This study compares the use of stigmatizing and reintegrative shame - as specified in Braithwaite's Crime, shame and reintegration (1989) - across traditional criminal court and mental health court settings. Items from the Global Observational Ratings Instrument were used to gather data on 87 traditional court cases and 91 mental health court cases, presided over by five different judges. The o...

Given the fundamental unidimensionality in the data on Supreme Court voting patterns 1951–1993 we observe, we are able to determine the identity of “median” members of each court in a fashion that does not require subjective coding of the extent to which particular cases reflect left-right issues. Also, while the exact numerical values of MDS-obtained locations cannot be compared across differe...

The juvenile court has been subject to increasing criticism over the years, particularly with regard to its handling of delinquency cases. This is in part the result of an inaccurate view of the court as primarily a criminal court that adjudicates crimes committed by children. This article proposes an alternative model for the court, one that encompasses its jurisdiction over dependency and sta...

BACKGROUND One of the consequences of migration is cultural diversity in various communities. This has created challenges for healthcare systems. OBJECTIVES The aim of this study is to explore the health care staffs' experience of caring for Immigrants in Mashhad- Iran. SETTING This study is done in Tollab area (wherein most immigrants live) of Mashhad. Clinics and hospitals that immigrants...

Title of Document: THE DETERMINANTS OF COURTMARTIAL DECISIONS: AN EMPIRICAL INVESTIGATION INTO THE AIR FORCE’S CRIMINAL COURT PROCESS Patricia D. Breen, Doctor of Philosophy, 2015 Directed By: Professor Brian D. Johnson, Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice In spite of many similarities with civilian criminal courts, public debate continues about further “civilianizing” the modern court...

Confusion surrounds the equitable liability of a third party to a trust or fiduciary relationship who participates in a breach of the trust or fiduciary duty, but without necessarily receiving trust property.1 Compounding this confusion is the absence of consensus in courts that share a common Chancery law heritage. Notably, the English courts, including the Privy Council within that term, and ...