Inconsistent State Court Rulings Concerning Pregnancy-Related Behaviors

State courts vary in their willingness to protect pregnant women\u27s rights to self-determination, bodily integrity, privacy, and religious freedom; these rights are sometimes outweighed by fetal rights to live. Different state courts have issued many competing decisions, which emphasizes a lack of unification in this area of law. This inconsistency in the law creates confusion for women concerning the scope of their legal protections and alters women\u27s selection of prenatal care and decision to give birth. Thus, it is important to recognize the prevailing themes and grounds on which courts have rested their opinions. An analysis of these state court rulings will expose a lack of unification among states\u27 interests in protecting either women\u27s rights or fetal rights. This article will first identify the factors that courts have used in their rulings; these are the factors that judges most often have used to support or limit pregnant women\u27s constitutional rights. A psycho-legal analysis then examines the effects of inconsistent rulings on women, the medical profession, and the law. The concluding section will provide recommendations for pregnant women and offer policy suggestions

Inconsistent State Court Rulings Concerning Pregnancy-Related Behaviors

State courts vary in their willingness to protect pregnant women\u27s rights to self-determination, bodily integrity, privacy, and religious freedom; these rights are sometimes outweighed by fetal rights to live. Different state courts have issued many competing decisions, which emphasizes a lack of unification in this area of law. This inconsistency in the law creates confusion for women concerning the scope of their legal protections and alters women\u27s selection of prenatal care and decision to give birth. Thus, it is important to recognize the prevailing themes and grounds on which courts have rested their opinions. An analysis of these state court rulings will expose a lack of unification among states\u27 interests in protecting either women\u27s rights or fetal rights. This article will first identify the factors that courts have used in their rulings; these are the factors that judges most often have used to support or limit pregnant women\u27s constitutional rights. A psycho-legal analysis then examines the effects of inconsistent rulings on women, the medical profession, and the law. The concluding section will provide recommendations for pregnant women and offer policy suggestions

Assessing Legal Responses to Prenatal Drug Use: Can Therapeutic Responses Produce More Positive Outcomes than Punitive Responses

Expressing a growing concern for fetal well being, the 2006 Idaho Senate passed legislation that permits criminal charges to be brought against women who abuse illegal drugs while pregnant. This bill allows for the potential incarceration of violators for up to five years, as well as a possible $50,000 fine. In some locations, women have the option of choosing to go to drug court instead of serving time in jail or prison. These drug courts provide drug treatment, case management, drug testing, and supervision, while requiring women who abuse illegal drugs to regularly report to scheduled status hearings before a judge. Legislators, such as Idaho Senator Kate Kelly, have criticized these laws for being punitive. Such critics believe that addiction to methamphetamine is an illness and not a crime. Some critics are also concerned about the law\u27s effects on families. Senator Kelly also said, [c]riminalization of substance abuse, [and] the separation of infants from their mother, is not in the best interest of Idaho families. In other words, punitive measures are not necessarily the best policies; other options should be considered first. Also, Senator Denton Darrington stated [t]he goal of this legislation is to avoid the birth of meth babies. . . . While the current legal actions taken against prenatal substance abusers are intended to produce positive outcomes, such as healthier fetuses and mothers, negative results are possible. Avoidance of prenatal care, constitutional infringements, and discrimination are just a few of the possible negative effects. For example, while legislatures hope the new Idaho law will prevent prenatal drug abuse, experts fear that pregnant drug users will not seek prenatal care for fear of being prosecuted

Assessing Legal Responses to Prenatal Drug Use: Can Therapeutic Responses Produce More Positive Outcomes than Punitive Responses

Expressing a growing concern for fetal well being, the 2006 Idaho Senate passed legislation that permits criminal charges to be brought against women who abuse illegal drugs while pregnant. This bill allows for the potential incarceration of violators for up to five years, as well as a possible $50,000 fine. In some locations, women have the option of choosing to go to drug court instead of serving time in jail or prison. These drug courts provide drug treatment, case management, drug testing, and supervision, while requiring women who abuse illegal drugs to regularly report to scheduled status hearings before a judge. Legislators, such as Idaho Senator Kate Kelly, have criticized these laws for being punitive. Such critics believe that addiction to methamphetamine is an illness and not a crime. Some critics are also concerned about the law\u27s effects on families. Senator Kelly also said, [c]riminalization of substance abuse, [and] the separation of infants from their mother, is not in the best interest of Idaho families. In other words, punitive measures are not necessarily the best policies; other options should be considered first. Also, Senator Denton Darrington stated [t]he goal of this legislation is to avoid the birth of meth babies. . . . While the current legal actions taken against prenatal substance abusers are intended to produce positive outcomes, such as healthier fetuses and mothers, negative results are possible. Avoidance of prenatal care, constitutional infringements, and discrimination are just a few of the possible negative effects. For example, while legislatures hope the new Idaho law will prevent prenatal drug abuse, experts fear that pregnant drug users will not seek prenatal care for fear of being prosecuted

Do Judges’ Instructions About Eyewitnesses Really Work?: A 2019 Update

Many problems are associated with eyewitness identifications. Perhaps most importantly, eyewitness testimony can predispose jurors toward guilty verdicts,4 and has contributed to wrongful convictions and incarcerations.5 Indeed, 75% of the wrongfully convicted persons released by DNA evidence were convicted based, at least in part, on eyewitness testimony.6 In 2011, New Jersey’s Supreme Court in State v. Henderson approved new judicial instructions in an attempt to educate jurors about the many factors that can influence the accuracy of an eyewitness,7 but subsequent research questions the efficacy of such judicial instructions.8 A special issue of Court Review released right after the Henderson9 decision reviewed the psychological research on eyewitnesses. This included an article on judicial instructions in cases involving eyewitnesses, but research regarding Henderson instructions was too new to be included.10 In the six years since the 2012 review was published, researchers have conducted studies specifically testing the Henderson instructions, including the current study which examined the effects of case facts, judicial instructions (including a proposed verdict form), and mock-jurors’ pre-existing belief in the fallibility of memory on perceptions of the eyewitness and defendant in a case involving eyewitness testimony. This article has two purposes: 1) to provide an up-to-date summary of the laws and research regarding eyewitnesses and eyewitness memory since the 2012 special issue of Court Review and 2) to present the results of a new study testing whether instructions and a verdict form help jurors distinguish between good and bad eyewitnesses. This updated review will ultimately make recommendations for how judges should approach the problem of faulty eyewitnesses and jury instructions—and how jurors interpret their testimony