Statistics show that hate crimes continue to occur in United States, inciting fear and intimidation in minority communities (Petrosino, 1999; Torres, 1999; Saucier et al., 2006; Nolan et al., 2002; Jacobs & Potter, 1997). Although hate crime legislation has been passed, very little research has assessed what impact it has. This is particularly true for jury decision making. The aim of this study was to examine the main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate), offender-victim racial composition (African-American/Caucasian), and the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. The first hypothesis assumed that differences in guilt and hate crime adjudications would emerge across the experimental conditions. The second hypothesis indicated that dangerousness, and hate motivation would exert significant influence on deserved punishment and sentence recommendations; while witness credibility would exert influence on guilt adjudication. The third and fourth hypothesis stated that there would be no main effects of type of crime (hate versus non-hate) and offender-victim racial composition (African-American/Caucasian) on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. The fifth hypothesis suggested that there would be interaction effects between type of crime and offender-victim racial composition on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and recommended sentence after controlling for dangerousness, hate motivation, and witness credibility. Results indicated that there were no main effects for type of crime, offender-victim racial composition, or the interaction between these two variables on ratings of guilt likelihood, deserved punishment, and sentence recommendations. There was a significant interaction effect on ratings of guilt likelihood for aggravated battery; however this interaction disappeared after controlling for offender dangerousness, witness credibility, and hate motivation. Dangerousness and hate motivation appeared to exert influence on the study outcomes. Overall, the findings were not congruent with prior research. It appeared that the covarying factors seemed to exert significant influence on the study outcomes; thus further study is warranted.

In the light of the nature of the construction industry and the fact that it is often burdened with disputes arising from the contract, appropriate and unique alternative dispute resolution procedures are indispensable for disputes to be resolved quickly, efficiently and effectively. Section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides for the right to have disputes resolved by means of a public hearing before a court, alternatively, where appropriate, by means of an independent, impartial forum. Arbitration, mediation, conciliation and adjudication, to name but a few, are alternative methods used in resolving South African construction disputes. Some of these alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods are provided for in the Construction Industry Development Board recommended standard contracts. This study entails an analysis of the ADR methods in construction agreements with specific reference to the General Conditions of Contract for Construction Works 2010 (GCC 2010) and a comparison thereof with the English position. The application of the recommended ADR methods in the South African construction industry, especially adjudication, faces many challenges. There is no certainty as to the definition nor the procedure to be followed in the use thereof. The study concluded that there is a definite need for the contract to be reviewed, in particular the dispute resolution clause. The introduction of on- line dispute resolution was also recommended. This will contribute towards efficient, effective and expedient dispute resolution that is required due to the nature and role of the construction industry in a country‟s economy. There is also a definite need for legislation to be implemented which will assist in clarifying as well as regulating the adjudication procedure as used in the South African construction industry. / Thesis (LLM)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

In the light of the nature of the construction industry and the fact that it is often burdened with disputes arising from the contract, appropriate and unique alternative dispute resolution procedures are indispensable for disputes to be resolved quickly, efficiently and effectively. Section 34 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 provides for the right to have disputes resolved by means of a public hearing before a court, alternatively, where appropriate, by means of an independent, impartial forum. Arbitration, mediation, conciliation and adjudication, to name but a few, are alternative methods used in resolving South African construction disputes. Some of these alternative dispute resolution (ADR) methods are provided for in the Construction Industry Development Board recommended standard contracts. This study entails an analysis of the ADR methods in construction agreements with specific reference to the General Conditions of Contract for Construction Works 2010 (GCC 2010) and a comparison thereof with the English position. The application of the recommended ADR methods in the South African construction industry, especially adjudication, faces many challenges. There is no certainty as to the definition nor the procedure to be followed in the use thereof. The study concluded that there is a definite need for the contract to be reviewed, in particular the dispute resolution clause. The introduction of on- line dispute resolution was also recommended. This will contribute towards efficient, effective and expedient dispute resolution that is required due to the nature and role of the construction industry in a country‟s economy. There is also a definite need for legislation to be implemented which will assist in clarifying as well as regulating the adjudication procedure as used in the South African construction industry. / Thesis (LLM)--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2013

No description available.

Over the past 10-15 years, the epidemiological research literature on juvenile delinquency has suggested that there is an over-representation of males and Hispanics within the juvenile justice system, and a disproportionate number of youths having an IDEA disability, including emotional disability, learning disability, and mental retardation. In addition, juvenile delinquents tend to perform lower academically than their peers, come from low socioeconomic status backgrounds, drop out of school more often, and frequently come into contact with law enforcement agencies. Moreover, low academic achievement, male gender, and drop out contribute to the increased chances that adolescents will become involved in delinquent activities. Characteristics of juvenile delinquents also tend to be stable over time and resistant to most types of intervention.The purpose of the present study was to examine whether there were significantly greater percentages of school drop out in adjudicated versus non-adjudicated delinquent high school youths with and without an IDEA disability diagnosis. Significant differences between standardized test scores of those adjudicated and non-adjudicated youths who dropped out versus remained in school were also examined. Other variables studied in conjunction with these included gender, minority, and free/reduced lunch status.Chi-Square Tests of Independence revealed a significant association between adjudication and drop out, regardless of disability, gender, minority, or free/reduced lunch status. Chi-Square results also showed a significant association between adjudication and disability, but for non-drop out delinquent youths only. Drop out and disability was found to be significantly associated for males only.Univariate Analyses of Variance revealed significant differences in AIMS Reading standard scores between delinquents who had, versus had not, been identified as having a disability. Significant differences in reading scores were also found between those identified, versus not identified as SLD. Furthermore, an interaction effect between disability and minority status was present. Similar differences were found with respect to AIMS Math scores. Limitations and implications of findings as well as future research directions were discussed.

La crise de la justice existe depuis plusieurs décennies en France, en Angleterre et au Pays de Galles, et touchent de plus en plus d’autres États comme la Chine. Les mêmes causes, la libéralisation économique, politique et sociale produisent les mêmes effets : l’augmentation du contentieux, du coût du procès et de la longueur des procédures, même si le degré de la maladie est différent d’un système juridique à un autre. Régler les différends autrement est alors devenu une nécessité. Une nécessité, en terme d’accès à la justice et de garantie des droits, mais également en terme de coût non seulement pour le justiciable, mais aussi pour l’État, qui a conduit à faire évoluer le système judiciaire en favorisant l’émergence voire la réémergence d’un nouveau mode de régulation sociale : l’alternative dispute resolution (ADR) ou les modes amiables de résolution des différends (MARD) qui sont tous deux des modes informels, non judiciaires de résolution des différends. Néanmoins, les MARD sont loin d’être une copie conforme de l’ADR notamment en raison des différences culturelles juridiques et judiciaires qui existent au sein de chaque système juridique, et dans laquelle cette voie alternative évolue. Malgré des spécificités fondamentales, il existe de nombreuses convergences dans la mise en œuvre et les modalités de fonctionnement des processus amiables en France, en Angleterre, au Pays de Galles, et en Chine. Avec les modes amiables de résolution des différends ou l’alternative dispute resolution, la conception de la justice est différente de celle dictée par la justice traditionnelle. La solution n’est plus dictée par un tiers extérieur, mais par les justiciables eux-mêmes, seuls, ou avec l’aide d’un tiers qu’ils auront personnellement choisi. Cette liberté donnée aux parties constitue une caractéristique intrinsèque des modes amiables. Loin d’être isolé, ils viennent enrichir la réponse judiciaire aux différends. Ils peuvent être utilisés seuls ou en articulation avec l’institution judiciaire. / The crisis of justice existed for decades in France, England and Wales, affecting more and more countries like China. The same causes, economic, political and social liberalization, produce the same effects: increased litigation, the cost of the trial and the strength of the proceedings, even if the degree of the disease is different from a legal system to another. Resolve disputes otherwise then became a necessity. A necessity in terms of access to justice and guarantee of rights, but also in terms of cost not only for court users but for the state, which has led to change the legal system by promoting the emergence or the re-emergence of a new mode of social regulation: alternative dispute resolution (ADR) or alternative methods for resolving disputes (MARD), which are both informal methods, non-judicial dispute resolution. However, the MARD is far from being a copy of the ADR particularly because of legal and judicial cultural differences that exist in each legal system, in which the alternative phenomenon evolves. Despite these fundamental differences, there are many similarities in the implementation and operating procedures of the amicable process in France, England, Wales, and China. With ADR or MARD, the concept of justice is different from litigation. The solution is not dictated by an external third party, but by the parties, alone or with the help of a third party that they have personally selected. The freedom given to the parties is a specificity of the amicable modes. Far from being isolated, they enrich the judicial response to the dispute. They can be used alone or in coordination with the judiciary.

O presente trabalho trata das tutelas antecipadas em processos coletivos a partir do tratamento legal diferenciado dado pelo legislador e das considerações jurídicas não-legais próprias do seu objeto. Por meio de estudo comparado, o trabalho pretende enfrentar as dificuldades inerentes à complexidade das relações envolvidas, dando especial atenção à função do desenho da tutela antecipada, ao conceito de irreparabilidade e irreversibilidade, e à aplicação dos requisitos balance of hardships e interesse público. A análise passa pelas teorias da decisão judicial a fim de dar perspectiva à necessidade de um procedimento deliberativo mais complexo e minucioso para fins de responsividade das decisões judiciais. Ademais, explorase a adjudicaçãoo pragmática elaborada por Richard Posner e pretende-se sua aplicação aos processos coletivos por meio da introdução da análise de custo-benefício como procedimento decisório welfarista moralmente relevante, mas não moralmente decisivo. / This thesis focuses on the preliminary injunctions in class actions, having as the starting point the different legal treatment given by the legislator and the non-legal jurídical considerations that flows from its nature. By means of a comparative study, the work intends to face the inherent difficuties of the complex relationships entailed, paying extra attention to the function of the preliminary injunction structure, to the concept of irreparability and irreversibility, and to the way the requirements of balance of hardships and public interest apply. The analysis passes through the theories of the judicial decision-making process in order to give perspective to the need of more complex deliberative proceedings which must be done in full details to reach accountability. Furthermore, the work explores the pragmatic adjudication elaborated by Richard Posner and intends its application to class actions by means of the introduction of cost-benefit analysis as a welfarist decision-making procedure that is morally relevant, but not morally decisive.

Made available in DSpace on 2016-04-26T20:20:38Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 Gilberto Leme Menin.pdf: 409451 bytes, checksum: 9f818a23419cd1429e3837b51959e6ad (MD5) Previous issue date: 2011-11-10 / This dissertation aims to the studies of adjudication in the execution action of extrajudicial and fulfillment of sentence, especially from the strength of the Federal Law 11,382/2006, which lifted the institute of preferential expropriation technique. The choice of topic was given by the fact that few authors have discoursed profoundly on the subject. That aim was achieved through literature review, material collected during the collection of realized credits, research of legislation and jurisprudence. Began working from the historical origin of the adjudication of the Roman law, passing its application to Portuguese law and the Codes of Civil Procedure, the prior and current legislation and strength of legislation. Finally, we have made observations and suggestions to the project of the new Code of Civil Procedure / A presente dissertação tem como objetivo aprofundar os estudos da adjudicação na execução de título executivo extrajudicial e no cumprimento de sentença, notadamente a partir da entrada em vigor da Lei Federal 11.382/2006, que alçou o instituto à técnica de expropriação preferencial. A escolha do tema se deu pelo fato de poucos autores terem discorrido profundamente sobre o assunto. Tal objetivo foi atingido mediante revisão bibliográfica, material coletado durante a realização dos créditos, pesquisas de legislação e jurisprudência. Iniciamos o trabalho a partir da origem histórica da adjudicação no direito romano, passando-se à sua aplicação no direito português e nos Códigos de Processo Civil anteriores à atual legislação e na legislação em vigor. Por fim, tecemos observações e sugestões ao anteprojeto do novo Código de Processo Civil

O presente trabalho tem por objetivo discutir a teoria proposta por Ronald Dworkin para resolver os casos difíceis pela perspectiva da construção da decisão judicial e da sua legitimidade. A abordagem, no que se refere à decisão, procura esclarecer o conceito de Direito para Dworkin, a teoria da decisão judicial que ele propõe, e, por fim, como se opera a decisão nos casos difíceis, de modo a abordar as etapas da interpretação e o método de Hércules; o poder discricionário do juiz; os direitos institucionais e jurídicos e a tese da única resposta certa nos casos controversos. No que se refere à legitimidade, são discutidas as questões atinentes ao modelo de Estado de Direito em referência ao papel a ser desempenhado pelos juízes; o problema da coerção nos casos controversos e a eventual violação da Democracia pela teoria proposta por Dworkin / This work focuses on analyzing the Ronald Dworkin´s theory on hard cases from the perspective of adjudication and legitimacy. The approach, in relation of adjudication, intends to clarify the Dworkin´s concept of Law, the theory of adjudication, and, lastly, how works adjudication in hard cases, in order to, adjudication, and, lastly, how works adjudication in hard cases, order to enlighten the stages of interpretation and the Hercules´ method; judicial discretion; institutional and legal rights and the one right answer thesis in hard cases. In relation to legitimacy, the discussion is focused on rule of law concerning to the role that judges play; the problem of coercion on hard cases and the possible threatens to democracy that Dworkin´s theory would represent

Emerging research has shown that women and men perceive criminal stalking differently, yet there is little research addressing why these differences exist. For example, mock juror research on intimate stalking has found that men are more likely than women to render lenient judgments (e.g., not-guilty verdicts). Understanding the underlying attitudes associated with differences in how men and women interpret whether certain behaviors would cause reasonable fear is crucial to an evaluation of current anti-stalking legislation. The primary goals of this research were: (1) to examine the extent to which beliefs that support stalking (i.e., stalking myth acceptance – SMA victim blame, SMA flattery, and SMA nuisance) predicted individual trial judgments of men and women, and (2) to test whether endorsement of SMA can be predicted from particular attitudinal correlates (e.g., hostility toward women). Overall, women were more likely than men (N = 360) to render trial judgments (e.g., guilty verdicts) supportive of the victim and were less likely to endorse SMA beliefs. Results also indicated that endorsement of particular SMA beliefs and personal experience (being the victim of and/or knowing a victim) explained why women and men differed on some trial judgments. For example, the odds of rendering a guilty verdict were less for participants who endorsed SMA flattery beliefs. In addition, participants who reported knowing someone who had been a victim were at greater odds of rendering a guilty verdict. Finally, participants who endorsed more traditional gender-role stereotypes were more likely to adhere to SMA beliefs. Results provide insight into the efficacy of current anti-stalking legislation that relies on a juror’s capacity to evaluate an “objective” interpretation (i.e., “reasonable person”) standard of fear for intimate stalking.