Doctors in Extremity

Book Reviews in This Article:
Robert Jay Lifton, The Nazi Doctors: Medical Killing and the Psychology of Genocide.
Eric Stovcr and Elena O. Nightingak, eds., The Breaking of Bodies and Minds: Torture, Psychiatric Abuse and the Health Professions.
Elliot S. Valenstein, Great and Desperate Cures: The Rise and Decline of Psychosurgery and Other Related Treatments for Mental Illness.     

Inmates: Who occupies our jails?

The purpose of this investigation was to identify inmate personal and demographic data that may be used to further define or profile persons with a greater likelihood of being at risk for serving a jail sentence. This study was explorative. The survey administration was similar in format to that conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice. Chaplains were used as survey proctors. Pilot studies were conducted to determine the suitability of survey content. Surveys consisted of 172 items. Subjects included four hundred inmates: males comprised 88.75 percent of the sample, Caucasians 58.25 percent, Blacks 37 percent, Hispanics 3.25 percent and other 1.5 percent of the sample. Respondents ranged in age from 15 to 64 years with an average age of 30.3 years. Less than two percent of the contacted inmates refused participation in the survey. Results are presented for demographic data, select legal/criminal data, select drug and alcohol use data, employment data, health, parent/family data, education data, social data, and “other”.     

A Fine Line Between Pleasure and Pain: Would Decriminalising BDSM Permit Nonconsensual Abuse?

The increasing social visibility of Bondage/Domination, Discipline/submission and Sadism/Masochism (BDSM) within Western society has placed pressure on the criminal law to account for why consensual BDSM activities continue to be criminalised where they involve the infliction of even minor injuries on participants. With moralistic and paternalistic justifications for criminalisation falling out of favour, one key justification that is gaining traction within international commentary on BDSM is the “bogus BDSM argument”. The bogus BDSM argument contends that BDSM activities should be criminalised because otherwise false claims of BDSM will be used by defendants to excuse or minimise their criminal liability for nonconsensual abuse. This article refutes this argument by showing how it relies on premises that are unjustifiable, illogical and irrelevant. This article concludes that the decriminalisation of BDSM would not permit nonconsensual abuse so long as legal officials were equipped with sufficient knowledge about the norms and conventions of BDSM culture.

     

The Wisdom of Crowds: Learning from Administrators' Predictions of Citizen Perceptions

Public agencies use surveys to solicit feedback from citizens and targeted customer groups, but many experts question whether the results of these surveys are valuable. This paper explores how a recent innovation in citizen surveys—asking public administrators to predict how citizens will respond to survey questions—may be used to increase that value and, at the same time, provide additional data of interest on its own account. The innovation is explored through two surveys: (1) a public opinion poll of Georgia residents conducted by the authors for the Georgia Department of Transportation in January 2004, and (2) a brief survey of that agency's administrators asking for their predictions of public opinion. The prediction process appeared to increase the agency's interest in the resident survey. The findings document the frequent superiority of groups—what Surowiecki terms "the wisdom of crowds"—over individuals in predicting public opinion.     

Unanimous decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court: Case stimuli and judicial attitudes

Although behavioral scholars have devoted much time and energy to attempting to explain decision making on the U.S. Supreme Court, they have virtually ignored the unanimous decision. We investigated the Vinson, Warren, and Burger Courts and discovered that the liberal outcome was more successful in the unanimous cases whether those cases involve civil liberties or economic liberalism and whether they were decisions to reverse or decisions to affirm. We also ascertained that the ideological position that tended to win in the unanimous reverse cases was related to the ideological position that tended to win in the nonunanimous reverse cases, but that no such relationship was present in the two kinds of affirm cases. These two findings are in conformity with a psychometric model, which posits that the relative position of judicial attitudes and case stimuli determines the vote on the U.S. Supreme Court.