Lay perspectives on legal conundrums

Criminal law remains divided on the question of whether objectivity or subjectivity should be its dominant basis. Does liability begin with an objective act or harm, or with, subjective intent? In the first experiment, dealing with the conundrum of impossible act cases, the question is, Will respondents convict on subjective grounds (where intent to murder is clear), even when amanifest criminal act andharmful consequences are absent? The results show that they do convict, though their subjective preference moderates and even reverses with certain types of mistakes, or when thepotential harm, though not the actual harm, is perceived as high. In the second experiment, dealing with mistaken act and self-defense cases, the question is, Will subjectivity be determinative, or will respondents weigh objectivity more as the mistake gets more unreasonable? The results show that objectivity is weighed heavily, as fears of a plunge into subjective waters prove groundless Without legal guidelines, respondents navigate these conundrums by shifting their objective vs. subjective balance point, guided by good common sense.     

Targeting Federal Assistance to Local Governments in Rural and Low-Income Areas, 1972-1983

Two questions have predominated policy discussions about theallocation of federal aid to rural local governments duringthe last two decades: whether rural areas were getting their"fair share" and whether the aid was appropriately targetedto deserving communities. An analysis of data for 1972–1983shows that although the position of rural governments apparentlyimproved during the 1970s, the gains were principally due tosharply increased loans to rural areas, while urban areas benefitedfrom increases in grants-in-aid. Conversely, the aid reductionsof the early 1980s, by cutting into loans, which are less valuablethan grants, appear to have hurt rural areas less than urbanareas. A modest amount of income-targeting in federal developmentfunds was evident in the early 1970s, but it deteriorated duringthe following decade. By 1983 counties with higher incomes andmore satisfactory levels of public services received higherlevels of aid than places that might have been considered moreneedy. While the reasons for the generally diminished targetingare not clear, several possibilities, including the increasingimportance of loans as a federal aid mechanism, are considered.     

A Case Study in U.S. Government Financial Management in Cross-Disciplinary Teams

Following the example of the private sector, the public sector in the United States has been undergoing process-reengineering, most notable in the Federal Government with the National Performance Review (NPR). The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) asked its overseas missions for volunteer participation as Country Experimental Laboratories (CELs) during USAID's NPR efforts. USAID/ Senegal, in French West Africa, became a CEL in the spring of 1994. The reengineering, occurring over a two-year period, created multi-disciplinary teams centered around Strategic Objectives (SOs). This article describes the experience and lessons learned from developing and implementing financial management policies and procedures to support the SO Teams, while concurrently ensuring that accountability requirements were met. The article uses the case study format, delineating the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats faced by the Mission Controller, the trade-offs between the decentralization of program management and accountability, and the organizational relationships established to reengineer the financial management processes at USAID/Senegal.     

Split-brain madness

With facts and metaphors regarding differential functioning of our two hemispheres proliferating faster than our understanding, the potential for a new insanity defense to emerge to fit certain Jekylland-Hyde-like defendants clearly exits. And with psychologists of varying stripes entering the courtroom with greater frequency and in newer capacities, the dangers of entanglement and error grow. This paper analyzes a split-brain insanity defense on the grounds of legal, logical, psychological, and current neuropsychological evidence. In addition, the likelihood, import, and place of this defense in the historical context of insanity defenses is examined. The concept of personal responsibility, which has been both asserted and denied by experts in split-brain or split-psyche cases, is tried; and a closing summary to the jury is offered.