Metric forensic anthropology decisions: Reliability and biasability of sectioning-point-based sex estimates

Subjective decisions make human cognitive processes more susceptible to bias and error. Specifically, research indicates that additional context biases forensic anthropologists’ morphological analyses. To address whether metric analyses are also subject to bias, we conducted a pilot study in which 52 experienced osteologists measured a difficult-to-classify human femur, with or without additional contextual information. Using a metric sectioning-point sex-estimation method, participants provided a sex estimate for individual skeletal element(s) and, when given multiple elements, the combined skeletal assemblage. Control group participants (n = 24) measured only the femur. In addition to the femur, bias group participants (n = 28) either measured a female humerus and viewed a female-biasing photograph (n = 14) or measured a male humerus and viewed a male-biasing photograph (n = 14). We explored whether the experts in the different groups would differ in: (1) femoral measurements; (2) femoral sex-estimation conclusions; and (3) final sex-estimation conclusions for the skeletal assemblage. Although the femoral measurements and femoral sex estimates were comparable across groups, the overall sex estimates in the female-biased group were impacted by contextual information—differing from both the control and male-biased groups (p < 0.001). Our results demonstrate that cognitive bias can occur even in metric sex-estimation conclusions. Specifically, this occurred when the metric data and single-element sex estimates were synthesized into an overall estimate. Thus, our results suggest that metric methods are most vulnerable to bias when data are synthesized into an overall conclusion, highlighting the need for bias countermeasures and comprehensive statistical frameworks for synthesizing metric data to mitigate the effects of cognitive bias.     

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.     

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.     

统筹各类编制资源的改革方向和政策建议

统筹使用各类编制资源,是新时代机构和行政体制改革的重要方向。本文首先分析了编制分类的内容构成、不同类型编制的管理权限、编制总量控制的政策约束,进而对编制分类管理的效应及带来的问题进行了综合性分析。接着,追踪梳理当前地方统筹使用各类编制的最新探索和创新。在此基础上,从跨类别、跨部门、跨地域、跨层级四个维度,提出编制统筹管理改革的思路和政策建议。     

相对集中行政处罚权：立法模式与制度创新

相对集中行政处罚权实践是我国行政管理体制的创新举措,已经取得了较明显的效果。但目前囿于立法层次较低,且各地规范不一,极大地阻碍了这一新生事物的进一步成长。因此我们应在统一立法和系统全面立法的基础上,尽快制定一部法律或行政法规系统规范该制度。同时加强诸如表明身份制度、说明理由制度、阅卷制度、时效制度、格式化制度、职能分离制度、案卷排他性制度等研究,以丰富和完善该处罚权的实践。     

廉政文化和先进家庭文化契合的长效机制探讨

反腐倡廉,理论指导和观念创新先行。追求廉政文化与先进家庭文化的契合,必须创新载体,采用多种途径;同时移植、借鉴国外在反腐败方面的有益经验,多元联动、综合整治,系统推进,建立长效机制,为构建和谐社会提供良好的政务、法制、体制环境与保障。     

行政补偿主体制度研究

补偿主体的确定是行政补偿的首要环节。我国现行与行政补偿有关的法律没有确定补偿主体的指导原则,补偿主体往往就是征收主体,这种政府既做“运动员”又做“裁判员”的模式极易引发“政群对立”。在比较分析的基础上指出行政补偿应以“受益者补偿”作为其主体确定基准,同时探讨了我国行政补偿主体的现存类型及存在问题,提出健全我国行政补偿主体制度的构想。     

完善我国税务行政审批制度初探

改革我国现行税务行政审批制度 ,应该遵循行政审批的基本法律规定和理论指导综合考虑历史、社会、法制等诸多方面的因素 ,从清理行政审批项目、设定规范审批、严格审批程序 ,实施分类管理等方面着手。     

论行政刑法的性质和概念

行政刑法在我国是一个崭新的研究领域。行政刑法在法律上兼具行政法与刑法的双重性质,行政刑法是国家为了实现行政管理的目的,维护正常的行政管理秩序,规定行政犯罪并追究其行政刑法责任的特殊法律规范的总称。     

加强行政审批制度的配套措施建设

审批改革涉及经济、政治、法律等诸多领域,除进行自身改革外,要加强中介组织和公共财政体制建设,创新管理方式,构建先进的行政文化模式等配套措施推进改革进行。