Search results

Morality harm and criminal justice -- Prostitution-sex work -- Drugs -- Homosexuality -- Abortion -- Pornography -- Gambling -- Conclusion.

There are two common contingencies that affect the extent to which the law coerces conduct: the jurisdiction and the offense. The jurisdiction in which crime is committed or contemplated reflects the nature of the legal threat (e.g., its certainty and severity), while the offense reflects behavior-specific barriers to effective legal threats. This paper reports a comparison of deterrent effects in two jurisdictions with widely differing penalties for marijuana use. The results indicate that both jurisdictional and offense characteristics are important, and that legal mechanisms were more important in that jurisdiction that had the least severe penalty for marijuana use, thereby suggesting that enforcement patterns were more important than the severity of the penalty. Moreover, extralegal controls were important mechanisms of social control in each jurisdiction.

The abolition of the insanity defense in Idaho in 1982 was the first time in recent years that a US jurisdiction had eliminated that traditional, common-law defense. Drawing upon questionnaire responses from 18 legislators, 9 prosecuting attorneys, & 5 psychiatrists, the circumstances surrounding this precedent-setting legislation are examined. It is concluded that the conservative ethic stressing personal responsibility for conduct, legal & illegal, seems to have been influential in bringing about the new law, although future constitutional challenges may raise issues about extension of the doctrine of strict liability in criminal cases. HA.

The abolition of the insanity defense in Idaho in 1982 was the first time in recent years that an American jurisdiction had eliminated that traditional, common-law defense. Drawing upon questionnaire responses from legislators, prosecuting attorneys, and psychiatrists, we examine the circumstances surrounding this precedent-setting legislation. We conclude that the conservative ethic stressing personal responsibility for conduct, legal and illegal, seems to have been influential in bringing about the new law, although future constitutional challenges may raise issues about extension of the doctrine of strict liability in criminal cases.