Protection motivation theory as a theoretical framework for understanding the use of protective measures

The use of defensive measures can be a double-edged sword: it can provide the means to protect people and property from potential criminal victimization, but can also be a costly and possibly unnecessary endeavor. However, research examining the factors contributing to the decision whether or not to engage in protective measures is often limited in both quantity and scope. In this article, we propose a theoretical framework for understanding the use of protective measures in response to criminal victimization threats based on Ronald Rogers’ protection motivation theory. Our discussion details Rogers’ theory, suggests variables and measures appropriate for the context of criminal victimization and protective responses, and provides guidance on testing and model adaptation issues. We hope that this will encourage further model development and testing to improve the understanding of individual protective behavior in response to crime or the threat of crime.     

The accountability of non-governmental actors in the digital sphere: A theoretical framework

The last decade has seen increasing demands for greater accountability in digital governance. What, however, does accountability require and what normative goods does it serve? This article develops a general framework for assessing digital accountability focused on four normative goods: openness, non-arbitrariness, effectiveness and publicness. As the article will evidence, claims for digital accountability often refer to deficits relating to one or more of these goods. While scholarly attention has deservedly focused on tying powerful digital actors to rule of law guarantees, the article argues that accountability offers an important normative yardstick to allow citizens to contest digital decisions beyond strict legality. The framework therefore provides a basis for both conceptually disaggregating and normatively forwarding accountability claims in the digital sphere.     

Wrapped in silence: psychotherapists and confidentiality in the courtroom

The impact of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, which, in contrast to legal provisions in the United States, does not provide for any exceptions to breach confidentiality, is compared with the effects of U.S. law on dealing with confidentiality. The authors investigated the impact of this law in light of three common situations in psychotherapy that may jeopardize strict confidentiality: treating potentially dangerous patients, giving testimony, and serving as a psychotherapist in prison. Under the strict provisions of the Austrian Psychotherapy Act, a breach may be excusable in the case of a highly probable danger, but Austrian psychotherapists cannot be obliged to serve as witnesses or as experts in civil or criminal cases, as American psychotherapists can. Psychotherapy in prison, where release is contingent on the success of the therapy and the divulging of information could be in the interests of the patient as well as the court and the public, requires a modified dealing with confidentiality.     

The case for pain neuroimaging in the courtroom: lessons from deception detection

From an observer''s perspective, pain is a fairly nebulous concept—it is not externally visible, its cause is not obvious, and perceptions of its intensity are mainly subjective. If difficulties in understanding the source and degree of pain are troublesome in contexts requiring social empathy, they are especially problematic in the legal setting. Tort law applies to both acute and chronic pain cases, but the lack of objective measures demands high thresholds of proof. However, recent developments in pain neuroimaging may clarify some of these inherent uncertainties, as studies purport detection of pain on an individual level. In analyzing the scientific and legal barriers of utilizing pain neuroimaging in court, it is prudent to discuss neuroimaging for deception, a topic that has garnered significant controversy due to premature attempts at introduction in the courtroom. Through comparing and contrasting the two applications of neuroimaging to the legal setting, this paper argues that the nature of tort law, the distinct features of pain, and the reduced vulnerability to countermeasures distinguish pain neuroimaging in a promising way. This paper further contends that the mistakes and lessons involving deception detection are essential to consider for pain neuroimaging to have a meaningful future in court.     

Face recognition as a function of distance and illumination: A practical tool for use in the courtroom

Abstract

This paper describes a practical courtroom tool that provides insight in face recognition accuracy as a function of distance and illumination. Subjects were shown 3/4 target portraits with an exposition time of 12 seconds, immediately followed by a target-absent or target-present lineup of six full-face portraits. Subjects were asked to identify the target. Seven distances (3 to 40 meter) and nine illumination levels (0.3 to 3000 lux) were used which resulted in a 7?9 matrix, with in the cells a hit score and a false alarm score. From these rough data several other measures were derived, like d-prime, diagnostic value and some idealised scores. The scores represent the upper margins of recognition accuracy with the memory component reduced to a minimum. The results clearly indicate a systematic increase of recognition performance with decreasing distance and increasing illumination. The end result is a practical rule of thumb, the Rule of Fifteen: Even in ideal conditions the desired diagnostic value of 15 is reached at not more than 15 meters, not less than 15 lux.     

Dangerous decisions: the impact of first impressions of trustworthiness on the evaluation of legal evidence and defendant culpability

Abstract

There is little support for the long-standing assumption that judges and jurors can accurately assess credibility. According to Dangerous Decisions Theory (DDT; Porter & ten Brinke, Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 119–134, 2009), intuitive evaluations of trustworthiness based on the face may strongly bias the interpretation of subsequent information about a target. In a courtroom setting, the assessment of evidence provided by or concerning a defendant may be fundamentally flawed if its interpretation is influenced by an initial, spontaneous assessment of trustworthiness. In an empirical test of DDT, participants were presented with two vignettes describing major or minor crimes, accompanied by a photograph of the supposed defendant, previously rated as highly trustworthy or untrustworthy in appearance. Participants evaluated culpability following the presentation of evidence in each case. Participants required less evidence to arrive at a guilty verdict and were more confident in this decision for untrustworthy-appearing defendants. The current evidence supports DDT and has implications for legal decision-making practices.     

The sick accused: forensic and emergency aspects in the courtroom

Evaluation of the fitness of an accused person to participate in legal proceedings is a classic forensic activity. Before the trial, the forensic expert will already assess any preexisting somatic and psychological illnesses and give a written expert opinion describing the condition of the accused at the time of the examination and assessing whether he is fit to stand trial. Nevertheless, decompensation or aggravation of a disease may occur--especially in stress situations as they are to be expected for an accused in the courtroom--so that apart from the current evaluation of the state of health of the accused, emergency treatment may occasionally become necessary in the courtroom. The article tries to answer the question how the expert can meet this challenge.     

Ageism in the courtroom: mock juror perceptions of elder neglect

The present study explored ageism in a civil court context. In two experiments, male and female undergraduates (Experiment 1; N?=?215) and community members (Experiment 2; N?=?203) read an institutional elder neglect trial summary in which a nursing home was sued for failure to provide the necessary care for an elderly female resident. The trial varied as to who provided witness testimony: the live victim, a recorded deposition from the victim, the victim’s middle-aged niece (Experiments 1, 2), the victim’s elderly floor-mate (Experiment 1), or no testimony was provided (Experiment 2). Across both experiments, higher ageism was negatively associated with pro-victim ratings (e.g. victim memory). Ageism indirectly decreased the likelihood of ruling for the plaintiff through ratings of sympathy for the victim and victim memory (Experiment 1), and defendant responsibility (Experiment 2). Trial ratings did not differ based on whether victim testimony was presented live or via recorded deposition (Experiments 1, 2). The results suggest that jurors’ ageist attitudes may engender negative perceptions of an elderly victim, which can affect the outcome of neglect cases. We discuss the potential for these findings to inform legal proceedings and protection of elderly individuals.     

Parting the ivory curtain: understanding how universities support a diverse set of startups

Universities are widely recognized as a critical source of technological innovation and are heralded for the entrepreneurial ventures cultivated within their walls. To date, most research has focused on academic entrepreneurship—new ventures that spin out of academic laboratories. However, universities also give rise to startups that do not directly exploit knowledge generated within academic laboratories. Such firms—and the societal and economic benefits they create—are an important contribution of modern universities. We propose a framework for understanding the full scope of university entrepreneurship and its driving factors, with the goal of providing scholars, university administrators, and policymakers with insights regarding the resources required to foster entrepreneurship from within the ivory tower.     

California''s Proposition 69: A Dangerous Precedent for Criminal DNA Databases

On November 2, 2004, California voters elected to radically expand their state criminal DNA database through the passage of Proposition 69. The approved ballot initiative authorized DNA collection and retention from all felons, any individuals with past felony convictions – including juveniles – and, beginning in 2009, all adults arrested for any felony offense. This dramatic database expansion threatens civil liberties and establishes a dangerous precedent for U.S. criminal databases.