Capital punishment in two judicial circuits in Georgia

This article describes the process of decision making in caital cases in the overwhelmingly White justice system in two Georgia judicial circuits under Georgia's post-Furman death penalty statute. The study is intended to complement the statistical analyses done by other researchers in this area, by linking the behavior of various actors in the process over time to the incentives and sanctions of the system. The study shows how the system works to produce racial disparities and discrimination. Possible explanations for racial disparities and discrimination are examined.     

Heckler v. Chaney: judicial and administrative regulation of capital punishment by lethal injection

Capital punishment by lethal injection, which was expected to be the most safe and effective of available methods, can produce unusually cruel and inhuman death. In Heckler v. Chaney, inmates sentenced to death by lethal injection, as well as members of both the medical and legal communities, challenged the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) refusal to regulate certain drugs used for capital punishment by lethal injection. By declining to review the FDA's nonenforcement decision, the Supreme Court also declined an opportunity to reevaluate its standard for determining cruel and unusual punishment, which upholds any method of execution that is no more unusually cruel than existing methods. This Comment examines the propriety of judicial and administrative regulation of capital punishment by lethal injection.     

Preference for decision control in organizational decision making

Two studies examined preference for authority or subordinate decision control in dispute resolution and allocation procedures in an organizational setting. In both studies, a marked preference for the authority/subordinate sharing of decision control was found. In Study 1, nearly one third of respondents preferred that subordinates share decision control with supervisors in both dispute and allocation situations; for several of the situations decision sharing was the modal preference. The study also found a tendency to prefer subordinate decision control in disputes but supervisor decision control in allocations. In Study 2, again the most preferred procedure was one in which subordinates shared decision control with their supervisors. The procedure high in decision sharing was rated as the one most fair. It was also rated as more likely to improve relationships among members and to result in the best decision. Some differences in preference for decision control and decision sharing depending upon social factors predominant in the setting were found.     

Naturalistic decision making in forensic science: toward a better understanding of decision making by forensic team leaders

This study uses the naturalistic decision-making (NDM) perspective to examine how Dutch forensic team leaders (i.e., the officers in charge of criminal forensic research from the crime scene until the use of laboratory assistance) make decisions in real-life settings and identifies the contextual factors that might influence those decisions. First, a focus group interview was conducted to identify four NDM mechanisms in day-to-day forensic decision making. Second, a serious game was conducted to examine the influence of three of these contextual mechanisms. The results uncovered that forensic team leaders (i) were attracted to obtain further information when more information was initially made available, (ii) were likely to devote more attention to emotionally charged cases, and (iii) used not only forensic evidence in the decision making but also tactical, unverified information of the police inquiry. Interestingly, the measured contextual influences did not deviate significantly from a control group of laypeople.     

Parole decision making in Colorado

During the past decade parole decision making in the United States has come under severe scrutiny. One response has been for researchers to intervene and develop parole guideline matrices for use by state parole boards. The research reported here describes such an effort in Colorado. Our data were derived from the records of 292 parolees during a two year period. A systematic sampling process, taking every other docket number from the parole board's monthly eligibility lists, initially produced 1,500 potential parolees. From this list, a 20 percent sample was drawn at random. This yielded a workable guideline matrix that produced less than 13 percent variance from Colorado parole board decisions. The article discusses the procedures for developing the matrix and how it was implemented by the parole board.     

Courts and health policy: judicial policy making and publicly funded health care in Canada

The 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided political actors with the opportunity to make rights-based challenges to public policy decisions. Two challenges launched by providers and consumers of health care illuminate the impact of judicial review on health care policy and the institutional capacity of courts to formulate policy in this field. The significant impact of rights-based claims on cross-jurisdictional policy differences in a federal regime is noted.     

United Kingdom: HIV-positive asylum seeker denied judicial review of removal decision

The High Court of Justice had dismissed an application for a judicial review of a decision by immigration officials not to grant the applicant leave to remain in the UK on the basis of her HIV status. In December 2002, the Court of Appeal denied the applicant permission to appeal the High Court's decision, reasoning that an appeal under section 65 of the Immigration and Asylum Act, already initiated, would be more appropriate and advantageous.     

关于蒙牛酸酸乳案的几点思考

2006年蒙牛乳业公司与河南安阳白公主乳业公司(以下简称"白乳业")的商标纠纷是中国知识产权界关注的一个焦点案件.随着内蒙古高级法院维持一审判决的判决公布,在中国诞生了首例法院认定的未注册驰名商标.这一判决虽然在相关产业界却引起了轩然大波,但在中国知识产权界却赢得一片叫好之声1.笔者从事商标代理多年,对本案的两审法院在认定事实和适用法律中有一些思考,愿与大家分享.     

Procedural justice and ethical decision making

Procedural justice, in the form of voice and respectful treatment by supervisor, and ethical decision making are examined in this research. Ethical decision making is hypothesized to be a direct function of moral intent, as indicated by willingness to use moral criteria in decision making. Moral intent is, in turn, expected to be a function of the decision-making context, including perceptions of voice, respect and trust between supervisor and subordinate, and moral climate. Individual moral development is also expected to have a positive effect on moral intent. Results generally support the model, with two exceptions. First, perception of voice has a negative effect on moral intent, while caring climate and respectful supervisory relations have the expected positive effect on moral intent. These results suggest either a compensatory model of ethical decision making or a complacency effect. Second, individual characteristics had very little effect on either the decision made or the level of moral intent developed, save for one decision. These results suggest an important overlooked variable, the salience of issues for procedural justice concerns.     

Jurors' interpretations and jury decision making

In arriving at their verdicts, jurors must determine what really happened in the case at hand. Their interpretations then guide their decision making and become influential in the group deliberation process. This article uses conversational data from simulated jury deliberations to describe jurors' practice of articulating schematic interpretations as accounts for their verdict choices, and as means for persuading other jurors. As jurors contribute additional interpretations during deliberations, the group decision-making task becomes more complex, deliberations las longer, and they are more difficult to resolve. A significant negative relation is established between the number of interpretations articulated and the jury's likelihood of reaching a unanimous verdict. Articulating multiple interpretations in support of a candidate verdict appears to militate against its unanimous adoption.I am endebted to Andre Modigliani and Joseph Sanders for their invaluable assistance on this project.     

Epistemic emotions in prosecutorial decision making

The article examines epistemic emotions as part of the emotive-cognitive processes of prosecutors’ knowledge seeking and decision making in preliminary investigation and court proceedings. Drawing on ethnographic fieldwork, interviews, and shadowing of prosecutors in Sweden, we show how emotions motivate and orient prosecutors’ inquiries and the fundamental role of the ‘certainty–doubt spiral’ for ‘doing objectivity’. In conclusion, we discuss the centrality of emotions for conscientious and well-considered decisions in legal work. The study contributes to the field of law and emotion by exploring the epistemic quality of emotions, notably the certainty–doubt spiral, in legal work.     

Bail decision making and pretrial detention

Bail practices became the target of reform efforts during the 1960's and 1970's not only because of issues concerning economic bias against indigent defendants but also because of criticism of the bail decision itself. Questions were raised about the appropriate uses of bail (e.g., to prevent flight or pretrial crime, or to inflict pretrial punishment), the rationality of the criteria relied on by judges in deciding bail, and the discretionary allocation of pretrial detention through high cash bail. In this article, case law and statutes governing bail practices in the United States are reviewed first to characterize the ambiguous legal framework from within which bail judges must operate. Then bail decisions in a large urban jurisdiction are analyzed as a case study to discover the factors most influential in determining pretrial release options. It is inferred that, even after years of reform, community-ties measures do not play a major role in the bail decision or the determination of pretrial custody; rather, the nature of the charged offense appears most influential. A finding of special significance is that a large proportion of these decisions could not be explained systematically (i.e., a large share of variance remained unexplained). The article concludes by suggesting a guidelines approach to bail that could narrow disparity in bail options and the use of detention, enhance the rationality of the decision process and contribute to more equitable pretrial practices.Revised version of a paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, August, 1978. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from the Statistics Division of the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration to the Criminal Justice Research Center. Points of view or opinions stated are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of policies of the U.S. Department of Justice.     

Justice and economic decision making: A model of akrasia

Economics has provided the most rigorous model of decision making. Unfortunately, its severe rationality assumptions rule out psychological conflict. Modifying the standard model to allow for conflicting preferences creates scope for hesitation, doubt, regret, and akrasia. Akrasia, which is doing wrong knowingly, figures prominently in discussions of morality and justice in classical philosophy. The development of a formal model of akrasia along the lines taken in this essay holds the promise of combining the mathematical rigor of economics, the analytical power of philosophy, and the empirical methods of psychology in the study of justice.