Editor\u27s Note

This special issue of Court Review focuses on media matters. One provocative question related to media is the purported impact of an iconic television show, Crime Scene Investigation (CSI), on the judicial process. In the past few years, it has been frequently suggested, especially in the media, that judges, prosecutors, defense attorneys, and jurors have become influenced by CSI. The allegation is that the “CSI-effect” has resulted in an expectation that forensic evidence is required for successful criminal prosecutions. But is there (apologies to Gertrude Stein) a there there? Three articles in the special issue examine the so-called CSI-effect. Professors Steven Smith, Veronica Stinson, and Marc Patry of Saint Mary’s University (Halifax, Nova Scotia) find evidence there is, but they wonder whether the effect is not a juror-problem but rather manifests itself in the ways that attorneys behave. Judge Donald Shelton (also an adjunct professor, Thomas Cooley Law School and Eastern Michigan University) and his colleagues, Professors Gregg Barak and Young Kim (Eastern Michigan University), have found something is going on, but suggest it is a “tech effect” rather than a specific effect of television shows such as CSI or Law and Order. Professors Cole (University of California, Irvine) and Dioso-Villa (Griffith University, Brisbane, Australia) are skeptical but provide valuable guidance for protecting the judicial system against any impacts from real or imagined effects

Editor\u27s Note

This special issue, then, presents reports of a cross-jurisdictional (indeed, a multinational) program of high-quality research undertaken by careful researchers from the U.S. and Canada. I know reading research is dry, but it is a pleasure to read through these studies and learn about gender and aggression. I hope you agree

Introduction to Families and the Courts: Special Issue of \u3ci\u3eBehavioral Sciences & the Law\u3c/i\u3e

This special issue of Behavioral Sciences & the Law examines some of the many issues related to “Families and the courts.” As Judge Ted Rubin (this issue) observes, “Not everything or everybody ends up in a family court—or any other court—when there is a family problem. But much does and many do.” The issue deals with some of the family matters that do—or should—implicate the legal system (ranging from the attempts of gay men and lesbians to obtain legal recognition of their parental status vis-a-vis their children to the potential role of law in protecting children from emotional maltreatment by their parents). It also deals with issues regarding the nature, structure, definition, and jurisdiction of family courts; the practice of other courts that handle family matters (such as domestic violence), as well as some of the mental health professionals who aid the courts in their decision making. Scientific issues, practical issues, ethical issues, and political issues are covered. The six articles comprising the special issue span a vast territory

Editor\u27s Note

The special issue begins with Starita’s description of the first US case to give legal recognition to the first Americans as individuals. Although many treaties had been signed (and resigned) with tribes across the nation, the indigenous residents were not considered persons under US law. The case of Standing Bear changed how the courts were to deal with Native American issues, though the legal treatment of Native Americans continues to evolve in American law to this day. Fletcher examines state and federal court recognition of tribal court criminal convictions. He provides an overview of the constitutional landscape, and summarizes the key cases and developments as the contours of state and tribal cooperation in criminal enforcement matters continue to unfold. He points out particular challenges and issues related to how both state and federal courts handle prior tribal court convictions

Art and cultural production, with special reference to cartoons and caricature

The text quality is poor too poor for text recognition. Download the abstract file - "318394 Abstract.pdf

Revisioning Juvenile Justice: Implications of the New Child Protection Movement

This Article examines the soundness of the new family and community based juvenile justice system. Part I examines the punitive zeitgeist that has developed within the juvenile justice system. Part II then examines juveniles\u27 legal rights to in-home services and concludes that while juveniles may not have an affirmative right to in-home services, they do have liberty interests that protect against unnecessary removals from their homes. Part I details the reasons for directing efforts and resources to support family-based services for delinquent youth. This section explores the problems with current out-of-home placements, policy concerns favoring in-home placements, and the cost-benefit effectiveness of in-home placement programs. Part IV then provides an overview of the new family preservation statutes. These statutes highlight the often self-defeating effect of defamilization and state legislatures\u27 interests in nonpunitive approaches to children who require state intervention. Finally, Part V concludes that the new child protection movement should not ignore delinquent youth and cautions against creating the type of boilerplate statutes that have historically plagued the juvenile justice system