Due North? Do American Theories of Legislative Committees Apply to Canada?

Several theories of legislative organisation have been proposed to explain committee selection in American legislatures, but do these theories travel outside the United States? This paper tests whether these theories apply to data from the Canadian House of Commons. It was found that the distributive and partisan models of legislative organisation explain committee composition in Canada. In many cases, committees in the House of Commons are made up of preference outliers. As predicted by partisan models, it was also found that the governing party stacks committees with its members, but this is conditional upon the strength of the governing party.     

Do Theories of Punishment Necessarily Deliver a Binary System of Verdicts? An Exploratory Essay

Scholars writing on theories of punishment generally try to answer two main questions: what human behaviour should be punished and why? Only cursorily do they concern themselves with the question as to how confident in the occurrence of criminal behaviour we must be prior to punishing—i.e., the question of the criminal standard of proof. Theories of punishment are ultimately theories about choices of action—in particular, about how to treat individuals. If this is correct, it seems that they should not overlook one of the fundamental variables governing human decision-making: the uncertainty about the facts relevant to our acting. Now, the question as to whether existing theories of punishment require a standard of proof as high as ‘proof beyond a reasonable doubt’ is gaining increasing attention in the scholarship. However, scholars working on theories of punishment give little attention to a particular way in which human decision-making handles the problem of uncertainty. In our everyday lives, we often decide in a many-valued, rather than a binary, fashion. Instead of having a single evidential threshold, the satisfaction of which determines whether we act or stay put, we tend to adjust our actions to our degree of confidence in certain states of affairs. In other words, we decide based on a ladder of evidential thresholds: the features of our actions vary according to the evidential threshold that we have satisfied. Notably, criminal trials do not follow this structure and theorists generally take this departure for granted. Why shouldn’t trials work as ‘ex post facto bets,’ whereby the response that the state is willing to ‘wager’ correlates with the fact finder’s confidence in the defendant’s guilt? The paper explores this question; in particular, it assesses whether the main theories of punishment (consequentialist, retributive, and communicative) necessarily deliver a binary system of verdicts. The work is part of a long-term research project on the comparison between the binary and the many-valued models of the system of criminal verdicts.     

“He's guilty!”: Investigator Bias in Judgments of Truth and Deception

Detecting deception is an inherently difficult task, but one that plays a critical role for law enforcement investigators in the interrogation room. In general, research has failed to indicate that performance in this domain is improved by training or prior experience. A signal detection framework is applied to the paradigm to better conceptualize the influence of these two factors. We found that although neither factor influenced discrimination accuracy, there was an effect on response bias such that training and prior experience appeared to increase the likelihood of responding deceit as opposed to truth. This investigator bias was observed both in a review of the literature and in this study of North American law enforcement investigators who took part in a forensically based deception-detection task. Possible theoretical mechanisms and practical implications of these findings are discussed.     

The Two Pratyabhij?ā Theories of Error

In this essay, it is argued that Abhinavagupta’s theory of error, the apūrṇakhyāti theory, synthesizes two distinguishable Pratyabhij?ā treatments of error that were developed in three phases prior to him. The first theory was developed in two stages, initially by Somānanda in the Śivadṛṣṭi (ŚD) and subsequently by Utpaladeva in his Īśvarapratyabhij?ākārikās (ĪPK) and his short autocommentary thereon, the Īśvarapratyabhij?āvṛtti (ĪPVṛ). This theory served to explain individual acts of misperception, and it was developed with the philosophy of the Buddhist epistemologists in mind. In a third phase, Utpaladeva developed in his Śivadṛṣṭivṛtti (ŚDVṛ) a second theory of error, one that involved the noncognition of non-duality (abhedākhyāti) and served to explain both the appearance and perception of multiplicity, despite the strict monism to which all Pratyabhij?ā authors subscribe. Abhinavagupta’s treatment of error, then, is significant not only because it was meant to explain all the various theories of error offered by opposing philosophical schools, as Rastogi has shown, but more importantly because it synthesized the thinking of his predecessors on the matter in a single, elegant account of error.     

What is Fair Punishment for Alex or Ahmed? Perspective Taking Increases Racial Bias in Retributive Justice Judgments

Previous research frequently found that perspective taking may reduce various sorts of racial biases. In the present research, we propose that perspective taking may increase racial bias in the specific context of retributive justice judgments, that is, evaluations of what punishment is considered fair for offenders. In two studies, we manipulated whether or not participants took the perspective of a target offender, who was named either Alex or Ahmed. Results revealed evidence for racial bias under conditions of perspective taking in both studies: Perspective taking increased punishment for Ahmed, but not for Alex, in a theft case (Study 1). Furthermore, perspective taking decreased punishment for Alex, but not for Ahmed, in the case of less severe offense that is less clearly intentional (Study 2). The consequence is similar in both studies: More severe retributive justice judgments for Ahmed than for Alex under conditions of perspective taking.     

Theories of Rights: Is There a Third Way?

Some important recent articles, including one in this journal,have sought to devise theories of rights that can transcendthe longstanding debate between the Interest Theory and theWill Theory. The present essay argues that those efforts failand that the Interest Theory and the Will Theory withstand thecriticisms that have been levelled against them. To be sure,the criticisms have been valuable in that they have promptedthe amplification and clarification of the two dominant theoriesof rights; but their upshot has been to reveal the need forthe improvement, rather than the abandonment, of those theories.     

Distinguishing Two Meanings of Moral Exclusion: Exclusion from Moral Principles or Principled Harm-Doing?

The concept of “moral exclusion” has often been used to understand harm-doing. The present studies examined two, distinct meanings that have been ascribed to this concept. First, exclusion has sometimes been conceptualized as the belief that moral principles do not apply to a target person or group (e.g., exclusion from the application of justice principles). Second, the term has been used to refer to exclusion from positive treatment that is accorded to others, which the actors believe to be morally justified, though outside observers do not. Distinguishing between these two meanings can clarify the mechanisms underlying the relation between proposed antecedents to exclusion and harm-doing. In two experiments, we obtained evidence compatible with each of these conceptualizations of exclusion, as well as preliminary evidence that certain antecedents are more likely to lead to processes indicative of one or the other conceptualization. Our findings have practical implications for the reduction of harm-doing as well as for conflict that might arise in such attempts.     

Race and peremptory challenges during voir dire: Do prosecution and defense agree?

Recent litigation in state and federal courts in the United States suggests that black prospective jurors may be systematically excluded from sitting on trial juries through the issue of peremptory challenges during the voir dire process. Numerous trial and appellate cases have reaffirmed the importance of excluding prospective jurors without cause through peremptory challenges. An insufficient number of studies have examined peremptory challenge data to determine if a systematic bias against black prospective jurors actually exists. This study analyzes peremptory challenges issued by both prosecution and defense to determine if both adversary parties agree on the proclivity of black jurors to influence a jury verdict in a given direction. The study concludes that both prosecution and defense agree, as evidenced in the issue of peremptory challenges, that black jurors are prone to move a jury toward a verdict of acquittal.     

Lessons from Philosophy? Interdisciplinary Justice Research and Two Classes of Justice Judgments

More and more scholars of social justice have been calling for a closer collaboration between empirical and normative disciplines. Psychological and sociological research, as well as philosophical theories can, so they claim, learn from one another and work should be based on results obtained in the other fields of research. Some political philosophers do not share this view. They argue that, since most empirical research does not capture people's moral views on justice, its results cannot be of any value to their theories. Based on this critique I suggest in the first part of this paper that empirical research should distinguish between two classes of justice judgments: First, justice judgments in a narrow sense, which are made under conditions of impartiality and grounded in moral principles, and second, justice attitudes, which differ from other types of social attitudes only in their attitude objects. In the second part I present a quasi-experimental study that aimed at testing the two different classes of justice judgments empirically. The results show that justice judgments in the narrow sense can be obtained even under conditions in which complex experimental manipulations cannot be employed. In the third part of this paper I hypothesize that justice judgments which are based on the two formal criteria provided by political philosophy (impartiality and reference to moral principles) may serve as important intervening variables when trying to explain the impact of justice beliefs on different patterns of human behavior.     

Taking Sides? Issues of Bias and Partisanship When Researching Socio-political Conflict

The article unpacks the issues of bias and partisanship—and the risk of being accused of these—which confront social scientists who study socio-political conflict. Drawing on the author’s experience when conducting research on the conflict between animal liberation activists and their state and corporate adversaries in Britain (1999–2014), the article argues for a relational research approach—focusing on the interaction between contending parties, rather than study stakeholders singly—as a way to overcome challenges of taking sides when studying socio-political conflict. The debate generated by Howard Becker’s classic essay “Whose side are we on?” (1967), now 50 years old, is used throughout the article as a point of reference for addressing the issues involved. The argument is made for constant reflexivity during research on radical social movements, and for “temporary bias” during qualitative fieldwork.     

When Does Evidence of Eyewitness Confidence Inflation Affect Judgments in a Criminal Trial?

Two studies investigated perceptions of eyewitness confidence inflation: increases in a witness's confidence between the time of the identification and the trial. Experiment 1 (N = 90) demonstrated that, for White participants, assessments of the strength of the defense case, the eyewitness's view, and participants' confidence in the eyewitness's accuracy were more favorable to the defense when there was evidence that the eyewitness's confidence increased over time (mere inflation condition), compared with a control condition. In addition, assessments of the defendant's guilt and the eyewitness's accuracy were more favorable to the defense when the eyewitness was aggressively challenged about the change in her confidence report (inflation + challenge). Experiment 2 (N = 360) demonstrated that, for Hispanic participants, sensitivity to confidence inflation did not interact with manipulations of the eyewitness's or defendant's race (White vs. Hispanic). In addition, the confidence inflation effect did not replicate with the Hispanic participants. Results are interpreted in terms of the ingroup bias in legal judgments and directions for future research.     

In Search of Moral Recognition? Policing and Eudaemonic Legitimacy in Ghana

Ghana is widely considered as “a beacon of hope for democracy in Africa” (Gyimah‐Boadi 2010, 137). Yet substantive democratic transformations of policing have stagnated mainly because the police continue to act as a handmaiden of the state and powerful elites. Consequently, the reliance on performance in crime control and order maintenance as the bedrock of colonial police legitimacy (as judged by colonial administrators) has survived unscathed. Anxieties about violent crime, mainly in urban areas, have accompanied the pursuit of neoliberal economics and politics. Having staked their legitimacy on performance, the police view these anxieties and doubts about their effectiveness as potentially de‐legitimating. They have responded in a highly dramatic but violent fashion, including the extrajudicial killing of suspected violent offenders believed to be the cause of feelings of insecurity. This article examines the nature of this pathway to legitimacy.     

Do trials of perpetrators retraumatize crime victims?

Attendance at trials of perpetrators could be retraumatizing for crime victims suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder. To investigate this hypothesis, two studies were conducted in which retraumatization was defined as a significant increase in posttraumatic stress reactions. A cross-sectional study of 137 victims of rape and nonsexual assault revealed that trial variables do virtually not predict posttraumatic stress reactionsat a time several years after trial. A longitudinal study of 31 victims of rape and nonsexual assault revealed intraindividual stability of posttraumatic stress reactions for the time interval from a few weeks before the trial to a few weeks after the trial; in addition, interindividual stability was high. The results of both studies do not support the retraumatization hypothesis, which should therefore be used with caution.     

Do different types of incubators produce different types of innovations?

Incubators are heterogeneous but there is a lack of understanding of the variety of innovation involved. We use four archetypes of incubator discussed in the literature (basic research, university, economic development and private incubator) and analyze their generation of different types of innovation (product, technological process and organizational innovation) during a 4 years period (2005–2008). In a sample of 80 incubators, we find that incubatees in some types of incubators are more prone to generate product and technological process innovations than those hosted in other types.