Suchergebnisse

Der kürzlich verstorbene Frankfurter Soziologe begleitete seit Jahren sachlich den sozialen Wandel (zuletzt ID 32/04). Hier wendet er sich mit klugen Argumenten gegen Angstmacherei vor der demografischen Katastrophe (Vergreisung, sinkende Geburtenrate). Er sieht in der Verkleinerung der Familie ein Wachsen ihrer Qualität. Elternschaft bedeute nicht notwendig Glück, Lebenssinn und Verantwortung. Auch staatliche Anreize würden die Veränderung von Familienstrukturen und individualistischen Einstellungen nicht wesentlich beeinflussen können. Soziale Sicherung sei auch ohne Nachwuchs möglich. Absehbar sei, dass auch in anderen Kulturkreisen mit dem Wohlstand der Kinderreichtum abnehmen werde. Er interpretiert die heutigen Lebensumstände und -gefühle meisterhaft und differenziert. Er sieht den Geburtenrückgang kritisch, bewertet aber alternative, liberale Beziehungsmodelle - auch ausserhalb der Familie -, Kommunikation und Engagement sehr positiv. Seine Ansichten, für viele tröstlich, für manche empörend, noch aspektreicher als E. Kistler "Die Methusalem-Lüge" (BA 12/06), verdienen breite Diskussion. (1)

Domestic violence remains a major public policy concern despite two decades of policy intervention. To eliminate police inaction in response to domestic violence, many states have passed mandatory arrest laws, which require the police to arrest abusers when a domestic violence incident is reported. These laws were justified by a randomized experiment in Minnesota which found that arrests reduced future violence. This experiment was conducted during a time period when arrest was optional. Using the FBI Supplementary Homicide Reports, I find mandatory arrest laws actually increased intimate partner homicides. I hypothesize that this increase in homicides is due to decreased reporting. I investigate validity of this reporting hypothesis by examining the effect of mandatory arrest laws on family homicides where the victim is less often responsible for reporting. For family homicides, mandatory arrest laws appear to reduce the number of homicides. This study therefore provides evidence that these laws may have perverse effects on intimate partner violence, harming the very people they seek to help.

The right to an equal and fair trial regardless of wealth is a hallmark of American jurisprudence. To ensure this right, the government pays attorneys to represent financially needy clients. In the U.S. federal court system, indigent defendants are represented by either public defenders who are salaried employees of the court or private attorneys, known as Criminal Justice Act (CJA) attorneys, who are compensated on an hourly basis. This study measures differences in performance of these types of attorneys and explores some potential causes for these differences. Exploiting the use of random case assignment between the two types of attorneys, an analysis of federal criminal case level data from 1997-2001 from 51 districts indicates that public defenders perform significantly better than CJA panel attorneys in terms of lower conviction rates and sentence lengths. An analysis of data from three districts linking attorney experience, wages, law school quality and average caseload suggests that these variables account for over half of the overall difference in performance. These systematic differences in performance disproportionately affect minority and immigrant communities and as such may constitute a civil rights violation under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.