Examining legal authoritarianism in the impact of punishment severity on juror decisions

Recent Supreme Court decisions point to an increased reliance on juries to determine a defendant's sentence. Evidence is mixed on whether jurors are more likely to convict when the potential punishment is mild. The current study examined this issue, as well as the impact of legal authoritarianism (LA) (Kravitz, D. A., Cutler, B. L., & Brock, P. 1993. Reliability and validity of the original and revised legal attitudes questionnaire. Law and Human Behavior, 17, 661–677. doi: 10.1007/BF01044688), on jurors’ decisions. An ethnically diverse sample of participants completed the individual difference measure prior to viewing a videotaped, reenacted criminal trial. We manipulated the severity of the punishment the defendant would receive if convicted. Results indicated LA moderated the effect of punishment severity on verdict. Specifically, at higher levels of punishment severity, civil libertarians convicted less, while legal authoritarians convicted more. That is, the severity-leniency effect held for civil libertarians, but not for legal authoritarians. As juries become more responsible for determining a defendant's sentence, attorneys should be aware of the defendant's potential sentence and use voir dire to identify jurors who are higher on LA.     

Feminism and the political: introduction

The paper compares and confronts the work of two of the most distinguished living Marxist philosophers: G. A. Cohen from the English-speaking world, and Louis Althusser from France. It develops a critique of certain of Cohen's theses from the standpoint of ideas present in the work of Althusser. But it also problematizes certain presuppositions common to the work of both – in particular, the notion that historical development (transition or revolution) should be explained in terms of some general theory of non-correspondence between productive forces and production relations: the difference being simply that, within this scheme, Althusser accords explanatory primacy to the latter, Cohen to the former. Cohen's and Althusser's accounts of technological innovation and development are also compared, in connexion with the contrasting place which they attribute to the notice of human rationality on the one side and class struggle on the other.     

Clarifying Consent: Primary Prevention of Sexual Assault on a College Campus

Although more universities are developing policies for students regarding consent for sexual behavior in response to the problem of sexual violence on campus, many students seem either unaware of these policies or what they mean for actual behavior. Policies are only as effective as peoples' understanding and use of them. The current study aimed to evaluate the utility of a prevention education program focused on teaching students about consent. Two hundred and twenty undergraduates, composing a control group, a shorter treatment group, and a longer one, participated in the study. The findings showed the greatest knowledge gain for participants in the longer treatment group that included a discussion of the policy and participation in an activity dealing with its implications. Implications and future research directions are discussed.     

When Abuse Happens Again: Women's Reasons for Not Reporting New Incidents of Intimate Partner Abuse to Law Enforcement

Although most women abused by intimate partners experience a patterned behavior of abuse (by either the same or new partners), little is known about their decision making regarding whether to call the police for subsequent abuse. The current study found that 90 percent of women who had encountered the criminal legal system for previous intimate partner abuse victimizations did not contact the police for some or all recurrences. Qualitative analysis was conducted among a sample of 102 women regarding their reasons for not re-engaging the legal system for subsequent victimizations. The results suggested 5 overall reasons as to why women involved with the criminal legal system choose not to engage the system again.     

Comparing the effectiveness of <Emphasis Type="Italic">Henderson</Emphasis> instructions and expert testimony: Which safeguard improves jurors’ evaluations of eyewitness evidence?

Objectives

The New Jersey Supreme Court recently determined that jurors may not be able to effectively evaluate eyewitness evidence on their own. As a result, the Court proposed the use of judicial instructions to assist jurors (called Henderson instructions) and suggested the implementation of these instructions would reduce the need for expert testimony. We tested the efficacy of these instructions compared to alternative instructions and expert testimony.

Methods

We utilized a mock trial paradigm, randomly assigning 452 participants to 1 of 20 videotaped trial conditions that varied the quality of eyewitness evidence (both witnessing and identification conditions) and the type of safeguard presented during the mock trial.

Results

Jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own. Jurors were more likely to convict when identification conditions were good and less likely when identification conditions were poor. This relationship was mediated by eyewitness credibility ratings. Expert testimony resulted in skepticism by reducing the likelihood that jurors would convict regardless of the quality of witnessing and identification conditions. No variation of the instructions influenced verdicts.

Conclusions

While jurors were sensitive to the quality of identification conditions on their own, we observed no such effect for the quality of witnessing conditions, even with the aid of instructions and/or expert testimony. Both Henderson instructions and expert testimony may be insufficient for assisting jurors to effectively evaluate problematic witnessing conditions. Future research should examine the use of alternative safeguards.

     

Autopsy radiography: digital radiographs (DR) vs multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in high-velocity gunshot-wound victims

This study compared full-body digital radiography (DR) with multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) in the postmortem evaluation of gunshot wound (GSW) victims. Thirteen consecutive male GSW victims (mean age, 27 years) had full-body DR and MDCT prior to routine autopsy. DR successfully identified all metallic fragments, but MDCT was superior in its ability to precisely determine location because it provided 3-dimensional anatomic localization. In all cases, MDCT more accurately assessed organ injuries and wound tracks. Both DR and MDCT are limited in classifying multiple wounds and major vessel injury, but MDCT is generally superior to DR. MDCT shows significant advantages over DR in the forensic evaluation of GSW victims. This is particularly advantageous for the pathologist retrieving metallic fragments and for describing fracture detail accurately. Use of MDCT instead of radiographs will require medical examiners to become familiar with reading cross-sectional images.