If Brain Scans Really Detected Deception,Who Would Volunteer to be Scanned?

Abstract: Recent neuroimaging studies investigating the neural correlates of deception among healthy people, have raised the possibility that such methods may eventually be applied during legal proceedings. Were this so, who would volunteer to be scanned? We report a “natural experiment” casting some light upon this question. Following broadcast of a television series describing our team’s investigative neuroimaging of deception in 2007, we received unsolicited (public) correspondence for 12 months. Using a customized template to examine this material, three independent assessors unanimously rated 30 of an initial 56 communications as unequivocally constituting requests for a “scan” (to demonstrate their author’s “innocence”). Compared with the rest, these index communications were more likely to originate from incarcerated males, who were also more likely to engage in further correspondence. Hence, in conclusion, if neuroimaging were to become an acceptable means of demonstrating innocence then incarcerated males may well constitute those volunteering for such investigation.     

Peer‐learning at university,trusting the students

This paper is a development of the Association of Law Teachers’ annual Lord Upjohn lecture, delivered on 29 January 2015 at City Law School, London, by the principal investigators of the Legal Education and Training Review’s (LETR) research team. In it, each of the authors takes a different theme arising from the LETR Report, and explores its implications and application, focusing on research and innovation; access and flexibility; deprofessionalisation, and, finally, reflecting on the way the Report addressed themes of common training, oversupply and access to justice. As our title indicates, the paper comprises both individual performances and performance as a consort, and we hope that in this way, we enact one of our key themes: the social nature of legal education and its regulation.     

Changing attitudes toward house arrest with electronic monitoring: the impact of a single presentation?

The notion that community support is critical for program success is a consistent theme in the literature on community-based corrections. Unfortunately, many citizens know very little about alternative sanctions, are misinformed about them, and do not view them favorably. At issue is whether information about alternative sanctions affects individuals' attitudes regarding them. To address this question, students in an upper division criminal justice course were surveyed before and after a presentation on electronic monitoring. Following the presentation, students were more likely to agree that electronic monitoring is punitive and that it meets several goals of the justice system. Implications for policy makers and educators are provided.     

Reply to Vidmar

Law and Human Behavior -     

The rise of public sector innovation labs: experiments in design thinking for policy

Governments are increasingly turning to public sector innovation (PSI) labs to take new approaches to policy and service design. This turn towards PSI labs, which has accelerated in more recent years, has been linked to a number of trends. These include growing interest in evidence-based policymaking and the application of ‘design thinking’ to policymaking, although these trends sit uncomfortably together. According to their proponents, PSI labs are helping to create a new era of experimental government and rapid experimentation in policy design. But what do these PSI labs do? How do they differ from other public sector change agents and policy actors? What approaches do they bring to addressing contemporary policymaking? And how do they relate to other developments in policy design such as the growing interest in evidence-based policy and design experiments? The rise of PSI labs has thus far received little attention from policy scientists. Focusing on the problems associated with conceptualising PSI labs and clearly situating them in the policy process, this paper provides an analysis of some of the most prominent PSI labs. It examines whether labs can be classified into distinct types, their relationship to government and other policy actors and the principal methodological practices and commitments underpinning their approach to policymaking. Throughout, the paper considers how the rise of PSI labs may challenge positivist framings of policymaking as an empirically driven decision process.     

Same Considerations,Different Decisions: Motivations for Split‐ticket Voting among Swedish Feminist Initiative Supporters

This article explores why supporters of small, non‐established parties choose to vote for different parties in the elections to the European Parliament (EP) and elections to the national parliament. It uses individual‐level data with open‐ended questions from an online survey on supporters of Feminist Initiative (Fi) – a comparatively small and new Swedish feminist party – to map voters’ own motivations for split‐ticket voting in the 2014 elections. Contrary to expectations based on second‐order election theory, it is found that voters ticket‐split in both directions: there are those voting for Fi in the EP election but not in the national election, and those voting for Fi in the national election but not in the EP election. These voters take the same types of considerations into account but nevertheless end up making opposite voting decisions. Voters clearly distinguish between the two levels – for example, by prioritizing different issues.