District Complexity and the Personal Vote

Incumbents tend to win with higher margins in less ideologically constrained districts. I argue that incumbents are advantaged by this electoral landscape in part because they work harder to cultivate a personal vote. Utilizing data on earmarks, I find that despite winning with a larger margin of victory, these incumbents act much like their colleagues who narrowly escaped electoral defeat. By more accurately measuring perceptions of electoral vulnerability, we also see stronger evidence linking district marginality to distributive politics. Such incentives appear to stem not from the risks of position taking, but from the weaker party attachments among constituents.     

Interoperator test for anatomical annotation of earprints

As part of the Forensic Ear Identification (FearID) research project, which aims to obtain estimators for the strength of evidence of earmarks found on crime scenes, a large database of earprints (over 1200 donors) has been collected. Starting from a knowledge-based approach where experts add anatomical annotations of minutiae and landmarks present in prints, comparison of pairs of prints is done using the method of Vector Template Matching (VTM). As the annotation process is subjective, a validation experiment was performed to study its stability. Comparing prints on the basis of VTM, it appears that there are interoperator effects, individual operators yielding significantly more consistent results when annotating prints than different operators. The operators being well trained and educated, the observed variation on both clicking frequency and choice of annotation points suggests that implementation of the above is not the best way to go about objectifying earprint comparison. Processes like the above are relevant for any forensic science dealing with identification (e.g., of glass, tool marks, fibers, faces, fingers, handwriting, speakers) where manual (nonautomated) processes play a role. In these cases, results may be operator dependent and the dependencies need to be studied.     

The development of an automatic recognition system for earmark and earprint comparisons

The value of earmarks as an efficient means of personal identification is still subject to debate. It has been argued that the field is lacking a firm systematic and structured data basis to help practitioners to form their conclusions. Typically, there is a paucity of research guiding as to the selectivity of the features used in the comparison process between an earmark and reference earprints taken from an individual. This study proposes a system for the automatic comparison of earprints and earmarks, operating without any manual extraction of key-points or manual annotations. For each donor, a model is created using multiple reference prints, hence capturing the donor within source variability. For each comparison between a mark and a model, images are automatically aligned and a proximity score, based on a normalized 2D correlation coefficient, is calculated. Appropriate use of this score allows deriving a likelihood ratio that can be explored under known state of affairs (both in cases where it is known that the mark has been left by the donor that gave the model and conversely in cases when it is established that the mark originates from a different source). To assess the system performance, a first dataset containing 1229 donors elaborated during the FearID research project was used. Based on these data, for mark-to-print comparisons, the system performed with an equal error rate (EER) of 2.3% and about 88% of marks are found in the first 3 positions of a hitlist. When performing print-to-print transactions, results show an equal error rate of 0.5%. The system was then tested using real-case data obtained from police forces.     

Initial evidence for the assimilation hypothesis

The assimilation hypothesis dictates that knowledge of prior evidence makes legal decision makers assign more weight to subsequent evidence. For example, the evidentiary power of a line-up identification is perceived to be stronger if the decision maker knows that the suspect has confessed, compared to when knowledge of the confession is absent. In three studies, the assimilation hypothesis was tested. As expected, knowledge of DNA-evidence inflated the estimated strength of subsequent eyewitness identification evidence (Study 1), and also inflated overall conviction and conviction rate (Study 2). A similar assimilation effect was found with knowledge of the suspect’s dangerous psychopathology (i.e. psychopathic and anti-social personality traits). Such knowledge inflated the estimated strength of fingerprint evidence. In conclusion, the assimilation effect is a threat to rational legal decision making in both lays (Study 2) and professional judges (Studies 1 and 3).     

Bicameralism and Geographic Politics: Allocating Funds in the House and Senate

Because they represent different kinds of constituencies—states versus parts of states—senators and House members have different incentives in constructing federal distributive programs. In order to claim credit for providing particularized benefits, House members need to use policy tools—earmarks and narrow categorical programs—that target funds to their constituencies. Senators, by contrast, are able to claim credit for the large formula grants that distribute the bulk of intergovernmental grant money. Examining House‐Senate interactions in one of the largest distributive programs, federal aid to states for surface transportation, I show that the different bases of representation in the House and Senate structure the chambers' preferences on distributive programs and affect the outcomes of interchamber conflicts.     

刑事诉讼中被追诉人及其家属证据知悉权研究

证据知悉权是被追诉人及其家属知情权的核心内容。我国刑事诉讼中阅卷制度的权利主体是辩护律师,学界对辩护律师阅卷权问题给予了较多研究,而对被追诉人及其家属证据知悉权问题则关注不够。核心问题有三个:一是无律师帮助的被追诉人证据知悉权的实现问题。二是有律师帮助的被追诉人的证据知悉权问题,即辩护律师能否将阅卷取得的证据材料披露给被追诉人。三是被追诉人家属的证据知悉权问题,即律师能否将阅卷、会见和调查取证所获得的证据材料向被追诉人家属披露。这三个问题无论在理论上还是在实践中都具有争议性,实有从法理上予以探讨的必要。应当在证据知悉权与相关权益进行权衡的基础上,制定解决问题的若干规则。     

Facilitating technology transfer in education via paradigms for planned change

The technology (product) in education is knowledge. Therefore, one would expect that disseminators of knowledge (educators) would be on the forefront of change (creators and distributors of new knowledge). There is little evidence to show that the education system in the United States is receptive to future-oriented knowledge and methods. Therefore, this paper presents models to facilitate a receptive mind-set to the creation and transfer of technology in education.     

Different Houses: The Distribution of Earmarks in the U.S. House and Senate

Nearly all studies of pork‐barrel politics in the U.S. Congress focus on the House, biasing our conception of how politics influences federal spending and skewing our attention toward factors that are active in the House. This article highlights differences between the Senate and House in how pork is allocated. We identify four important differences between the House and Senate, generate hypotheses regarding how each difference should influence the distribution of pork projects, and test these hypotheses using data from earmarks in the Appropriations bills passed by the two chambers for fiscal year 2008. The results support three of our four hypotheses, suggesting that senators are driven by different motivations than House members. These results imply that theoretical accounts of pork‐barrel spending need to account for these interchamber differences. Our findings also highlight how studies of legislative behavior, more generally, need to account for important differences in legislative structure and organization.     

证据学是一门法学吗——以研究对象为中心的省察

通过对十年来我国证据法学研究在知识的增长方面进行量化的考察,结果显示:一方面,我国证据法学研究大部分仍然游离于法学与自然科学之间,这种研究既不能增长自然科学方面的知识,也无法增长法学方面的知识;另一方面,在有可能增长法学知识的领域,证据法学却又依附于法学的其他门类,从而丧失了自身独立存在的价值。方法论训练的缺乏及学术研究能力的有限,是造成这些现象的根本原因。因此,为使证据法学成为一门独立的法学学科,必须加强研究者的方法论训练,从而提高该学科在增进法学知识方面做出贡献的能力,并朝着建立统一的证据法学理论的方向努力。     

专家证言的概念性挑战

本文重点考察了专家知识与案件审理模式之间的关系。总体而言，案件审理是一种教育性活动，其间，事实认定者应能够理解、处理和思考证据，并得出理性的结论。这一过程反映了审理中准确事实认定的根本重要性，若没有准确的事实认定，权利和义务便是空谈。专家证据通常涉及一种遵从性而非教育性的诉讼程序模式，从这一点上来说其有悖于常规的审判理想状态。本文讨论了这一发展过程、其形成原因及其后果。若要实现审判的理想状态，那么替代性措施（即所有证据应以教育性模式呈现）则更为优越。如果证据无法以此种方式（教育性模式）呈现，那么在审理过程中通过证据所展现的待证事项便无法与常规的审判理想状态保持一致。     

论证据的本质

“证明案件真实情况的一切事实都是证据 ,而证据必须经过查证属实方能成为定案的根据。”这一法定命题存在着明显的逻辑和理论上的错误。从本质上说 ,证据并非事实 ,它就是、其实也只是证明案件待证事实的根据。证据既可以是一种客观存在 ,又可以是某种反映人的思想、认识、知识、经验的主观形态。证据是由法律规定的、与案件事实有着客观联系的证明根据。证据的本质属性只有关联性和法律规定性。明确证据只是证明的根据有利于推进诉讼程序的研究 ,有利于进一步明确证明责任 ,也有助于证据立法的不断完善。     

Medical Evidence and Expert Testimony in Child Sexual Abuse

Expert medical testimony in child sexual abuse cases can be critical to the outcome of a legal case. This article will review the development of the medical knowledge and clinical expertise in child sexual abuse. Since the passage of mandatory child abuse reporting laws, the forensic medical examination of a child for evidence of sexual abuse has become standard. Until recently, many myths regarding female genital anatomy existed but were based primarily on dogma and lack of empirical research. Over the past 25 years, many research studies and accumulating clinical evidence have expanded medical knowledge and debunked old myths. Physical evidence, even in cases of alleged genital or anal penetration is rare. Sexually transmitted infections are also uncommon and often require medical interpretation as to their significance in a prepubertal child. Specialized medical knowledge, training, and clinical expertise have developed in order to evaluate children presenting with allegations of sexual abuse. Such medical expertise provides invaluable service to courts. We review criteria for evaluating such expertise in light of current medical practice.     

Determinants of knowledge transfer: evidence from Canadian university researchers in natural sciences and engineering

This paper addresses three questions: First, what is the extent of research transfer in natural sciences and engineering among Canadian university researchers? Second, are there differences between various disciplines with regard to the extent of this transfer? And third, what are the determinants of research transfer? To answer these questions, the paper begins by differentiating between technology transfer and knowledge transfer. It then identifies the individual researcher as the unit of analysis of this study and introduces a conceptual framework derived from the resource-based approach of firms. The paper then reviews the literature on each of the factors included in the conceptual framework, beginning with the dependent variable, knowledge transfer. The conceptual framework includes four categories of resources and one category of research attributes that are likely to influence knowledge transfer. Based on a survey of 1,554 researchers funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (NSERC), comparisons of means of research transfer across research fields were conducted. Multivariate regression analyses were used to identify the determinants of research transfer by research field. The results of these analyses indicate that researchers transferred knowledge much more actively when no commercialization was involved than when there was commercialization of protected intellectual property. This paper thus adds to the relatively scarce evidence about knowledge transfer by examining knowledge transfer from a broader perspective than strict commercialization. The findings of this paper are also interesting for other reasons. We obtained statistical evidence indicating that researchers in certain research fields were much more active in knowledge transfer than those in other fields, thereby pointing to differences in levels of knowledge activities across research fields. Furthermore, we obtained evidence showing that only two determinants explained knowledge transfer in all the six research fields considered in this study, namely, focus of research projects on users’ needs, and linkages between researchers and research users. Statistical evidence obtained indicates that the other determinants that influence knowledge transfer vary from one research field to another, thus suggesting that different policies would be required to increase knowledge transfer in different research fields. The last part of the paper outlines the implications of the regression results for theory building, public policy and future research.     

对科学证据的反思--以程序为视角的关照

科学证据就是借助科学原理和技术方法发现和揭示出来的各种事实材料,其内涵是科学原理和技术的证明性,其外延则由于法律对科学知识的确认而表现出开放性的特点。因此,科学证据具有科学性、开放性和证明过程的复杂性的特征。证据法学应该放在程序法学中加以关照和认识,英美法系国家的陪审团制和对抗制同科学证据的适应性关系在某种程度上就是科学证据与诉讼程序之间关系的集中反映。以程序的视角规范科学证据包括审前证据规则的设置和审判过程中对于科学证据规则的强调。     

The admissibility and persuasiveness of expert evidence

Parenting plan evaluators are expert witnesses who offer their opinion. Courts in common law jurisdictions generally do not accept evidence of an opinion as it is not considered to be reliable evidence from which to establish a fact. An exception to that general principle is expert opinion evidence. In short, an opinion from a person with specialized knowledge or expertise about the area in which they are an expert may be sufficiently reliable to form an evidentiary basis from which to make a finding of fact, provided the opinion meets certain criteria. These criteria will be discussed in this article, as well as what is relevant, reliable and persuasive evidence. The relevant legal principles will be examined in an historical and contemporary, theoretical and practical context. The authors reflect on their considerable experience as consumers of expert evidence and apply this to parenting plan evaluations, as well as considering future challenges in the field.     

论刑法中“应当知道”的教义学意涵

析清"应当知道"的教义学意涵,应当区分其具备的三种不同意义:词源意义、语境意义和类别意义。在词源意义上,"应当"是一个多义情态动词,既可表示推测性判断,又可表示规范性命令;"知道"则具备多元时态面向,这共同决定了"应当知道"具备多元的词源意义。在语境意义上,级次混乱造成了"应当知道"含义探寻的难题,但厘清"应当知道"条款的证据规则属性后,即可将其界定为有间接证据证明的知道,系对故意的认识层面之描述。在类别意义上,"应当知道"是对知道与否的概率判断,而非对知道确切程度的判断,其与直接故意或间接故意的类别定性没有逻辑关联。     

Forensic implications of biting behavior: a conceptually underdeveloped area of investigation

Within the context of a criminal investigation the human bitemark traditionally provides the forensic dentist with both physical and biological evidence. In recent years, however, examples exist where in addition to discussing physical and biological evidence, expert witnesses have also testified in court regarding the behavioral aspects of biting behavior. Interested in this additional source of evidence, the authors reviewed the research literature from which biting behavior could be explained. The review found a hiatus of empirical knowledge in this respect, with only two papers seemingly related to the topic. With this dearth of knowledge in mind, the authors present a framework for further analysis and tentatively suggest reasons for biting behaviors, using a range of psychological models. The article ends with a cautionary note that vague and often misleading behavioral assumptions must not be applied to bitemark testimony until further data are available.     

试论法院证据调查制度的客体———以案件事实为视角

法院证据调查的客体是法院证据调查权所指向的对象.在民事诉讼中,司法证明的目的在于获得对案件事实的认识,因此,案件事实是法院证据调查制度的客体.只有对案件事实获得真实发现,才能做出妥当的司法裁判.在案件事实中,只有对裁判具有显著意义的主要事实、具有抽象性的间接事实和涉及公文书真伪辨别的辅助事实以及具有证明必要性的争议事实,才是法院实施证据调查的具体客体.     

Network investigations of cyber attacks: the limits of digital evidence

Cyber attackers are rarely held accountable for their criminal actions. One explanation for the lack of successful prosecutions of cyber intruders is the dependence on digital evidence. Digital evidence is different from evidence created, stored, transferred and reproduced from a non-digital format. It is ephemeral in nature and susceptible to manipulation. These characteristics of digital evidence raise issues as to its reliability. Network-based evidence – ie digital evidence on networks – poses additional problems because it is volatile, has a short life span, and is frequently located in foreign countries. Investigators face the twin obstacles of identifying the author of a cyber attack and proving that the author has “guilty knowledge.” Even more is at stake when the cyber attacker is a trusted insider who has intimate knowledge of the computer security system of the organisation. As courts become more familiar with the vulnerabilities of digital evidence, they will scrutinise the reliability of computer systems and processes. It is likely that defence counsel will increasingly challenge both the admissibility and the weight of digital evidence. The law enforcement community will need to improve competencies in handling digital evidence if it is to meet this trend.