Methodological considerations in the evaluation of offender interventions: the problem of attrition

Attrition from offender interventions presents methodological problems when the effectiveness of the intervention is under evaluation. This article proposes a treatment-received (TR) design, which incorporates one-to-one matching on criminogenic variables. This design permits the comparison of completer, noncompleter, and nonstarter groups with their paired comparisons and, hence, allows a more accurate evaluation of program completion and noncompletion effects. A sample of 173 offenders, referred to one of two general offending behavior cognitive skills programs within community settings, was matched one-to-one by criminogenic variables to offenders from an appropriate comparison group. Reconviction analyses were undertaken using intention to treat (ITT) analysis, TR analysis using the full comparison group, and TR analysis using matched comparison groups. The ITT design found no impact of group membership on reconviction. The TR designs, however, provided evidence of moderate effects of completion: For every three completers, five of the matched comparison group members were reconvicted. The analysis also suggested a noncompletion effect: Noncompleters were twice as likely as their matched comparison group to be reconvicted.     

Minors' capacity to refuse treatment: a reply to Gilmore and Herring

Re R and Re W allow a parent to consent to treatment a competent minor refuses, but the cases have not been tested post-Human Rights Act 1998. Gilmore and Herring offer a means by which they might be distinguished or sidelined. They interpret Gillick to say that in order to consent a minor need only have a full understanding of the particular treatment. They argue that the minors in Re R and Re W were refusing all treatment which requires a separate assessment of capacity-an assessment which was not made. We fear that this distinction would not be workable in clinical practice and argue that their interpretation of Gillick is flawed. From a clinician's point of view, competence cannot always be judged in relation to a specific treatment, but instead must relate to the decision. We show that a decision can incorporate more than one treatment, and more than one decision might be made about one treatment. A minor's understanding of a specific treatment is not always sufficient to demonstrate competence to make a decision. The result is that whilst there might be situations when a parent and a minor both have the power to consent to a particular treatment, they will not share concurrent powers in relation to the same decision. Consequently, a challenge to Re R and Re W, if forthcoming, would need to take a different form. We emphasise the necessity to minimise the dichotomy between legal consent and how consent works in medical practice.     

Will the introduction of an emotional context affect fingerprint analysis and decision-making?

Fingerprint identification relies on an expert's ability to accurately recognise differences and similarities in friction ridge detail. The process is open to the questioning of an expert's ability to accurately analyse and interpret friction ridges. It has been suggested that the interpretation and analysis of fingermarks becomes more subjective as clarity decreases and as a consequence the expert is more vulnerable to external stimuli. An experiment involving 70 fingerprint experts was conducted to establish whether the introduction of an emotional context would alter the experts' judgement of an ambiguous or poor quality mark. The emotional context did have a perceived effect on the experts' analysis, as more stated they were affected by the information they were given. However, it did not have any actual effect on their final opinions as no difference was observed between the high- and low-emotional contexts.     

Judicial Responses to Bright Line Rules in Social Security: In Search of Principle

This article considers judicial responses to the use of 'bright line' rules in social security law. It analyses, within the framework of judicial deference, the receptiveness of the judiciary to an argument by the executive that a rule is justified as being administratively convenient to operate. The article questions the proposition that the judiciary is at its most deferential when complex issues of socio-economic policy or resource allocation are raised in the context of social security law. A contrast is drawn between cases involving an issue of statutory interpretation and those applying a proportionality test. The article tests the presumption that a difference in approach should be discernable in these two situations. It concludes by criticising the courts for failing to articulate clearly the values at stake and by arguing for the need for greater transparency and a broader public debate concerning the use of bright line rules.     

One size fits all? Multiple intelligences and legal education

This article argues that teaching and learning methodologies used in undergraduate law degrees are gradually shifting. The traditional model relied on a largely standardised, “one size fits all” approach which assumed that developing legal reasoning through attendance at lectures and participation in tutorials and seminars would produce a successful lawyer. However, today’s law schools are adapting to a large and diverse body of law students, many of whom will move on to careers outside the legal profession. This is being recognised by an increasingly pluralistic approach within undergraduate legal education, aided in no small measure by a greater focus on skills. This article will discuss the theory of multiple intelligences, which rejects the idea of a single measure of intelligence and instead identifies a number of different intelligences with both biological and cultural underpinnings. It is argued that acknowledging these multiple intelligences and using them as an organising concept to vary and diversify teaching and learning methodologies could help to further avoid the “one size fits all” approach and enhance the student experience.     

The relationship between moral reasoning, provictim attitudes, and interpersonal aggression among imprisoned young offenders

This study examined the relationship between moral reasoning, provictim attitudes, and interpersonal aggression among imprisoned young offenders. The participants were 60 imprisoned male young offenders from a young offender institution or remand centre. Using the Direct and Indirect Prisoner Behaviour Checklist, the offenders were categorised as one of four groups: perpetrator, victim, perpetrator-victim, or not involved. Participants in the four groups were compared on measures of provictim attitudes and sociomoral reasoning. The results showed that the majority of the participants were involved in victimising behaviours, with 43.3% falling into the perpetrator-victim category. Victims had significantly more empathic attitudes toward victims than did those in the perpetrator-victim group. No significant differences were found among the four groups on the sociomoral reasoning measure, nor was there a significant correlation between sociomoral reasoning and provictim attitudes. The results are discussed in terms of previous research and their implications for practice.