Suchergebnisse

In light of the Court's recent holding in Gregg v. Georgia, future death penalty challenges almost certainly will focus upon the type and quality of evidence available to serve as "objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction."'" Unfortunately, the "objective indicia" that can be relied upon and the manner in which they are to be weighted is not altogether clear. In Gregg, for example, the Court emphasized such traditional considerations as legislative enactments, decisions rendered by juries, and the single post-Furman referendum on the death penalty.'" Additionally, evidence pertaining to the determinants of public support for capital punishment, as opposed to simpler assessments of the amount of support existing at any point in time, also was viewed as relevant.' The willingness of those concerned with eighth amendment capital punishment challenges to consider behavioral scientific research on determinants of public support for the death penalty provides the stimulus for the analysis presented in this Article. The thesis to be advanced may be summarized simply: there is ample reason to believe that public support for capital punishment is associated with two pervasive beliefs. The first is a belief that some kinds of behavior are sufficiently offensive to fundamental moral standards that death is an appropriate punishment, regardless of whether it serves any other end. Although philosophers make finer distinctions, this justification for capital punishment essentially is retributive. The second justification, which places less emphasis on whether a sanction is just or unjust in some abstract sense, reflects a belief that the death penalty serves to deter potential offenders from engaging in criminal behavior. This perspective on punishment can be viewed as utilitarian.

Abstract This study, essentially an extension of the recent work of Akers et al., represents an attempt to evaluate the utility of two theoretical paradigms in accounting for illicit drug use in a prison setting. Based on self‐report data obtained from a sample of 273 adult felons who were confined in a medium security penitentiary, the analysis presented demonstrates that virtually all of those inmates who reported drug use within the prison had also used drugs prior to their confident. Thus, contrary to the implications of the "deprivation model," but fully consistent with those of the "importation model" this particular pattern of prison behavior is clearly not a direct function of the conditions of confinement. Instead, while the structure of the prison may well influence the probability that those who have used drugs prod to con/unmet will continue to do so while in prison, drug use appears to be an example of a type of behavior within the prison which is best predicted by preprison socialization and experience.

Abstract An increasing amount of pressure has been directed toward juvenile court operations, much of which has focused on the hypothesized abuse of the broad discretionary decision‐making power that has traditionally been vested in the court. In this paper, we attempt to examine the extent to which factors not directly associated with the nature of the alleged offense may alter the probability that a juvenile w.11 be referred for a formal hearing in the juvenile court, a step which many analysts feel may have the unintended function of promoting rather than inhibiting subsequent involvement in delinquent behavior. Based on an analysis of 346 cases, our findings show that a number of variables that are not of direct legal relevance do exert a significant influence on the dispositional process, but the magnitude of this influence is not as great as many have been led to expect given the orientation of some explanatory models, particularly those based on the propositions of the labeling school.