The Role of Gender in a Structured Sentencing System: Equal Treatment, Policy Choices, and the Sentencing of Female Offenders under the United States Sentencing Guidelines

1994 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 181 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ilene H. Nagel ◽  
Barry L. Johnson
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Female Offenders ◽  
The United States ◽  
Equal Treatment ◽  
Sentencing Guidelines ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Treatment Policy

scholarly journals NEITHER FISH NOR FOWL: ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGES IN THE MODERN ADMINISTRATIVE STATE

2010 ◽  
Vol 28 (2) ◽  
pp. 243
Author(s):  
Russell L. Weaver ◽  
Linda D. Jellum
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Administrative Law ◽  
Administrative State ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
The Status ◽  
Constitutional System ◽  
Administrative Adjudication ◽  
Divided Powers

This article examines the role of administrative adjudication in the United States constitutional system. It begins by noting that such adjudication fits uncomfortably within a system of divided powers. Administrative judges, including administrative law judges [ALJs] (who have the highest level of protection and status), are considerably more circumscribed than ordinary Article III judges. Indeed, administrative judges are usually housed in the agencies for which they decide cases, rather than in independent adjudicative bodies, and they do not always have the final say regarding the cases they decide. In many instances, the agency can appeal an adverse administrative judge’s decision directly to the head of the agency, and the agency head retains broad power to overrule the administrative judge’s determinations. In other words, the agency can substitute its judgment for that of the administrative judge regarding factual determinations, legal determinations, and policy choices. As a result, many administrative adjudicative structures involve difficult tradeoffs between independence, political control, and accountability. This article examines issues related to the status and power of administrative judges, as well as the constraints that have been imposed on administrative adjudicative authority, and explores whether those constraints continue to serve the purposes for which they were originally imposed.Cet article examine le rôle du règlement de différends dans le domaine administratif dans le cadre du système constitutionnel des États-Unis. Il note d’abord qu’une telle façon de régler les différends cadre difficilement avec un système où les pouvoirs sont divisés. Les juges administratifs, y inclus les juges de droit administratif (qui jouissent du niveau le plus élevé de protection et de statut), sont considérablement plus restreints que les juges ordinaires sous l’Article III. En effet, les juges administratifs sont d’habitude logés dans les agences pour lesquelles ils décident les cas, plutôt qu’au sein d’organismes indépendants de règlement de différends, et ils n’ont pas toujours le dernier mot dans les cas qu’ils jugent. Dans bien des cas, l’agence peut porter en appel directement au chef de l’agence une décision défavorable d’un juge administratif, et le chef de l’agence possède de vastes pouvoirs pour annuler la décision du juge administratif. En d’autres mots, l’agence peut substituer son jugement à celui du juge administratif quant aux décisions de fait, aux décisions de droit et aux choix de politiques. Par conséquent, plusieurs structures de règlement de différends dans le domaine administratif comportent des compromis difficiles entre l’indépendance, le contrôle politique et l’obligation de rendre compte. Cet article examine des questions se rapportant au statut et au pouvoir de juges administratifs, ainsi qu’aux contraintes qui ont été imposées sur l’autorité de régler des différends dans le domaine administratif, et explore la question à savoir si ces contraintes continuent à servir les buts pour lesquels elles ont été imposées originellement.

The Role of Gender and Sensation Seeking in Film Choice

2008 ◽  
Vol 20 (3) ◽  
pp. 97-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Smita C. Banerjee ◽  
Kathryn Greene ◽  
Marina Krcmar ◽  
Zhanna Bagdasarov ◽  
Dovile Ruginyte
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Undergraduate Students ◽  
Sensation Seeking ◽  
Negative Mood ◽  
Positive Mood ◽  
The United States ◽  
High Arousal ◽  
Subject Design ◽  
Happy Mood

This study demonstrates the significance of individual difference factors, particularly gender and sensation seeking, in predicting media choice (examined through hypothetical descriptions of films that participants anticipated they would view). This study used a 2 (Positive mood/negative mood) × 2 (High arousal/low arousal) within-subject design with 544 undergraduate students recruited from a large northeastern university in the United States. Results showed that happy films and high arousal films were preferred over sad films and low-arousal films, respectively. In terms of gender differences, female viewers reported a greater preference than male viewers for happy-mood films. Also, male viewers reported a greater preference for high-arousal films compared to female viewers, and female viewers reported a greater preference for low-arousal films compared to male viewers. Finally, high sensation seekers reported a preference for high-arousal films. Implications for research design and importance of exploring media characteristics are discussed.

The link between coronavirus, anxiety, and religious beliefs in the United States and United Kingdom

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Rigoli
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
United Kingdom ◽  
Religious Beliefs ◽  
Well Being ◽  
The United States ◽  
Christian Faith ◽  
Stressful Event ◽  
Cultural Implications ◽  
The Impact

Research has shown that stress impacts on people’s religious beliefs. However, several aspects of this effect remain poorly understood, for example regarding the role of prior religiosity and stress-induced anxiety. This paper explores these aspects in the context of the recent coronavirus emergency. The latter has impacted dramatically on many people’s well-being; hence it can be considered a highly stressful event. Through online questionnaires administered to UK and USA citizens professing either Christian faith or no religion, this paper examines the impact of the coronavirus crisis upon common people’s religious beliefs. We found that, following the coronavirus emergency, strong believers reported higher confidence in their religious beliefs while non-believers reported increased scepticism towards religion. Moreover, for strong believers, higher anxiety elicited by the coronavirus threat was associated with increased strengthening of religious beliefs. Conversely, for non-believers, higher anxiety elicited by the coronavirus thereat was associated with increased scepticism towards religious beliefs. These observations are consistent with the notion that stress-induced anxiety enhances support for the ideology already embraced before a stressful event occurs. This study sheds light on the psychological and cultural implications of the coronavirus crisis, which represents one of the most serious health emergencies in recent times.

‘Does Law Matter to Anthropology?’

2018 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 86-91
Author(s):  
Sally Engle Merry
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
The United States ◽  
Legal Anthropology ◽  
American Anthropological Association ◽  
Law Schools ◽  
Relevant Question ◽  
Law Faculty ◽  
Way Of Thinking ◽  
Legal Training

This provocative question became the basis for a spirited discussion at the 2017 meeting of the American Anthropological Association. My first reaction, on hearing the question, was to ask, does anthropology care whether it matters to law? As a discipline, anthropology and the anthropology of law are producing excellent scholarship and have an active scholarly life. But in response to this forum’s provocation article, which clearly outlines the lack of courses on law and anthropology in law schools, I decided that the relevant question was, why doesn’t anthropology matter more to law than it does? The particular, most serious concern appears to be, why are there not more law and anthropology courses being offered in law schools? It is increasingly common for law faculty in the United States to have PhDs as well as JDs, so why are there so few anthropology/law PhD/JD faculty? Moreover, as there is growing consensus that law schools instil a certain way of thinking but lack preparation for the practice of law in reality and there is an explosion of interest in clinical legal training, why does this educational turn fail to provide a new role of legal anthropology, which focuses on the practice of law, in clinical legal training?

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document