Volume 2, No. 1, Fall 1997

Battered Women, Sleeping Abusers, and Criminal Responsibility
Joshua Dressler

According to ordinary self-defense law, a person may only kill an aggressor if she reasonably believes that she is combating an imminent deadly threat. Therefore, a battered woman who kills her abusive partner while he is asleep or otherwise in a passive condition (a "nonconfrontational" homicide) cannot claim self-defense. This rule is breaking down. Increasingly, states permit battered women to introduce evidence of "battered woman syndrome" and claim that, as a result of the syndrome, she reasonably believed that the sleeping abuser represented an imminent threat to her life. This trend, although understandable, is conceptually muddled and unwise. It is muddled because evidence that a woman suffers from a syndrome -- a set of abnormal mental symptoms -- converts a justifiable (rightful) homicide into (at most) an excusable (wrongful, but not blameworthy) homicide. The syndrome evidence pathologizes the woman. But, even if this were not so, the act of killing a person while he is asleep should not be justified by our law. None of the bases for justification that are advanced -- that the abuser has forfeited his right to life, that the woman is a justified vigilante, or that she is merely asserting her right of autonomy -- withstands close scrutiny. Some nonconfrontational homicides, however, should be excused (rather than justified), but without use of syndrome testimony. Battered women should be able to assert a duress-type defense, the basis of which is that the homicide is wrongful, but that the actor did not have a fair opportunity to obey the homicide laws.

Joshua Dressler received his B.A. and J.D. degrees, each with honors, from UCLA. He is a widely quoted, internationally recognized scholar in the fields of criminal law and criminal procedure. Currently a professor of law at McGeorge School of Law, University of the Pacific, he has also taught as a visitor or in continuing status at the law schools at University of California, Berkeley; Wayne State University; UCLA; University of Michigan; University of California, Davis; University of Iowa; and Hamline University.

Employment and Crime Prevention: An Economic Perspective
Shawn D. Bushway

The role of employment in crime has traditionally been approached from a utilitarian perspective that is quite narrow in its conception of rational choice. Public policies based on the narrow framework have failed in many ways, notably crime reduction. Yet the hypothesis that reduced unemployment might reduce crime could still survive empirical testing if the policies were designed to accommodate the insights of broader criminal theory and research that suggest the need for a neighborhood-level focus. Despite millions spent evaluating job training programs, not one study has ever tested the effects of raising neighborhood employment levels on neighborhood crime rates. Until that hypothesis is tested, public policies for crime prevention will miss a major opportunity in a small number of inner-city neighborhoods where work has disappeared and homicide rates are more than 20 times the national average (Wilson 1996).

Shawn Bushway received his Ph.D. in Public Policy Analysis and Political Economy in 1996 from the H. John Heinz III School of Public Policy and Management at Carnegie Mellon University. He is currently a post-doctoral fellow for the National Consortium on Violence Research working at the University of Maryland, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice.

The Mexican Banking Industry: Can Regulatory Incentives for High-Risk Lending Lead to White-Collar Crime?
Luis Urrutia

This article discusses how the regulatory structure may facilitate the commission of white-collar crime in the Mexican banking sector. It provides an overview of structural and institutional conditions and the impact of policies on opportunities for high-risk activities in the banking industry. Current problems - such as an all-encompassing liability protection mechanism, tolerance of weak prudential practices, and deficient accounting and reporting standards - maintain an environment propitious for reckless activities in Mexican banking management. The possible connection of highly risky transactions to unlawful activities is then discussed. Finally, the article argues that future policymaking, when considering changes in regulatory structure, must take into account the incentives produced by earlier policies.

Luis Urrutia is an attorney admitted in Mexico. He is also a master's candidate at the Harris School of Public Policy.

Legalize It? A Demand-Side Strategy for the War on Drugs
A.C. Pritchard

Pritchard argues that the government's war on drugs, which directs enforcement efforts toward drug sellers rather than drug users, spawns excessive violence. A better plan would be to make drug possession and selling legal and punish only drug use, albeit more stringently than current practice. Economics shows that legalizing the possession and sale of drugs, while keeping drug use illegal, will diminish the violence that is an all-too-familiar side effect of the current means of waging the war on drugs. At the same time, such a strategy would guard against a steep escalation in drug use.

A.C. Pritchard is Senior Counsel, Office of General Counsel, Securities and Exchange Commission. He will serve as a visiting Assistant Professor at the Northwestern University School of Law in the spring of 1998. He is a member of the Council of Scholars, Foundation for Economic Education. Pritchard received his M.P.P. from the Harris School of Public Policy and his J.D. from the University of Virginia.

A Response to S 10: The Case for Gun Control and Early Intervention in Juvenile Delinquency-Prevention Legislation
Kristeen G. McLain

A proposed reauthorization of the Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention Act (S 10) would remove important federal protections for children in custody, increase the opportunities to jail children with adults, and provide for prevention and intervention efforts only a small fraction of the billions of dollars proposed for incarceration. This bill reflects current popular sentiment that violent juvenile crime is best addressed by inflicting more severe punishment on youth offenders and treating juveniles as adults. Yet severity of punishment is not necessarily the best deterrent for juvenile delinquency. This paper examines current crime statistics and trends to determine what role the juvenile plays in the overall escalation of violent crime. By examining the external and internal causes of delinquency, I suggest that effective juvenile justice policy, both legislation and social programs, should incorporate multiple components: strong intervention and prevention efforts, both early on in life and throughout the course of adolescent development, and effective gun control laws. Unlike the proposed S 10 programs, successful deterrence and cessation policies of juvenile crime must incorporate a comprehensive agenda that includes not only sanctions and jail sentences, but also gun control and other prevention efforts.

Kristeen G. McLain is a master's candidate at the Harris School of Public Policy and has worked with the Child Welfare League of America.

Last Chance for the Condemned: Do Media Matter in Gubernatorial Clemency Decisions?
David Protess

This study investigated the news media's agenda-setting influence on gubernatorial clemency decisions in four Illinois death penalty cases. It found that press coverage of the cases had little effect on the governor's exercise of his discretionary clemency power, even when a journalistic campaign for clemency mobilized public opinion on behalf of a condemned inmate. Instead, established political, legal, and organizational considerations prevailed. The study also examined factors that shaped the media's agenda in the final phase of capital cases, and found that press portrayals were influenced by the same norms that govern the coverage of violent crime, thereby circumscribing public discourse about capital punishment. The article concludes by reviewing recent developments in death penalty cases that offer a variety of opportunities for further research.

David Protess is a professor of journalism at Northwestern University, where he is also a faculty fellow at the Institute for Policy Research. He is the co-author of "The Journalism Outrage: Investigative Reporting and Agenda-Building in America" (Guilford, 1991) and two books about miscarriages of justice, "Gone in the Night", (Delacorte, 1993) and "A Promise of Justice" (Hyperion, in press).

Treating Juvenile Offenders as Adults: Wise Policy or Reactive Politics?
Wendy H. Perlmutter

The United States Senate and House of Representatives are considering legislation that will provide $1.6 billion to states that toughen their treatment of juvenile offenders. Currently, a vast majority of states have laws on the books that reduce the age at which children can be tried as adults in criminal court. Political pressure is mounting for passage of such measures, in large part due to the widespread public belief that the juvenile crime rate is rapidly on the rise and that a new class of "superpredatory" youth has emerged. At all levels of government, legislators are demanding that children who commit serious crimes be punished severely, drastically altering the juvenile court's longstanding mission to rehabilitate youth offenders. Before reaching such a conclusion, however, policy makers would be wise to explore alternatives that provide long-term treatment, counseling, and intervention services for juvenile offenders. Several model programs are in place around the nation that are working to prevent violent crimes and curb juvenile recidivism.

Wendy H. Perlmutter is a Finance and Policy Analyst for the Children and Family Justice Center's Clinical Evaluation Initiative at the Northwestern University School of Law. She recently received her M.P.P. from the Harris School of Public Policy.