The family stress model has, for decades, guided empirical work linking poverty with increased risk of child social-emotional dysfunction. The present study extends this line of work by examining whether child negative emotionality moderates associations between family income, family stress (maternal distress, parental locus of control, and relationship dissatisfaction), and later externalizing and internalizing behavior problems. In a longitudinal population-based sample (n ~ 80,000) of Norwegian children followed from birth through age five (The Norwegian Mother, Father, and Child Cohort Study; MoBa), we examined whether high (vs. moderate or low) negative emotionality families would display: (a) compounding stress (i.e., particularly strong associations between low family income and family stress), (b) diathesis-stress (i.e., particularly strong associations between family stress and behavior problems), or (c) double jeopardy (i.e., both compounding stress and diathesis-stress moderating effects). Negative emotionality significantly moderated the association between family income and behavior problems in a manner most consistent with double jeopardy. As a result, compared with children with moderate/low negative emotionality, the family income-behavior problems association was two to three times larger for those with higher negative emotionality. These findings underscore the active role children may play in family processes that link low family income with behavior problems.

The emergence of multijurisdictional anti-bribery actions presents a substantial challenge to multinational corporations (MNCs). Multiple sovereigns have the jurisdiction to pursue criminal enforcement action against the same entity for the same underlying bribery. The existing legal framework is not sufficient for addressing this global challenge. The difference between theories of double jeopardy and judicial practices across sovereigns complicates multinationals’ strategic designs of their compliance programmes. A global settlement regime would help in efficiently using precious judicial resources and incentivize MNCs to self-disclose in furtherance of their cooperation.

While the English Church shared in celebrating the 800th anniversary of Magna Carta, not least its own part in gaining those rights for everyone, the Church of England was reversing the principle that people are innocent until proved guilty. Such is the pressure of today's concern about child abuse, historic and present. As evidence mounts of the injustices done by false accusations against some high-profile public figures, we are less aware of the toll on other individuals whose turmoil does not hit the headlines. Those teaching and caring are often targeted for claims, and the Church of England has been toughening its procedures.

According to the ICTR, Emmanuel Bagambiki is an innocent man. The trial chamber and the Appeals Chamber have each unanimously acquitted the former Prefect of Cyangugu of crimes relating to Rwanda's horrific 1994 genocide. And on 19 July 2007 Bagambiki was reunited with his wife in children in Belgium, having been granted asylum a few days earlier. It is tempting to conclude that justice has been done in Bagambiki's case. That conclusion, however, would be too facile: Bagambiki was acquitted in February 2006, nearly 18 months before his family reunion. In the interim he lived in a safe house in Arusha paid for by the United Nations, wanted by Rwanda for trial on related charges and unable to convince Belgium that he posed no danger to its peace and security. Bagambiki, moreover, is one of the lucky ones: the nightmare of being free but having nowhere to go continues for two of his acquitted roommates in the safe house, Andre Ntagerura and Andre Rwamakuba, Rwanda's Minister of Transport and former Minister of Education respectively. Bagambiki's ordeal and Rwamakuba and Ntagerura's ongoing plight illustrate one of the basic problems facing international criminal tribunals: what to do with the acquitted. An acquitted defendant normally has two options: return to his country of origin, or find a third country that will grant him asylum. Both options, however, have been problematic for defendants acquitted by the ICTR and are likely to prove equally problematic for defendants who may be acquitted in the future by the ICC. This short essay explains why – and identifies what the international community should do about it.