Government Responsibility and Electoral Accountability in Federations

Because federalism can be a threat to accountability, a modelof voting behavior in federations must accommodate voters' attributionsof responsibility to each order of government for policy outcomes.This study uses a panel survey of Canadians in both federaland provincial elections to ask whether voters are able to holdgovernments accountable in a federal context. Voters may ignoreissues where responsibility is unclear, they may reward or punishboth the federal and provincial governments to the same degree,or the confusion of jurisdiction may sour them on the governmentor even the political system. Canadians who blamed both governmentsfor problems in health care did not lake this judgment to theirvoting decision in either the 2000 federal election or the 2001elections in Alberta and British Columbia, while those who couldidentify primary responsibility did so. Federalism and intergovernmentalpolicymaking may reduce voters' ability to hold their governmentsaccountable.     

Impact of Defense-Only and Opposing Eyewitness Experts on Juror Judgments

Previous research shows that expert testimony on eyewitness memory influences mock-juror judgments. We examined the extent to which opposing expert testimony mitigates the impact of defense-only expert testimony. Participants (N = 497) viewed a video-taped trial involving an eyewitness identification and individually rendered verdicts and evaluated the evidence and the experts. We manipulated the Foils (unbiased vs. biased) and Instructions (unbiased vs. biased) of the lineup and Expert Testimony (no expert vs. defense-only expert vs. opposing experts). Expert testimony did not significantly influence juror judgments, but the opposing expert testimony diminished the credibility of the defense expert in the eyes of the jurors. Results point to the need for further research on conditions that qualify the impact of expert testimony.     

Effects of inconsistent eyewitness statements on mock-jurors' evaluations of the eyewitness,perceptions of defendant culpability and verdicts

In attempting to discredit an eyewitness, it is a common strategy for an attorney to highlight inconsistencies in the eyewitness's recall testimony during cross-examination and encourage the jurors to infer, based on those inconsistencies, that the eyewitness's memory is faulty. An experiment was conducted to examine the effectiveness of this cross-examination strategy. Subjects viewed a simulated cross-examination and rendered judgmenets about the eyewitness and defendant. The type of inconsistent testimony was manipulated between subjects. Subjects exposed to inconsistent recall testimony about either central or peripheral details perceived the eyewitness as less credible (as evidenced by ratings on multiple dimensions) and the defendant as less culpable. Inconsistency on central details led to fewer convictions. Results point to the effectiveness of this cross-examination strategh.     

Influence of confidence inflation and explanations for changes in confidence on evaluations of eyewitness identification accuracy

Guidelines for conducting police line‐ups typically recommend immediate assessment of eyewitness confidence following identification. This confidence level can presumably be used to estimate accuracy even in the presence of subsequently inflated confidence. In this experiment, we examined students' perceptions of immediate and inflated confidence and whether their reliance on confidence varies as a function of the explanations given by the eyewitness for her inflated confidence. Each of 126 university students viewed one of five versions of a videotaped officer–eyewitness interaction depicting an eyewitness identification and follow‐up interview in which the eyewitness gave a (1) high or (2) moderate level of confidence or inflated her confidence and gave a (3) confidence epiphany, (4) memory contamination, or (5) no explanation for the inflation. The memory contamination and confidence epiphany explanations led to lower ratings of identification accuracy as compared to the high‐confidence control condition, supporting the immediate confidence recommendation but in some ways contradicting previous research on this issue. The results suggest the need for further research to understand the conditions under which confidence inflation influences juror evaluations of eyewitness identification.     

Perceptions of coercion in interrogation: comparing expert and lay opinions

ABSTRACT

When confessions are entered into evidence in criminal courts, issues of coercion and voluntariness are important and often contested matters. Occasionally, defense attorneys proffer expert witnesses to testify about the coercive pressures of an interrogation and the risk of a false confession. Such testimony is often ruled inadmissible on the grounds that it does not inform the jury beyond its common knowledge. In our effort to test this judicial assumption about common knowledge, we surveyed jury-eligible laypeople (n?=?67) and social scientists specializing in interrogation and confessions (n?=?54) regarding their opinions about the coerciveness of prohibited interrogation tactics, maximization techniques, minimization techniques, and suspect risk factors and compared their ratings with a set of independent t tests. Laypeople gave lower ratings to the coerciveness of all sets of items representing interrogation techniques, and lower ratings to the vulnerabilities associated with suspect risk factors, as compared to social science experts. The disparities between laypeople’s and experts’ perceptions of coercion in interrogations demonstrate that such issues are not fully within the common knowledge of prospective jurors, and suggest the need to provide jurors with expert witness guidance when tasked with evaluating confession evidence.     

The economic impacts of the tobacco settlement.

Recent litigation against the major tobacco companies culminated in a master settlement agreement (MSA) under which the participating companies agreed to compensate most states for Medicaid expenses. Here the terms of the settlement are outlined and its economic implications analyzed using data from Massachusetts. The financial compensation to Massachusetts (and other states) under the MSA is substantial. However, this compensation is dwarfed by the value of the health impacts induced by the settlement. Specifically, Medicaid spending will fall, but only by a modest amount. More importantly, the value of health benefits ($65 billion through 2025 in 1999 dollars) from increased longevity is an order of magnitude greater than any other impacts or payments. The net efficiency implications of the settlement turn mainly on a comparison of the value of these health benefits relative to a valuation of the foregone pleasure of smoking. To the extent that the value of the health benefits is not offset by the value of the pleasure foregone, the economic impacts of the MSA will include a share of these health benefits.