of negligent hiring itself could become a public issue if not addressed by the courts in the near future.

The Edmund Edelman Children’s Court is a juvenile dependency courthouse in Los Angeles designed with bright murals, open play spaces, and modified courtrooms to be “child-sensitive” and “family-friendly.” Through a recounting of the political and cultural forces at play building up to its construction, I argue that the decisions to build a “child-sensitive” court confirm the carceral containment of the culpable black adult. This article represents an inquiry into the cultural logic of the court’s construction, revealing the relationship between raced constructions of innocence and guilt. This study draws from five months of fieldwork conducted in the Edelman Children’s Court.