Parenting in Dependency Drug Court
By Jaime L. Dice, Angelika H. Claussen, Lynne F. Katz, and Judge Jeri B. Cohen

Abstract: The Dependency Drug Court (DDC) in Miami, Florida, addresses the needs of families affected by substance abuse through a comprehensive and therapeutic approach. The DDC works with community agencies to provide services that effectively treat the family as a unit. This article discusses the process of adapting a parenting program to meet the needs of families in the DDC.

Treatment Decisions for Critically Ill Infants: The Abrogation of the Best Interests Standard
By Frank I. Clark

Abstract: The issue of withholding or withdrawing medical treatment from seriously ill newborns first gained the attention of the American public in 1982 when Baby Doe was allowed to die without surgery. Since that time, the predominant ethical, medical, and legal approach has been one that allows informed parents to make a reasonable medical treatment decision in the best interests of their infant with the concurrence of the health care providers. There has always been a minority that believes every infant should receive full medical treatment without regard to pain and suffering, until that infant dies a natural death. This viewpoint is reflected in recent judicial and legislative proceedings that have either already drastically changed the prevailing standard of care or threaten do so. This article reviews the significance of these changes.

Domestic Sexual Assault: A New Opportunity for Court Response
By Judith Berman

Abstract: Based on research conducted for the State Justice Institute, this article examines the invisibility of domestic sexual assault—also known as intimate partner sexual assault or spousal, wife, or marital rape—from the perspective of community and court responses to domestic violence and sexual assault. The article identifies the consequences of invisibility of domestic sexual assault, including the potential for lethality, and offers suggestions to courts for how to improve outcomes for victims and perpetrators. Areas explored include data collection and analysis, judicial leadership, and specialization in victim response systems, law enforcement and prosecution, court management, and offender intervention.

What Do Juvenile Offenders Know About Being Tried as Adults? Implications for Deterrence
By Richard E. Redding and Elizabeth Fuller

Abstract: An underlying assumption in the nationwide policy shift toward transferring more juveniles to criminal court has been the belief that stricter, adult sentences will act as either a specific or general deterrent to juvenile crime. With respect to general deterrence—whether transfer laws deter would-be offenders from committing crimes—it is important to examine whether juveniles know about transfer laws, whether this knowledge deters criminal behavior, and whether juveniles believe the laws will be enforced against them. The current study is one of the first to examine juveniles’ knowledge and perceptions of transfer laws and criminal sanctions. We interviewed 37 juveniles who had been transferred to criminal court in Georgia, obtaining quantitative as well as qualitative data based on structured interviewed questions. Four key findings emerged. First, juveniles were unaware of the transfer law. Second, juveniles felt that awareness of the law may have deterred them from committing the crime or may deter other juveniles from committing crimes, and they suggested practical ways to enhance juveniles’ awareness of transfer laws. Third, the juveniles generally felt that it was unfair to try and sentence them as adults. Finally, the consequences of committing their crime were worse than most had imagined, and the harsh consequences of their incarceration in adult facilities may have had a brutalizing effect on some of them. The implications for general and specific deterrence are discussed.