Intergovernmental Relations in the UK: Time for a Radical Overhaul?

Brexit and the coronavirus pandemic have put relationships between the UK government and its devolved counterparts under growing strain. Tensions generated by both of these developments have exposed the inadequacies of the existing, under-developed system for bringing governments together in the UK. The limitations of the current system include the ad hoc nature of intergovernmental meetings, and their consultative rather than decision-making character. Drawing upon an analysis of how intergovernmental relationships are structured in five other countries, the authors offer a number of suggestions for the reconfiguration of the UK model. They explore different ways of enabling joint decision making by its governments, and argue against the assumption that England can be represented adequately by the UK administration. Without a serious attempt to address this dysfunctional part of the UK’s territorial constitution, there is every prospect that relations between these different governments will continue to deteriorate.     

Types of Malingering in PTSD: Evidence from a Psychological Injury Paradigm

Psychological Injury and Law - The extent to which persons may feign or malinger psychological symptoms is an important concern for civil litigation, specifically in the context of personal injury....     

Applying Moral Foundations Theory to the Explanation of Capital Jurors’ Sentencing Decisions

Abstract

This study applies moral foundations theory to capital juror decision making. We hypothesized that binding moral foundations would predict death qualification and punitive sentencing decisions, whereas individualizing moral foundations would be associated with juror disqualification and a leniency effect. Additionally, we considered whether moral foundations can explain differences in death penalty application between conservatives and liberals. Respondents from two independent samples participated in a mock-juror task in which the circumstances of a hypothetical defendant’s case varied. Results revealed moral foundations were strong predictors of death qualification. The binding and individualizing foundations were related to sentencing decisions in the expected ways. Supporting our contention that moral foundations operate differently across different types of cases, heterogeneity in the effects of moral foundations was observed. Finally, we found support for the hypothesis that the relationship between sentencing decisions and conservatism would be attenuated by moral foundations.     

Self-Control and Deviance: A Test of the General Theory of Crime in Argentina

Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime (GTC) has been one of the most cited and tested theories in criminology. It posits to be in effect transcultural in its application and relevant for any norm-violating behaviors. As most empirical work has been completed in English speaking countries, the current study tested some of the main theoretical postulates in a sample of 214 Argentinean male adolescents, both offenders and non-offenders. More specifically, it tested the relationships between parental practices, self-control, criminal opportunities, and deviance. Findings provide evidence that offenders reported more deviant behaviors and more risk factors than non-offenders. They also provide partial empirical support for the main theoretical propositions. Maternal closeness, support. and monitoring had different effects on self-control and on deviance; both low self-control and opportunities had direct effects of deviant behaviors. Theoretical, research, and practical implications of study findings are discussed.     

Deaths of Despair: Gang Violence after the Crack Crisis

Critical Criminology - The end of the crack-cocaine crisis and collapse of open-air urban drug markets over the last two decades have reshaped the contours of gang life and gang violence in the...     

New Zealand lawyers and conveyancers disciplinary tribunal cases involving vulnerable clients, 2011–2017*

ABSTRACT

This research analyses disciplinary decisions of the New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (NZLCDT) from 2011 to 2017 that involve vulnerable clients. Increasingly, scholarship discusses vulnerability as an ethical concept, including in the legal context. Based on published decisions, the present study inquires whether some legal clients’ vulnerability warrants special attention. Twenty-five of the 193 clients in the NZLCDT decisions qualified as vulnerable based upon age, gender, mental health/neuro-disability or immigrant status. The results may inform disciplinary bodies and inspire preventive strategies by lawyers, educators and regulatory bodies. Ultimately, this evidence-based analysis magnifies the importance of client-centred approaches to risk reduction in legal practice.     

What do forensic analysts consider relevant to their decision making?

In response to research demonstrating that irrelevant contextual information can bias forensic science analyses, authorities have increasingly urged laboratories to limit analysts' access to irrelevant and potentially biasing information (Dror and Cole (2010) [3]; National Academy of Sciences (2009) [18]; President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (2016) [22]; UK Forensic Science Regulator (2015) [26]). However, a great challenge in implementing this reform is determining which information is task-relevant and which is task-irrelevant. In the current study, we surveyed 183 forensic analysts to examine what they consider relevant versus irrelevant in their forensic analyses. Results revealed that analysts generally do not regard information regarding the suspect or victim as essential to their analytic tasks. However, there was significant variability among analysts within and between disciplines. Findings suggest that forensic science disciplines need to agree on what they regard as task-relevant before context management procedures can be properly implemented. The lack of consensus about what is relevant information not only leaves room for biasing information, but also reveals foundational gaps in what analysts consider crucial in forensic decision making.     

Applying Stone in a Western Landscape: Ranchers,Conservationists, and Causal Stories in the “American Serengeti”

As the emergence of nongovernmental conservation efforts generates conflict among various stakeholders, the causal story that each party articulates regarding conservation and the causes of land degradation reflects their unique interests. This study uses existing literature to evaluate causal stories surrounding a contemporary conservation effort: Montana's American Prairie Reserve. Through qualitative review of web‐based documents and newspaper articles, it generates a preliminary account of key stakeholders' causal stories. The case study suggests that parties who might be disadvantaged by ascribing responsibility for environmental harms in an adversarial fashion may instead elect to articulate causal stories that are more neutral than existing approaches might forecast. The study concludes by suggesting that further development of causal story literature may enable it to better address contemporary conservation efforts.