Interviewing to Detect Deception: When to Disclose the Evidence?

Research shows that there are few objective cues to deception. However, it may be possible to create such cues by strategic interviewing techniques. Strategic Use of Evidence (SUE) is one such technique. The basic premise of the SUE technique is that liars and truth tellers employ different counter-interrogation strategies, and that the evidence against the suspect can be used to exploit these differences in strategies. This study examined the effect of the timing of evidence disclosure (early vs. late vs. gradual) on verbal cues to deception. We predicted that late disclosure would be most effective in differentiating between liars and truth-tellers, and that cues to deception in the gradual disclosure condition would progressively disappear due to the suspects’ realization that evidence against them exists. That is, we expected that liars in the gradual presentation condition would become more consistent with the evidence over time. A sample of 86 undergraduate students went through a mock-terrorism paradigm (half innocent, half guilty), and were subsequently interviewed using one of three disclosure strategies: early, gradual, and late disclosure. We measured statement-evidence inconsistencies as cues to deception . Results supported our predictions in that cues to deception were most pronounced in the late disclosure condition. Contrary to our expectations, the results suggested that presenting the evidence gradually may put innocent suspects at a higher risk of misclassification as they seem to adopt a strategy that is more similar to guilty suspects.     

When Should the Police Investigate Cases of Non-recent Child Sexual Abuse?

Non-recent child sexual abuse (CSA) and child sexual exploitation (CSE) have received recent attention. Victims often do not report their ordeal at the time the incident occurred, and it is increasingly common for agencies to refer concerns to the police years, or decades, after the event. The combination of the non-recent nature of the offence, the lack of engagement by the (potentially vulnerable) victim, and the huge resource burden of investigation make deciding whether to proceed with investigation complex and ethically challenging. Although there will always be a presumption in favor of investigation, for some cases the reasons against investigating will outweigh this presumption. We examine the considerations at stake in making a decision about whether to make contact with the victim and proceed with investigating a particular non-recent CSA case. Arguing for a “broad rights” approach, we identify considerations relating to (1) the victim, (2) criminal justice and crime prevention, (3) limited resources, and (4) legitimacy. We argue that, all other things being equal, non-recent and current investigations are equally worthy of investigation. We assess the implications of suspects being persons of public prominence. We outline a principled decision-making framework to aid investigators. The Oxford CSA Framework has the potential to reduce unnecessary demand on police resources.     

Why Should Justice Be Seen to Be Done?

A well-known maxim instructs that justice should be seen to be done. When “seen” is understood in the sense of “observed”, the maxim is easily defended: open court proceedings protect against arbitrary and partial decisions. However, when “seen” is understood in the sense of “seem,” the maxim is more puzzling, since it is not obvious why courts should concern themselves with people's perceptions that justice has been done. This article addresses this issue, with a particular focus on the social and other benefits that result when judges observe procedures that are widely regarded as fair, especially in criminal trials. The article draws on empirical studies in social psychology that show that when legal authorities treat people in ways that accord with “lay” procedural expectations, they are more likely to view the authorities as legitimate, to cooperate with them, and to obey the law out of an internalized sense of obligation. The article explores the moral significance of these empirical findings, arguing that it would be superficial to see them as a recipe for social stability. The deeper truth conveyed by the empirical research is that relating to people in ways that are widely perceived to be fair is a way for authorities to engage people's moral sentiments and to enliven their virtuous capacity to put aside considerations of self-interest so as to do what is right. This dynamic provides a sound moral foundation for courts to concern themselves with perceptions of justice.     

May,Should, or Do,Administrative Judges Participate in the Management of the Public Sphere in the Rule of Law?

The article concerns the actual impact of courts controlling the activity of public administration on the direction of its activities and the content of issued decisions. In particular, it concerns sovereign individual decisions that affect the sphere of civil rights and freedoms. The aim of the article is to seek an answer to the question of whether independent judges actually participate in the process of management in the public sphere, which is characterised by elements of politics and (regardless of the answer to this question) whether such participation is allowed or (even) necessary in modern rule of law states. The main argument is that regardless of whether the courts controlling the administration have reformatory or exclusive cassation powers, they influence the decision-making process in the public sphere. At the same time, such influence not only does not violate the fundamental values of the rule of law, but is even sometimes necessary. This does not mean that courts should interfere in the management processes in the public sphere in every case.

     

Should health authorities offer risk-sharing contracts to pharmaceutical firms? A theoretical approach

In this paper, we characterise the risk-sharing contracts that health authorities can design when they face a regulatory decision on drug pricing and reimbursement in a context of uncertainty. We focus on two types of contracts. On the one hand, the health authority can reimburse the firm for each treated patient regardless of health outcomes (non risk-sharing). Alternatively, the health authority can pay for the drug only when the patient is cured (risk-sharing contract). The optimal contract depends on the trade-off between the monitoring costs, the marginal production cost and the utility derived from treatment. A non-risk-sharing agreement will be preferred by the health authority, if patients who should not be treated impose a relatively low cost to the health system. When this cost is high, the health authority would prefer a risk-sharing agreement for relatively low monitoring costs.     

From the Field to the Courthouse: Should Social Science Research Be Privileged?

Social scientists need clarification about the extent to which the confidential aspects of their research are protected from compulsory disclosure in legal proceedings, and the extent to which they ought to be. Investigating the nature of social science research with an emphasis on researcher-participant relationships in ethnographic practice, I conclude that a qualified privilege would confer three major benefits on social science researchers: confidence that the government will not unnecessarily interfere with research, facilitation of improved researcher-participant relationships, and increased accuracy, thoroughness, and reliability of research data. I also discuss the development of privilege and confidentiality issues in practical research contexts through an examination of two criminal cases in which social science researchers refused to divulge the confidential information obtained in the course of research. Finally, I discuss the possible formulations of a scholarly research privilege. This is especially important because courts have cast social scientists as members of the larger community of academic or scholarly researchers with respect to these issues. Potential sources of protection include state journalist protection laws, federal common law, and federal statutory law. Evaluation of these sources and the case law to which they correspond suggests that developing common law privileges in state and federal jurisprudence is the most promising means of affording the confidential aspects of social science research legal protection. As researchers continue to press privilege     

Should Criminal Law Mirror Moral Blameworthiness or Criminal Culpability? A Reply to Husak

Law and Philosophy - In Ignorance of Law, Doug Husak defends a version of legal moralism on which ‘we should recognize a presumption that the criminal law should…be based, on conform...     

When Is It Enough for Me to Leave?:Black and Hispanic Women’s Response to Violent Relationships

Based upon a subsample from the National Violence Against Women Survey (NVAWS) this article examines the role of socioeconomic status, relationship investment and psychological abuse in Black and Hispanic women’s decisions to leave or stay in violent relationships. Racial and ethnic differences and similarities were found in the factors related to staying or leaving violent relationships. Black women stayed in violent relationships at a slightly higher rate than Hispanic women. Marital status, presence of other adults in the household, and psychological abuse influenced Black women’s staying/leaving decision. Household income and psychological abuse were factors in whether Hispanic women remained in or exited violent relationships. Recommendations for possible interventions are discussed.     

When doctors divulge: is there a "threat from within" to psychiatric confidentiality?

Psychiatrists, as a profession, have always asserted the central importance of confidentiality. The American Psychiatric Association (APA), in its recently released "Guidelines on Confidentiality," reaffirms this position. In an age of progressive erosion of the traditional psychiatrist-patient confidentiality, the threat to confidentiality is invariably perceived as exogenous, emanating from external sources such as the legal system, third-party payers, and peer review organizations. In rare instances, there appears to be a threat from within, when the psychiatrist (or nonpsychiatrist physician dealing with a psychiatric patient) deliberately chooses to divulge the patient's confidential communications in the absence of any clearcut legal requirement to do so (and against the express wishes of the patient). Four case examples of these unusual breaches of confidentiality are presented. The author concludes that although significant assaults on patient confidentiality are occurring from without, it is quite rare for such violations to come from within the profession itself.     

How Do Cause Lawyers Decide When and Where to Litigate on behalf of Their Cause?

In this article, we begin to respond to the deceptively simple question: How do cause lawyers decide when and where to litigate on behalf of their cause? We consider the choice of location and timing faced by cause lawyers when more than one jurisdiction evinces a suitable legal environment for pursuing litigation on their cause. To consider this choice, we use evidence from the timing and actions of cause lawyers in the marriage equality cases in the United States from January 1990 through December 2004. And, we show the value in utilizing methods that are relatively novel in cause lawyering research—statistical models—to consider the apparent commonalities, beyond a suitable legal environment, across locations and time periods that might prompt cause lawyers into action.     

When Does an Administrative Order Resolve CERCLA Liability Sufficiently to Trigger a § 113 Contribution Action?

This article discusses how parties who are negotiating administrative agreements with regulatory agencies regarding the remediation of inactive hazardous waste sites can best protect their right to bring a contribution action against other responsible parties. The article discusses the relevant statutory provisions and the case law, much of which holds that parties failed to preserve their contribution rights, and provides advice regarding specific language to include in such agreements.     

When Public Protection Becomes Punishment? The UK Use of Civil Measures to Contain the Sex Offender

In keeping with many countries the UK has moved the problem of sexual offending up the political agenda. On the criminal justice side sentences have been increased and supervision periods extended. On the civil side a raft of new measures have been put in place to regulate the behaviour of sex offenders in the interest of community safety and child protection; this paper examines these measures and, in particular takes the sex offender ‘register’ as a case study to show how political imperatives have been brought to bear with little reference to the research or professional views of practitioners in this area. It is contended that under these political pressures, what starts life as a preventive, regulatory measure can easily become a more punitive measure in its own right; as such it may be liable to challenge by those subject to it for failing to fulfil its primary purpose and for straying across a line between the civil and criminal aspects of intervention.