Life or death decisions

The penalty phase deliberation experiences of capital jurors guided by the “special issues” sentencing instructions were investigated. These instructions ask jurors to consider three specific issues to determine whether a defendant should receive a sentence of life imprisonment or the death penalty: whether the crime was committed deliberately; whether there is a probability that the defendant would pose a continuing threat to society; and whether the conduct of the defendant was unreasonable in light of any provocation on the part of the victim. In-depth interviews with 27 jurors explored the organization of the penalty deliberation, the topics discussed, influential factors in the decision-making process, the impact of sentencing instructions, the importance of the possibility of parole, and the stress associated with capital jury service. Jurors relied heavily on sentencing instructions to guide their deliberations and to determine their responsibilities. Future dangerousness and the possibility of parole were critical considerations in deciding between life and death. Although jurors found the capital trial to be stressful, most believed that the life or death decision should be made by jurors. Findings are discussed in light of constitutional concerns about the administration of the death penalty.     

Rape trials and jurors' decisions

Recently, many writers have argued that equal protection for victims of rape is not presently offered in the courts since the outcomes of rape trials are frequently influenced by certain victim, defendant, and rape case characteristics. By systematically manipulating the factors of defendant and victim race, victim physical attractiveness, victim sexual experience, strength of evidence presented, and type of rape committed in a legal rape case, the present study sought to examine the effects of these factors on jurors' verdicts. Data collected from a sample of 896 citizens serving as mock jurors for the rape case indicated that these extraevidential factors had significant effects. Furthermore, it was found that the factors did not act independently as a number of significant interactions were identified. These interactions suggested that the impact of extraevidential factors on jurors' decisions is far more complex than what some writers and law reformers have thought. Implications of the findings are discussed in terms of discriminatory treatment of plaintiffs and defendants in rape cases and the role of juror selection in introducing fairness in rape trials.     

End-of-life decisions in dutch neonatology

This contribution describes the regulation of end-of-life decisions in neonatology in the Netherlands. An account is given of the process of formulating rules, which includes a report by the Dutch Association for Paediatrics, two Court rulings, a report by a Consultation Group appointed by the Ministry of Health and a professional Protocol regulating deliberate ending of life in neonatology that was subsequently adopted as the regulation of this type of decision-making at the national level. The paper presents Dutch and comparative data on the attitude of the medical profession towards end-of-life decisions in neonatology and the frequency of such decisions in medical practice.     

法律判断形成的模式

Legal decisions are results of the use of law, which includes the application of law and the finding of law, but mainly referring to the latter. In the application of law, facts match norms, and thus legal decisions could be obtained directly through deduction thereof, which is called the deduction mode. However, in the finding of law, since facts are not symmetric to norms, before making judgment through deduction, facts and norms shall be equalized. That is to say, facts shall be generalized and then upgraded to the provisions, while norms shall be concrete and downwards to specific cases, conducting for spiral upwards, which is called equalization mode. Zheng Yongliu, professor at the Institute of Legal Philosophy of China University of Political Science and Law, also a visiting professor at University of Saarland in Germany (till 1996), and a guest professor at Jilin University (since 1998), whose research is focusing on legal philosophy, particularly on the legal methods as well as law and society. Prof. Zheng once published 4 books, i.e., The Orientation of Rural Law in Contemporary China (1991), The Farmers’ Legal Awareness and the Development of Village’s Law (1993), Das Wirtschaftsrecht Chinas (1997) and The Rule of Law: the British and German Origin, International Standards and Its Practices in China (2002). In his published articles, the follows are most dear to his heart: What is Legal Philosophy (1998), the Origin and Evolution of the “Rechtsstaat” in Germany (2000), the Legal Hermeneutics and Its Relationship with the Legal Interpretation (2002), Academic Freedom and Its Enemies (2004), Pluralistische Ordnungen im chinesischen Wirtschaftswandel (German, 2006).     

Ethical decisions at the edge

Medicine grows incrementally in its ability to treat patients and at the growing edge it poses problems about the appropriateness of treatments that are different from those where good practice conforms to widely agreed standards. The growth of access to medical knowledge and the diversity of contemporary theoretical and clinical medicine have spawned deep divisions in the profession and divergent opinions about what constitutes reasonable care. That hallmark of acceptable practice is also under pressures from the threat of litigation, a highly commercialised contemporary medical environment, patient demands based on medical journalism and the internet and the exponential growth of bio-medical technology. Patient empowerment can result in complaints arising in new and complex areas and expert opinion can often differ markedly depending on where on the medical spectrum the experts are aligned. This column lays out some broad-brush principles to assess the adequacy of medical advice in such a climate.     

Psychiatric hospitalization history and parole decisions

The present study investigates the impact of a recent history of psychiatric hospitalization on obtaining parole for an exit cohort of male offenders. Legal variables (number of prior imprisonments, prior arrest for violent crime, use of violence in current offense, conviction for drug-related offense, history of drug use, and annual prison infraction rate), social and community support variables (marital status, education, area of conviction, family support, and occupation), and extralegal variables (race and age at release) are all examined, along with psychiatric hospitalization history, for their impact on the parole decision-making process and, ultimately, the percentage of maximum sentence served. The results from logistic regression and multiple regression indicate that psychiatric hospitalization history significantly reduces the likelihood of receiving parole and increases the percentage of maximum sentence served. This relationship persists once other variables have been controlled. Possible explanations and policy implications are discussed.