THE HISTORY OF MODERN CHILDHOOD, THE AUTHOR ARGUES, IS A HISTORY OF THE IMPOSITION OF MIDDLE-CLASS NORMS ON OTHER PEOPLE; IT CULMINATED IN THE PROLIFERATIONOF JUVENILE INSTITUTIONS OF INCARCERATION IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY. ADVOCATES OF CHILDREN'S RIGHTS AIM TO INHIBIT THIS IMPOSITION, BUT THEIR DEMAND FOR AUTONOMY OF CHILDREN IT SELF IMPOSES EMERGENT MIDDLE-CLASS VALUES.
Introduction: Puritans, Cavaliers, and the motley middle / by Michael Zuckerman -- The birth of the "modern family" in early America / by Barry Levy -- The Scottish proprietors and the planning of east New Jersey / by Ned Landsman -- The roots of Episcopalian authority structures / by Deborah Mathias Gough -- Power challenged / by Valerie G. Gladfelter -- Quaker tribalism / by Susan S. Forbes -- The Quaker connection / by Nancy Tomes -- Diversity and its significance in an eighteenth-century Pennsylvania town / by Laura L. Becker -- This Tory labyrinth / by Wayne Bodle
In American mythology, the town meetings of colonial New England are the storied source of the nation's democracy. But early New Englanders allowed the great majority of their adult males to vote only because they had no other way to secure social order. Without king, court, country lords, archbishop, or any other traditional authority, their rude frontier communities could only be ruled by public opinion. Town meetings were occasions to consolidate a popular will that could coerce the recalcitrant. They governed by common consent, but they were not democratic in any modem sense. They disallowed legitimate difference and dissent, disdained majority rule, and dreaded conflict. They were predicated on a homogeneity and a conformity that we today would find suffocating.
In American mythology, the town meetings of colonial New England are the storied source of the nation's democracy. But early New Englanders allowed the great majority of their adult males to vote only because they had no other way to secure social order. Without king, court, country lords, archbishop, or any other traditional authority, their rude frontier communities could only be ruled by public opinion. Town meetings were occasions to consolidate a popular will that could coerce the recalcitrant. They governed by common consent, but they were not democratic in any modem sense. They disallowed legitimate difference and dissent, disdained majority rule, and dreaded conflict. They were predicated on a homogeneity and a conformity that we today would find suffocating.
A century ago, adolescence was understood as a stage of life marked by awakening sexual urgency and by rebellious alliance with fellow teens against adult authority. It was a time of storm and stress. Modern students of adolescence no longer find much evidence of that teen turmoil. On the empirical evidence, they pronounce the great majority of adolescent experience continuous with childhood patterns and congruent with adult formations to come. But vernacular American perceptions have proven impervious to this new academic understanding. In the popular culture, adolescents still seem antagonistic to society. Adults still see teens as out of hand and beyond control. They still mistrust them and expect the worst of them. They still fear them and their peer culture. This essay examines that paradox: no matter what research reveals, belief in the generation gap and its attendant age-animosities still prevails in contemporary America. Generational antagonism makes sense to Americans, even if social scientists can't find much of it. This essay proposes that persisting American obsession with adolescent transgression reflects persisting adult anxiety about standards in a society that has been uncertain of its standards for four centuries.
Many Illinois litigators have encountered spoliation of evidence, which is the loss, destruction, or alteration of evidence. Examples of spoliation are seemingly endless and include the failure to preserve the scene of a train derailment, the accidental destruction of evidence on a lawyer's desk by a janitor, the loss of a heater that exploded, the removal of wires from a car that caught on fire, the loss and alteration of medical equipment, and the intentional erasing of a computer image relevant to a copyright lawsuit. To combat spoliation, Illinois and many other states have developed common law and statutory methods to remedy and deter spoliation. Illinois' spoliation law, however, is somewhat unclear. Although Illinois does not recognize negligent spoliation as an independent cause of action, a party can state such a claim under traditional negligence law. That is, a litigant can bring an ordinary negligence claim for spoliation of evidence; the law need not make any special provision. In contrast to negligent spoliation, whether Illinois permits an independent cause of action for intentional spoliation remains an "open question." The Illinois Supreme Court has expressly declined to decide the question, and courts applying Illinois law are split. This Article argues that Illinois should recognize the tort of intentional spoliation of evidence.
Many Illinois litigators have encountered spoliation of evidence, which is the loss, destruction, or alteration of evidence. Examples of spoliation are seemingly endless and include the failure to preserve the scene of a train derailment, the accidental destruction of evidence on a lawyer's desk by a janitor, the loss of a heater that exploded, the removal of wires from a car that caught on fire, the loss and alteration of medical equipment, and the intentional erasing of a computer image relevant to a copyright lawsuit. To combat spoliation, Illinois and many other states have developed common law and statutory methods to remedy and deter spoliation. Illinois' spoliation law, however, is somewhat unclear. Although Illinois does not recognize negligent spoliation as an independent cause of action, a party can state such a claim under traditional negligence law. That is, a litigant can bring an ordinary negligence claim for spoliation of evidence; the law need not make any special provision. In contrast to negligent spoliation, whether Illinois permits an independent cause of action for intentional spoliation remains an "open question." The Illinois Supreme Court has expressly declined to decide the question, and courts applying Illinois law are split. This Article argues that Illinois should recognize the tort of intentional spoliation of evidence.
