Using case studies ranging from the Salem Witch Hunt to the Little Rascals Day Care case to illustrate their argument, "Jeopardy in the Courtroom" draws from the vast corpus of scientific research to clarify what is most relevant for evaluating and understanding children's statements made in the legal arena. Bringing good sense to a topic that is as timely as it is controversial, Ceci and Bruck provide prevalence and incidence statistics on child abuse, provide theoretical overviews of memory and suggestibility, trace the history of research on suggestibility from the turn of the century to the present, explore the dynamics of structured and therapeutic interviews with children, examine the topic of recovery of repressed memories of early childhood abuse, evaluate the research regarding age differences in the reliability of children's reports, and propose general guidelines for interviewing children in a sensitive and professional manner. /// Written in lively, accessible language by acknowledged experts in the field, this book will be an invaluable guide for expert witnesses and all those who work with child witnesses, including therapists, social workers, law enforcement personnel, and lawyers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved).

Using case studies ranging from the Salem Witch Hunt to the Little Rascals Day Care case to illustrate their argument, "Jeopardy in the Courtroom" draws from the vast corpus of scientific research to clarify what is most relevant for evaluating and understanding children's statements made in the legal arena. Bringing good sense to a topic that is as timely as it is controversial, Ceci and Bruck provide prevalence and incidence statistics on child abuse, provide theoretical overviews of memory and suggestibility, trace the history of research on suggestibility from the turn of the century to the present, explore the dynamics of structured and therapeutic interviews with children, examine the topic of recovery of repressed memories of early childhood abuse, evaluate the research regarding age differences in the reliability of children's reports, and propose general guidelines for interviewing children in a sensitive and professional manner. /// Written in lively, accessible language by acknowledged experts in the field, this book will be an invaluable guide for expert witnesses and all those who work with child witnesses, including therapists, social workers, law enforcement personnel, and lawyers. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved).

The credibility of children's testimony is a highly debated topic in America's courtrooms, universities, and living rooms. Does the ingenuousness of children assure that their testimony will always be truthful? Or are children easily misled by overzealous investigators and therapists into making untrue allegations? Stephen J. Ceci and Maggie Bruck contend that the truth falls somewhere between these extremes. Using case studies ranging from the Salem Witch Hunt to the Little Rascals Day Care case to illustrate their argument, Jeopardy in the Courtroom draws from the vast corpus of scientific research to clarify what is most relevant for evaluating and understanding children's statements made in the legal arena.

A former U.S. senator joins a legal scholar to examine a hushed effort to radically change our Constitution, offering a warning and a way forward. Over the last two decades, a fringe plan to call a convention under the Constitution's amendment mechanism—the nation's first ever—has inched through statehouses. Delegates, like those in Philadelphia two centuries ago, would exercise nearly unlimited authority to draft changes to our fundamental law, potentially altering anything from voting and free speech rights to regulatory and foreign policy powers. Such a watershed moment would present great danger, and for some, great power. In this important book, Feingold and Prindiville distill extensive legal and historical research and examine the grave risks inherent in this effort. But they also consider the role of constitutional amendment in modern life. Though many focus solely on judicial and electoral avenues for change, such an approach is at odds with a cornerstone ideal of the Founding: that the People make constitutional law, directly. In an era defined by faction and rejection of long-held norms, The Constitution in Jeopardy examines the nature of constitutional change and asks urgent questions about what American democracy is, and should be.

Since its debut in 1964, Jeopardy! has been one of America’s favorite and longest-running daytime quiz shows. It turns the question-answer format of traditional quiz shows on its head and requires contestants to pose correct questions to answers in selected categories. While mining information and facts from Alchemy to Zoology, Jeopardy!, is a uniquely intellectual, erudite, and challenging daytime television program. Far beyond entertaining its fans with nail-biting contests of knowledge, memory, and speed, it all but requires them to participate. Few people watch Jeopardy! without pressing an invisible button and blurting out questions to their TV screen. Because of this personal and intellectual investment, most Jeopardy! fans are devout. Watching the show is valued as a daily ritual in which genuine intellectual skill and encyclopedic knowledge (as opposed to thin Hollywood depictions such as those in Big Bang Theory or Rain Man) are not only respected and placed in the spotlight, but also rewarded with national prestige and prize winnings. Champion Ken Jennings (who contributes to this volume) has won over three million dollars and remained champion seventy-four times. For those who embrace Jeopardy! as an intellectual oasis in the arid desert of popular culture, it is the geeks who shall inherit the earth. Jeopardy!’s celebration of intellect and forward-thinking is well recognized throughout popular culture and among all age groups. Ken Jennings, Chuck Forrest, and other all-time champions are near celebrities, while the show itself regularly reaches out through special tournaments to different segments of American culture, such as actors and musicians (Celebrity Jeopardy!), high-school and college students (Teen Tournament and College Championship Jeopardy!) and senior citizens (Senior Tournament Jeopardy!). Still, despite its widespread respect and, some might complain, smug self-respect, neither the show nor its fans take themselves too seriously. Jokes about host Alex Trebek’s hair and famous parodies of Jeopardy! on Saturday Night Live are as familiar as Weird Al Yankovic’s MTV-mainstay “I Lost on Jeopardy!” (to the tune of “Our Love’s in Jeopardy”): Don't know what I was thinkin' of, I guess I just wasn't too bright. Well, I sure hope I do better Next weekend on The Price Is Right.

Traditionally, criticism of plays from the Yüan Dynasty (1260–1368) has been dominated by the so-called poetic and socialist schools. Double Jeopardy instead rigorously evaluates a group of plays by aesthetic criteria generated from within the works themselves. It examines seven courtroom plays with special attention to language and the manipulation of dramatic characters—undoubtedly the most reliable indicators of the playwright’s strength and craftsmanship in such a stylized art form as Yüan tsa-chü drama. The analytical method adopted in Double Jeopardy is textual explication of the conventions of genre and the individual characteristics of each play. The innovation and creative vitality of each playwright emerges through close scrutiny of selected conventional aspects of courtroom dramas: the functions and placement patterns of lyric, verse, and prose as well as the custom of a single singing role and its implication for the presentation of dramatis personae. Because Yüan drama is driven by conventions, Perng demonstrates a method that can be applied not just to judgment reversal plays but to Yüan dramatic criticism as a whole. In pursuing a method of textual explication, Perng provides a basis on which a larger framework of criticism of Yüan drama may be built.

"Institute for the Advancement of the American Legal System."