“What a Relief”: When the Press Prefers Celebration to Scandal

Performing the citizen's role in an enlightened manner requires information and interpretation that are not dependent on government sources. Therefore, the major role assigned to the press by democratic theory is to provide such alternative views of reality. This task becomes particularly difficult in what is defined as a security crisis, where journalists must decide on giving voice to the establishment in the national interest; satisfying the public, which may prefer not to know; or providing oppositional readings. Analysis of television and press coverage of a failed terrorist attack on an Israeli beach shows how evidence of chaos and sheer luck can be discerned in a narrative of ostensible planning and purposiveness. Five framing mechanisms are deconstructed: prioritizing the army's version of the event; moving the spotlight from the tactical to the strategic; ignoring the critical potential of naive witnesses, who authenticate hegemonic framing; resorting to the myth of existential danger to Israel; and turning a miracle for the army into a miracle for the lews.     

Religious Conscientious Exemptions

Several possible approaches can be applied by the state when it responds to religious conscientious objections. These approaches compare the response to religious-conscientious objections with that to non-religious objections. If the content of the objector’s conscience is significant when deciding to grant conscientious exemptions, three approaches to the practice of granting conscientious exemptions are possible: First, a non-neutral liberal approach that takes into consideration the content of the conscience but not its religiosity as such; second, a pro-religious approach; and third, an anti-religious approach. This paper contends that the non-neutral liberal approach and the pro-religious approach should be rejected in favor of an anti-religious approach to granting conscientious exemptions. The proposed anti-religious approach is as follows: (1) unjustified intolerance should not be tolerated; (2) empirical evidence links religion and intolerance – that is, people’s responses to measures of religion and intolerance are closely related; (3) theoretical evidence links (some) religions and intolerance; and (4) the religiosity of conscience gives the state a reason to refuse to grant conscientious exemptions.     

Civic Conscience,Selective Conscientious Objection and Lack of Choice

Most democratic states tolerate, to various extents, conscientious objection. The same states tend not to tolerate acts of civil disobedience and what they perceive as selective conscientious objection. In this paper it is claimed that the dichotomy between civil disobedience and conscientious objection is often misguided; that the existence of a “civic conscience” makes it impossible to differentiate between conscientious objection and civil disobedience; and that there is no such thing as “selective” conscientious objection—or that classifying an objection as “selective” has no significant moral or practical implications. These claims are supported by a preliminary, more general argument according to which conscientious objection is and should be tolerated because the objector lacks the ability to choose his conscience and to decide whether to act upon it. The lack‐of‐choice argument, it is claimed, applies equally to all types of conscientious objection, including those that are mistakenly called “selective” objection. It also applies to one type of civil disobedience. As a result, if a state is willing to tolerate non‐selective conscientious objection, it may and at times must also tolerate selective conscientious objection and (one type of) civil disobedience and to a similar degree (all other things being equal).     

Investigation of Different Ways in Which the CODIS 7.0 May be Used in Mass Disaster Identification

DNA analysis is a key method for the identification of human remains in mass disasters. Reference samples from relatives may be used to identify missing persons by kinship analysis. Different methods of applying the CODIS in disaster victim identification (DVI) were investigated. Two searches were evaluated: (i) relating family relatives to a pedigree tree (FPT) and (ii) relating unidentified human remains to a pedigree tree (UPT). A joint pedigree likelihood ratio (JPLR) and rank were calculated for each search. Both searches were similar in average JPLR and rank. In exceptional cases, namely the existence of a mutation different from the CODIS model, a nonbiological father, a mistake in STR, or incorrect profile association, the UPT search returned one true rank, whereas the FPT search returned no results. This paper suggests a novel strategy to overcome these limitations and increase efficiency in conducting identification of mass disaster victims.     

Conscientious objection and equality laws: Why the content of the conscience matters

Law and Philosophy - By enacting equality laws the liberal state decides the limits of liberal tolerance by relying on content-based rather than content-neutral considerations. Equality laws are...